Pipemalion- Grabow vs. Dunhill - what's the real difference?
Dan Paden
cannot make decisions on their own..."
If I couldn't make decisions on my own, I would've graduated from
college and become an electrical engineer, like everyone I knew expected
me to.
Seriously, I haven't noticed any hostility toward Grabow smokers on the
list, any more than I've noticed hostility to corn-cob smokers. Shoot,
one of the most frequent posters on this NG is noted for his devotion to
the 'cob, and no one's flamed *him.* The predominant attitude on the
list seems to be (at least during the few months I've been here) "if you
like it, smoke it, and to heck with what everyone else thinks." Doesn't
seem that indicative of a herd mentality to me.
If you don't think Dunhills are all they're cracked up to be, fine.
Smoke what you like and enjoy it, and to heck with what I think--just
grant everyone else the same privilege of doing what they like with
their money.
An Exceedingly Ornery Critter --Have you ever noticed how all the
people who say you're obsessed suffer from a short attention span?--
Dan Paden
even small communities - he gets them from what Riesman calls the OTHER
DIRECTED. Other directed can be defined by such things as national
magazines, television ads, and things such as ASP on the internet..."
I almost passed this up as being too easy, but I couldn't resist: if
you honestly believe that the above is true, what makes you think you're
the exception? Isn't it just as likely that you're as "programmed" on
the subject of pipes and tobacco as you suggest those who differ with
you are?
Jim Beard
> I own no Dr. G, but I started smoking with one. I have had several
> and they all were good pipes. I have had some Dunhills and they were
> no better. I stand with my statement that if you were blindfolded,
> and all things were equal, you would not know the difference. Anyone
> that disagrees with that is full of Horse Shit.
Bill,
You generally enter these discussions to good purpose, and remind all of
factors they may not often consider, but I think you are getting carried
away a bit with the above.
Truly, if all things were equal, you would not know the difference, simply
because if all things were equal there would be no difference. But there
is always a difference, even between two Dunhills that perhaps were made
from the same burl or between two Dr. Grabows made from the same ebauchon
that had been split to make two cheap pipes instead of one larger one.
There is a difference. Though it may not be apparent to someone who
only smokes Sir Walter Raleigh, Captain Black, or even 1792. (And I am not
joking about 1792. It is good tobacco, and I like it, but its taste is so
overpowering that I am not sure it makes any difference if you smoke it in
a good pipe or in a piece of rubbish. Smoke it in a piece of pipe with an
elbow on it, and you would still get that nearly overwhelming taste of
Tonka bean. Which is nice if you like Tonka bean taste, as the tobacco is
superb in all other respects.)
p.s. If you run across any cheap Dunhills, pay for them and send them on
to me. Those I have found at the local estate sales have run $2.00 to
$6.00 each, but it has been a long time since I found one so I am willing
to come up with a little above and beyond that. I'll take care of the
cleaning and sanitizing, so you will not need to waste time and money on
such chores.
Cheers!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
j...@blckhrse.clark.net
UNIX is not user-unfriendly. It merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldie
this NG for quite a while it's very obvious that the "high-end" pipe
smokers do not like to be confused with facts. The forte of some
seems to be to take manufacturer's mis-information coupled with
revisionist history and meld them into dogma. They, then, supply this
convoluted nonsense to the uninformed smokers until it becomes gospel.
Many of the pipe makers in this group know the facts but will not
state them because of sales perspectives.
To begin with, briar does not readily wick moisture from the interior
of the bowl, regardless what grain it happens to be ... secondly,
after a cake has been built-up on the interior of the bowl and the
shank has absorbed a bit of tar, the briar contributes almost no taste
to the smoke unless it is imbued with some ghastly damned oil ...
thirdly, Kaywoodie and, to a lesser degree, Dr. Grabow set the
standard for smoking pipes as we know them today, not Dunhill.
During the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's Kaywoodie was "THE" pipe to own
and were often substantially more expensive and usually better
crafted than a Dunhill ... Kaywoodie 4-digit pipes are, even today,
one of the best crafted, best smoking, pipes available. On a par with
Kaywoodies, Dr. Grabow Supreme's are very excellent pipes, also.
If you approach a subjective matter with a preconceived notion and try
to determine comparative, objective value, you're conducting an
exercise in futility.
