We do. I have a Whitmer practice set that I was going to sell since it wasn’t being played. Before I sold it, I discovered a local 14 yr old boy who wanted to give the pipes a try..its currently on loan to him.
-g
Clubs and people do loan out practice sets and equipment all the time. Some people prefer buying their own gear, especially in pipes since ongoing maintenance is involved - getting your reed right, etc. Getting used to something that one would have to pass back is an issue for some. Pipes have also been a good investment for folks.
This thread identifies that Pakistani-made pipes and whatever that other ‘starter’ practice set is is a colossal waste of time and resources for an individual. That gear will not hold or appreciate its value. Nor will someone have ‘joy’ in getting started with the instrument.
And I’d just like to point out one more time that a Pakistani set that has been reworked by a good pipemaker can be a cost effective way of getting into the instrument. And that just because something’s made by an American, Brit or Irishman doesn’t automatically make it playable, either.
I, for one, would be genuinely interested in hearing your definition of “cost effective”, and please, provide some actual examples.
My understanding is that a practice set of Pakistani-made pipes can be (for example) $450. Assuming this is correct, I must now take the chanter and send it off to “Pipemaker X” and ask him to get the chanter into playing order - including a new reed.
How much will “Pipemaker X” charge for reworking the chanter, assuming the following needs to be done:
a) re-bore the stick from top to bottom;
b) re-bore some (if not all) tone holes; - OR -
c) refill and re-bore certain tone holes;
Now - steps (a), (b) and (c) as indicated above will also cost money. And this assumes that you can even find a Pipemaker who is willing to undertake these tasks. To my knowledge, there is one, perhaps two, pipemakers in the USA that will even bother with this. I have heard in the past few years that a certain well-established and highly regarded pipemaker will undertake these tasks, and I’ve heard that the cost of doing so is approximately $1,200. (Please correct me if I am wrong with this number, my memory is poor these days… this MAY be the cost of reworking a full set, but even if it is, the lion’s share of the work is in rebuilding the chanter).
If we can assume these figures and tasks are correct, then the actual cash outlay for a “cost effective” practice set is now onwards of $1,650 US dollars. Again, if my assumptions are correct, then this is hardly cost-effective… and we haven’t even considered the cost of REEDING this newly-corrected chanter.
Now, it is also my understanding that a new reed from a reputable maker can cost as much as $80. With this added (not to mention necessary) cost, you’re at $1,700. For a practice set? And I haven’t even mentioned the aspect of the TIME it would take to get this done. I may be going out on a limb here, but I seriously doubt if the one or two pipemakers that might take the time to rework a Pakistani-made set is going to give it a higher priority than making their own sets, making reeds for their own sets, repairing or upgrading their own sets. Oh yes, then factor in the issue of a Pipemaker having an actual life.
Again - my numbers may be off somewhat, but I have yet to see where a beginning piper would find this method “cost effective”. There’s a reason that the old adage of “You get what you pay for” is as true today as when it was first put to use in the vernacular.
Now, having said all that, there are several very reputable pipemakers who make practice sets that will cost in a range of $500 to $800, and you’ll at least have a pipemaker who will stand behind their product.
Their names / costs / websites /emails have been mentioned on this forum ad infinitum, so there’s no need for me to get into marketing their names and wares.
Well, I got a set off of ebay for about $300, and sent it to a VERY reputable maker, who rebored it and re positioned a couple holes for about $150. Given that Boston Pipeworks wasn’t making their current wares at the time and Mr. Sky didn’t hjave his budget set going yet, it was by far a beter deal than could be found elsewhere. Plus, there was less than a month turnaround. Of course, it’s less of a deal with the above mentioned businesses going strong. In any case, one of these got me started at least 2 years before I ever could have any other way.
Oh, there was another $80 or so for a reed too, so, $530 all told. Also,the maker I referred to still stands behind his work.
OK, fair play then… clearly, my $1200 figure was well off (and I’m thinking that the figure was related to a full set, as there would be drones and regs to deal with as well).
I see a Pakistani practice set for sale on Ebay right now for $412.50… (buy it now price) … this is considerably more than you paid (was yours a resale, by chance)?
Frankly, I think the knock on them is deserved (just my opinion), largely due to the fact that many people that buy them don’t know about places like this forum, or aren’t near a piper or maker who can help guide their decision with experience. That said, there must be a market for them (however small) - otherwise, they wouldn’t be making them.
So - you have a Pakistani-made set, it’s been reworked, and by your estimationyou’re 2 years ahead of the game, and that’s certainly a good thing.
How much time did the rework take (just out of curiousity)?
I think the bigger knock on Pakistani pipes is that the majority of folks that buy them don’t know that they can be reworked.
Very wise man named David Hannum once said:“…” 
There’s a reason this market exists. But some don’t do enough homework before plunking down some (or all) of their change.
Hmmm… was Mr. Hannum perhaps a relation of Mr. P.T. Barnum?
I think I saw that saying posted in Las Vegas (Lost Wages).
No it was not a resale, but it was a few years ago, and there wasn’t the “Buy it now only” thing going on at the time. I thought I mentioned already that it took just around a month to have the work done. Actually, it was a bit longer, but that was due to the maker being on tour at the time I sent it out.
I agree absolutely that they’d be pretty useless without the knowledge (and the plan) to have them reworked. But at least nobody worries about offending another maker by doing the work on them. That can’t be said of some “real” makers’ poorer products.
