Gotta say that I love the shape of your quaint. Traditional shaping, not an apple but a topped apple; calling attention to itself by not ending up bulldog or rhodesian, yet with the diamond shank and stem of the former; and ending with the attitude of a good amount of cant. It's interesting what excitement a diamond shank/stem can add to a shape.
So I see three things in this shape:
unusual shape of the bowl
cant
diamond shank/stem
Imagine if this were a bulldog:
retains diamond shank/stem
looses most or all of the can't
traditional bulldog bowl
Few makers do traditional shaping through all of their pipes as well as Dunhill, and this pipe bears witness to that excellence. Though I love traditionalism, it's going to be a long time (eternity) before I pay double, or triple, for a Dunhill, especially as so many other makers can make pipes just as well, in England alone Chris Askwith and Jimmy Craig. These makers I'm sure push their pipes out more quickly than Dunhill, and in so doing probably allow details of fit and finish that Dunhill would not. If so I wouldn't particularly care as long as the pipe smoked well; and I have pipes by both; and they do. As above in my post about Dunhill patents, I finally am smoking a Dunhill, and a Dunhill from a venerated era at that. A more experienced smoker might have noted its superior smoking properties. I don't. I am susceptible as others to brand myth, but that doesn't mean I will pay for it.
Certainly the following statement is reductionist. "A pipe is an article with two holes in the front, one able to hold tobacco, and the other that opens to a passage that transports the smoke of the burning tobacco to a third hole, inserted into the mouth, through which the smoker sucks the smoke." This pipe might be much more primitive than most pipe smokers would accept. Doubtless many have seen such pipes on eBay, featuring duct tape reinforcement around the bowl or with a stem so fractured that even the most moderate clench threatens disintegration. Well-cured wood, airway and a comfortable bit might be called the internals of a pipe, shaping, fit and finish the externals. Would a primitive pipe as above pay attention to either of these aspects? Probably not as not a good smoker. I use this primitive definition not to advocate for its sufficiency but to put forward that most pipes meet the criteria of internals and externals at least reasonably well, and to question how it is that the pipes of certain makers commonly fetch $1,500.00 as their most humble creation. All I can say is how these extravagantly priced pipers appear to one whose pipes contain not one from the higher of the high end. If the pipe I pulled for a smoke was indeed such that it had impeccable internals and externals, and if I pulled the same impeccable pipes for most smokes, I would, by the experience of these smokes, have more valuable things to say.
When I think about this, Savinelli comes to mind, not that they do not make great pipes for the money. What do they really offer? A reasonable quality pipe for a reasonably matching price. But how do Savinelli, Brebbia, Stanwell and Peterson compete? Its my contention that buy making enough shapes to appeal to everyone, with an attractive finish atop the same internals. I would wager that all of these companies showcase their wares in glossy catalogues to be put in the hands of tobacconists, and more than a few in the hands of consumers. I would also bet that they represent themselves directly at pipe events.
I wandered from the discussion above about the last post about the quaint but will return to it by stating that I do love it for a shape that is more traditional than otherwise, but with features that make that shape exciting.