micromesh pads | rebornpipes

Blog by Steve Laug

I thought it might be helpful to take some time to address the issue of sandpapers and sanding with regard to the work I do on stems both in removing oxidation and the removal of tooth chatter. I found a great chart on the grits of sandpapers that will help explain the designation system I refer to when I speak of various grits of sandpaper.

When I start on stem that are highly oxidized I use the CAMI (or US Standard system) 240 grit sandpaper. This is the crossover grit between the medium grit sandpapers and the fine grit sandpapers. 280 grit is the first fine grit sandpaper and 220 grit is the last medium grit sandpaper. The 240 grit works very well in removing the surface oxidation and also tooth chatter and tooth dents that have been raised to the surface. I always sand with this paper in vertical direction from the tenon to the button. I have learned that to sand the horizontal direction leaves scratches that are deeper and much harder to remove with the finer grits of sandpaper.

From that point on I have used 320 and 340 fine grit sandpaper but will often skip ahead to 400 grit wet dry sandpaper that works well with or without water. I personally use it with water – wetting the stem and then sanding the scratches left by the 240 grit sandpaper. I begin sanding in a vertical direction up and down the stem and finish sanding the stem in the horizontal direction around the stem from tenon to button. This sanding removes much of the scratching and prepares the stem for further sanding with finer grit papers.

I skip to the 600 grit wet dry sandpaper next to keep refining the sanding of the scratches. By this point the stem is a matte black and clean of most of oxidation. Again I use the paper wet. I wet the stem and sand both vertically and horizontally. I finish the sanding horizontally before moving on to the next grit. If it is available to me I use 1200 grit wet dry paper next to finish off the sandpapers. This grade of paper gives a nice smooth finish.

From this point on in the sanding process I use micromesh sanding pads or micromesh sand paper in the fine grits. I begin with the 1500 grit sanding pad pictured in the photo to the left. The makers of the micromesh pads use a colour system to identify the grit of the pad. The 1500 is the copper/reddish brown coloured pad at the top left of the photo. I use all of the pads with water. I wet the stem and then sand it with the pad. The 1500 grit pad works well to remove any remaining scratches and begins to polish the stem. The wet stem will need to be wiped off regularly of the slurry that is left from the wet sanding dust.

The 1800 grit pad brings the smoothness of the stem one step closer to finished. I always use it wet as well. Once I have sanded the stem to this point I wipe it down and wet it with clean water to see if any scratches remain. If there are some I work on them with the 1800 grit or go back to the 1500 grit until I have removed them. These pads work exceptionally well around stem logos. The 2400 grit takes the shine deeper into the vulcanite or Lucite. I use this to polish the entire stem from tenon to the button. Again I use all pads with water – wetting the stem and sanding them horizontally at this point. The 3200 through the 4000 grit polishes the stem more deeply with each higher grit pad. Used wet and wiped off after sanding the finish of the stem should begin to take on more of a shine and the matte finish should begin to disappear.

The last three grits of micromesh – 6000 to 12000 at first seemed to be over kill to me. But each time I use them I find that the difference between each one is significant. The difference between the 8000 and the 12000 grit is the most dramatic. The 12000 grit used wet leaves the stem with a glassy finish that is ready to have a final buff with carnauba wax.

You will notice from the title of this blog piece that the Dunhill title is framed with question marks. The pipe is a mystery to me all the way around. There is nothing straightforward with it in terms of stamping or composition. It is composed of three distinct pieces (stem, shank and shank/bowl) that have been joined together at some point in the pipe’s history. From the pictures below you can see the junction of the bowl and the shank. The stem on the shank is a white dotted Dunhill stem. How did this pipe come to be and how did it incorporate at least two different pipes? It would be great if this old timer could tell its story because I am sure that it would be an interesting tale. Did the original owner break the shank on his pipe and then have a repair man do the fix? If so, did the repairman use a second pipe shank to add to the bowl for the repair or did the original owner take two of his pipes (both broken) and have them put together in this creative fashion? Did he take the bowl from one and the longer shank and stem from another and join them to form a new third pipe? Was the original of both pipes a Canadian or was the one that the bowl came from a billiard? I don’t think I will ever know the answer to those questions and even others if I took the time to think it out. But I do know that this is part of the pleasure I derive from working on estate pipes. I enjoy trying to put together the story of an old pipe.