Goldie
Jeff Folloder
> To begin with, briar does not readily wick moisture from the interior
> of the bowl, regardless what grain it happens to be ... secondly,
> after a cake has been built-up on the interior of the bowl and the
> shank has absorbed a bit of tar, the briar contributes almost no taste
> to the smoke unless it is imbued with some ghastly damned oil ...
Goldie,
I must take a bit of exception here. Briar can, and often does wick
moisture. I believe that Trever has done some experiments to prove this
action empiracally. As for taste contribution... regardless of cake
formation, a regularly cleaned briar pipe will continue to provide brair
"flavoring" via the shank. Just because you can't taste it does not make
your observations a fact.
--
Jeff Folloder
And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light.
And everyone said, "Hey, cool! Do you do parties?".
Goldie
very subject ... while virgin briar, in an unfinished stage will
absorb moisture to some extent (depending on numerous variables) and
will "wick" the moisture from a hollowed-out spot in the briar, a
seasoned, caked, pipe bowl with either a wax or varnish finish almost
entirely inhibits the capillary action of the briar. The primary
means of non-chemically removing moisture from the bottom of a pipe
bowl is through evaporation via the open end of the bowl.
Like Trevor, I use up a lot of old "beaters" doing experiments on
pipes because I'm much more interested in the mechanics of these
highly efficient nicotine delivery systems than I am in bragging about
how much I can afford to pay for a pipe.
A well cleaned and seasoned, aerodynamically engineered, balanced pipe
that is smoked properly with high grade tobacco will give an excellent
smoke, regardless of the cost, style, or manufacturer of the pipe. It
is simply not necessary to pay huge sums of money to buy a high grade
pipe if you're looking for an excellent smoking experience ...
forthemostpart, the tobacco makes a great smoke, not the pipe.
Goldie
Jeff Schwartz
discharge, why don't ya LOL!
OK, so here's my $0.02: I'll contribute some of my CVS Golden Burley and one
of my "fuglies". Someone from the group will contribute a Dunhill. Blind
fold me and give me the test. If I can tell the cob from the Dunhill I get
to keep the Dunhill. If I lose I give up the "fugly", though it would break
my heart to have to say sayonara. OK?
I am cleaning up my best cob in anticipation of being taken up on my
challenge. Come on. Who's brave now?
--
Jeff Schwartz
Remove nospam to reply
--
Dan Paden <danp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23786-380...@storefull-253.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> "...where smokers of Dr. Grabow are generally smashed...by those who
> cannot make decisions on their own..."
>
> If I couldn't make decisions on my own, I would've graduated from
> college and become an electrical engineer, like everyone I knew expected
> me to.
>
> Seriously, I haven't noticed any hostility toward Grabow smokers on the
> list, any more than I've noticed hostility to corn-cob smokers. Shoot,
> one of the most frequent posters on this NG is noted for his devotion to
> the 'cob, and no one's flamed *him.* The predominant attitude on the
> list seems to be (at least during the few months I've been here) "if you
> like it, smoke it, and to heck with what everyone else thinks." Doesn't
> seem that indicative of a herd mentality to me.
>
> If you don't think Dunhills are all they're cracked up to be, fine.
> Smoke what you like and enjoy it, and to heck with what I think--just
> grant everyone else the same privilege of doing what they like with
> their money.
>
Dan Paden
Maybe they are--but goodness, man, is it necessary to be so offensive?
What exactly have these people *done* to you to deserve this sort of
treatment? Have they called you a liar? Slandered someone close to
you? As far as I can tell, all they've done is disagree with you--are
you having that big a problem dealing with it?
Erck 2
thank you what you've said is the truth.
in the end a pipe is just an instrument to hold the tobacco long enough to
smoke it
vE
Paul Szabady
>
> Two brand new pipes and two different logos, the dot and the spade,
> smoked blindfolded would not have any "memory and taste sensations" to
> draw upon. You simply would not know the difference.
>
At the risk of prolonging and repeating a tedious argument and inspiring
Mr. Perry to further nonsense and illogic and to then proclaim these
views as 'fact', let me say this: the use of 'blind tests' in validating
an aesthetic judgment is useless, pointless, and the wrong tool for the
job. What next? Blindfolded tests of painting to prove that one can't
tell the difference between Renoir and Norman Rockwell? Or that a
preference for, say, Bruno Walter over Neville Marriner conducting
Mozart is illusory and impossible because they're playing the same
notes?
My experience of Dunhill pipes is that I can identify a flavor in them.
