How and why chamber geometry impacts tobacco flavor
Sunday, October 31, 2010 at 11:12AM | Neill Archer Roan | Permalink tagged Ermala, Greg Pease, Holsti, chamber geometry, thermodynamics of pipe smoking | in Information, Pipe Tobaccos, Successful Smoking 
Engineering Principles
In our pipe communities, a great deal of time and no little energy has been expended on what is commonly called “engineering.” There is no shortage of argument concerning those variables that combine to produce an excellent smoker. Draft hole dimensions, air-flow, whether or not one should polish a pipe’s interior passages, the design of the last inch of the stem (button end), the precision of mortise and tenon dimensions – there are varying degrees of disagreement and consensus as to how these features of a pipe should be designed and accomplished, and the extent to which they contribute to a pipe’s superior smoking qualities.
Discussions concerning chamber geometry have been relatively absent, especially compared to discussions regarding how how open or constricted a draft hole should be. All other things being equal, my hunch is that there is no more important design variable than chamber geometry, especially when it comes to how amenable specific pipes are to different tobacco types and blends.
What processes affect the chemical structure of smoke?
I’ve spent no little time thinking about chamber geometry, going so far as researching and writing on the thermodynamics of pipe smoking, basing many of my hypotheses on the investigations and research findings of Finnish scientists Pentti Ermala and Lars Holsti who discovered that “among the most important factors affecting the chemical structure of the smoke is the burning temperature.”
While it seems obvious on its face, flavor is directly related to the chemical structure of smoke. It is those aromatic particulates in the smoke that excite the body’s gustatory (taste) and olfactory (smell) receptors.
Ermala and Holsti explain the thermodynamic process that places those aromatic particulates in the smokestream:
“When a pipe is smoked, the temperature does not rise very high; the heat, on the other hand, spreads rapidly outside the area which is actually glowing and burning in the closed bowl. Temperature of the combustion zone was about 500°C. (variability, 380°-620°C.). The distillation zone was very large. Experiments show that, of the tobacco below that still unburnt, about 25 per cent reached a temperature exceeding 300°C during the suction, and at least 60 per cent a temperature exceeding 100°C. The corresponding fractions of the substances in the tobacco leaf were thus distilled into the smoke without being burned and without attaining the higher temperatures at all.”
Though Ermala and Holsti’s intention was to conduct experimental studies of tobacco burning temperatures to discern the chemical structure of smoke (aromatic hydrocarbons) for the purposes of cancer research, their work has enlightened my understanding of how flavors are created when tobacco burns. Further, their observation and description of the three observable zones in burning tobacco – combustion, distillation, and condensation – have helped clarify in my mind why tobacco chamber geometry and size materially influence how certain chamber sizes and shapes will emphasize or de-emphasize particular flavor characteristics in tobacco.
The three zones inside the tobacco chamber
I created the above illustration so that you could visualize the three zones within the chamber. Any illustration can only be approximative, since the burn patterns of any particular bowl of tobacco will vary. For the purposes of illustration, however, we can see why chamber diameter influences smoke. As Greg Pease wrote in his article, Matching Pipes and Tobaccos Part 1, “Wider bowls tend to provide more flavor intensity, with the wood playing somewhat less of a role in the smoke. This makes perfect sense, of course. There’s more tobacco smoldering, and that area increases with the square of the radius,”
Because flavor is primarily a function of the size of the distillation zone (the area in which unburned aromatic particulates are distilled into the smoke), the greater the size of this zone, the more aromatic particulates. I believe that the more varietal complexity there is in blends, especially in English and Balkan blends, the more the pipe smoker benefits from larger diameter chamber geometries.
A commenter in a previous post, posed the question, “…doesn’t the “combustion zone” move lower in the pipe as one smokes towards the bottom of the bowl?” If so, then the proposed “zones” below it, all collapse downward as well, do they not? Of course, this is true. The ember moves down as combustion occurs.
How might tobacco develop different flavors through the burn process?
So, how does tobacco develop different flavors as we smoke through a pipe? It may be that some particulates distill into the smoke stream earlier and some later as temperature increases. It may also be that the tobacco that starts out under the ember undergoes a physical change as it filters the smoke, taking on different properties as the ember burns down through the center of the chamber. This may explain why stacked pipes tend to develop more dramatically than more shallow-chambered pipes.
