1905 Barling pipe

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

New Cigars




PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Drucquers Banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 10, 2013
2,317
2,943
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Dear friends,

It is a never ending story and that serves a purpose in its own right; the Barling nomenclature.
I recently purchased this pipe on the bay;

http://www.ebay.com/itm/222059788230?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

The trusted seller sold it as a Barling pipe, but there no Barling's Make on the briar, the mount is a 1905 Barling one.

Is it a

Barling pipe, or not? Or is it only a matter of semantics.

I feel confused, please help.

 
Dec 10, 2013
2,317
2,943
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Thank you billkay, I trust he will and hope he fiercely jumps in.

It is an intriguing matter and I had an avid discussion with the seller.

the pipe is now in the post. What worries me is the absense of the Barling's make on the bowl, according

Jonathan Guzz Barling started turning their 1906, this pipe is 1905.

Both stummel and mount are stamped with the tobacconists - .

 
Dec 10, 2013
2,317
2,943
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Correct. matter now is when Barling started to turn their own bowls and if a pipe with a possible, but not definite foreign bowl and a Barling mount can be named a Barling pipe.

This pipe was sold by RJ Lea, a Manchester tobbaconist of good reputation .

Next question that arises then is if Barling started to stamp their own bowls right from the 1906 start .

 

dmcmtk

Lifer
Aug 23, 2013
3,672
1,685
I think the what one may say, Is the pipe was made by Barling for R.J. Lea.

 

dmcmtk

Lifer
Aug 23, 2013
3,672
1,685
Many Barling pipes made prior to 1909 lack any company markings except for the name of the shop that sold them. The only stamp that tells us that the pipe is a Barling is the sterling makers mark “EB” over “WB”. Many of the older pipes feature sterling silver fitments, which make dating a simple mater of looking up London hallmarks, and the "EB WB" makers’ mark. At some point during the final decade of the 19th century a “BARLING’S MAKE” logo began to be occasionally stamped on the pipes in addition to the Dealer stamp. According to Gage, prior to 1909 Barling did not turn most of their bowls, but provided silver fitments for bowls turned by others. Guss reports that Barling claimed to have begun turning their own bowls in 1906.(Guss)
I knew I could find the relevant information.
https://pipedia.org/wiki/Barling

 
Dec 10, 2013
2,317
2,943
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Hi Dave :) Thank you for jumping in the conversation.

Yes, but is the stummel Barling made ? Is there way to be sure and does this make it a Barling pipe in your opinion.

Or was it a Lea briar that was only banded by Barling, if you take my drift ?

Matter is that I am primarily interested in Barling turned bowls. Obviously I did not pay attention; it gave me a start.

Is the pipe worth my money, it is subjective.

 
Dec 10, 2013
2,317
2,943
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Hi Dave,

Thank you, you are the very best .These same lines were posted to me by the seller and I know the Pipedia Barling page by heart.

It still does not answer the question. The way I interpretate it; you can mark a briar pipe as a Barling made pipe from 1906 on .Prior to that they were no Barling turned pipes, only the mounts were - .

 

dmcmtk

Lifer
Aug 23, 2013
3,672
1,685
I would say very likely it was made by Barling, or assembled, finished, stemmed, and mounted by Barling...although the bowl may also have very likely come from France...as we best understand the period. I'll let the real scholars weigh in with their own opinions. Are you in the UK?

 

sablebrush52

The Bard Of Barlings
Jun 15, 2013
19,632
44,859
Southern Oregon
jrs457.wixsite.com
Hello all,
I was watching that auction. The short answer to whether Barling made the stummel is "maybe, maybe not". Prior to 1906 Barling made some of their bowls, but like all other English marques, imported a number of them from St. Claude and other sources. To be more precise, Barling would order stummels from France which would be stained, finished, and mounted in their London factories.
If I were to hazard a guess, based on BBB practices of the time, I would guess that the lack of a "Barling's Make" stamp would indicate that the bowl is French and was finished and mounted By Barling. BBB stamped "Own Make" on the bowls that they turned. Bowls from France or Austria did not get the "Own Make" stamp.
Keep in mind that the bowls still had to meet Barling's standards. But after the St. Claude carvers' strike in 1906, Barling pulled all production in-house.
EDT: Whether a stummel turned elsewhere and not at the Barling Factory is or isn't a Barling is an interesting question. All English makers supplemented their in-house production with out sourced production. Comoy stated that French work was far superior to what the English could do. Dunhill outsourced a portion of their production for decades. Barling didn't do that after 1906.

