Pipes Magazine » Pipe Talk » British Pipes

Search Forums  
   
Tags:  No tags yet. 

Dunhill White Spot Drama

(180 posts)
  1. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    Several days ago I spoke with Rob Cooper ("Coopersark" on eBay) at some length about the importance of historical details, originality, and so forth to many pipe collectors.

    In the course of that conversation Dunhill's "white spot" was mentioned as something which factored into determining authenticity in some cases, since it had varied in position, size, and material over the years. (The material being ivory for the first 40 or so years of the company's production, after which a more color-stable and less expensive plastic took its place.)

    Rob mentioned in passing that he believed what everyone thought was ivory was actually celluloid, though, and always had been, because real ivory would never have been practical. It required too much labor to create thin, spaghetti-like rods from the stuff, regardless of its intrinsic expense. I responded that in the first half of the 20th century ivory was regarded as just another material, was commonly used for "tourist grade" trinkets from toothpicks to chopsticks, and could doubtless be bought cheaply in rod form from China or Japan, so Dunhill never DID shoulder the cost... the international differences in how much "a dollar was worth" (so to speak) took care of it.

    Not able to settle the matter, our conversation moved to other things.

    Afterward, though, because our points canceled each other out, the question started to eat at me. One of us had to be right, but how to know for sure? Dissolving an old dot and a new one with some sort of chemical, litmus-test-style, was doubtless possible, but I was no chemist... and unless the difference was dramatic and unarguable, nothing would be settled.

    Grind to dust? Examine with a microscope? Because of the nature of the collecting hobby, if there was ANY element of subjectivity in interpreting the result of such a test, the question wouldn't be answered. The can would just be kicked down the road.

    Then I came across an antiques site which said that real ivory doesn't burn (except at several thousand degrees, I suppose), and the tip of a sewing needle heated red-hot would leave no significant mark on it, while all known faux ivory materials would react somehow. Melt, blacken, or similar.

    So, I searched through my stem discard box for an ivory-spotted Dunhill stem as a test subject. One that I wouldn't mind losing if the celluloid theory was correct.

    Here is the stem. Three views to confirm authenticy --- in its entirety, the tenon, and the slot:



    .

    Here is a close-up of the spot before cleaning it off, and after. (I didn't want a possible layer of wax, dirt, etc. to burn and confuse things):


    .

    And this is the white spot after being touched by the red hot needle. It sunk in instantly and actually exploded in a gentle sort of way. A fizz-pop with a big puff of smoke.

    It doesn't get more settled than that. 100%, proved beyond-the-slightest-shadow-of-a-doubt, those yellow/milky-looking Dunhill white dots---the early ones---are cellulose, not ivory.

    Thank you Mr. Cooper. (There will doubtless many disillusioned Dunhill collectors in the world, but oh well. Facts are facts, and myths always die hard.)

    Dogs live such short lives... and spend most it waiting for us to come home
    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. anthonyrosenthal74

    anthonyrosenthal74

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2013
    Posts: 7,493

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Interesting. You learn something new every day.

    Arrrrr, shiver me timbers! International Talk Like a Pirate Day is September the 19th!!!
    Brothers Of The Black Frigate
    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. cortezattic

    Cortez

    A part of the problem since he ...
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 14,710

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Nicely documented test, George. Well done-hill.

    I find myself sitting idly on the line dividing past and future,
    as if I could kill time without injuring eternity. -- Thoreau
    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. cigrmaster

    cigrmaster

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 13,857

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    George, that is major league Sherlock Holmes detective work. There are going to be some seriously upset Dunhill collectors when they find out their precious little dots are not ivory.