Considering these ideas has helped me create more flavorful smoking experiences. For example, I used to believe that I would create more flavor if I lit a larger portion of the tobaccos surface area. When I learned that combustion’s purpose is to heat the surrounding tobacco - and that the burning area itself creates ash, not flavor - I started making sure that the center of the bowl was lit and then, as I smoked down, I pushed tobacco toward the combustion zone. Two things happened: One, my smokes started tasting better and sweeter, and two, my smokes lasted longer.
How might draft hole dimensions affect flavor formulation?
While I wonder whether draft hole dimension rivals chamber geometry in influencing flavor, it is still quite important. Draft hole dimension profoundly influences the extent to which the burning tobacco is “bellowed.” A larger draft hole facilitates potentially more oxygen to fuel the tobacco embers, presumably increasing the temperature of the area where the tobacco is burning. When the combustion zone temperature rises, the distillation and condensation zone processes are affected. Whether or not the burn rate of tobacco increases or diminishes the area of the distillation and condensation zones - the source areas for flavor production, I haven’t been able to formulate a satisfactory hypothesis. My hunch is that higher temperatures drive the distillation process so that more flavor particulates are in the smoke stream. It may also make the condensation process more effective and reduce wetness of smoke.
Why are tobacco flavors inconsistent in different chamber geometries?
Ermala and Holsti’s work makes it possible to 1) persuasively argue why some chamber proportions are better suited to particular tobacco blends than are others and 2) explain why tobacco flavor is inconsistent in differing chamber shapes and sizes.
It is my hypothesis that the important flavors we experience when smoking tobaccos – especially those sugars that are prominent in latakia, in Orientals, and in mature Red Virginias – are those “fractions of the substances in the tobacco leaf” that are “distilled into the smoke without being burned and without attaining the higher temperatures.”
I suspect that it is those distilled and unburned tobacco particulates that endow blends with complexity. Further, it is reasonable to assume that those tobaccos that burn in the combustion zone are comparatively flavorless because the 500° C combustion temperature destroys those particulates to which our senses respond. So, the primary function of the combustion zone (the burning tobacco) is not to create flavor, but rather to heat the surrounding tobaccos to the point that unburnt flavor particulates are distilled into the smoke stream. The ash particulate from the combustion zone probably influences the flavor experience, too, but most likely to a far lesser degree since most components have been consumed in the combustion process.
How do professional blenders discern flavor differences from component varietals?
My beliefs were recently strengthened by a conversation I had with Smokingpipes.com’s General Manager, Brian Levine. In a former job, Brian spent a great deal of time working with and being trained by tobacco blender Peter Stokkebye. During my discussion with Brian I described my comparison and contrast of various Oriental blends. I was trying to isolate distinct flavor differences between Samsun, Katerini, Drama, Yenidje, and Sukhum component leaves.
I was lamenting the daunting degree of complexity I faced in isolating these component flavors when Brian described a far superior methodology to me. Brian explained that the best way to accomplish my task was to procure some unprocessed raw varietal leaf and then place leaf on various parts of my tongue, then under the tongue. By doing so, I would experience the leaf’s natural flavor characteristics. Stokkebye had taught Brian this method which he had subsequently experienced and found it remarkably effective.
When I tried this technique, myself, I was astonished by both the concentration and complexity of flavors I tasted in various unprocessed leaves. My ability to differentiate leaf varietal flavors became far less problematic than making the same discernments from tasting a smoke stream. Anyone who has done much cigar smoking is likely to think that I have a masterful grasp of the obvious. The taste of different cigar leaf wrappers, e.g. Cameroon, Dominican, or Nicaraguan is distinct. Among the above, any one of the three may easily be picked out in a blind taste by anyone who is slightly more than a novice cigar smoker. The fact that wrapper leaf flavor is so strikingly important to a cigar’s character is one of the principal differentiating factors between pipe- and cigar-smoking.
Obviously, when Brian was learning to differentiate different varietals, he was doing so without combustion. I suspect that combustion is not only unnecessary to experiencing a tobacco’s depth and complexity, but that it is in fact ancillary to the experience. Combustion doesn’t create flavor. It fuels flavor creation by causing the physical and chemical changes that occur in the distillation and condensation processes.