Wouldn’t it be better to tune the holes from the top down as bore effects are, as far as I am aware, transmitted down the bore.
If you tune from bottom up, the hole you are working on may affect the tuning of a hole you had previously tuned.
This is probably one for the pipe makers amoungst us to confirm.
David
Hi David:
You’ve got a good point there, and what you say certainly seems to be true. But in reality neither method really works; because the pipes are often played quite “closed”, with only one or two toneholes open at a time, and the bottom on the knee, the holes below the open tonehole can also have an effect. I think the best method of tuning toneholes is iterative, and at each step you make a much smaller adjustment that you expect is necessary. After a few cycles, with luck, you may converge on a usable result. The fact that tonehole size effects and reflected-wave effects can vary a lot between octaves is an added challenge.
regards,
Bill
Hi Bill,
Having no practical experience leave me at a disadvantage but are you saying that in the real world the effect of closed tonehole chimneys on a note would be equal from above and below? Can this vary from note to note?
Your iterative method seems excellent, especially in a system where variables are many and difficult to predict. I can also see that if you took off small amounts it would work either way. But I cannot help thinking it would be more efficient to use it from top to bottom. (I am happy to be convinced otherwise).
David
I wouldn’t say equal, but it does vary from note to note. I think that rather than adopting a top-to-bottom or bottom-to-top approach, you would find it better to adjust the “most critical” toneholes first and proceed to the others, in each iteration. Unfortunately I don’t feel that I can say with confidence which toneholes are “most critical”, my experience suggests that this can vary for each chanter/bore design. I would not finalize the back D/bottom D relationship either, before starting to work on the other toneholes, since changes in the back d can affect the A note, and presumably vice-versa.
So personally I would characterize the Ds and the As as “critical” and pay close attention to them at each iteration, before proceeding to B (which of course affects A), Fsharp, G (Fsharp affects G rather strongly), and E, in that order… at least in concert pitch. I guess that’s “sort of” top-down, but I repeat several times. (I try a few different reeds as a reality check during the process, too.)
Bear in mind that the reed will have a profound impact on this tuning, so ideally you need a reed that you have the utmost confidence in before tuning a chanter, otherwise you run the risk of tuning to a less-than-ideal reed. The interplay between reed and bore is the classic chicken/egg problem for chanter design and tuning - at least, this is how it seems to me. Bear in mind that I don’t have the long experience of many of the pipemakers on this forum…
Your iterative method seems excellent, especially in a system where variables are many and difficult to predict. I can also see that if you took off small amounts it would work either way. But I cannot help thinking it would be more efficient to use it from top to bottom. (I am happy to be convinced otherwise).
David
This crap comes up repeatedly. Name one manufacturer that does it. One.
There aren’t any. Why? The work that you are suggesting is outsourced is the easiest and quickest part of the manufacturing process, so there’s no point in outsourcing it.
Of course, there are one or two manufacturers whose output would make you think they had it all done in Pakistan, but that’s another story.
Cheers,
Calum
Hi all,
I’m more-or-less in the boat as described here. A few months ago I had correspondence with Mr CJ Dixon about uilleann pipes and specified out a nice cocobolo set for about $1100 after all options. Much to my surprise, my fiancee presented me with a chanter as a combined Christmas/ birthday present. Knowing less that what I know about the pipes (not that I know much at all) she did not know that bellows & bag would be necessary. This was corrected by upgrading to the starter set and is now a Christmas/birthday/wedding gift. And of course these are the afformentioned pakistani pipes, confirmed with an instruction sheet referring to their site, http://www.mid-east.com/info/uilleann.html.
This has left me in an awkward position. I don’t want to seem unappreciative for the gift. Also, with the wedding our finances will be strapped for awhile. I also do not want to be unappreciative to the knowlegable assistance that Mr Dixon provided.
Can I not at least get the basics down with this set? I tried them out for the first time and they do change notes, albeit with me playing them it sounded like a cross between a sick goose and a party favor.
Can the set be slowly upgraded to a “real” set piece by piece? Eg, after 6 months to a year change to Mr Dixon’s chanter? Would the chanter be the first to upgrade or one of the other pieces. Are parts more-or-less interchangeable? Are reeds common sizes so I could order a “real” reed vs the $3-$6 plastic replacement?
Thanks!
– Glenn
you will not just be able to order a ‘real’ reed…they’re about as far from standardized as…well…let’s just say reeealy consistent makers can usually reed one of their own chanters with fairly standard technique, but even then they will need some individual tweaking.
to get a ‘real’ reed for a pakistani chanter you would need to make it yourself, or find a willing maker and ship him the chanter.
secondly, you can upgrade it like you said. That’s what I did. I started with a pakistani practice set (although a different model) as a gift and later added a nice chanter from bruce childress. Although, with the model you seem to have (I have a rebuilt version of that model that I purchased years later) I’ve needed to seal the bag and bellows, but the short version of all that is there’s no reason why, having a working bag and bellows (assuming they’re working), a better chanter can’t be paired with it.
I’d be appreciative, and don’t criticize much. She didn’t know, and understanding that there will be some issues with tuning and reed response, there’s no reason why you can’t get the mechanics and fingering down with what you have.
Antaine,
Thanks for your reply. I’m sure more questions will come. Now to stretch my fingers so I can reach all of the holes…
– Glenn