S.M. Frank History and Information

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

Watch for Updates Twice a Week

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Jun 9, 2015
3,926
24,481
42
Mission, Ks
The following was written and posted by @jguss in another thread, I'm re posting it here as the kick off for the SM Frank history thread.




It's tough to know where to begin with this one. Kaywoodie and its related entities form a story fully as convoluted as the Cadogan analogue on the other side of the Atlantic. Worsening the tangle, Kaywoodie and Cadogan held interlocking interests in subsidiaries at one point to facilitate each of their export sales. To a large extent the Pipedia version is correct, as far as it goes, although details are sometimes seriously wrong. I've put off doing anything about it because of the complexity and multiplicity of people, companies, and events. I actually started a draft a dozen years ago but had to set it aside due to more pressing obligations (i.e. earning a living); it'll be a retirement project assuming I live that long. For now I'll make a few points and provide an extremely brief chronology. Hopefully this will provide a little incremental clarity.

First the prefatory remarks:

-it's almost impossible to make sense of this mess without know the individuals involved; each entity brought its own people into the mix, and in many cases they (or their children) played key roles

-think of an org chart of hideous complexity with shifting lines leading from one box to another, criss-crossing like cooked spaghetti dumped on the floor. To really understand what happened you need to create multiple parallel timelines showing when companies were created, merged, bought, and sold until you wind up with the SM Frank of today.

Here's a grossly simplified narrative. Each of these entities could easily be the subject of a chapter in a tediously long book:

-The oldest business is KB&B (1851), the key men were Leopold Kaufmann and Solomon Bondy, later joined by Leopold's brother Gottlieb Kaufmann
-Next came Reiss Bros & Co (c. 1886); the key men were brothers Julius and Otto Reiss (another brother named Nathan was in the tobacco leaf business), plus their sister Marie Reiss' husband Nathan Burger, and most importantly later on Marie's son Jacob (later Anglicized to John) David Burger; he played the pivotal role in the industry consolidation which happened a few decades later
-Next comes the Premier Briar Pipe Co (June 13, 1913), formed by Carl Hirsch (who immediately prior to this foray into pipemaking on a large scale had started another company which had gone bankrupt about the same time this venture was launched). Carl's nephew Rudolph Hirsch was to play an important leadership role in the combined businesses many years later
-Reiss-Premier Pipe Co was formed as the result of a merger between Reiss Bros and Premier Briar Pipe in 1920. The deal was orchestrated by John Burger (by this time his father and two uncles, the three original partners in Reiss Bros, were long dead) who ran the combined entity
-In August 1926 Reiss-Premier purchased a controlling interest in KB&B and operated it as "an associate company". Another "associate company" at that time was the Civic Premier Pipe Co, which was designated as the American representative of the UK's Civic Pipe Company, Ltd (the relationship between Cadogan and Reiss-Premier et al is worth a chapter of its own; this arrangement of course accounts for the appearance of the made-in-England Drinkless pipes appearing at this time). In the wake of the KB&B deal Reiss-Premier grew to 300 workers
-Five months before the crash of 1929, in April of that year, Burger negotiated a partial sale of Reiss-Premier to United Cigar Stores of America under David Schulte in the form of a stock swap. United Cigars purchased 49% of the company for equity in United Cigar valued at $735,000
-Meanwhile there is a parallel path involving the progress of Samuel Morris Frank (S. M. Frank & Co est. 1900) as he grew his business both organically and through acquisition. Two examples of the latter are the purchase of Manhattan Briar in 1922 from American Tobacco, and more significantly of Wm Demuth & Co bought from D. A. Schulte Inc (a subsidiary of the Schulte Retail Store Corp) in 1937. Here again the story is complicated but in brief Schulte had bought Demuth in the Spring of 1927. By the mid Thirties the Depression had taken a severe toll on Schulte's business and it was in financial distress. A legal reorganization that started in 1936 continued into 1937, in which year Schulte sold Demuth to S. M. Frank to raise some much needed cash
-After the acquisition Frank, driven at least in part by an impending loss of its own factory due to eminent domain, promptly consolidated its production into the Demuth Richmond Hill facility
-Meanwhile back at Reiss-Premier when John Burger died in 1944, Rudolph Hirsch wound up winning the succession contest to run the combined businesses
-Just six years later Associated Products, a Chicago manufacturer of deodorants, bought Reiss-Premier at the very end of 1950. The reasons for this are hazy to me; I suspect but can't prove it was yet another example of the unrelated diversification strategy which led to the creation of so many disparate conglomerates in the years after WW2 (e.g. ITT, GE, etc)
-Associated Products held the business for five years before selling it to S. M. Frank in 1955, which retains Reiss-Premier to this day