    Harris
    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. hoosierpipeguy

    hoosierpipeguy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2018
    Posts: 1,960

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Impressive work! You're correct, real ivory wouldn't burn like that. I have several custom pool cues with a fair amount of ivory. Very hard, somewhat brittle but won't burn.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. theloniousmonkfish

    theloniousmonkfish

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2017
    Posts: 768

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. btp79

    btp79

    Member
    Joined: Jan 2018
    Posts: 213

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    How old was the stem?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. luigi

    luigi

    Member
    Joined: May 2017
    Posts: 152

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Nice test, sir.
    In these times it's naive to believe everything what sellers say or write. It's very likely they are selling something else, usually cheaper, for the same (high) price. Even if it was some respectable name like Dunhill it wouldn't be a big surprise for 2018.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. kenbarnes

    kenbarnes

    Senior Member
    Joined: Nov 2015
    Posts: 349

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Brilliant, nice one George! To me,that looks like a 1920s original Dunhill mouthpiece and I often thought how difficult it would have been to turn/produce spaghetti-type rods in genuine ivory
    I thought it may have been an ivory Catalin as used on Charatan 'After Hours' Pipes, (phenol formaldehyde resin) or something similar and I am pleased you have now proved it not to be genuine Ivory.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. chasingembers

    chasingembers

    Captain Of The Black Frigate
    Joined: Nov 2014
    Posts: 15,580

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Makes me even more proud of the pieces in my collection with ivory and hippo tooth.

    I like coffee exceedingly.
    - H. P. Lovecraft
    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. pipestud

    pipestud

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2012
    Posts: 1,773

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I always thought those old Dunhill pipes had true ivory dots until I read Georged's post. I admit that I was guilty of spreading that untrue rumor myself many times over the years. So, thanks to Georged and Coopersark for setting me straight.

    Pipestud
    Posted 1 year ago #
  12. mikethompson

    mikethompson

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jun 2016
    Posts: 3,847

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Great detective work!

    I was unaware of the divide in collectors opinions, but this would appear to settle the matter!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  13. piffyr

    piffyr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 761

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Fantastic forensic work, Mr. Science! I've looked at those dots under loupes from 12x to 60x and I was utterly convinced that they were ivory. I'll be warming myself by the flames of my burning preconceived notions later this evening.

    I had at first thought that Mr. Cooper was saying that cellulose was used as a transition material between the ivory era and the acrylic era. After going back and re-reading the original claim, I see that I completely misread his statement. It makes much more sense to know that it was cellulose all the while until acrylic came along. Kudos to Mr. Cooper for trusting in his own eyes and experience rather than hearsay.

    Now, go find out what the white material is in the Comoy's 3-part "C" and I'll sleep soundly tonight.

    RESPECT THE PIPE!
    Posted 1 year ago #
  14. jazz

    jazz

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 810

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    There is something satisfying about a definitive answer after some scientific legwork. I had always just taken the ivory thing as gospel so this serves as a reminder to question everything.

    Good work.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  15. ssjones

    ssjones

    Mod
    Joined: May 2011
    Posts: 14,571

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Fantastic detective work. Thanks for sacrificing one for the cause!

    Al

    Posted 1 year ago #
  16. mawnansmiff

    mawnansmiff

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2015
    Posts: 4,858

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Excellent experiment George but is it my dodgy eyesight that sees what appears to be a minute ring of brass (?) around the white spot in the picture of the cleaned stem?

    I think I can also see it in the last image showing the scorched hole.

    Regards,

    Jay.

    ...take up thy stethoscope and walk...
    Posted 1 year ago #
  17. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    Jay --

    That's glue. The celluloid rod is a couple thousandth's smaller in diameter than the hole.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  18. brian64

    brian64

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jan 2011
    Posts: 5,248

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Very cool...thanks for the post & pics. I'm surprised the ivory myth endured this long without any verification.

    “Bipartisan usually means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.” – George Carlin
    Posted 1 year ago #
  19. ashdigger

    ashdigger

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 5,296

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Why do the old dots discolor and blacken?

    Ubi Ignis Est?
    Posted 1 year ago #
  20. chasingembers

    chasingembers

    Captain Of The Black Frigate
    Joined: Nov 2014
    Posts: 15,580

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Though this was from an article about discoloration of vintage celluloid pens, it sounds like oxidation of the surrounding stem on a Dunhill causes the dot to change.