Whether you believe this, or experience this, is absolutely irrelevent
to my experience. You claim that my experience is illusory, is based of
herd brain-washing by clever Dunhill marketing and that I am so
"other-directed" that I am blindly buying the hype and weltanschaung of
the "Lonely Crowd".
I smoked my first Dunhill pipe because I worked in a store that sold
them and I felt professionally bound to know our products well so that I
could effectively represent them and make correct recommendations to the
needs of our clientele. I knew little of the Dunhill 'mystique' at that
time, but found that after smoking a Dunhill I found it far superior to
any pipe I had owned or smoked before. I also had to smoke Savinellis,
Radices, Castellos, Ben Wades, Charatans, Upshalls and many other brands
of pipe. So your assumption that I like Dunhills is because of Dunhill's
nefarious marketing is untrue. I smoked all these pipes, reflected on my
experiences of them, and formed my own opinion of them.
> >
> >The alleged fact that Grabow buys most of the low-grade briar in the
> >world bears little relationship to why some pipes are more expensive
> >than others or how expensive they would be. Ignored is the fact that
> >France and Italy both have large industries producing inexpensive pipes,
> >that areas and countries limit export of raw briar to the benefit of
> >local manufacturers, and that what Grabow buys - the bald and grainless
> >wood from the burl, and the 'branch', would normally be thrown away
> >anyway. A company that only produces and sells 'firsts' will always be
> >expensive simply because so few firsts can be produced from even prime
> >high-grade burls. And the high-end artisan pipes would be unaffected
> >also.
>
> As suggested earlier, you need to study economics and marketing. All
> of the answers are in economies of scale. And my statement is
> including all of the pipe manufacturers in France and Italy. The
> brandless pipes are merely seconds from companies that have brands,
> like Savinelli, Sasieni, Castello, or whatever.
And at the risk of sounding patronizing and insulting, you really need
to read what I write more carefully. Dunhill and Grabow, or Grabow and
Castello, or Grabow and Chonowitsch are NOT competing for the same
briar. Grabow buys what is called in the trade the "branch" - that is -
the part of the burl that connects to the roots and branches of the
tree. This is grainless, poor-quality wood that is not used by
maufacturers (except for the extreme low-end of the market.) It is
literally throw-away. Grabow also buys poorly grained wood from the
heart of the burl. That Grabow might pay, say $0.50, for this throw-away
wood will have little effect on the $30-$95 plateau briar from the same
tree that higher quality pipe companies would compete for.
You apparently have no idea what a 'first' is in the pipe trade either.
Dunhill produces only 'firsts': their smooth pipes have no fills or sand
pits and every Dunhill pipe has to meet certain Dunhill standards. If it
flunks the test, it doesn't become a Dunhill. While it is true that
Dunhill did use Parker and Hardcastle at one time to re-coup the high
percentage of wood discards, flawed smooths, and other seconds, these
pipes, however good they might be, did not have all the attention to
detail, the expensive hand-cut vulcanite, or the patented oil-curing
process. They were never labelled as "Dunhills", nor did Dunhill call
them 'Dunhill Seconds.' Charatan, which had several grades of pipes
(including the Ben Wade English line to absorb their lesser quality
pieces of briar - a full 50% of their production) could only produce 10%
of any batch of briar as their 'firsts. So what helps keep prices of
Dunhill, Charatan and other pipes down is not Grabow buying up the
useless wood, but how well the company can recoup some of its losses if
it chooses to do so.
>
> No company in the world makes products without flaws and grain is not
> a product over which you have much control. You can get that part of
> the grain which is considered the highest quality, cut it and find a
> flaw as big as your thumb. If you think that they throw that one
> away, you are crazy. They have already invested a certain amount of
> money into it, so throwing it away is out of the question. It might
> be branded "made in Italy" on the bottom of the stem and finished
> differently, but it ain't thrown away.
You're wrong here. Charatan used to throw away a full 10% of its
production and other manufacturers would have at least that much scrap,
not counting stuff that cracks in storage before it is even cut.
> >
> >Many, if not most, pipesmokers have started with Grabow or similar very
> >cheap pipes, and those who were not turned-off to pipe-smoking by them
> >frequently remark that they thank God for those cheap pipes because
> >without them for comparison they would never have known what a good pipe
> >was.. :-^)
>
> That is fine and predetermined by sociological andpsychological facts.
> It is always safer to be in the herd.
