Group Sizes, Especially ODA

[saltedplug]

When I used to ask about group size from this one veteran retailer, he would say "It's Dunhill X," and as he said the word "Dunhill," his voice would have an odd inflection. He never said what he was communicating with the inflection, nor did what he say ever make the definition for group size clear. But hey, I'm no dummy, I understood it to be a large pipe, which in my mind approximated a group 6.

But I've been looking at listings for ODAs online and smokingpipes listings at length, in the course of which I found the words behind the acronym, "Over Sized Dunhill." But even in sp writeups, size is by no means the determining factor in the designation. Apparently shape and what Dunhill meant for the size in that shape figure in.

When I want to know size I want to know size, and just size. What does size have to do with shape? Very little, to my mind! The further convolution of what Dunhill meant for size in a particular shape is only of interest for a Dunhill historian. For me these added considerations have amounted only to years of confusion.

I daresay that even among seasoned retailers there is a good amount of confusion. If someone calls about the size of a particular pipe, are they going to say that it's

Dunhill Bruyere (ODA) (850 F/T) (1966/69)​

when its chamber is 17mm X 37mm? The caller is going to hear group 6 when the pipe is a 4. Does the retailer really have the time to explain this contradiction? He likely is going to translate what he says into the common use of group sizes.

Even worse, consider:

Dunhill Root Briar Patent (ODA) (834) (1952)​

with a chamber of 22 X 29 mm, I would say a prince. So yes the chamber width is oversized for a prince, but the pipe size overall is hardly worthy of of the ODA pronouncement.

Finally there are several indeed large pipes in these listings that are also called ODA.

What a mess!

 

[fireground_piper]

I dislike any form of group sizings. When I hear someone mention it, it goes in one ear and out the other for me. Give me dimensions! You can't misinterpret those unless you try to.

 

[kcghost]

I gather that Group 4 is about average and 5 and up are larger bowls and 3 and down are smaller bowls.

 

[Chasing Embers]

I gather that Group 4 is about average and 5 and up are larger bowls and 3 and down are smaller bowls.

Thats how I've always thought of it.

 

[verporchting]

I’ve had a number of similar conversations with well respected pipe restoration experts and the consensus seems to be that it’s confusing and more of a guideline or suggestion than a clear cut measurement. Exceptions are not uncommon so … yeah, I agree with the comments above. Group 4 is a pretty good size and usually bigger than a group 2, shape doesn’t come into it, and it’s not a hard and fast rule.

Meh, I can live with it.

 

[sablebrush52]

If gets weirder. Talking with a number of Dunhill collectors, I've heard the following. The group appellation has nothing to do with chamber size. It has to do with the size of the stummel, or the block used in making the pipe. The origin of the OD, which is followed by a number of different letters, ODA, ODB, etc, has it origin in the OD designation for "Own Design" from the 1920's. ODs were originally designs that customers submitted to Dunhill to have carved for them.

This may be of interest:

The Early Dunhill OD - Pipedia

pipedia.org

 

[saltedplug]

I gather that Group 4 is about average and 5 and up are larger bowls and 3 and down are smaller bowls.

Exactly, that's how it's used, but to my in mind and say that to be a four that particular Dunhill shape was customarily a 4, is confusing. In that regard who cares about Dunhill?

 

[saltedplug]

Thanks to sablebrush we have a further addition to our understanding of the ODA designation, making the matter even more convoluted and weird than it already was.

Did users put forward the position that I posted? Much as the information in the article sablebrush linked was valuable, it says nothing about my or sable's view, that the designation was about block size.

It would seem to me just as likely that users developed their own definitions for group sizes in the absence of or despite Dunhill, and we basically can communicate using them. Knowing what or why ODA is used is much less clear.

I say leave Dunhill out of it.

 

[daveinlax]

I dislike any form of group sizings. When I hear someone mention it, it goes in one ear and out the other for me. Give me dimensions! You can't misinterpret those unless you try to.

I’m the opposite, I think and casually describe pipes in in Dunhill group size.

 

[oldgeezersmoker]

I’m the opposite, I think and casually describe pipes in in Dunhill group size.

As do I, recognizing the variables in almost all human classification efforts. I once owned a Dunhill Shell 840 and a Bruyere 840, both made n 1963. The Bruyere was a slender, almost 2.5 inches tall, piece. The Shell was chubbier, 2.25 inches tall. I enjoyed both, the obvious discrepancy never bothered me.

 

[mso489]

I have the illusion of knowing the Dunhill group sizes by ordering a few pipes from Iwan Ries so I knew them more or less. I've never seen any actual specifications, and sable seems to explain why. SP just dishes up the actual specs, chamber diameter and depth, weight, etc.

 

[bullet08]

I have no clue what Dunhill size is all about.

 

[sasquatch]

The group size is actually not a pipe size, which is why people get confused. The only number on a Dunhill in the early days was the size number for the replaceable aluminum (or I guess aluminium in England) innertube. But of course, smaller pipes mostly took smaller innertubes.

 

[sasquatch]

There's no mention of "group" sizes in any catalog I know of. I take it to be a sort of "artefacted" thing, a thing that arrives in usage and the popular consciousness of tobacconists and collectors over the years. But it's over little use - a "group" 4 shape 120 is a vastly bigger pipe than a group 4 shape 36, for example. Castello's k-kk-kkk-kkkk-G sizing on rustic pipes is probably more useful.

 

[dmcmtk]

As mentioned above, for a better understanding of the OD pipes, read,

The Early Dunhill OD - Pipedia - https://pipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_Dunhill_OD

Note, the discussion is as much about the shape of the pipes, as their sizes.

You can also see,

A DUNHILL ODA SHAPE CHART - Pipedia - https://pipedia.org/wiki/A_DUNHILL_ODA_SHAPE_CHART

THE POST WWII “ODA/800” SERIES - Pipedia - https://pipedia.org/wiki/THE_POST_WWII_%E2%80%9CODA/800%E2%80%9D_SERIES

 

[dmcmtk]

There's no mention of "group" sizes in any catalog I know of.

Yes, but they are mentioned in the shape charts after their adoption.

 

[ssjones]

Just let me know the pipe weight in grams, that's all I need. I'll figure it out from there.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I have always avoided sellers that use group sizes, and people who use group sizes on forums, I just skip their responses, because I assume they are trying too hard to sound like a snob. Not that there’s anything wrong with a snob in general, but stupid pseudo snobs drive me nuts. Just be a regular snob.

They opened the can of worms, let them lie in it.

 

[dmcmtk]

I have always avoided sellers that use group sizes, and people who use group sizes on forums, I just skip their responses, because I assume they are trying too hard to sound like a snob. Not that there’s anything wrong with a snob in general, but stupid pseudo snobs drive me nuts. Just be a regular snob.

They opened the can of worms, let them lie in it.

Maybe it's just because I've handled and owned enough English pipes that I have a good sense of group sizes. Smoking a group 4~5 size Bonfiglioli pipe right now, but it's too warm for the smoking jacket.

Cosmic, please realize my reply is totally tonge in cheek.

 

[sablebrush52]

Yet another reason why Barlings are the far superior pipes.?