I personally do not like faux ivory in any application on pipes and would not use the real thing either.
I like a rather thin look, with simple turnings and prefer the use of many shades-types of wood.
To me, any use of stain on wood is dishonest.
So there 
tansy
To me, any use of stain on wood is dishonest.
So there big grin
So this type is definitely out?
I think the title of this thread is misleading. Peter, you seem to be critiquing both the look and the ergonomics of sets. You make some valid points on the latter but the former is entirely subjective.
Also, in my opinion for what it’s worth, most of the time when people post photos of their pipes, it’s like posting photos of their children. They’re proud of what they have and want to show it off. Social etiquette demands that we tell parents that their children are gorgeous, even if they are not.
Peter
a good looking set of pipes in the eyes
is a sculpture of great importance
I give my 25 years of experience (sculptor) for that
I’ll buy you a pint one of these days
I don’t think so. I think by and large there are criteria that could broadly describe good and bad design, that can distinguish between careless and random throwing together of mismatched shapes and the thought out and detailed design. You can agree or disagree whether or not you like a particular design though.
The arc of a key block and the taperng of a ferrule, the decorative turning style. I think the overall refinement and elegance of a set is what Peter is getting at.
Here’s a photo of a Wooff set to help support my earlier point about the bass drone etc.
http://www.uilleannobsession.com/photos/scpc_mn_2000_11.jpg
Pat.
Patrick said what Peter is…
that arc of a key block tells us something
is’n it?
I think that Peter is creating a synergism with eye and ear
and we all know, he is an artist
sometimes, I repeat …sometimes,
our sound is what whe see
Patrick
Maybe this came up before
but
how is this bellow hinge working
do you have a detail
I certainly wonder sometimes why more pipemakers don’t do the bass drone bend like what Peter mentioned. I don’t think a lot of people realize just how fragile those tenor drones tend to be.
I do like a number of different styles of pipes, I suppose. I’ve seen very nice work up close by Joe Kennedy and Brad Angus that is very nice and understated like a Coyne set. There really is something in terms of the meeting of functionality and aesthetics that made the old Harrington sets something special, though.
As for modern stuff, I really don’t like “imitation ivory” and don’t really see why so many makers continue to use it so often. It’s plastic and you can tell it’s plastic from a mile off. Boxwood or cocobolo can look nice as mounts against ebony, in my opinion. I wouldn’t want cocobolo (or anything other than boxwood or ebony, for that matter) as a tone wood, but some people do, they’re totally happy with it, and their opinions are as valid as mine.
I may be a bit biased, but as far as consciously modern designs go, I like the look of Cillian Ó Bríain’s sets. I’m not sure if it’s a good idea to encase the regulators in so much metal, though. (Cillian made a set or two in boxwood with regulators like that…NOT a good idea, as it turned out). I like the action and durability of post-mounted keys and I think they can be mounted in a way that looks good, but that doesn’t seem to happen too often.
Line, flow, rhythm, proportion…
I think these concepts are as alive in the visual and concrete arts as in music. Not everyone is oriented towards them, and tastes vary (as they do in music). Nonetheless I agree with Peter that visual aesthetic appeal is not altogether arbitrary; there’s something that makes a particular set ‘appear’ to be more exemplary than another.
Not everyone likes rococo - not everybody likes the ‘beehive’ Kenna/Ryan set, for instance, but there’s a certain cohesiveness to it that makes a clear statement. Maybe it’s the aftermarket mounts! (Okay, perhaps that’s not the best example - I personally think the beehive set looks a little peculiar 
)
One way in which something can look “wrong” on a set is if its proportion, color, etc. seems out of balance with the rest of the set. Making the set out of a single timber helps, as does a more-or-less common set of proportions on ferrules, drone diameters versus lengths, and ornamental lines. As has been inferred, tastes do vary but I still reckon that a set that sticks to any one stylistic theme will have an advantage over one whose parts don’t express a common relationship. This is one way in which hand-rolled ferrules have an advantage - the ‘ideal’ sizes, proportionally speaking, are rarely stock tube sizes…
I continue to be amazed, when working at the lathe, how easy it is to offend the eye. A half-millimeter difference in a drone outer diameter seems to make the difference between ‘obviously too big’ and ‘visibly too small’. And because the eye seems to adhere to rules of its own, even perfectly correct mathematical relationships are rarely the ones that “look best”, the ‘middle’ band of a tapered ferrule looks better if it’s not quite centered. There are certainly places in my own work where I’ve received tactful queries from a master craftsman with regard to aesthetic choices, and I have to admit that on reflection I agree with almost all of the implied criticism; there really does exist some ideal to either approach or miss, I think, for any design concept. (So, no, I don’t think I’ve got it right - but I am consciously working at it!)
Form follows function, and the basic dimensions are dictated by acoustics and the demands of the human hand; however the visual artistry comes in repetition, echo, restating these dimensions in varying proportion. The result can be spare or florid, but if it doesn’t form a cohesive whole, it will look clunky.
Personally I think (and hope, having been the perpetrator of a couple of sets where the hat doesn’t match the purse) that it is possible to make a visually integrated set out of multiple timbers - for instance mainstock of different timber from the primary acoustic parts. But it’s bound to be harder to get it just right, either via subtle stains or shellac, or the effect of sealers - it’s one more element to weave into the balance.