> >
I don't share your deterministic views: I believe in free will, in
exercising the intellect, in making critical and aesthetic choices, in
experiencing what one opines about, in resisting brain-washing and
conformity by the "Lonely Crowd", the trivialities of pop culture, the
efforts of Madison Avenue, the Guv'ment, the Establishment of any sort,
and the ill thought-out arguments of surly ASP pipe bigots...
Paul Szabady
Paul Szabady
Goldie wrote:
>
... secondly,
> after a cake has been built-up on the interior of the bowl and the
> shank has absorbed a bit of tar, the briar contributes almost no taste
> to the smoke unless it is imbued with some ghastly damned oil ...
> thirdly, Kaywoodie and, to a lesser degree, Dr. Grabow set the
> standard for smoking pipes as we know them today, not Dunhill.
>
> During the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's Kaywoodie was "THE" pipe to own
> and were often substantially more expensive and usually better
> crafted than a Dunhill ...
I'm sure all our ASP'ers from the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand,
and the continent of Europe are pleased to hear this and are thankful to
you for being awakened from their ignorance... I know I am...
Paul Szabady
Goldie
condescending, deprecating attitude is always a pure pleasure for me.
I did not slight our UK brethern in any way ... had Kaywoodie not
changed corporate hands so many times and made a couple of disasterous
financial decisions they might very well have a monopoly on the pipe
making trade today ... their ability to manufacture high quality pipes
on a large scale basis was unparalleled in the industry.
Goldie
Paul Szabady
>
> Thanks Paul ... shaking you out of your reverie and unveiling your
> condescending, deprecating attitude is always a pure pleasure for me.
>
> I did not slight our UK brethern in any way ... had Kaywoodie not
> changed corporate hands so many times and made a couple of disasterous
> financial decisions they might very well have a monopoly on the pipe
> making trade today ... their ability to manufacture high quality pipes
> on a large scale basis was unparalleled in the industry.
>
The point was that what might have been true in the US was not true for
the rest of the world and that the pipe industry in St. Claude, France,
the UK, and Italy just might have a different opinion on this matter.
Paul Szabady
Walter L. De Visser, Sr
know if the pros or the cons are ahead. I don't even know what side are the
pros or which are the cons. Every time this subject comes up, as it does
every few months, the "pros" and the "cons" line up and we get the same
delightful views.
This is not a complaint about the subject. It is rather a compliment that
the gentlemen of this group (and ladies), are able to have a somewhat heated
discussion (I hear the voices moving upwards an octave or so). Each sides
rains blows and barbs upon the other and yet the matter has not resulted in
physical restraint being needed and indeed, the battlefield has remained
quite bloodless for the most part.
Congratulations! Please keep the real heat.....in the bowl. A real battle
can be quite exciting but we must remember that we may be playing soccer on
this battlefield tomorrow so please don't dig any holes that can't be buried
or burn any bridges that can't be repaired.
Walt
Jeff Schwartz
some points we shouldn't fail to remember that at the core we are all
smoking buddies. Besides, the real battle may require all our participation
in a united front. I am talking about, of course, our possible future battle
with the government and the politicians who feel a need to protect us from
the devil's weed. Lets save our sabers and swords for that one.
--
Jeff Schwartz
Remove nospam to reply
--
Walter L. De Visser, Sr <br...@cybersol.com> wrote in message
news:0FPO3.15951$E_1.9...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com...
baeo...@leru.net
a battle with a clear, uncontested victor.
baeo...@leru.net
I'd like to volunteer for the front line(of either side as I don't really give a crap which
side is found to be correct:).
B. Rhodes Sr.
Paul Tatum wrote:
> <baeo...@leru.net> wrote in message news:380B8365...@leru.net...
> > Just be sure to remember that a battle without physical confrontation is rarely
> > a battle with a clear, uncontested victor.
> >
> > Jeff Schwartz wrote:
> >
>
> Well said . So in order to remedy this once and for all I think that at the next show all the
> Graybow fans and all the Dunhill fans should put down their pipes and put up their dukes and proceed
> to beat the crap out of each other so we can figure out who is right . Screw the silent auction and
> the smokers social , we'll have the CORPS tough man contest . And as a bonus , the victor may also
> proclaim which tobacco's are tops and which are horse Sh*t .
>
> Paul
Paul Tatum
Ray Newton
Paul Tatum wrote in message <7ui6ng$f...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>Well said . So in order to remedy this once and for all I think that at the
next show all the
>Graybow fans and all the Dunhill fans should put down their pipes and put
up their dukes and proceed
>to beat the crap out of each other so we can figure out who is right .
