Bowl Coating

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
alfredo_buscatti

alfredo_buscatti

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
0
I've read that it's best to remove the bowl coating before smoking. I've never done this and have noticed no performance problems.

Is there a necessity to do this?

(Tarek Manadily would not buy such; whether from its deleterious effects on the pipe or that he felt it hid imperfections in the chamber, I don't know).
 
Like many other things in this hobby, it's more personal preference. Some do, many don't. I tried both and never really noticed much of a difference in break-in either way.

About the only time I will sand (or rework) the inside of the bowl on a new pipe is if there is stain inside the bowl. With dip-staining becoming more and more common these days, it's become a ritual for me. A carbon layer I don't mind but stain (to me at least) is a different story.
 
I scrape the carbonized coating off before breaking in a pipe now. I just like the idea of putting the cake on myself.

A while back I tried breaking in a new Peterson with the coating on just to see if it made any difference. It smoked okay, but the carbon started coming off in chunks after a few bowls. I ended up starting over by taking it down to the wood. Today it's one of my best pipes.
 
Bowl coatings are there to mask less-than-stellar quality (pretty or not), less-than-carefully & expertly boiled / seasoned briar. It's akin to grading on a curve that brings Fs and Ds up to Cs.

Any pipe so treated, if it's not removed, will taste "C" no matter how long it's smoked. There's a 1950s-era Stanwell second here with an LL stem that proves that to my satisfaction, if no one else's. Not bad, at all. Just not freaking great. Because I was (am) too lazy to remove it and start over from bare wood.

It takes good (see above) briar, time (which is why Yak pipes are all old ones) and care for pipes with A-level potential to reach it.

Castellos/Caminettos (etc.) taste the way they do because of the briar they're made of. Same with the English classics. Same with Petersons.

Etc.

:face:
 
yeah bowl coating definitely deadens the flavor the pipe delivers. Never understood why some makers choose to use it, uncoated briar smokes much better imo. I've never removed a coating, but I definitely lean toward makes and grades that have uncoated bowls. Old Charatans, GBDs and Orliks smoke as sweet as Castellos, and none of them coated their bowls on their better grades.
 
Not many of the pipes I've bought over the years came with a bowl "coating" but of the few that did, I really could not tell ANY discernable effect on the break-in process or subsequent smoking over the years. But hey, I've probably lost any ability to discern anything having smoked for as long as I have. I just don't have as discerning and receptive a palate as many of the Bobs here. That'l show ya what happens when you consume awhole bunch of 'bac over several decades,you end up thinking Royal Yacht is a "daily smoke" for around 5 to 6 bowls of it a day :twisted: :evil:
 
bowl coatings can be a mask, or they can be an aesthetic choice for the pipe maker as well as providing a modicum of protection for the briar when it is new. I am going to use a coating for my pipes, but anyone, at any time can ask for it to be removed or not used and I will do so. The suggestion that people like Tyler Beard, Todd Johnson or many others are trying to cover substandard work is insulting.

rev
 
There is no "one answer covers every case" answer. As you point out.

But that it can, and frequently does (there are more low-end pipes sold with it than custom jobs by several orders of magnitude) mask green/mis-handled (= lousy tasting) briar is hardly disputable.

Nor, IMO, is the moralism you're implying a given. Surface flaws are filled -- routinely -- by many of the biggest "names" in pipe-crafting. And more frequently in sandblasts than in smooths. Sasieni was doing it with 4-dots back in the 1970s, and some of the fills were not tiny ones.

FWIW

:face:
 
"Bowl coatings are there to mask less-than-stellar quality (pretty or not), less-than-carefully & expertly boiled / seasoned briar. It's akin to grading on a curve that brings Fs and Ds up to Cs. "

that is what you wrote, you did not write, they are sometimes used, nor even often used, (an assertion that I would not accept when speaking of artisan pipe makers). And it is to that I replied. Now you say, well its not always the case, then say that from the start. To impugn all pipe makers that use a coating is insulting, and in fact incorrect, and that is in fact what you did whether you meant to or not