(BTW I don’t think there is such a thing as a colorless finish, all finishes and sealers affect the final color and could thus be accused of being ‘stains’ - thus only a wood like ebony or blackwood can really be used “au naturel” IMO)
Other instrument making traditions make this very explicit - violinmaking to take an obvious example. The proportions are indeed functional, but they are also very visually beautiful. Personally I think modern pipemakers could benefit from studying a bit of classical art theory or just looking at great works of architecture…
I think it’s well worth studying the work of Reid, Kenna, Coyne, Egan, and Taylor in this light - while they represent different aesthetics, the best examples of all give (to me at least) the impression of a clear visual aesthetic on the part of the maker. And they also were clearly studying one another and their predecessors - Harrington builds on and borrows from Kenna and others, and Willie Rowsome has clearly looked closely at Egan, and so on.
Bill
dont suppose anyone could point me in the direction of the looks of woods used normally to make pipes, for comparitive reasons ofc 
This is a distraction, right? Peter you dog Okay you got me!
There are lovely qualities about so many different makers pipes. Reid is exquisite to look at - specifically for the turnings and keywork. (Got a great last name too!) Harrington, though I have seen just a few, have a louder style (not talking about acoustics here) that may border on gauche, but still quite beautiful (too bad about mounting ivory over metal though!). Egan - sound ooooh sound!! Geoff Wooff pipes are undoubtedly a proper study in acoustics and superb craftsmanship, as are Koehler and Quinn’s sets.
One thing I’ve learned over the last several years is that there are pipe makers who spend half a lifetime perfecting, finessing, experimenting and (after hours of marvelling about the greatness of those former historical makers) are able to come close to an ideal set of pipes. I think that it may take that long to really appreciate and understand what is need to be known to make a historical set of pipes.
Qualities that are subjective to visual appeal:
wood; colour, grain, tone
metal; brass, silver (colour)
end turnings; ivory, ivorite, wood tone
bellows; padded, woods, hinge, straps
build; equal spacing, clever positioning, drone switch placement, length of drones/regs
keys; style (Taylor/Reid/Egan etc…)
chanter; keys/popping valve, metal top wood top (probably have a topic entirely on chanter keys!!)
Qualities that are subjective to sound:
(this scares me!)
In tune (with itself)
In tune (to A440)
Concert pitch (potentially louder)
Flat pitch (potentially quieter and mellower)
type of wood
style of reed; material of reed
balanced set (drones and regs mostly at par with each other but not overshadowing the chanter) in order of chanter>regs>drones
FWIW.
Darren, the ‘diary’ sections of uilleannobsession.com are a great source of photos of both recent and historic sets. All sorts of timbers represented there.
The ‘classic’ timbers would be ebony and boxwood, with african blackwood coming into fashion in the mid-20th centiury. Real european boxwood became difficult to source into recently, so you also see various “boxwood” sets that are something other than botanical ‘buxus’ species.
Rosewoods started to be used more commonly in the 20th century, but they were around a bit before that. Occasionally you’ll see laburnum on a historic set, but it goes so black over the years that it can fool you into thinking it’s blackwood! And lots of the really old sets (those not made of ebony or boxwood, that is) were made out of “something else”, usually stained, identified usually as “fruitwood” but that could mean any of a number of things.. Google is your friend if you’re looking for pictures of boxwood instruments (with various sorts of stains applied, usually).
Bill
P.S. - apologies for the long-windedness of my previous message
Hi Peter
What if you are in the who cares if it looks like sh*t, it is what it sounds like that counts camp.
David
Seriously there for a second, did you ever hear a fully working set by Egan? We were thinking about that a few years ago but at the time couldn’t really think of even a single one that had all the bits going including an untampered original chanter.
The problem there is that a really good maker who usually puts a lot of time into making a great sounding instrument will extend the care and detail required do do that to the exterior of his pipes.
In my experience by and large pipes that look made without love or vision also sound that way.
I like the pipes to sound good and look pleasing to the eye which is something the old craftsmen makers knew all about. There are instruments out by modern makers that look (imho) hideous with out of proportion bulbous mounts, keys with touchpieces way out of proportion.
Even the Taylor’s with their functional ribbon keys have a certain elegance and are nicely proportioned.
I seem to recall reading that the Taylors used bone for some of their mounts - can anyone confirm this, and is it a viable material and do any modern makers use it ?
There are constant discussion among modern makers about a good replacement for ivory, all sorts of bone, horn, hoof, tusk and tooth have been experimented with but it is hard enough to find material with good availability, enough stability and size and so boxwood mounts have been the rage in recent years and very much out of neccessity.
I find boxwood a nice replacement for ivory as far as my eye is concerned. It seems to blend well with most of the woods commonly used for pipes. As it ages, it turns into a lovely golden/orange color which I find very beautiful.
I had a closer look at my C set today following this thread and after looking at the foty that I posted for Paulo(above).The foty is indeed very misleading and I thought the bass drone doesnae sit out that far surley 
.Well I was right it doesnae.The Middle Drone sits snugly against the Bass Drone which isn’t shewn in the picture,
Sorry aboot the quality of the pictures (camcorder on PC) but it is just to give ye a general idea and opens the debate up so feel free to snipe swipe or gripe..have fun I won’t be upset I promise ye after all I’m happy enough
and the new improved version I am working on
Slán Go Foill
Uilliam
So, where does the reed go here?