The flavor doesn’t come from burning.
Another conversation I had with the noted artisanal tobacco blender, Greg Pease, further strengthened my conclusion that tobacco flavor does not come from combustion, especially with respect to Virginias.
“The sugars that characterize Virginias - especially mature Red Virginias – must be solvated (dissolved) in water to reach the palate,” Greg declared. Finally I understood why Virginias that dry out are harsh and taste of burned sugar; there is not enough water present for the condensation zone to create an adequate steam component of the smoke stream in which the sugars will solvate. Greg further explained that because sugars burn at a higher temperature than tobacco, the elevated temperature can scorch the tongue and deprive the smoker of expected sweetness.
How might this information impact how we buy pipes and tobaccos?
For me, few things are so disappointing as smoking a new pipe and having a lackluster experience. We all want those new pipes we purchase to deliver a great smoke from the start. Sadly, this doesn’t always occur.
In the past, when a pipe starts to really deliver a great smoke, it is usually because I have finally found the right tobacco to smoke in the pipe. For example, I have a gorgeous old Comoy Blue Riband zulu that delivers a transcendental experience when I smoke Stonehaven in it. The smoke is sweet, dark, rich, and tastes of coffee, toffee, cream, and cinammon. By way of contrast, when I have tried to smoke English blends in it, including Balkan Sobranie and Old Dog, the flavor has been lackluster and flat.
If I had made a summary judgment about that pipe’s smoking quality - only smoking English blends - I would have pronounced the pipe a beautiful loser. I’ve made these summary judgments without exploration often in the past. When I do this, I’m not being fair to myself, the tobacco, or the pipe.
Similarly, I’ve tried new blends out in a favorite pipe and decided - after a bowl or two - that the tobacco isn’t a blend that I like. If I had filled another pipe, a pipe more amenable to the blend’s properties, I may have had a much better experience. This makes me wonder how many pipes and tobaccos have been slammed in reviews by pipe smokers who have jumped to conclusions. How many of those horrible reviews we have read on TobaccoReviews.com are artifacts of poor pipe-tobacco combinations?
The more informed we can be in matching pipes and tobaco - informed by our own awareness-enhanced and learning-focused experience - the more likely we will buy the right pipes then put appropriate blends in their chambers for smoking. This cannot help but be better for everyone – artisan, blender, and smoker.
Am I right or wrong? It’s really beside the point.
In closing this three-part series on the effects of chamber geometry on the pipe-smoking experience, I want to declare unambiguously that this series represents attempts on my part to understand the dynamic relationship that I have experienced between chamber geometry and the flavors I experience when smoking different pipes.
What I have written here are hypotheses – proposed explanations for phenomena that I have observed and experienced. In exploring these phenomena, I have constructed and carried out a number of experiments based on my understanding of Ermala and Holsti’s research and findings. The results from my experimentation have been consistent. It has only been upon being able to replicate results consistently from these experiments that I decided to put my thoughts down in this blog.
That having been written, to assert that I have used the same stringent controls and methods in the design of my experiments that scientists like Ermala and Holsti used would be a wild exaggeration. I am sure that there is no little primitiveness in my approach. Still, I am satisfied that what I have learned is fit to be shared.
Years ago I learned that the value of any hypothesis is not in its correctness, but rather in the number of other hypotheses and experiments that it generates. So, let me write here unequivocally that I am not invested in or attached to being correct. What I am interested in is prompting you to experiment, reflect, and learn what best satisfies you in your pipe smoking. Further, I hope that you will share what you learn and discover, especially if your explorations disabuse me of wrong thinking on my part.
Reader Comments (27)
Amazing information,thanks so much for all of this. I can't add to it other to say that it all makes sense, I am happy to sit back and learn.
Matt
Neill - This is a fine distillation of years of cogitation on your part. Having discussed this topic often with you over the past year or so, it is a delight to have it here to ponder in print . Admittedly, many of our discussions were fueled by strong ale, and while that did make them lively, it also allowed some of the salient points to evaporate from my mind along with the 12% ABV. Now I can recover some of that spirit and content without having to dash for the WC.
