Page 3 of 3

Re: The billiard thread

Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:59 pm
by SlowToke
A_Morley wrote:
Mon Jun 05, 2017 8:57 am
Remind me again. To what degree is the bowl of a billiard canted slightly forward?
Typically around 2 degrees give or take. There's no hard and fast rule but even a little too much or not enough and it's quite obvious. I typically shoot for around 2 degrees.

Re: The billiard thread

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:48 am
by wosbald
+JMJ+
SlowToke wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:57 pm
Making pipes as small as a group 1 and keeping the proportions right is a very difficult task. The smaller a pipe gets; the less room there is for error in shaping. On larger pipes, you can often recover from mistakes by simply making the pipe smaller.
Ah, that makes sense. But the pith of my post (to which, perhaps, you were not responding) was that Dunhills are —more or less —all perfectly shaped, whether large or small or tiny. Yet it seems that the vast majority of Group 1 billiards, while proportioned perfectly according to a particular billiard template, are still not shaped according to this template.

To wit:

wosbald wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:21 am
Image

Group 1. Yes, Group 1.
Image

Not that there's anything wrong with the second example. It is a fine and proper billiard, and one might well prefer it. I simply thought it was interesting as to which template seems to be predominant and wondering as to why it might be so.

Re: The billiard thread

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:57 am
by SlowToke
wosbald wrote:
Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:48 am
+JMJ+
SlowToke wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:57 pm
Making pipes as small as a group 1 and keeping the proportions right is a very difficult task. The smaller a pipe gets; the less room there is for error in shaping. On larger pipes, you can often recover from mistakes by simply making the pipe smaller.
Ah, that makes sense. But the pith of my post (to which, perhaps, you were not responding) was that Dunhills are —more or less —all perfectly shaped, whether large or small or tiny. Yet it seems that the vast majority of Group 1 billiards, while proportioned perfectly according to a particular billiard template, are still not shaped according to this template.

To wit:

wosbald wrote:
Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:21 am
Image

Group 1. Yes, Group 1.
Image

Not that there's anything wrong with the second example. It is a fine and proper billiard, and one might well prefer it. I simply thought it was interesting as to which template seems to be predominant and wondering as to why it might be so.
I see what you are saying. My guess is that the top billiard looks proportionately chubby and compact compared to the second one you posted most likely due to limitations set by the mortise and tenon diameter as well as the thickness of the briar at the heel of the bowl.

Re: The billiard thread

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:15 pm
by Cleon
Image

Re: The billiard thread

Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:19 pm
by SlowToke
I edited my last post because it didn't make sense.