So there you have a light sketch of how the consolidation of most of the major American pipe manufacturers took place. I'll wrap up by making two smaller points. First, Kaywoodie as a brand dates to approximately March 1919. It was a deliberate renaming of the Dinwoodie, which itself dated from November 1916. Text from an ad to the trade dated March 1 1919: "In order to associate the name of the Dinwoodie pipe with the name of our house, it will hereafter be known as the Kaywoodie. Kay will serve to identify this superlative Italian Bruyere pipe with our name, KAUFMANN BROS. & BONDY." Second, why people refer to the Drinkless as a patent is unclear to me. While filed with the US Patent Office the actual grant (213598) is clearly for a trademark, i.e. the use of the word "Drinkless" in this context, not any internals to the pipe.

In reviewing the above I realize for those interested in Kaywoodie it is entirely to short, while for those who are not it must be a snooze fest of epic proportions. I apologize to both groups.
 

mso489

Lifer
Feb 21, 2013
41,210
60,459
According to information here on Forums, Kaywoodie is now basically a one-man operation making Kaywoodie, Medico, and Yello-Bole pipes. I retain a high opinion of these light weight, thin-walled but still sufficiently insulated pipes at prices you can't beat. Kaywoodie was once the premier premium pipe ahead of Dunhill, when both were priced for the general consumer, though at the high end.
 

jguss

Lifer
Jul 7, 2013
2,480
6,463
rustie, a quick edit; Demuth was born in 1835, his business was started in 1862. And it passed through Schulte’s hands before Frank bought it. I have reams on Demuth somewhere but it’ll have to wait until I’m back in NJ for a reasonable length of time.
 

AroEnglish

Lifer
Jan 7, 2020
3,779
11,565
Midwest
According to information here on Forums, Kaywoodie is now basically a one-man operation making Kaywoodie, Medico, and Yello-Bole pipes. I retain a high opinion of these light weight, thin-walled but still sufficiently insulated pipes at prices you can't beat. Kaywoodie was once the premier premium pipe ahead of Dunhill, when both were priced for the general consumer, though at the high end.
Wow, I didn't know that they were that high end at the time. I've got a Blue Line that was generously given to me and it does look nice enough to be a high end pipe.
 
Jun 9, 2015
3,926
24,481
42
Mission, Ks
Wow, I didn't know that they were that high end at the time. I've got a Blue Line that was generously given to me and it does look nice enough to be a high end pipe.
They did produce some high grade pipes. But unlike Dunhill, KB&B made pipes ranging in grade from very low to very high. Your BlueLine would have been a very high grade pipe for its time.
 
Jun 9, 2015
3,926
24,481
42
Mission, Ks
A Brief Guide to Dating

Kaywoodie Pipes

By @rustiepyles


For the purposes of dating Kaywoodie pipes I’m going to layout 5 distinct eras that KW’s can be grouped into. This is by no means comprehensive or 100% accurate as there is a lot of conflicting information and overlapping with certain details. Some of it may be contradictory to what you may find on other sites but it is based on personal experience. If you have any contradictory evidence to what I’ve posted here I will certainly edit this to reflect that.



Era 1, 1919-1929

Early Kw’s are usually Identified by two-digit shape numbers and KB&B in a clover stamped on the shank. These pipes are often push bits but screw fitments and stingers were also made at this time. If your pipe displays a two-digit shape number but no KB&B in a clover on the shank it is from a later era.