It is hard to say given my deficiencies with regard to the science whether you are right or wrong in concrete terms, but I can say that our discussions on the subject and your recent posts have certainly guided my hand when choosing both pipe and leaf. This is useful, of course, when making new purchases, but for me the greatest value lies in a new path toward discovering the best qualities inherent in pipes and tobaccos I already own.
Let's face it: Our hobby is about pleasure. It has elements of the visual, the tactile, the gustatory, the olfactory, the curatorial and the disquisitional. Your efforts, in the end, do stimulate us to think about what we are doing, and there is no question that this is a good thing, but the greatness here for me is that I am learning how to get even more pleasure from participation in a hobby that already prides itself on how much pleasure it provides. In other words: Do I like having more fun? You bet!
Fascinating series. Thank you.
re the Draft hole - I'd question that a larger draft hole facilitates potentially more oxygen etc as the oxygen in the pipe being smoked is drawn through from the aperture at the rim of the pipe. Obviously combined with the density of tobacco package the size of the draft hole will affect the draw of the pipe for the smoker.
I had anticipated good things to come from this series, but was utterly unprepared for this latest post. I will never look my pipe, and the sundry mixtures which fill it, in the same way again. Bravo.
I'm loving this new mini series of pipes/tobacco flavors Neill. In my very small arsenal of 5 pipes, all of them have quite large bowls except one. As a heavy english smoker, I've always wondered why the small bowl always failed to produce to robust "camp fire" latakia flavor that I savor so much in my larger bowls. I guess that's why the pipe community needs people like you - more curious than me - to figure out these mysteries!
Cheers!
The hypothosis that flavour is obtained principally from the tobacco that is in the distillation zone rather than the combustion zone is well borne out by the smoking of shisha pipes where the heat is generated by burning charcoal over the tobacco without setting fire to the baccy itself. On my travels in the Middle East I've tried smoking western pipe tobacco in a shisha and the flavour development is considerable,
Thank you for writing this series of posts. I've been reading them one at a time as they've posted and have been utilizing some of the information to enhance my smoking experience. I must say that a great deal of what you've concluded here effects the flavor of my tobacco in dramatic ways.
I mean to sit down today to perform the test you suggest in the second post of this series and will report back on my findings.
Thanks again!
You mentioned that, when tamping, you push the tobacco which was previously in the distillation and condensation zones into the combustion zone. By saying this, do you mean that you tamp the center then fold the tobacco which was not burned towards the center of the bowl?
First, I have to comment that use of term “engineering” in pipe making is misapplication of the term.
Engineering is the application of science in the design, planning, construction, and maintenance of buildings, machines, and other manufactured things. Since many pipe makers and pipe collectors seem to abhor “manufactured” pipes, then use of the term engineering would seem to be a poor choice.
Pipe making is a craft. The elements of a crafting a pipe are generally the same, regardless of the maker. There is very little room for deviations from the general principles of that crafting. I believe it was Rad Davis who has said something to the effect that a pipe is simply a piece of wood (meerschaum, clay, etc.) with holes in which to pack tobacco and to smoke it. The better term would simply be design.
Second…”Because flavor is primarily a function of the size of the distillation zone (the area in which unburned aromatic particulates are distilled into the smoke), the greater the size of this zone, the more aromatic particulates. I believe that the more varietal complexity there is in blends, especially in English and Balkan blends, the more the pipe smoker benefits from larger diameter chamber geometries.”
Given that the distillation zone shrinks as the overall volume of pipe tobacco in a bowl shrinks (as it burns down in the bowl), and the hypothesis offered above; then the conclusion would be that the further compressed the “distillation zone” becomes, the less flavor would be present, regardless of the “varietal complexity” of the blend. I don’t think many pipe smokers, including myself, would agree with that conclusion, with a well-seasoned and properly caked pipe. I have to also question how “varietal complexity” is actually determined. While you note the above theory mostly applies to English and Balkan blends, the varietal differences in the constituent component of such blends, is too much a variable among pipe smokers to be quantified with anything more than a generalized, law-like generalizations of truth. Plus, in order to apply a theory to more than English or Balkan blends, it has to have some degree of universal application. If the theory applies to mostly English and Balkan blends, then it stands to reason it might not to blends outside those general categorizations of tobacco blends. A new theory then would have to developed for those blends, would it not?