    Discoloration and its causes

    When celluloid discolors, it generally darkens rather than fades. This discoloration is not superficial, and is irreversible.
    While excessive UV exposure is not good for celluloid, discoloration is usually the result of reactive sulphur compounds released by deteriorating ink sacs.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  21. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    The weird reddish and brown colors occasionally seen, which range all the way down to total black, have always been found (in my experience) on stems that had had their "dot hole" drilled too deeply and cut into the airway. Meaning years of wicked / migrating moisture, tars, and cleaning solvents are probably the cause.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  22. ashdigger

    ashdigger

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 5,296

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Excellent, thank you George. Great testing too.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  23. User has not uploaded an avatar

    aldecaker

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2015
    Posts: 4,477

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Gotta love some good pipe science!

    A man who serves his country is a patriot. A man who serves his government is an employee. The two are not always the same thing.
    Posted 1 year ago #
  24. papipeguy

    papipeguy

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2010
    Posts: 16,209

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Being a guitarist who has been using cellulose picks for over 50 years I can tell you that introducing heat to that material is like lighting flash paper. Given the time period we are discussing I'm not surprised by the outcome. Cellulosic materials were used in many products so it makes sense that Dunhill employed them.

    Blowin' smoke since 1970.
    Posted 1 year ago #
  25. beefeater33

    beefeater33

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 2,584

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Fascinating.............. Great experiment!......
    This gives me a lot to think about.........
    -I wonder if they put a celluloid dot in their ivory stemmed pipes?
    -I wonder if the ivory stemmed pipes were actual ivory, or celluloid?
    - Now we know how to test for a well done replacement stem, you know, those done so well that its nearly impossible to tell.......... except for that ivory dot in the stem...............

    "We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dream..."
    Willy Wonka
    Posted 1 year ago #
  26. lordofthepiperings

    lordofthepiperings

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2010
    Posts: 6,464

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Brian actually did address the "Black Dot" Dunhills on a radio episode a long time back. He said those Black Dot pipes were a result of the tars discoloring the ivory white dot insert in the stem that Dunhill used at the time.

    Clearly your pipe must have had a white dot that wasn't ivory, but I don't think one pipe out of the thousands that Dunhill produced is enough to definitively state that Dunhill never used ivory for their white dot.

    "The thinking man always smokes a Peterson." -Peterson of Dublin
    Posted 1 year ago #
  27. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    Clearly your pipe must have had a white dot that wasn't ivory, but I don't think one pipe out of the thousands that Dunhill produced is enough to definitively state that Dunhill never used ivory for their white dot.

    Yeah, it does.

    Think it through, OK?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  28. mawnansmiff

    mawnansmiff

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2015
    Posts: 4,858

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    "That's glue. The celluloid rod is a couple thousandth's smaller in diameter than the hole."

    Many thanks for the clarification George

    Regards,

    Jay.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  29. lordofthepiperings

    lordofthepiperings

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2010
    Posts: 6,464

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Yeah, it does.

    Think it through, OK?

    Forgive me if I take Brian Levine's word over that of some guy on a forum who's profile picture is a random cat.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  30. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,763

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Brian actually did address the "Black Dot" Dunhills on a radio episode a long time back. He said those Black Dot pipes were a result of the tars discoloring the ivory white dot insert in the stem that Dunhill used at the time.

    John Loring claimed that black dots didn't exist, that they were the result of shoe polish, and admitted that he'd never seen one. He was wrong. Brian is wrong.

    I own an 1949 black dot, and there's nothing even remotely brown about it. Moreover, that dot was created with a slightly convex top, such that it becomes visible when light plays over it from certain angles. Now, whether that was an aftermarket addition, or a custom order that Dunhill fulfilled, I don't know. The freaking pipe is 60 years old, and I've had it for 30+ years, long before "black dots" were a thing or Loring wrote about them.

    And when it comes to the mechanics of pipes and their materials, I'll believe a master restorer over a radio jock any day. But anyone can be wrong from time to time.

    It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

    It is pointless to argue with a fanatic since a dim bulb can't be converted into a searchlight. - Jesse Silver
    Posted 1 year ago #
  31. mawnansmiff

    mawnansmiff

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Oct 2015
    Posts: 4,858

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    "...some guy on a forum who's profile picture is a random cat."

    I doubt George's cat is any old random moggy.

