Gentlemen,

I enjoy smoking a pipe each evening. I currently use an EA Carey "Magic inch", but I'm looking to add some estate pipes to my collection.

I was wondering what the consensus is on storing a pipe between smokes? Is it best to leave the ash and any remaining tobacco in the bowl or empty it when putting it aside for the evening? My concern, and the reason for the question, is that there is sometimes a small amount of moisture in the bottom of the bowl. It's not much (and is probably due to my inexperience with the pipe as I'm still on the learning curve), but I'm wondering if I should dry it out or just let it be.

Thoughts?

Shawn

Views: 203

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Unloaded.

 When the Tobacco goes out, sulfur dioxide and several other lovely chemicals are formed in the extinguishing of the pipe, rather deliberate or not. 

Michael,

Thank you for the quick reply. I was leaning towards unloaded.

Shawn,

I recommend storing it unloaded and clean as reasonably possible.  If the pipe doesn't dry out and rest adequately between smokes, it can get sour.  I store mine with a clean pipe cleaner in, just to help absorb any extra moisture.  As for the ash - tap it out as best you reasonably can.  You do want cake to accumulate inside the bowl, but don't worry about leaving behind ash just for that reason.  Cake will accumulate in time, and it's not something you can rush.  Stray ash will only settle in the bowl and can end up in your mouth while lighting the pipe.

You didn't ask about this, but if you're looking for estate pipes, I would suggest finding a few decent used Petersons.  You can pick them up on ebay for around $40, and if taken care of, can last a lifetime.

Enjoy, my friend,

Arnim

RSS

Latest Activity

Sir replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"What a reasonable response!"
1 hour ago
Sean replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"Technical point:  "extramarital" means "outside marriage".  So for the single person the act may not be cheating, but it is still, strictly speaking, extramarital."
2 hours ago
Daniel replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't considered it "cheating" or "extramarital" for the single one, since a single person has no commitments to cheat against, hence the distinction between extramarital vs…"
8 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
9 hours ago
Sir replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"Cashing in on men who fear their wives are stepping out? Or -- based on the "change in relationship paradigm" thing -- men who want to be the ones doing the stepping. "
9 hours ago
Sir replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"Play with it a little.  First, imagine that in your universe, nobody ever cheats.  So that's 0 hetero extramarital/amarital sex acts for women, 0 for men. Uh-oh.  Somebody did one.  It's hetero, so there's 1 man…"
9 hours ago
Michael D. Denny replied to Todd Serveto's discussion Revolting, Macabre Details About Planned Parenthood's Gruesome Barbarism--Where Are The Excuses? in the group The Great Debate
"It is obvious. Liberals just refuse to accept that water is wet."
9 hours ago
Daniel replied to Joshua Hudson's discussion The Real Reason Women Cheat
"Valid point. And I suppose it's still "extramarital" even if he's not married? Or perhaps it would be "amarital"... Anyway, the statistic does seem off, but I wouldn't know."
9 hours ago

© 2015   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service