Also, from my experience, a well-seasoned pipe will deliver blend tastes, regardless of chamber diameter or overall size for that matter.
Third…The flavor doesn’t come from burning.
Well actually, with burning, the flavor will not likely appear or at least not in the same way as it does when burned. It is the heating of the tobacco that actually releases the essentials oils in the tobacco. Otherwise, one could say, chew a wad of some English or Balkan blend and presumably get the same flavors. While I have never tried that, my thought is it would not happen.
Fourth…“The sugars that characterize Virginias - especially mature Red Virginias – must be solvated (dissolved) in water to reach the palate,” Greg declared.”
As rhetoric, this sounds plausible. However, taken to it’s logical conclusion it fails. First, tobaccos contain both oils and water. The sugars to which he refers are elements of the oils, but not the only such elements. That said, it is the oils which deliver whatever flavor comes directly from the tobacco. This assumes of course, that any particular tobacco has only oils and water as soluble elements. Elements such as those added to aromatics for flavoring, for example, would add to the equation in ways not quantified in the statement. They would likely introduce “sugars” to the blend that simply overwhelm the natural sugars in the tobacco. Likewise, any blend which contains preservatants to extend shelf-life would also add to the equation in unaddressed ways. Many pipe smokers often report that a blend was “too wet” coming directly from a tin, and needed some “drying time” in order to be lit to their preference (which is potentially a significantly different state). However, the greater the amount of water in a blend originally, the more diluted the oils will be in the mixture of water and those oils when burned. Water evaporates more quickly that oils. The reported “drying time” then, is for evaporation of water from the blend, or other components in that water, and the oils will be retained for a longer period.
Finally… It’s really beside the point.
I would have to agree with the above. If any given pipe smoker, enjoys his or her pipes and the blends they smoke, all of this is indeed beside the point.
I've dedicated a lot of my time in the past trying to understand these relationships. I've concluded for myself, however, that these efforts are futile for the most part. As one of my opponents, a university physics professor, said: "The problem is too complex to have an intelligent and reliable solution". The "fixed" input factors (chamber geometry, smoke channel drilling diameter and mouthpiece drilling) are important for a more comfortable smoke, no doubt in my mind. But no good pipe engineering will ever outweigh the bitter natural briar taste of some stummels. Similarly, not-so-simple "variables" such as puffing strength and tempo, tobacco packing method and tobacco moisture content would literally screw all of the intended benefits of good pipe engineering. Also similarly, from my experience, a slight adjustment in puffing strength and packing density would make a pipe with a 2.9 mm channel smoke as good or better than a pipe with 4.5 mm drilling...
Don't get me wrong, I do value a pipe made to my expected standards of technical perfection and try to limit my pipe acquisitions only to those pipes that show those standards. However; I've lost my belief that any reliable assumptions regarding pipe smoking quality could be deduced from pipe geometry alone.
Comparadun wrote:
I have to also question how “varietal complexity” is actually determined. While you note the above theory mostly applies to English and Balkan blends, the varietal differences in the constituent component of such blends, is too much a variable among pipe smokers to be quantified with anything more than a generalized, law-like generalizations of truth. Plus, in order to apply a theory to more than English or Balkan blends, it has to have some degree of universal application.
Varietal differences are determined by the blender. English and Balkan blends were used as examples only. It was not my intention to exclude blends of any kind. I believe that the same holds true for all blends.
Comparadun wrote:
Given that the distillation zone shrinks as the overall volume of pipe tobacco in a bowl shrinks (as it burns down in the bowl), and the hypothesis offered above; then the conclusion would be that the further compressed the “distillation zone” becomes, the less flavor would be present, regardless of the “varietal complexity” of the blend. I don’t think many pipe smokers, including myself, would agree with that conclusion, with a well-seasoned and properly caked pipe.
I think that perhaps you misunderstood my point as I would agree with what I take as your meaning. I would say, however, that - in my experience - some flavors do diminish with combustion. With burning all the zones diminish somewhat proportionately. As I tried to describe, the tobacco that filters the smokestream has new burned and unburned elements introduced to it which, to my mind, cause the flavor to develop. I don't think we disagree.
Comparadun wrote:
The sugars to which he refers are elements of the oils, but not the only such elements.