I picked this one up from EBay. I was the only one bidding on it. I think the seller had marked it a Dunhill Canadian for sale so it had many viewers but no other bidders. I knew from a quick look at the pictures the seller provided that it was probably not a Dunhill. I could not be certain but the shape of the bowl did not quite measure up to other Dunhill Canadians that I have and the flow of the stem and bowl was different to my eye. Others may be able to point out other inconsistencies that they see but that is what I felt as I looked at the pipe. What caught my eye though and caused me to put in a minimal bid were the shank construction (reconstruction) and the flow of the pipe. I liked the looks of it. I was also curious to see how it was done. It looked like a well done repair, if indeed it was one. I wanted to see it close up and study it. The white spot on the stem was a bonus though I could see from the photos that it was not likely a Dunhill.

When it arrived I took it from the box and did a quick field dress cleaning of the pipe. Reamed the bowl, wiped down the outside with an alcohol damp cloth so that I could see the stamping or remnants of stamping that remained. The bowl portion (the section from the front to the union on the shank) has stamping on the bottom of the shank that looks to be what remains of a Sasieni stamp or at least the last few letters “ieni”. That is a bit mysterious to me in that the other Sasieni Canadian I have has the stamping running in the opposite direction. So my guess is that this one is upside down – not unheard of but interesting nonetheless. The shank and stem portion (from the junction backward to the stem) are definitely from the same pipe. The fit of the stem to the shank is absolutely perfect with no sanding or shaping marks, no gap and no change of profile to the stem. Under a bright light is possible to make out faint stampings on the shank remnant – and I do mean faint. They appear to be the last four letters of Dunhill – “hill” and under that there are the four letters “land” which could be then end of the word England. From that I would conjecture that what I have is a combination of a Sasieni and a Dunhill pipe. The Sasieni contributed the bowl and part of the shank and the Dunhill the rest of the shank and the stem. Whoever did the union of the two old pipes did a superb job as the joint is very well done. The grains of the two parts of the shank are very different and the staining does not match. But other than that it is a flawless union.

With the mystery still unsolved I went to work on the ?Dunhill?/Sasieni. I gave it a better reaming and also cleaned it. The bowl had been very caked when I initially cleaned it so I did a deeper reaming taking it back to the wood. It had a very heady smell of Lakeland style tobaccos so I wanted to remove the remnant of that in the cake and prepare it for the tobacco that I would smoke in it. The shank and stem were tarry and restricted by the gunk inside them. I used a shank brush and many pipe cleaners to clear out the airway. I also tried to shine a light down the bowl to see if there was any evidence of how the repairman had done the union of the shank pieces. But the light would not shine that far down the shank. From the ease with which the pipe cleaners slid down the shank and the smoothness of the airway it was clear that the job was very well done. I also used a drill bit on my KleenReem reamer and ran it through the shank with no catches.

Obviously this was a favourite pipe for the previous owner. It was well cared for, repaired and put together and well smoked. I cleaned it with Isopropyl 99% and then sanded out the tooth chatter on the mouth piece. I wiped down the bowl and shank with undiluted Murphy’s Oil Soap and scrubbed it with a tooth brush. It removed the grime from the bowl and the rim. Once dry I cleaned off the remaining lava on the rim with 400 and 600 grit wet dry sandpaper. Once the bowl and shank were clean I wiped the entirety down with acetone. I wanted to get as much of the stain out so that I could try to get a bit better match on the two parts. I re-stained it with a cherry stain I have in the shop as it seemed likely that it was that colour from what was under the grime. The union of the two is still very visible even with a re-stain. The two parts took the stain very differently. I finished by buffing it with Tripoli and White Diamond before giving it multiple coats of Carnuba wax. I am happy with the results. I have smoked it quite often since the refurbishing and find that it is a great smoker. It is lightweight and comfortable in the mouth and the hand. The only thing that would make it even better in my opinion is to have the whole story behind this pipe. Ah well… I am going to go and fire up a bowl of good Virginia and enjoy adding my story to this pipe.