    Regards,

    Jay.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  32. lightmybriar

    lightmybriar

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 594

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    What an awesome experiment! Great documentation as well.

    Sable, I too own a "black dot," from 1955. Mine looks consistent with discoloration, I believe. I'll have to take a better look at it. I love this kind of stuff.

    On a pipe adventure
    Steve
    Posted 1 year ago #
  33. jazz

    jazz

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Feb 2014
    Posts: 810

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Forgive me if I take Brian Levine's word over that of some guy on a forum who's profile picture is a random cat.

    This comment surprised me given how long you have been here. I don't wish to blow smoke up his arse but surely you're aware he's not just some guy on a forum and that he's an experienced and respected restorer whose work and knowledge has proven exceptional. Not bad for a cat. In the few years that I have been frequenting this place, I have come to trust his knowledge when it comes to pipes and their materials and I suspect that most here have. That must make him something of an authority I would think but as previously mentioned, everyone can be wrong.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  34. jpmcwjr

    jpmcwjr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 13,518

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Well put, jazz.

    I also doubt that Brian was making a considered call on the composition of the dot.

    I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
    Posted 1 year ago #
  35. pitchfork

    pitchfork

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 3,975

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    "

    Clearly your pipe must have had a white dot that wasn't ivory, but I don't think one pipe out of the thousands that Dunhill produced is enough to definitively state that Dunhill never used ivory for their white dot.

    Yeah, it does."

    Well, no it doesn't.

    Fantastic experiment and post, though. Now we know that many of the ivory dots out there aren't ivory at all.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  36. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    Well, no it doesn't.

    Fantastic experiment and post, though. Now we know that many of the ivory dots out there aren't ivory at all.

    I'll say it again: think it through

    1) Celluloid was/is literally indistinguishable from ivory (as the perpetuation of the century-long myth demonstrated)

    2) Cost effectively nothing

    3) Was locally and readily available

    4) Is MUCH easier and faster to work with (ivory is a bitch to grind and shatters when clipped, so must be either carefully cut off with a tiny saw, or clipped wastefully long and then tediously ground flush)

    and

    5) it even weighs less, which would save on delivery/shipping costs of bulk material

    .

    There is no imaginable reason to to think real ivory was ever used, and no examples ever found by anyone I've ever known in the hobby. Or even heard of.

    Anyone who wants to "hold out" is welcome to, of course, but Strength of Belief has no more affect on reality in this case as it has in any other, whether elves, abominable snowmen, UFOs, or talking to the dead. With the experiment in this thread, the burden of proof has reversed itself. Until a real ivory dot is found, it is logically correct to assume they were celluloid all along.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  37. pitchfork

    pitchfork

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 3,975

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    george, you're being obtuse (and windy).

    This, by the way, just restates the point you want to make: "There is no imaginable reason to to think real ivory was ever used, and no examples ever found by anyone I've ever known in the hobby. Or even heard of."

    I think you're probably right about ivory never having been used, but testing one stem doesn't prove whether or not ivory stems were ever used. Just think it through.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  38. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,763

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    George,

    While I agree with you and with the points that you're made, it isn't unreasonable to test this more than once to settle the point. If you've got some old orphaned stems that aren't candidates for restoration fodder, what bad can come from testing out a few others?

    With any of the researching we do with vintage pipes and their history, most of what we rely upon are dips in the river. The more dips we take, the more we can rely on our findings.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  39. pitchfork

    pitchfork

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 3,975

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    What I'm wondering is whether ivory was used at some point early on and then (silently) switched to celluloid at some point much earlier than anyone previously thought. It might have happened, might not. Testing a stem from the 1930s, say, doesn't say anything dispositive about white dots from before that date.

    To be clear, I applaud your new discovery -- totally changes what we thought about Dunhill dots. Brilliantly done.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  40. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    Further developments (as the saying goes):

    I just spoke with Rob again, who spoke with Howard Smith, the chief archivist of the Dunhill Museum.

    Howard says unequivocally that celluloid was indeed the early "ivory" material, and that no claim was ever made by the company that real ivory was used. (How the myth started is unknown)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  41. pitchfork

    pitchfork

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 3,975

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Howard says unequivocally that celluloid was indeed the early "ivory" material, and that no claim was ever made by the company that real ivory was used. (How the myth started is unknown).

