THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



Cold Blasts" Fail at Critical Times.— Shav- 

 ings for Fuel.— The Bingham has no Rival 

 But Could be Improved by the Crane, 

 Valvular Arrangement. 



,T. H. LABRABEE. 



ffi-^^ ^'■^* smok- 

 Ter 1 ever used 

 was a tin pail with 

 a shingle on the 

 top. This was a 

 good one yet I 

 gave up using it 

 because it was not 

 as handy, or per- 

 haps I might call 

 Li t m o r e handy, 

 __ : requiring two 



hands instead of 

 one to manage it. Mr. Cogshall of New 

 York, I think, used a smoker of this kind. 

 He has holes near the bottom for a draft and 

 an appropriate handle. Such a smoker hav- 

 ing a large iire box, won't go out easily. 



The Clark was never my favorite. The 

 main objection I have had to the Clark was 

 its liability to go out, as there is no forced 

 draft. Unless the fuel is of a particular 

 kind and very dry, it will often be found at 

 the critical moment to have taken Mr. 

 Root's pledge and " given up smoking." 



The Quinby is a very good smoker but 

 has no points of superiority and several 

 minor points in the mechanical construc- 

 tion that induce me to choose the Bingham. 

 The Hill smoker should be mentioned. It 

 is a very good smoker, but the fire box is too 

 small to suit me. Another thing that both- 

 ers me some is the tube running from the 

 bellows through the fire box. This gets in 

 the way and as the draft is not forced the 

 smoker must give way in my estimation to 

 the old reliable. 



Is it well for the bee-keepers that there is 

 no real rival to the Bingham smoker ? I am 

 induced to thmk that it is, for in the hands 

 of such a man as Mr. Bingham this best of 

 implements will never be made of anything 

 tending to render it less durable or effective. 

 Mr. Bingham may have a sort of monopoly 

 of the smoker and honey knife business but 

 we want monopolies of this kind, to furnish 

 us the best goods at reasonable prices. 



My favorite fuel for a smoker is planer 

 shavings. I have used with moderate success 

 hard wood, rotten wood, cobs, and rags, yet 

 all of these blow cinders and bits of fire into 

 the hive. After you have learned to use 



planer shavings it will surprise you how 

 easily the smoker is filled and how long it 

 will remain burning when left for a time. I 

 think there is more creosote formed with 

 this fuel than with any other and this is a 

 bother when it runs down the outside of the 

 nozzle. 



Now, since I prefer this fuel, I want a 

 larger smoker than the present Dncfor. My 

 idea of a smoker would be the Bingham 

 made with a four inch tube about two inches 

 longer than the one at present used on this 

 smoker. Such a smoker you would at once 

 pronounce as too large and unhandy. But 

 why unhandy ? The difference in weight 

 would not be noticed and appearance counts 

 for but little by the side of utility. 



I wrote the foregoing without having read 

 the leader of Mr. H. upon the subject. I had 

 imagined that I would be almost alone in 

 advocating planer shavings, and here the 

 editor himself comes out with me. I learned 

 the value of shavings from Mr. Heddon's 

 writings, and as Mr. Heddon and the editor 

 have largely worked together in their ideas 

 I doubt not but the latter imbibed at the 

 same fountain that I did. Anyway, his ideas 

 of how to light the smoker fit mine to a dot. 

 The discription is very graphic. If one gets 

 just the hang of the thing it is quite easy to 

 ignite the shavings and get the smoker 

 warmed up to the "holding on "pitch. I 

 was somewhat amused to see Prof. Cook and 

 his student.^ attempt to start a fire in the 

 smoker. Not being used to this fuel, they 

 first filled the smoker half full, then after 

 burning of fingers with the match they got a 

 thin blaze to stream up from the match 

 and a few ignited shavings, when the fire box 

 was quickly filled and the nozzle clapped on, 

 puff I puff ! no smoke. 



I think that the new improvements in the 

 Bingham whereby it is unnecessary to tip 

 the smoker upside down to blow smoke into 

 the top of the hive is a vast improvement, I 

 know how it works having seen and used a 

 similar device on the old smoker made by 

 Mr. Manum. It was, and is, a very good 

 thing. 



I have also seen Mr. Crane's improvement 

 upon the Bingham. It is very ingenious and 

 if Mr. Bingham could get hold of the idea 

 and apply it to his smokers we would have 

 one more improvement. I think we do not 

 care so much for 25 cents added to the price 

 and cost of a smoker as we do to have the 

 implement as near perfect as possible. 