Screw the silent auction and
>the smokers social , we'll have the CORPS tough man contest . And as a
bonus , the victor may also
>proclaim which tobacco's are tops and which are horse Sh*t .
Quick...will I be safe with a David Jones?
Ray
(5'6", #145 and timid to boot)
Jeff Schwartz
whether the loser should live or die. Cob stem up and they live. Cob stem
down and, well, you know.
*;o)
--
Jeff Schwartz
'97 ZJ
"Give me a place to stand,
and I can move the Earth." - Archimedes, ~2000BC
"Give me my pipe and some fine tobacco
and why bother moving the Earth." - Me ~5 minutes ago LOL!!!
"Often what we can do is determined by what we are willing to do"
Remove nospam to reply
-------------------------------------------------
Paul Tatum <Nosp...@tebows-workshop.cnchost.com> wrote in message
news:7ui6ng$f...@chronicle.concentric.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> <baeo...@leru.net> wrote in message news:380B8365...@leru.net...
> > Just be sure to remember that a battle without physical confrontation is
rarely
> > a battle with a clear, uncontested victor.
> >
> > Jeff Schwartz wrote:
> >
>
> Well said . So in order to remedy this once and for all I think that at
the next show all the
> Graybow fans and all the Dunhill fans should put down their pipes and put
up their dukes and proceed
> to beat the crap out of each other so we can figure out who is right .
Screw the silent auction and
> the smokers social , we'll have the CORPS tough man contest . And as a
bonus , the victor may also
> proclaim which tobacco's are tops and which are horse Sh*t .
>
> Paul
>
>
rpe...@mindspring.com
<GEENTROE...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>hi all, hi rperry
>
>i agree with you're posting a lot, to one essential point, and that is where
>you say:
>
>> Only that and nothing more.
>
>Especially in sociologie good scientist know that that kind of statements
>are very most likely to be untrue. A lot of aproaches in sociologie have
>their merrits, ALL aproaches represent (or work with) a few viewpoints wich
>means that they are limit in the power of their explanation. Sociologist
>don't do exact research on the quality of a pipe.
>Even if you assume that the majority of Dunhill-smokers anly buy the pipe
>because of the reasons you mentioned, it is still undetermined if a
>Dunhill-pipe is or is not better. In fact, sociologist is not interested in
>that question.
>
>But again, I do think that the things you mention play a role.
Riesman's assertations do not even need to work in regard to the
quality of the product. It is the image of that product in the media
that "directs" the buyer. Many may well have never seen a Dunhill or
any other upscale brand before.
>--
>Regards!
>Pascal
>http://www.xs4all.nl/~falparsi/Pipes/index.htm
>
>************************
>Reply-adress is spam-proof,
>Please remove GEENTROEP
>************************
>
>
>
>
>
rpe...@mindspring.com
<j...@blckhrse.clark.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 1999, rpe...@mindspring.com wrote ...
>> I own no Dr. G, but I started smoking with one. I have had several
>> and they all were good pipes. I have had some Dunhills and they were
>> no better. I stand with my statement that if you were blindfolded,
>> and all things were equal, you would not know the difference. Anyone
>> that disagrees with that is full of Horse Shit.
>
>Bill,
>
>You generally enter these discussions to good purpose, and remind all of
>factors they may not often consider, but I think you are getting carried
>away a bit with the above.
>
Perhaps so, Jim, but you know me. All feet and when I jump in I jump
in with all 4 feet.
>Truly, if all things were equal, you would not know the difference, simply
>because if all things were equal there would be no difference. But there
>is always a difference, even between two Dunhills that perhaps were made
>from the same burl or between two Dr. Grabows made from the same ebauchon
>that had been split to make two cheap pipes instead of one larger one.
>
>There is a difference. Though it may not be apparent to someone who
>only smokes Sir Walter Raleigh, Captain Black, or even 1792. (And I am not
>joking about 1792. It is good tobacco, and I like it, but its taste is so
>overpowering that I am not sure it makes any difference if you smoke it in
>a good pipe or in a piece of rubbish. Smoke it in a piece of pipe with an
>elbow on it, and you would still get that nearly overwhelming taste of
>Tonka bean. Which is nice if you like Tonka bean taste, as the tobacco is
>superb in all other respects.)
