Peterson Barley Spigot Release
- Thread starter Streeper541
- Start date
Sir, you're defying the laws of nature and fighting the tides of time. I bid you luck.
I think peterson has improved of late but I do note that the sandblast in the " come on" is far better than any of of the pipes which are available. Advertising "puffery" as is said in the legal world is one thing , and I wanted to buy one, but the pipes on offer don't seem to match.
I have a number of natural or vergin pipes and i like them, however, the patina sometimes looks dirty rather than enticing. Still, i like spigot pipes and the idea is appealing. But...
I have a number of natural or vergin pipes and i like them, however, the patina sometimes looks dirty rather than enticing. Still, i like spigot pipes and the idea is appealing. But...
Truly, literally raw briar---zero finish of any kind applied (Castello's "Vergin" is a good example)---will definitely get dirty-gray looking from smoking and handling.
It doesn't take much of a top coat to prevent that, however. A proper application of carnauba is enough. A flash application of a homogeneous mixture of the proper insect secretions dissolved in alcohol will also do it.
A simple wipe down with stem/mineral oil after every smoke and storing my pipes in a cabinet out of direct sunlight, has all my vulcanite looking new.
I wish i had the budget right now , i love the 305 or 999
I start to love Peterson recently, beautiful simple pipe no frills
I start to love Peterson recently, beautiful simple pipe no frills
You should get one. They are neat pipes.
In my experience, the briar on the more recent pipes is not as good. This is common though. Simply less good briar around now a days. If you click through some photos, you can usually see inclusions on the outside of most of their pipes. The bowls are pre-carbonized so you can't tell if they go all the way through or if there are other pits on the inside of the bowl. Short term this will only affect the heat of your briar while smoking. Long term it can cause burnouts earlier. Not always, but it can.
My recommendation is to get a new one and get an older one (early 80s or earlier) on ebay. And you can judge for yourself which you prefer. Like I said, I enjoy their shapes and styles. Very distinctive. I would like to get a new one; waiting for something to really catch my eye.
Thank you for the info , at least on smokingpipes you can see the actual pipe you get but as you said it’s hard to tell with the pre carbonises bowl . I’m waiting for the right 305 such a classic Peterson shape , thats a bummer the new virgin finish come only in spigot i would love to see it on a system pipe .
Another thing to note is that a lot of their pipes are stained very dark. Some like this style, and it certain pipes I do as well. But dark staining, rusticating, and sandblasting are great ways to hide subpar briar. This is why smooths are generally more pricey. Especially smooth natural stains.
If you've got the cash for it, their Sherlocks are usually primo. This one has great birdseye, light staining so you get a good look at the briar, and the chamber is unfinished so you can scope the inside for any defects. To me, this is a stunning pipe.
Good for you. I also oil after every smoke and I keep them out of all light. I examine them under a halogen lamp. I show no mercy to any green. They are excised.
Some clarification is in order.
ALL finished pipes from reputable makers contain sand pits or other minor flaws. It's only when none of them happen to intersect the surface of the finished shape does a so-called "flawless" bowl result.
Truly subpar briar that has cracks, holes, fissures, etc. is used as firewood.
Any bowls that pass the inspection for suitability as a smoking pipe are equal in that regard. The cosmetics don't figure into it.
Which finish line or series a bowl gets finished AS depends on surface flaw size and count. Something like "No more than two flaws of up to .5mm for Line X; between three and five flaws of up to 1mm for line Y", and so on.
Here is more clarification:
I'm guessing you've checked every pipe ever made so you can substantiate a claim like "ALL finished pipes from reputable makers contain sand pits or other minor flaws." which is simply an inaccurate, untrue statement.
The briar you speak of that is used as firewood is actually called unusable briar. Subpar briar is used to make pipes all the time. And it is masked as I mentioned, by dark staining, sandblasts, and rustication. It happens all the time. This is why there is a cost difference between different briars and cost differences between finishes on pipes and cost differences from maker to maker. Some of it is brand name, but it is for the most part quality. If your statements were true, every pipe would cost the same and there would be no such thing as grading.
A "cosmetic" issue inside the bowl can absolutely cause issues. Saying all pipes that pass the inspection are equal in any regards is, frankly, ridiculous. There is a a reason that Peterson's higher end pipes have unfinished chambers, while their cheaper models are pre-coated.
To suggest that a $100 Peterson is going to smoke the same as a $400 Peterson is intentionally misleading.
Sounds like you are intent on arguing about what the meaning of "is" is, and engage in some mud-wrestling on the side.
Sorry, not interested.
Sorry, not interested.
No one is mud-wrestling. I addressed the points you made which were almost all entirely incorrect. And you KNOW they are incorrect. Which is why you are not interested in rebutting the facts that I put forward:
- there is a spectrum of briar that ranges from unusable to flawless. fact.
- pipes are frequently made (generally factory pipes) from subpar briar (meaning briar that has many inclusions and pits), fact.
- while these inclusions don't render the pipe a bad pipe, they certainly aren't high quality, fact.
- staining, blasting, rusticating, and pre-carbonizing are methods used to mask imperfections, fact.
I didn't even get into aging, curing, and different growth regions of briar. But I guess somehow all of that is just arguing semantics as you accuse me of.
It’s fun for most parts except the nose.