Actually, I would suggest that you are mistaken here, or at least I would require from you some proof that sugars are elements of the oils. That is not my understanding of the chemistry here, but I may be mistaken.
Comparadun wrote:
However, the greater the amount of water in a blend originally, the more diluted the oils will be in the mixture of water and those oils when burned.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was taught the principle that oils are not water-soluble, which I have taken to mean that the presence of water will not dilute oils in tobaccos. If I have misunderstood your meaning, I apologize.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate the time and attention you have given to responding to my initial posts. While it seems that your initiative was driven by a desire to impeach many of the premises and frames of references (i.e. engineering) used in its creation, your efforts are important in helping other readers consider other ways to think about what's going on when we enjoy a pipe.
"I believe it was Rad Davis who has said something to the effect that a pipe is simply a piece of wood (meerschaum, clay, etc.) with holes in which to pack tobacco and to smoke it."
I have never said that.
I have said, however, that I prefer the term "craftsmanship" to "engineering" regarding the drilling of pipes. I know at least one cranky old Yooper that agrees with me. Or rather, I agree with him, since he's much more ancient than I am. :o)
The late Jim Benjamin once told me that tobacco blenders of old used unsmoked clay pipes with which to test their blends. I always thought that was interesting.
I very much appreciate Neill's efforts to quantify these issues, but in the end, I agree with the comments that enjoying one's pipes and tobaccos are all that counts.
Scientists might be able to offer a dozen different explanations for why some people prefer Starbucks coffee and other people prefer Dunkin' Doughnuts coffee, but despite the explanations, the coffee drinkers will choose the ones they prefer.
I have made experiments with about 20 different angles of chamber drillings, and I find the wide pot drilling the ultimate shape of drilling. Too bad it doesn't fit for all shapes of pipes. So I guess if you want slim-shaped pipes you have to cut the angle and get a lesser pleasure in smoking i,t but more pleasure looking at it.
Anomalous Experimental Results -
I have been experimenting with various pipe chamber ratios using a new tobacco, Fred Hanna's Wilderess, which has received many positive reviews on various forums. I have smoked it in a Dunhill Diplomat (1 1/8" deep X 7/8" diameter) with a nice wide pot shaped chamber, and in a Stokkebye Acorn with bamboo shank (1 5/8" deep X 3/4" diameter). The results in the Diplomat were consistent with the thrust of this blog, much better and more fully developed complexity of flavor than the taller, chimney shaped Acorn.
However, today I filled a bowl from the same tin in a featherweight (18 grams), pencil-shank, Dunhill billiard from 1920. It's chamber measurements are: 1 1/4" deep X 5/8" diameter... a narrow group 2 capacity.
Without a doubt this pipe delivered the most sublime smoking experience with Wilderness; head and shoulders superior to the results from either the Diplomat or the Acorn. NOW I see why others are singing the praises of this blend.
Rick said "enjoying one's pipes and tobaccos are all that counts". That is not inconsistent with the purpose of this inquiry. This blog seeks to inform that enjoyment with an analysis of why observed and experienced phenomena occur and give us guidance so that the experience of enjoyment can be replicated more consistently.
My experience with this tall, narrow chambered pipe and Oriental blend would seem to be instructive in the sense that, while our experiments are pointing toward a reliable guide to matching pipes and tobacco, there is an element of serendipity inherent in the process which allow for "exceptions to the rule" that shouldn't be overlooked.
Which is why Richard I think you have to find a way of taking the pipe quality out of the equation; difficult isn't it!
I'd like to address a couple of things in Rick's comment. First of all: Rick, your writing has helped so many new to the hobby begin to explore artisan made pipes, myself among them. You enthusiastically describe why a pipe made by Jess or Joura or Paolo Becker might bring more pleasure to the smoker than a basket pipe. You suggest that it might be worth trying something new. You even suggest modifying the airflow of certain pipes to maximize the smoking experience. There is no reason why someone should come away from your work thinking that their beat up old Kaywoodie is no longer a good smoke, but rather that there might be other considerations to be had as well.
Neill is not attempting to "quantify" the enjoyment of our pipes but is seeking a way to discover why we might enjoy certain combinations of tobacco and pipes more than others. I do not see him telling anyone that they cannot possibly derive pleasure from their Dunkin' Donuts coffee but merely trying to explain what elements might contribute to that pleasure. You know.... how do different industrial paper coatings react when coming in contact with hot tap water?