>
>p.s. If you run across any cheap Dunhills, pay for them and send them on
>to me. Those I have found at the local estate sales have run $2.00 to
>$6.00 each, but it has been a long time since I found one so I am willing
>to come up with a little above and beyond that. I'll take care of the
>cleaning and sanitizing, so you will not need to waste time and money on
>such chores.
You h ave missed out on the ones that Ihave sold. The market is just
too good for them and the capital earned off a sale would be worth
more than keeping the pipe.
rpe...@mindspring.com
<ja...@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I believe that us corn cobers should sit as Nero sat and pass judgment as to
>whether the loser should live or die. Cob stem up and they live. Cob stem
>down and, well, you know.
>*;o)
>--
>Jeff Schwartz
But Jeff, I have been told time and time again that corn cobs burn out
very quickly tho they are good smokers. I must have a bad batch, mine
are all over 40 years old. I will buy another when I truly need it.
They are all good smokers.
rpe...@mindspring.com
I am very familiar with the concept of first and seconds (or any other
number, in that case) and it does not have to be labelled a Dunhill
second to be a Dunhill second. A company that protects its image and
they do, would not do that. They would sell thoses that fail to make
the "first" list to other resellers with the same taken off. And that
is easily done.
>>
>> No company in the world makes products without flaws and grain is not
>> a product over which you have much control. You can get that part of
>> the grain which is considered the highest quality, cut it and find a
>> flaw as big as your thumb. If you think that they throw that one
>> away, you are crazy. They have already invested a certain amount of
>> money into it, so throwing it away is out of the question. It might
>> be branded "made in Italy" on the bottom of the stem and finished
>> differently, but it ain't thrown away.
>
>You're wrong here. Charatan used to throw away a full 10% of its
>production and other manufacturers would have at least that much scrap,
>not counting stuff that cracks in storage before it is even cut.
That was reflected, however, in the Charatan prices.
>
>> >
>> >Many, if not most, pipesmokers have started with Grabow or similar very
>> >cheap pipes, and those who were not turned-off to pipe-smoking by them
>> >frequently remark that they thank God for those cheap pipes because
>> >without them for comparison they would never have known what a good pipe
>> >was.. :-^)
>>
>> That is fine and predetermined by sociological andpsychological facts.
>> It is always safer to be in the herd.
>> >
>
>I don't share your deterministic views: I believe in free will, in
>exercising the intellect, in making critical and aesthetic choices, in
>experiencing what one opines about, in resisting brain-washing and
>conformity by the "Lonely Crowd", the trivialities of pop culture, the
>efforts of Madison Avenue, the Guv'ment, the Establishment of any sort,
>and the ill thought-out arguments of surly ASP pipe bigots...
>
>Paul Szabady
When it comes to customer acceptance of products, free will has only a
little to do with it. Madison Ave., Consumer Reports, and government
reports have more influence that you think.
Madison Avenue could sell a dead snake to snake handlers.
If you are different, that is fine.
Ray Newton
Jeff Schwartz wrote in message <7ui7jf$847$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>I believe that us corn cobers should sit as Nero sat and pass judgment as
to
>whether the loser should live or die. Cob stem up and they live. Cob stem
>down and, well, you know.
Dang tough situation considering how easily and often those cob stem break!
Ray
Jeff Schwartz
times more than once a day. And none that I own are the upscale cobs with
the wooden plug. They are all plug-less. I believe that, with cobs at least,
the more they are smoked the better they taste, with the proper cleaning and
attention paid to them, of course. And as such, I would never buy a cob to
replace one that I already own but, rather, only to augment my rotation.
As a matter of fact, I am thinking of buying a new one for 3 bucks on sale
at the CVS store near where I live. I am thinking it might be cool to toss
it into my bike's saddle bag, along with a few boxes of wooden matches and a
decent stash of my el-cheapo CVS Golden Burley. This way, when I hit the
trails, I don't have to remember to take my cob and tobacco with me.
I know I have only added, or tried to, anyway, some levity to this
discussion, but my own personal opinion is that at this point in time I am
far more concerned with the tobacco that I am smoking and the technique with
which I am smoking it than with the cost of the pipe that I am smoking it in
or the label engraved its side. Maybe one day I will desire a high grade but
when and if I ever do smoke one of them I will still be more focused on what
tobacco goes into it rather than the label on the side of the pipe. Would I
like to own a Dunhill? Sure I would. Would it make me a better smoker? Well,
honestly, I don't know and wont know until I have that experience, if ever,
of actually smoking one of them. Will I enjoy smoking it more than my
non-high grades? Again, I don't know and can't know that until that day that
I actually smoke one of them. Does that mean that I am destined to enjoy my
less-than-Dunhill briars and my cheap, ugly looking cobs any less or that
somehow my smoking experiences are being denied some subjective and
indefinable pleasure or quality? I could be wrong but I don't think so.
