WHY coat the bowls?!?!?!?!

Brothers of Briar

Help Support Brothers of Briar:

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

Mr. Doody

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2012
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
why on earth do some pipe makers/manufacturers coat the new bowl interiors?

is there ANY actual or argued benefit for this?

i find the stuff annoying and i have a tough time believing it's anything but cosmetic.

could a brother educate a brother?

doody.
 
Thanks for posting that link Geoff. Some interesting points to consider on all three subjects. I especially liked this quote-

"Yes, they're topics of conversation, but I don't understand why they hold such religious fervor for so many. My best guess is that it's the usual male thing - "Pipe Expert", deep down, is convinced that if he can prove his superiority to the crowd it will improve his standing in the pack and increase his mating potential. Yeah... :D"
 
Eehhhhh . . . No.

Reducing an actual fact (bowl coating) to an abstraction (it's just carbon !) makes it easy to rationalise away as a concern with no "rational" foundation.

(Really ? Waterglass is "just" carbon ?)

It's the same stunt they used to sell "affirmative action" (it's just justice !).

Substituting abstractions for realities is poor procedure, IMHO.

Back in the day (1975) you never saw a good pipe with a coated bowl. ("Good" = "name" British & Italian makers).

Coated bowls seem to have originally appeared in lower-end pipes with the intention of making inadequately seasoned briar not taste so much like inadequately seasoned briar. (Tying up capital in briar that's just sitting there aging is not "maximising return on investment").

Why on earth Stanwell ever adopted it is beyond me, but their example seems to have accustomed people to seeing it.

It isn't even, IMHO, a matter of "If it ain't broke, don't 'fix' it."

If I'm loosely wrapped in finding that dedicated pipes with coated bowls never develop the briar-tobacco synergy that un-coated ones do, then I've got some household-names-in-the-pipes-world company.

With one exception, every one of the 15 or so pipes in use here are 30 or more years old (mostly more). They've had the time and use it takes to ripen them into "being all that they can be." Only one (a Stanwell second from back when they didn't put their name on any pipe with even a trivial fill) has a coated bowl. (I tried to sand it away without much success). And one pipe here pulls up short of the taste ideal. It's not bad at all. It's pretty good -- especially with its Dibosian re-stem. Coincidence ? Possibly. Prejudicial expectations warping the interpretation of experience ? Who can say ? Reactionary old fart insisting that "everything was better back then" ?
Your call.

Since you asked

:face:
 
Good Day All

This topic has been the subject of many heated debates over the past few years.

Re Trever's comments on "pipe experts". I am not an expert on anything pipes nor tobaccos. I have only been smoking pipes for 40 odd years. I've only been selling pipes since the late 80's. Yet I still do not consider myself an expert. I have made pipes as well. I "understand" the difficulties there in and the process. Yet, I am still not an expert.

What I am is a pipe smoker. I know what I like. I know what is good and what is crap!!!!!!

Tobacco chamber coatings can be both. There are indeed some good ones. Ones that impart no cross over flavor and " may enhance" the break in process. HOWEVER .... the vast majority of chamber coatings taste like crap, until they have been removed or covered in carbon cake. There are some that never leave! There are some that are 100% natural and allow the briar to "breathe". There are others that in fact do coat the interior chamber and restrict the ability of the briar to "breathe".

Knowing which is which is trial and error or victory. If the pipe is a hand made and you have contact with the carver, you can ask and hopefully get a reply. Then use your judgment as to purchase or not. For factory pipes, it's buy one, see if it's ok or not. This though takes some understanding and knowing the difference between a coating that tastes poorly for a short period, or possibly a piece of "green" wood that slipped through. With a hand carved pipe the chances of the later are much less.

So why do some carvers coat and some not? I have heard numerous reasons and some make perfect sense. Some carvers feel that a coated chamber offers an end product that looks more "finished". Other carvers believe that thier chamber coating assists in the break in period. Others have said that their coating helps eliminate the possibility of a burn out. Well two out of three work for me, as fair and honest possible reasons. However the last does not. In all my years I have had 2 pipes burn out. Both within the first few bowls and funny enough BOTH with a chamber coating. WHY? Some coatings will cover small sand spots and with lit tobacco on one side, chamber coating, then sand spot and the only possible heat release direction being through the walls towards the outside........ the pipe burns out. Nothing the carver can do about this. Sometimes the sand spot lays just under what is visible. That being said, without a coating the heat has a better chance of even distribution, towards the interior and exterior.

I know of a few collectors that strongly believe that some carvers use coatings to cover up "flaws" in the tobacco chambers. I know a number of well known carvers, not only through business, but on a personal level. I have yet to know one that I think has a deceptive bone in their body. Each believes in what they are doing and no one knowingly trys to sell an end good they know could harm their reputation. Reputation is huge in this business. If a carver or sellers reputation comes into question a career or business can end. Pipe enjoyers tend to be forgiving, but do not easily forget the names of people that have not treated others well, honestly, and fairly.

Personally, I prefer pipes with no chamber coating. I do not have a problem with breaking in a pipe, that arrives with virgin briar exposed. I have yet to notice and difference in break in between non and coated chambers. I like to look at a fresh chamber and view the grain pattern within as well as that on the exterior. Is a coating a deal breaker for me? On some , I will not even consider them, due to the coatings. On others that I know have no issues, I have no problems. It has taken me along time to weed out the good from bad.

Regards
Michael J. Glukler

www.briarblues.com - still not an expert .............


















 
I always like to read about controversial issues like this one, even if it has been talked over and over again.