 
  • Like
Reactions: orlandofurioso
Dec 10, 2013
2,317
2,943
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Hello sablebrush and all,
Thank you for jumping in and your elaborate post, it makes me feel much more comfortable with the pipe.

The main question remains unanswered though, probably because there is none.

I was aware of the BBB outsourcing practise, but that Dunhill did the same comes as a surprise and something of a shock to me. So big chance that one of my old Dunnies was not Dunhill factory turned ?!

How about the RJ Lea samp on both the stummel and the mount ?

Studying "estate" pipes is a lovely pastime and filled with inconsistency, I learn every day
So we were watching the same auction, what is your opinion on the pipe, is it a good found ?

 

pitchfork

Lifer
May 25, 2012
4,030
605
Thanks for that, Jesse. Very informative.
You also wrote:
BBB stamped "Own Make" on the bowls that they turned. Bowls from France or Austria did not get the "Own Make" stamp.
I've heard that before, but my understanding is that "Own Make" pipes were simply those of the highest quality (however that might have been defined). Do you have a source for that?
EDIT: Just taking a quick gander at the 1912 catalogue, the "Own Make" pipes are described as "Finest London Made Briars," which could imply that the regular BBB pipes were not "London Made."
EDIT 2: Turning further into the catalogue, you will also find "London Made Companions," some of which are marked "Own Make," some of which are not, but all are called "London Made."
I suppose it's still possible that "Own Make" pipes are both "London Made" and of the highest quality.

 

jguss

Lifer
Jul 7, 2013
2,417
6,224
I should probably weigh in here with a few thoughts too.
First, I agree with everything Jesse said (always a safe place to begin)
Second, what's marked on a pipe, and what it's true point of manufacture was, may well be two different things. Hence the pissing contest within the industry on origin stamping
Third, since it's essentially unknowable whether or not a pipe of that vintage was made wholly or in part by the putative manufacturer, it's hard for me to see how that could rationally (the key word here) affect valuation
Finally, Jesse's statement about BBB's "Own Make" being a designation for bowls that they had turned themselves might have originated with me during an email exchange we had last fall (he'll have to chime in on this point). What I can tell you is that a trade article from late 1888 (headlined "'BBB OWN MAKE' BRIARS") reported that "A comparatively new department in the business of Messr.s A. Frankau & Co. is the manufacture of briar pipes in their entirety from the raw materials." I infer that the department was started about 1886, since later on in the article it says that "...Frankau decided some two years ago to test the public estimation for a finer pipe than they had been accustomed to...", and goes on to state that "...Frankau may well take pride in their stamp 'own make,' as it is literally carried out, not only the bowls being hewn from the lumps of briarwood, and the mouthpieces from the nuggets of amber, horn or vulcanite, as the case may be, but the silver bands and the entire leather cases are also manufactured here."

 

pitchfork

Lifer
May 25, 2012
4,030
605
"...Frankau may well take pride in their stamp 'own make,' as it is literally carried out, not only the bowls being hewn from the lumps of briarwood, and the mouthpieces from the nuggets of amber, horn or vulcanite, as the case may be, but the silver bands and the entire leather cases are also manufactured here."
Thanks for that, Jon. In your "estimation," would you say that this was still the case c. 1910 or so (i.e., that "Own Make" bowls were turned in London and regular BBB bowls were made elsewhere, e.g. France)?

 

pitchfork

Lifer
May 25, 2012
4,030
605
Jon, I tried to find the publication you quoted, but came up with this instead:
jPP1Fcd.png

Not sure how to parse what's written here. On the one hand, "all bowls of every type of BBB pipe are imported from Europe." On the other hand, "Own Make" pipes "continue to be made in London, entirely by hand." So I'm wondering if "Own Make" bowls were simply finished by hand, in London, from imported bowls, and then affixed with hand-cut stems, etc. And yet, the trade publication you quote refers to "the bowls being hewn from the lumps of briarwood." Confusing, ultimately irrelevant, but so interesting!

 
Dec 10, 2013
2,317
2,943
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Thank you for this jguss, your " How many Angels" is a marvel btw., my Barling bible so to speak. So where it starts get more complicated it starts to unravel.Is it like all philosophy,that begins with dubiety and provides in no definite answer ?

Meaning for Barling in specific and many others in general; there are bowls that are home turned, but not marked as such and vice versa ?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.