rev
 
Hooray, bowl coating discussions! :D

home_burst_3.jpg


Bowl coatings are, at least in part, a concept put into play to try and "pre-season" the pipe so break-in is less of a painful chore. There are many types of bowl coatings I've come across. Some are barely a layer of smeared carbon, Peterson employs some kind of tar that is next to impossible to remove by simple means, and others still are like black concrete. I do my best to remove them, or at least part of them, and have been pleasantly surprised to find the briar tastes quite good underneath. So, protection against the possibility the briar might taste like crap? Sure. Except the times I don't remove the coating (or couldn't) something happened: the resins, phenols, alcohols and other stuff that makes briar "taste" like anything eventually migrated beyond the coating into the chamber, and then, into the tobacco--only one was particularly sour tasting. So, if for some reason the bowl coating was insurance against bad-tasting briar, it seems to be a poor cover-up, as much as it is a poor substitute for breaking in a pipe. Why they still do it, I'm not sure.

One concern I did have is that these coatings could mask possible defects in the briar on the tobacco chamber (inner) wall, as the methods for filling holes on the outside wouldn't stand up quite as well under fire. A purposeful method? Who knows.

8)
 
I understand that some people don't like them, thats fine I would offer any of my customers a non coated bowl. I just hate the suggestion that I would be trying to hide something.

rev
 
until proven otherwise all you're trying to hide is flavor when you apply a coating to the inside of your bowls :D
 
Yak was being generic and general, Rev, it wasn't about you.

Still, now that I know you do employ bowl coatings...why is it standard-procedure for you, if I may ask?

8)
 
You are correct, he was speaking in generalities, sweeping generalities that includes many people including myself. I have not used bowl coatings, but was going to start for a few reasons, the first is it makes a more finished looking product. This is subjective, I know, but to me it is true. Two, I do believe that it provides a level of protection to the briar when it is being broken in. And lastly, because the pipe makers that I trust, and that are teaching me, use them.

rev
 
I'd honestly ask them the same thing...why do they use them? Being a pipe smoker myself, I have found little effect overall for them. I suppose they do make them look a little more finished, but I gather I'm not alone in not getting much benefit for an extra step like that.

Again, not you or other trusted makers, but for mass-produced pipes from larger companies, I have to wonder (and still do) what defects may be lurking underneath--defects that could become a concern, much more than exterior cosmetic flaws.

Plus, I don't hear people insisting they must have a bowl-coated pipe very often. *shrug*

8)

 
I did ask them, and got the same answer I gave you. Protection, and appearance, they believe the coating is worthwhile because of these issues. Some pipemakers disagree. I for one like giving someone what I consider a finished product, which is why I am switching to doing this. However, if anyone does not want it... I will simply remove it, or not put it on. Its the same as the wax and stain thing, I imagine someday I am going to make you a pipe that will be natural finish with no wax, because you are an f'n weirdo. I will of course charge you double for doing less work, because... I am an @$$()*/=

rev
 
Well, based on the number of people who aren't rallying around support for bowl coatings, I'll have to keep the "whys" under advisement, but on a personal level, I just find them useless. If I can't remove the coating, the pipe seems to work itself out, and...the pipe sans the coating seems to do pretty well, too. *shrug* Another hobby-based opinion thing with the pipe, once again. :lol: Go figure.

Wax? I like wax! It has a purpose. :twisted:

I'd accept no less than six times original asking price at this point, if not more, for one of your pipes, Rev. :p Oh, and coat the bowl, just for good measure. Heh. :heart:

8)
 
I guess my question is why are these guys selling pipes faster than they can make them if people don't want their bowls coated? And for large sums of money too!!!

rev
 
I associate coated bowls with cheaper pipes, but there are exceptions as Dunhill coats their bowls. Castello does not, I can't think of any Danish or Russian carvers that do, and all of the big name Americans that come to mind ship naked chambers. It's certainly nothing to argue about, you treat your chambers however you want. If I wanted one of your pipes I wouldn't let that stop me, and as you said, if I told you to leave it naked you would. Just know that naked briar smokes sweeter :D

The protection issue is a bad argument though. 3 or 4 break-in bowls of any OTC Burley and you should have enough protection in the heel to put any previously naked chamber into regular rotation. But again, my input here is simply my opinion based on my experiences, as are yours.
 
Top