    That's great info.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  42. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    ...it isn't unreasonable to test this more than once to settle the point. If you've got some old orphaned stems that aren't candidates for restoration fodder, what bad can come from testing out a few others?

    The problem being there will always be someone who claims that whatever the number tested, it wasn't enough.

    That's why the burden of proof has reversed. After considering the evidence, that any of them ARE real ivory is the unreasonable claim.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  43. flakyjakey

    flakyjakey

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Aug 2013
    Posts: 1,147

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Gawd! Just as I was about to put the red-hot needle to the off-white dot of my 1918 dunnie churchie (Dunhill churchwarden) in the interests of science!!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  44. seacaptain

    seacaptain

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 1,866

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Cool thread. Well done.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  45. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    Gawd! Just as I was about to put the red-hot needle to the off-white dot of my 1918 dunnie churchie (Dunhill churchwarden) in the interests of science!!

    Be sure to do it on video in a public place with many witnesses (and notarized signatures for all of them). A mere before and after photo would would doubtless be declared a "Photoshop job" by the dot religion's faithful.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  46. flakyjakey

    flakyjakey

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Aug 2013
    Posts: 1,147

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    George - Ha Ha! I do indeed own one of the above (and several more ancient Dunnies), but I accept your contention - where is the evidence that Dunhill ever did use ivory in their white dots? But, perhaps more interesting, how did that rumour arise??

    Posted 1 year ago #
  47. thomasw

    thomasw

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Dec 2016
    Posts: 870

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Thanks heaps for the information and experiment, George. TW

    After some time he felt for his pipe. It was not broken, and that was something. Then he felt for his pouch, and there was some tobacco in it, and that was something more. Then he felt for matches and he could not find any at all, and that shattered his hopes completely.

    The Hobbit
    Posted 1 year ago #
  48. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    But, perhaps more interesting, how did that rumour arise??

    The notion seemed / felt consistent with Dunhill's perception as a luxury brand, I imagine.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  49. lordofthepiperings

    lordofthepiperings

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2010
    Posts: 6,464

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    There’s many factors. You’d have to somehow have definitive proof that the stem was made prior to the ivory ban which I believe was some time in the 1960s and was made by the Dunhill factory themselves. Dunhill stems are the most reproduced/counterfeited stems in the pipe world. Then there’s also the possibility that Dunhill may have only done ivory inserts on certain grades.

    As the great philosopher Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pops once said, “The world may never know.”.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  50. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,763

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    The world of pipes and tobaccos is replete with bubbe meises. No end of them. With Barling, the claim is that they never used wood less than 100 years old (and there's the bubbe meise about 100 year old wood). They never made that claim. In fact, their literature of the 1920's, specifically The Romance Of The Barling Pipe, wherein they present their harvesting and aging process, specifies wood at about 60 years of age or less.

    These were businesses that existed to make a profit. Using a material that is hard to mill makes no sense, especially when a perfectly good alternative that is less problematic and costly is readily available.

    But people will believe what they need to believe. And if bubbe meises make for magic, they will believe in magic.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  51. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    There’s many factors. You’d have to somehow have definitive proof that the stem was made prior to the ivory ban which I believe was some time in the 1960s and was made by the Dunhill factory themselves. Dunhill stems are the most reproduced/counterfeited stems in the pipe world. Then there’s also the possibility that Dunhill may have only done ivory inserts on certain grades.

    Wut?

    Ivory ban? The earliest ivory ban of any sort was in 1989, decades after Dunhill's celluloid ("ivory") dot had been replaced with the bright white acrylic one. There's no connection of any sort, hypothetically or otherwise.


    Dunhill stems are the most reproduced/counterfeited in the pipe world?
    Their total number of pipes produced annually was small compared with many other prestige brands; and "counterfeit" pipes of any kind are numerically negligible, convincing or not. And that's only RECENTLY with some Chinese junk. Old pipes were never, and still are only very rarely, worth trying to copy. Anyone with the skill to do much better money-wise by simply making pipes under his own name. As for "counterfeit" replacement stems on existing legitimate Dunhill stummels (if that's what you meant), I can assure you that's not, and has never been, anything approaching a realistic concern. It's simply too difficult to do undetectably. Meaning there are MUCH better ways to make money with the time and effort required. Honest ways.


