Re: My Take on High Grades

RickPiatt wrote:
"Briarroot" <woodsyl@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1237dg3999lk2b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Your refusal in no way effects reality. It's quite simple: if it is
possible for a Dunhill pipe to be a poor smoker, it is also possible
for a Grabow to be a great smoker. Discussions of the odds (very high
in the case of Grabow, not nearly so high in the case of Dunhill) are
irrelevant. It *is* possible and your dismissal is, flatly, wrong.
If you're trying to tell us that what lies outside your experience
simply does not exist, you're doing a very good job!

Tim, this blows me away that we're acutally arguing about the concept that a
Grabow might be on par with a Dunhill. This is simply amazing to me.

So I see. What I am saying is that a particular Grabow *might* be a great smoker, though the odds do seem poor, and a particular Dunhill *might* be a lousy smoker, though again the odds are low. What you are saying is that you reject what many people have *already* experienced. Several people have posted in this thread about their poor experience with Dunhills, but rather than accept the fact that not all Dunhill pipes are perfect smokers, you have chosen to advance the idea that these poor pipes were improperly "broken in." <laughter!>

Likewise, you have glibly dismissed the evidence of numerous Grabow fans, who love their cheap little pipes, by baldly stating that they lack experience! Not only is this patently false, but it's rather bad form on your part, I must say!


You're going out of the realm of the believable into the realm of the
theoretical to prove your point. While it is "possible" that Yugo might
have produced one great car out of the batch of junk they made, it's insane
to assume that any single Yugo might have been on par with a Bentley (feel
free to insert any car you happen to respect here - the manufacturer is
unimportant - what I'm trying to do is juxtapose the situation in other than
pipe terms to illustrate the lunacy of this argument). While it is fair to
say that a wooden row boat is every bit as much a boat as the Queen Mary is,
it is ludicrous to assume they're on par with each other. Whie its
conceivable that a $39 bass guitar that I could buy at Walmart might be
better than a Rickenbacher 4003, it would be insane to ever expect it to be
so. Do I need to keep illustrating? I don't think so.

Stuff and nonsense! You've completely missed the point.


Heh. It's quite possible that someone here holds the same opinion of
Dunhill pipes: they're just tobacco incinerators and in no way
approach the exquisite perfection of a 'Bo' or a 'Jess' or other truly
high grade pipes.

That is quite possible - and maybe a 'Bo' or a 'Jess' are so far above a
Dunhill that I might not be able to imagine the difference - but that's not
the point... I would equally state that a 'Bo' or a 'Jess' - even a dud (if
they ever made one) would smoke better than a Grabow.

Again, you are ignoring the actual experience of real people.


LOL! Don't hand me that BS! I'm examining your logic, not your
pipes. There are numerous individuals, both here on ASP and
throughout the pipe smoking world, who are of the opinion that Dunhill
does not make "high end pipes." You display all the enthusiasm of the
newly converted, but Dunhill is not a brand universally accepted as
"high grade."

Not "newly converted" - I've smoked Dunhills for at least 3-4 years now and
they simply out-perform the low end junk I previously purchased - especially
the Grabows.

That *is* newly converted!


As to whether a Dunhill is a High End Pipe - again, thats not
the original point. Your statement I think was rather aimed at slapping me
for disagreeing with you - a childish attempt and I reject it.

Not at all. I am merely attempting to make you see the poor logic behind your own remarks.


The original poster brought up the comparrisson between Grabow and Dunhill, not
me - I just simply refused to agree with it.

And I'm trying to point out your mistake. As a brand Dunhills are undoubtedly more valuable than Grabows. No one is arguing with that; and I never said that the *average* Grabow is a better smoker than (or equal to) the *average* Dunhill, and I don't need to defend that false position. You introduced that charade, not I. What you did say was: "I categorically reject the idea that any Grabow junk will ever out smoke a Dunhill." And *that* is what I have objected to because it is simply and completely false. Some Grabows *will* be better smokers than some Dunhills. Period.


Not at all. Your responses have provided an apt illustration for my
own opinion of "what makes a high grade pipe," and that is
*Perception* - nothing more than perception. (Not that there's
anything wrong with that!) ;-)

There is a catch phrase I've heard often ... "perception is reality" ... it
sounds nice but it is a load of garbage.

That's *not* what I said. Read it again. However you or I may define "reality" is irrelevant, the fact that our perceptions differ is obvious - hence my point.


High grade pipes as originally
posted in this long, beat up thread are a matter of quality engineering,
excellent fit & finish, and years of proven track record with great customer
support.

What is a high grade pipe? Does a high grade pipe cost more than $300? Or more than $1000? Do high grade pipes possess all those qualities that you've highlighted? It doesn't really matter. Your definition is your own, as is each individual collector's. Since this definition varies with each individual, I chose the word "perception."


Whether you "perceive" that a Grabow - a pipe that has been around
for years and due to it's "historically great quality" has earned an average
price tag of about $20 is on par with a pipe such as a Dunhill that likewise
has been around for years and has earned an average price of $400 is
irrelevant. Truth is truth. How you perceive it is how you use or misuse
that truth. Dunhill is simply a better pipe. Time has proven it. The
market place has proven it. If you perceive Grabow to be a better pipe then
your perception is simply incorrect.

You're confused. Read what I wrote again. I'm talking about individual examples of each maker, not the overall quality of the brands. I have no argument with anyone who states that the average Dunhill pipe is better than the average Dr. Grabow pipe, but that isn't what you said. I'll quote you again. You said: "I categorically reject the idea that any Grabow junk will ever out smoke a Dunhill." You were wrong. Recognize that fact and this disagreement will be at an end. However, I note further that you have also stated that Grabows are just "tobacco incinerators" and Dunhills are "heirlooms," and "you'll never convince me of anything less." I'd say you've painted yourself into quite a corner!

<shrug>

Regards,

Tim Parker ... Dorchester in a Savinelli 1994 Pipe-of-the-Year
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My Take on High Grades
    ... for a Grabow to be a great smoker. ... not nearly so high in the case of Dunhill) are ... pipe terms to illustrate the lunacy of this argument). ... High grade pipes as originally ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: My Take on High Grades
    ... Rather than the pipe smoking better or worse it is more ... likely a matter of a personal fondness for the old Grabow that makes one ... Dunhill here) that has not gone through the same smoking process for as many ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: My Take on High Grades
    ... "Perception" is not what makes a high grade pipe and it never is. ... I don't assume Dunhill NEVER made a dud. ... Grabow to be a great smoker. ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: My Take on High Grades
    ... possible for a Dunhill pipe to be a poor smoker, ... for a Grabow to be a great smoker. ... Dunhill) are irrelevant. ... that Yugo might have produced one great car out of the batch of junk ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)
  • Re: Dunhill "Magnum"
    ... favourite one (Dunhill "Nightcap"). ... will just be too hefty stuff in this pipe. ... desert smoker wrote: ... unsmoked Dunhill "Magnum" from 1926, but I don't want to smoke it, ...
    (alt.smokers.pipes)