I will say this, though, and it is something that I learned from my mother,
which is that in order to appreciate the good things in life I must first
learn to appreciate life when things aren't so good. This is not meant to be
one of those endearing tributes to one's departed mother. Rather, it is a
recognition of a most valuable gift given to me by mine. So pardon my
indulgence in even mentioning it.
(The above typed after having smoked the most delicious bowl of Hartwell
Signature Blend in a Lord Renfrew straight bulldog)
--
Jeff Schwartz
Remove nospam to reply
--
<rpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:380cab0d...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 12:50:46 -0400, "Jeff Schwartz"
> <ja...@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >I believe that us corn cobers should sit as Nero sat and pass judgment as
to
> >whether the loser should live or die. Cob stem up and they live. Cob stem
> >down and, well, you know.
rpe...@mindspring.com
find them. I have a few of those and they have a beautiful feeling,
and taste.
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 14:55:59 -0400, "Jeff Schwartz"
<ja...@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote:
>My cobs show no sign of burn out even though they get used daily and at
>times more than once a day. And none that I own are the upscale cobs with
>the wooden plug. They are all plug-less. I believe that, with cobs at least,
>the more they are smoked the better they taste, with the proper cleaning and
>attention paid to them, of course. And as such, I would never buy a cob to
>replace one that I already own but, rather, only to augment my rotation.
>> >
rpe...@mindspring.com
<rnewton@*removethis*siscom.net> wrote:
>
>Jeff Schwartz wrote in message <7ui7jf$847$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>I believe that us corn cobers should sit as Nero sat and pass judgment as
>to
>>whether the loser should live or die. Cob stem up and they live. Cob stem
>>down and, well, you know.
>
>
>
>Dang tough situation considering how easily and often those cob stem break!
>
>Ray
>
>
They have been plastic for a long time. Before that they were cane.
Jeff Schwartz
that the bowls smoke very hot? I had heard this said about them and wondered
if it was generic of all cherry wood pipes. One thing I really like about
smoking a cob is that their bowls remain very cool. At least they do
according to my perceptions.
--
Jeff Schwartz
Remove nospam to reply
--
<rpe...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:380cc8a8...@news.mindspring.com...
rpe...@mindspring.com
<ja...@nospamix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Yes, eventually I will give one of those cherry wood pipes a try. Is it true
>that the bowls smoke very hot? I had heard this said about them and wondered
>if it was generic of all cherry wood pipes. One thing I really like about
>smoking a cob is that their bowls remain very cool. At least they do
>according to my perceptions.
>--
>Jeff Schwartz
>Remove nospam to reply
I have had no problems with heat in a cherry pipe. I have not,
however, smoked any of the ones turned out by MM. I suggest Ropps.
It has been my understanding that in order to have a good pipe, avoid
splitting, etc., you have to have the bark on and the only one that I
have had that has split was a barkless Ropp. They made some
interesting styles. I have sources if you are interested. I ain't
getting rid of mine.
Janneman
> <baeo...@leru.net> wrote in message
news:380B8365...@leru.net...
> > Just be sure to remember that a battle without physical
confrontation is rarely
> > a battle with a clear, uncontested victor.
> >
> > Jeff Schwartz wrote:
> >
>
> Well said . So in order to remedy this once and for all I think that
at the next show all the
> Graybow fans and all the Dunhill fans should put down their pipes and
put up their dukes and proceed
> to beat the crap out of each other so we can figure out who is right
. Screw the silent auction and
> the smokers social , we'll have the CORPS tough man contest . And as
a bonus , the victor may also
> proclaim which tobacco's are tops and which are horse Sh*t .
>
> Paul
>
>
wait for the last man standing...(evil grin) 氖
--
Jan Kusters
http://www.geocities.com/janneman_nl
OEOEK (OOOOK in translation)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pascal Essers
> Riesman's assertations do not even need to work in regard to the
> quality of the product. It is the image of that product in the media
> that "directs" the buyer. Many may well have never seen a Dunhill or
> any other upscale brand before.