Era 2, 1929-1931

These pipes are easily identified by the PAT. APP. FOR. stamp on the shank and display a four-digit Line/shape number. There are exceptions to this, sandblasted pipes seem to almost never have PAT.APP.FOR. stamps, I believe this is due to lack of space on the pipe. I have also seen a very small number of these pipes with two-digit shape numbers putting them in the early part of this era.

Era 3, 1932-1939

These pipes can typically be identified by a four-digit shape number and a Reg.No213598 stamped on the stinger. This era can by further defined by the discontinuation of the KB&B clover stamp on the shank sometime around 1933-4. Most pipes found will fall into that later part of this era having no clover stamp on the shank, but early era 3 pipes can still be found. There are exceptions to this as it would seem that many pipes do not show the Reg no on the stinger but still fall neatly into this category by having four-digit codes and no clover stamp. A pipe that has a clover within a circle on the stem is from no earlier than 1937.

Era 4. Early 40’s

This is where things get fuzzy. It seems that at some point prior to the US entering WWII and the briar shortage KW transitioned back to a two-digit shape code, these pipes do retain the Reg.No on 4 hole stingers but have no KBB clover on the shank. There also appears to be quite a bit of overlap of two and four-digit codes on different lines.

WWII

I’m not even going to attempt to touch this era right now, it’s a hodge-podge of Mission Briar, inconsistent stampings, low production, strange fitments, and general mayhem.

Era 5, post WWII

These pipes are generally very easy to identify, they almost all have two-digit shape numbers and three-hole stingers. There were many new lines introduced for the post war boom but briar quality was lower and these pipes are generally less popular with collectors.

Additional notes

Sometimes further narrowing of dates can be accomplished with shape numbers and lines only showing up in certain catalogs but I would caution against this as I have seen examples of shapes that lie far outside of their claimed production windows. None of these are hard fast rules but rather general dating guidelines.
 

milk

Part of the Furniture Now
Sep 21, 2022
946
2,441
Japan
Here is a flow chart I made, it does not include ownership of individual manufacturers.

View attachment 204864
So, it looks like pipes made by Premier alone, pipes like the Premo patent, had to be made before 1920. I wonder if the pipes made by these non-KBB pieces are/were any good as far as quality/collectibility/smokability or if KBB is the real magic sauce in all this. What seems less possible to know is the value of some of these moving pieces in terms of talent for making beautiful quality products. Who had the mojo? Who just had the moolah or the muscle?
 
Jun 9, 2015
3,926
24,481
42
Mission, Ks
So, it looks like pipes made by Premier alone, pipes like the Premo patent, had to be made before 1920. I wonder if the pipes made by these non-KBB pieces are/were any good as far as quality/collectibility/smokability or if KBB is the real magic sauce in all this. What seems less possible to know is the value of some of these moving pieces in terms of talent for making beautiful quality products. Who had the mojo? Who just had the moolah or the muscle?
Reiss Premier did not merge with KB&B until 1926. From what @jgus has written it seems the Premo pipes predate that merger by a couple of years to 1923-24. All the Premier pipes I own and have handled have been very well made pipes and smoke very well.
 
Jun 9, 2015
3,926
24,481
42
Mission, Ks
Interesting. Have you ever seen a pipe with this kind of patented aluminum thingy? Would you want one? I'm curious if it would be desirable.
I have a few of em, aside from the tenon they are really no different from a Dunhill innertube. WDC made the Hesson Guard that was an aluminum tenon/innertube pipe as well. I have a few of those, they smoke just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: milk

Briar Lee

Lifer
Sep 4, 2021
4,837
13,910
Humansville Missouri
It’s a minor point but it’s always lonesome holding a minority position:


Second, why people refer to the Drinkless as a patent is unclear to me. While filed with the US Patent Office the actual grant (213598) is clearly for a trademark, i.e. the use of the word "Drinkless" in this context, not any internals to the pipe.
—-

KB&B never held a patent on their stinger, nor on a screw stem.