    The possibility that real ivory was used on certain grades?
    Seriously? A company would spend considerable time and money to do something that was 100% undetectable without destructive testing, and then KEEP IT A SECRET.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  52. cigrmaster

    cigrmaster

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2012
    Posts: 13,857

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    lord, how would the ivory ban have an effect on Dunhill pipes? There is tons of ivory on the market and has been since the ban.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  53. lordofthepiperings

    lordofthepiperings

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2010
    Posts: 6,464

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    This comment surprised me given how long you have been here. I don't wish to blow smoke up his arse but surely you're aware he's not just some guy on a forum and that he's an experienced and respected restorer whose work and knowledge has proven exceptional

    Absolutely no idea who this guy georged is.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  54. virginialover

    virginialover

    Senior Member
    Joined: Mar 2016
    Posts: 451

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    lordofthepiperings: "Forgive me if I take Brian Levine's word over that of some guy on a forum who's profile picture is a random cat."

    georged: "Further developments (as the saying goes):

    I just spoke with Rob again, who spoke with Howard Smith, the chief archivist of the Dunhill Museum.

    Howard says unequivocally that celluloid was indeed the early "ivory" material, and that no claim was ever made by the company that real ivory was used. (How the myth started is unknown)"

    I like the way the guy on a forum, who's profile picture is a random cat, answered with facts and knowledge. One should never underestimate cats, they are curious and inquisitive. Well done Sir cat!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  55. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,763

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I had a great chat with Rob, who called me about this thread and told me about Howard Smith's information. I'd say that the chief archivist for Dunhill is a pretty unimpeachable source.

    As for who George Dibos is, he's one of the most respected pipe restorers in the business. We've been graced with a number of posts showing his work.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  56. virginialover

    virginialover

    Senior Member
    Joined: Mar 2016
    Posts: 451

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    lordofthepiperings: "There’s many factors. You’d have to somehow have definitive proof that the stem was made prior to the ivory ban which I believe was some time in the 1960s and was made by the Dunhill factory themselves. Dunhill stems are the most reproduced/counterfeited stems in the pipe world. Then there’s also the possibility that Dunhill may have only done ivory inserts on certain grades.

    As the great philosopher Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pops once said, “The world may never know.”."

    A feeble attempt at regaining the upper hand with statements that actually bring nothing to the table. One should always keep to verified and relevant facts for the subject at hand.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  57. ssjones

    ssjones

    Mod
    Joined: May 2011
    Posts: 14,571

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I just read that it was Stanley Kubrick who shot those photos that George posted. If you view them in reverse chronology, the "Dibos" code about the moon landing is revealed.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  58. lordofthepiperings

    lordofthepiperings

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2010
    Posts: 6,464

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    As for who George Dibos is, he's one of the most respected pipe restorers in the business. We've been graced with a number of posts showing his work.

    I have a great local guy who does restorations and if I ever needed something done I would go to him not George. Especially after this arrogant rude thread.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  59. virginialover

    virginialover

    Senior Member
    Joined: Mar 2016
    Posts: 451

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    ssjones: "I just read that it was Stanley Kubrick who shot those photos that George posted. If you view them in reverse chronology, the "Dibos" code about the moon landing is revealed."

    Funny you mentioned this moon business. I was told, by a cigarette smoking man, that Dunhills with the dreaded IVORY DOT are still made but in a secret base on the dark side of the moon. I choose to believe

    Posted 1 year ago #
  60. User has not uploaded an avatar

    jguss

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2013
    Posts: 684

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I'm with George on this one. I've never seen ivory claimed by the company as the material used. The 1921 litigation wherein Dunhill sued the Wolf brothers over infringement for their usage of a white dot made no mention of ivory, or celluloid for that matter. Infer from that what you like; but where proof is elusive a standard of reasonableness applies. In light of Smith's testimony and George's experiment, the burden of proof is now overwhelmingly on those who claim ivory was used: who said it, and when? Is there any evidence supporting this assertion from a credible and contemporaneous source?