You didn't understand my earlier posting or I didn't put my thoughst right
in english. The assertations are just one factor: they have abselutly no
saying on the produkt itself. The question if something has quality is not
answered by the question why people by produkts since indeed the buying
behavior is not only (or even primarily) determined by quality. But you may
not transfer a conclusion about behavior to a conclusion about quality: that
are two different categories.
Besides: the fact that 999 people are buying a produkt for image does not
mean that er is 1 who is motivated by quality AND notices the quality.
--
Regards!
Pascal
http://www.xs4all.nl/~falparsi/Pipes/index.htm
************************
Reply-adress is spam-proof,
Please remove GEENTROEP
************************
<rpe...@mindspring.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
380ca852...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 20:24:26 +0200, "Pascal Essers"
> <GEENTROE...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >hi all, hi rperry
> >
> >i agree with you're posting a lot, to one essential point, and that is
where
> >you say:
> >
> >> Only that and nothing more.
> >
> >Especially in sociologie good scientist know that that kind of statements
> >are very most likely to be untrue. A lot of aproaches in sociologie have
> >their merrits, ALL aproaches represent (or work with) a few viewpoints
wich
> >means that they are limit in the power of their explanation. Sociologist
> >don't do exact research on the quality of a pipe.
> >Even if you assume that the majority of Dunhill-smokers anly buy the pipe
> >because of the reasons you mentioned, it is still undetermined if a
> >Dunhill-pipe is or is not better. In fact, sociologist is not interested
in
> >that question.
> >
> >But again, I do think that the things you mention play a role.
>
rpe...@mindspring.com
<GEENTROE...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Riesman's assertations do not even need to work in regard to the
>> quality of the product. It is the image of that product in the media
>> that "directs" the buyer. Many may well have never seen a Dunhill or
>> any other upscale brand before.
>
>You didn't understand my earlier posting or I didn't put my thoughst right
>in english. The assertations are just one factor: they have abselutly no
>saying on the produkt itself. The question if something has quality is not
>answered by the question why people by produkts since indeed the buying
>behavior is not only (or even primarily) determined by quality. But you may
>not transfer a conclusion about behavior to a conclusion about quality: that
>are two different categories.
>Besides: the fact that 999 people are buying a produkt for image does not
>mean that er is 1 who is motivated by quality AND notices the quality.
>
>--
>Regards!
>Pascal
>http://www.xs4all.nl/~falparsi/Pipes/index.htm
>
The concept deals with purchasing motives and does not necessarily
involve the product quality at all. The product may, indeed, be
garbage (a very low quality of product), but if the media hypes it and
it is advertised to the right groups, there will be a good market
penetration. The fact that it is not a good product will sooner or
later come into light.
Products that aim at different socio/economic groups are advertised in
different ways. Lower priced cars (new or used) that are focused at
people of lesser socio/economic status in this area of the country are
advertised with a very loud announcer boldly saying something like
"pick up your phone and give us a call!" while the upscale cars (new
or used) which are focusing on a totally different group, will use a
softer method. For a while used upscale cars were not called used,
but were called "Pre-owned."
Specifically I am saying that there is not necessarily any
relationship to the quality of the product (in the US, at least) to
the sales. This may be at first only and as the quality becomes
known, sales will collapse.
And collaterally, there is not necessarily any relationship between
the $volumes sold and quality.
Riesman has been around for a long time, probably since the late 50s
and the early 60s, and is highly accepted on Madison Avenue regardless
of whether or not they have read the book or even aware of it.
The Marketing texts used in the MBA courses that I took used the
concepts all the time, yet there was never a reference as to where the
data came from.
My undergraduate degree being in the social sciences, I was familar
with the concept long before I read the Marketing books.
Pascal Essers
> Riesman has been around for a long time, probably since the late 50s
> and the early 60s, and is highly accepted on Madison Avenue regardless
> of whether or not they have read the book or even aware of it.
Did you ever think of the possibility that the concepts of Riesman give also
an interesting insight in the way theories become popular :-)
--
Best!
Volunteer Briars
writes:
>Madison Avenue could sell a dead snake to snake handlers.
>
As a professional snake handler, I much prefer handling dead ones.
Volunteer Briars
>
>Just be sure to remember that a battle without physical confrontation is
>rarely
>a battle with a clear, uncontested victor.
>
Then I hope and pray that there is never a clear victor. As a matter of fact,
I hope that there is never a victor in this debate whether it takes physical
confrontation or not. I really believe that there is room for all of the
present pipe makers in the world and a few or really a lot more.
Happy smokin',
Earl