So long as he avoided naming it Drinkless and didn’t infringe “trade dress” Lee was legally free to sell improved Kaywoodie type Drinkless pipes in 1946.

Maybe that’s why Lee recessed the front mortise, to avoid a “trade dress” infringement suit?
 
Jun 9, 2015
3,926
24,481
42
Mission, Ks
It’s a minor point but it’s always lonesome holding a minority position:


Second, why people refer to the Drinkless as a patent is unclear to me. While filed with the US Patent Office the actual grant (213598) is clearly for a trademark, i.e. the use of the word "Drinkless" in this context, not any internals to the pipe.
—-

KB&B never held a patent on their stinger, nor on a screw stem.

So long as he avoided naming it Drinkless and didn’t infringe “trade dress” Lee was legally free to sell improved Kaywoodie type Drinkless pipes in 1946.

Maybe that’s why Lee recessed the front mortise, to avoid a “trade dress” infringement suit?
It's referred to as a patent because KB&B claimed they applied for and recieved a patent for the Syncro-Stem threaded fitment via pipe stampings. So it helps to narrow down pipe manufacturing dates by refering to the "Patent" stampings on the pipes themselves.

Pipes started receiving

SyncroStem
Pat.app.for

in 1929 and stopped in 1931

What's often reffered to as a "patent" on the Drinkless push fitting is in fact just a trademark REG No. and not a patent. The trade mark was registered to the Reiss Premier Co prior to its merger with KB&B.
 

Briar Lee

Lifer
Sep 4, 2021
4,837
13,910
Humansville Missouri
It's referred to as a patent because KB&B claimed they applied for and recieved a patent for the Syncro-Stem threaded fitment via pipe stampings. So it helps to narrow down pipe manufacturing dates by refering to the "Patent" stampings on the pipes themselves.

Pipes started receiving

SyncroStem
Pat.app.for

in 1929 and stopped in 1931

What's often reffered to as a "patent" on the Drinkless push fitting is in fact just a trademark REG No. and not a patent. The trade mark was registered to the Reiss Premier Co prior to its merger with KB&B.

It’s clear KB&B only trademarked the Drinkless ball fitting.

But where’s the final patent for the screw stem? For that matter, where’s the patent application?

I only learned enough about patent and trademark law in law school to realize that is a specialty that I have no business trying to dabble in.:)

But let’s dabble anyway.

By 1929 the briar pipe had been a common article of commerce for about 75 years.

Putting a stinger in the airflow, no doubt had been done long before, and screwing together the stummel and stem is likewise obvious.

What could they patent that was novel and new?

Maybe a manufacturing process of how to fabricate a screw stem and stinger combination?

However, the Kaywoodie one piece ball stinger seems as iconic and subject to trademark as the hour glass shaped Coke bottle.

There’s no patent for the Coke formula. But the classic Coke bottle shape is trade marked.
 
Jun 9, 2015
3,926
24,481
42
Mission, Ks
It’s clear KB&B only trademarked the Drinkless ball fitting.

But where’s the final patent for the screw stem? For that matter, where’s the patent application?

I only learned enough about patent and trademark law in law school to realize that is a specialty that I have no business trying to dabble in.:)

But let’s dabble anyway.

By 1929 the briar pipe had been a common article of commerce for about 75 years.

Putting a stinger in the airflow, no doubt had been done long before, and screwing together the stummel and stem is likewise obvious.

What could they patent that was novel and new?

Maybe a manufacturing process of how to fabricate a screw stem and stinger combination?

However, the Kaywoodie one piece ball stinger seems as iconic and subject to trademark as the hour glass shaped Coke bottle.

There’s no patent for the Coke formula. But the classic Coke bottle shape is trade marked.
I'm not sure that they did patent the Synchrostem, I've never been able to find any evidence that they did. But, they claimed they did, and stamped it on pipes. I've searched for the patent and come up empty, It could have been an erroneous claim. But they made it non the less.

syncrostem.PNG
 
  • Like
Reactions: pipenschmoeker123