    By the way, while it's true that Dunhill was far from being the largest pipe mfr, by the end of WWI I think they did dominate the true prestige end of the market (measured by avg price point of all production). From essentially zilch in 1912 they grew exponentially in their first decade, with the Great War providing a huge boost:

    1914 10,000 pipes
    1915 14,000
    1916 30,000
    1917 60,000
    1918 134,000
    1919 156,000
    1920 256,000
    1921 276,000

    Posted 1 year ago #
  61. ashdigger

    ashdigger

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Jul 2016
    Posts: 5,296

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    This makes me wonder about the clovers on my early Kaywoodies....

    Posted 1 year ago #
  62. piffyr

    piffyr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 761

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Infer from that what you like; but where proof is elusive a standard of reasonableness applies.

    In other words, Mr. William of Ockham appears to need a shave.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  63. piffyr

    piffyr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Apr 2015
    Posts: 761

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    This makes me wonder about the clovers on my early Kaywoodies....

    No, those are totally made from rare stegotetrabelodon ivory and obsidian harvested from the grounds around Pompeii. I know because I heard it from a guy.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  64. chasingembers

    chasingembers

    Captain Of The Black Frigate
    Joined: Nov 2014
    Posts: 15,580

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Hearing it from a guy makes it as irrefutable as reading it on the internet.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  65. virginialover

    virginialover

    Senior Member
    Joined: Mar 2016
    Posts: 451

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    georged should be hired by the MythBusters team.

    You have to give it to the marketing people at Dunhill, they knew how to turn copper into gold.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  66. jpmcwjr

    jpmcwjr

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 13,518

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    This comment surprised me given how long you have been here. I don't wish to blow smoke up his arse but surely you're aware he's not just some guy on a forum and that he's an experienced and respected restorer whose work and knowledge has proven exceptional.


    Absolutely no idea who this guy georged is.

    Then remove your head from that dark place and read a few threads where he's an active participant.

    Sheesh!

    Posted 1 year ago #
  67. lordofthepiperings

    lordofthepiperings

    Preferred Member
    Joined: May 2010
    Posts: 6,464

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Then remove your head from that dark place and read a few threads where he's an active participant.

    I’ve learned all I need to know from this thread.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  68. sablebrush52

    sablebrush52

    The Bard Of Barlings
    Joined: Jun 2013
    Posts: 9,763

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    I have a great local guy who does restorations and if I ever needed something done I would go to him not George. Especially after this arrogant rude thread.

    As ye give so shall ye receive.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  69. georged

    georged

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2013
    Posts: 2,626

    online

    Login to Send PM

    Rob Cooper just now sent me the following photos.

    He found a Dunhill "ivory" dot stem in a parts box that had long ago lost its stummel, and did the touch-it-with-a-red-hot-sewing-needle thing.

    The result? Identical to the stem I posted at the beginning of this thread, right down to the "soft explosion" reaction w/puff of smoke and flash stain on the vulcanite around the dot.

    Why (effectively) destroy a perfectly good stem, unattached or otherwise? Because there's no room for myth or legend in his dealer's world, and he wanted to settle this celluloid vs. ivory business to his own satisfaction so he could better serve his future customers.

    That's known as "walking the walk", I believe.

    .





    Posted 1 year ago #
  70. lightmybriar

    lightmybriar

    Preferred Member
    Joined: Mar 2014
    Posts: 594

    offline

    Login to Send PM

    Such brilliant and fascinating experimentation, but....

    Please let's all agree the matter is settled...for the sake of the beautiful stems! This is like watching Pete Townshend make splinters out of a Rickenbacker...I don't know how much more violence I can take!!!

    Really, though, well done!

    Posted 1 year ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.

 

banner

 

    Back To Top  | Back to Forum Home Page

   Members Online Now
   geopiper, alaskanpiper, donjgiles, the85boro, mikey517, cfreud, burleyboy, georged, haparnold, pepesdad1