tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-868014871668986479.post3315288345520638240..comments2023-07-06T12:50:07.706-04:00Comments on The Peterson Pipe Project: Review: Peterson DeluxeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-868014871668986479.post-36547089666596968882007-11-26T00:07:00.000-05:002007-11-26T00:07:00.000-05:00Re. "bit issues," a counterpoint. Personally I ten...Re. "bit issues," a counterpoint. <BR/><BR/>Personally I tend to hold a pipe between my teeth as often or moreso than in my hand. A bit that's too thin can wear excessively or even break off if one has a "hand/arm collides with pipe whilst moving about the house" accident. A bit that's too narrow concentrates the weight of the pipe on too few teeth, which is uncomfortable and also an accident risk. In either case the result is a tendency to be apprehensive about how one smokes the pipe. <BR/><BR/>Thus I prefer the older Peterson mouthpieces that are both thicker and wider. I also enjoy the sense of "presence" they give to the feel of the pipe; as with cigar smokers, for whom a larger ring gauge of the cigar is not a distraction or inconvenience, but a part of the overall experience of smoking it. And given that the geometry of most peoples' teeth is not perfectly symmetrical left to right, there will usually be a place where the pipe fits comfortably, even a larger and heavier pipe. <BR/><BR/>On one hand I'm happy that my preference seems to be in the minority, as there is less competition for the relevant estate pipes. On the other hand, if there were more of us who liked our mouthpieces thicker and wider, perhaps Peterson would accommodate as they have done with regard to the fishtail bits that many prefer. Perhaps this should be a topic for a poll, and some comment by someone from Peterson?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com