Being armed with information cannot hurt us. Having this information will not cause us to abandon tried and true combinations that serve us well, but rather to explore ways to improve the experience when things aren't happening quite the way we had hoped. I've probably sold wonderful pipes that I thought didn't smoke well simply because I hadn't thought to try a different tobacco in them. I've tossed tins of tobacco that I thought were awful, but what if......
Your comments on this blog have always been the epitome of gentlemanly and democratic engagement and this most recent is no exception. I only offer this response to suggest that this pursuit of Neill's is not reductionist or dogmatic but quite the opposite. How great it is to find a method that helps us to achieve results that in most cases came previously from intuition alone. Both approaches are fallible, but I'm starting to miss some of those pipes that have now become someone else's treasured estates......
Yachtexplorer wrote:
My experience with this tall, narrow chambered pipe and Oriental blend would seem to be instructive in the sense that, while our experiments are pointing toward a reliable guide to matching pipes and tobacco, there is an element of serendipity inherent in the process which allow for "exceptions to the rule" that shouldn't be overlooked.
Richard, undoubtedly the human being in the equation introduces remarkable variation. Certainly, each of us are idiosyncratic to some degree in what we prefer and what we value when it comes to tobacco.
It is also true that our tastes evolve, too. I remember when I didn't care much for Cyprian latakia. Its leathery qualities overwhelmed me. Now, I absolutely love good Cyprian latakia. In fact, I often prefer it to its more celebrated Syrian cousin.
I think we all know that certainty is beyond our grasp when making predictions, but for the sake of time, money, and pleasure, I hope that we might benefit from probability. Thank you for your thoughtful words.
Jimbo wrote:
Which is why Richard I think you have to find a way of taking the pipe quality out of the equation; difficult isn't it!
I agree that taking certain beloved, high-quality pipes out of the equation is difficult, indeed! The number of times that I've reached for some old reliable friend wouldn't surprise any long-time pipe smoker. What I find interesting is when I find myself with a new pipe's tabula rasa character. With what tobacco do I bring it to its full potential? This question is the kernel of this exercise for me.
Warren,
Thank you for your kind remarks.
However, I want to stress that I did not in any way mean to imply that Neill was being reductionist or dogmatic. Clearly he was not. I agree with you that his approach was the opposite -- that he was encouraging all of us to experiment and try to observe our findings.
I also agree with you (and Neill) in your observation that it would be great "to find a method that helps us to achieve results that in most cases came previously from intuition alone."
What I was trying to say was that even if you find what works for you, other pipe smokers might not share your experience; hence, my Starbucks coffee versus Dunkin' Doughnuts coffee example.
Let me relate it directly to pipes. Rene Contreras is a pipe collector from Orange County. I consider him a friend, and he is very knowledgeable about pipes, especially about what he likes and does not like. Rene and I were talking about the diameter at the bottom of two pipes by pipe makers we both like and respect: Jim Cooke and Jess Chonowitsch. Rene told me that he prefers Jim's new diameter of a cone-shaped bottom, while I said that I prefer Jess's U-shaped bottom -- even if the outside of the bowl is conical shaped.
If I were to try to find a formula for Rene, it would not work, and vice versa. That is all I was trying to say.
But as I said earlier, I applaud Neill for his research, thoughtfulness and open-minded approach to this very interesting subject.
One other point that I made earlier is worth investigating: Is what Jim Benjamin said true, did the tobacco blenders of old always use unsmoked clay pipes as a way to taste the pure tobacco flavors without any interference from factors such as the briar, and if that is true, I believe it has significance for this discussion.
It's probably insignificant - but considering the Cutty made me wonder if the angle at which the longitudinal axis of the chamber lies in respect to the vertical when the pipe is being smoked alters how the pipe will smoke ? Obviously with the Cutty there is chamber deviation from the vertical even when the pipe stem is horizontal, but with the basic Billiard, for example, one sees people smoking the pipe with the stem at various angles from the horizontal.
And of course some pipes were designed to be smoked "upside down" not to mention that I've turned straight pipes upside down if caught out in heavy rain.