My opinion is that there are bad tasting bowl coatings, but I've only found them in cheaper pipes. For the pipes I buy (I only buy new pipes) I found that it doesn't matter much, if at all. Flavor-wise, I can't tell much of a difference, and certainly not after the cake has formed. Perhaps coated bowls develop a carbon coating faster than bare bowls, but that's about it. But I have to say that I've had a few burnouts (very few) and they were all with uncoated bowls, therefore I'm much more careful when breaking-in a bare bowl than a coated one.

Bowl coating is a non-issue to me, but I sure like to read about it.
 
Yak":7o19fy6q said:
Substituting abstractions for realities is poor procedure, IMHO.
Click to expand...
This, although I have had pipes with bowl coating/carbon liners that smoked great, I've, more often than not, had them act simply odd the first few smokes, and I by far prefer an untreated, new briar tobacco chamber. I really get a sense of how the briar will impart flavor or taste from then on in by using a tobacco I'm familiar with, and with additive synthesis theory on my side in metaphor, figure out what is there that wasn't before.

The worst bowl coating by far was on a Kirk Bosi (which was not a cheap pipe) I traded some time ago. It tasted like fireplace ash. :( Once it was sussed out, though, no issues.

I think the stuff is slathered in there like a slurry, and with a spirit-soaked paper towel or rag, can be wiped 90% away. If that doesn't work, 250-400 grit sandpaper on a just-right sized dowel can help. I don't care why they do it, I just try to make sure I don't have to take my chances ruining a good smoke if I can help it.

8)



 
Great post, Mike!

Like many pipe-related debates, I find this one rather pointless. Either it bothers you, or it doesn't and you may buy your pipes accordingly. Or remove the bowl coat. I've smoked bowls with and without bowl coat and the differences are minimal IMHO epescially after ten bowls or so.

Like Mike said, many prominent carvers will tell you what they use and most of them use a coating that can be easily removed with a damp paper towel.

Not too long ago Jeff Gracik and I tried smoking a pipe of his with bowl coat and one without. Main difference? The pipe with bowl coat actually tasted like the tobacco blend during the first smoke! The bowl with bare wood lacked the subtle flavors completely; tasting more like warm/hot air lol

I think most higher-end carvers coat the bowls for two reasons: it may help the new owner enjoy his pipe right off the bat and it also gives the carver just a little piece of mind and insurance against that new owner smoking that pipe too damn hot before the chamber is sufficiently broken in

 
Don't like them. Never had one that didn't leave a foul taste, and with some pipes, I could never get rid of that flavor. Knowing that now, I always do my best to remove it. When ordering from a smaller maker, I ask to have it removed or not applied in the first place.

The first time I noticed it in higher end pipes was in the early 90s when the estate market boomed, and part of the refurbishing process for many sellers was to coat the bowls. My goodness were some of the recipes heinous. In my opinion, some beautiful briar was ruined in that period.
 
In my several decades ( I can't say how many, it upsets Kyle :twisted: ) of smoking, I've only encountered "pre-coated" bowls in about 15 or so pipes that I can recall and I bought all of these new, non-estate. My most recent was my two recent Sav's which were "pre-carbonized" and I have to say I could not really descern any taste change in smoking either coated or not. I also can't really say that the "coating" really assisted the pipe in it's break-in either. But I'm sure that my palate has been terribly degraded with all the various blends and number of years of smoking so that this may be why I can't find any difference as opposed to what some younger smokers with "fresher" palates can :twisted:
 
Recently, I've had a bowl coat that didn't adversely affect the first smoke (an Askwith) and one that did (Peterson). There may have been other factors in place (beverage, temperature, waning or waxing moon, baccy choice, dinner choice, grumpy old man level, did I poop?, bitter briar, etc...).

I'm unconvinced that it is a deleterious practice.
 
gravel":zoj9drin said:
Recently, I've had a bowl coat that didn't adversely affect the first smoke (an Askwith) and one that did (Peterson). There may have been other factors in place (beverage, temperature, waning or waxing moon, baccy choice, dinner choice, grumpy old man level, did I poop?, bitter briar, etc...).

I'm unconviced that it is a deleterious practice.
Click to expand...

:lol!:

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
 
So far I've had but one pre-carbonised bowl on a new pipe.

It was a Pete Kinsale XL21. And while I had trepidations about this it hasn't seemed to affect it's break-in period or flavor.

FWIW



Cheers,

RR
 
The only pipe bowl coating which offends my taste buds is the way that Peterson coat the inside of the bowl with stain.

Why they do this I have no idea. :evil:
 
It doesn't bother me either way. I'll get the pipe broken in either way.

 
I prefer bare briar to coated if I have my choice between them. There is just something psychologically comofrting about being able to watch the cake build on the briar as I smoke it. I have a couple of pre-carbonized pipes and I can say that I really can't tell much difference when smoking them, my Peterson actually smoked excellent straight out of the box.

I think the difference comes down to a psychological argument realistically. You either have yourself convinced one will smoke like crap based on the coating or you have yourself convinced it doesn't matter. A pipe may not be the prettiest thing in the world to you once it arrives at your door and that coating may just kick it negatively over the edge. Just my experience and opinion, but there are guys above who have a hell of a lot more experience than I do FWIW.
 
Peterson seems to have a unique bowl coating I don't mind, I've discovered--it's somewhat soft, and doesn't mess with the taste for the first dozen bowlsfull. It really must depend on what stuff they slather on the inside.

8)
 
Top