Evolution of the Dunhill White Dot

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

New Cigars




PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Drucquers Banner

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 10, 2013
2,316
2,942
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Greetings to you all,
There is a very nice 1955 Dunhill shell briar for sale on the Bay.
The knowledgeable seller claims the mouthpiece is accomodated with an cellulose white dot, so to speak a transiton between the ivory - and the acrylic ones Dunhill introduced in the early sixties.

Owning quite a few from all periods it often occured to me there are different materials and sizes of the dots.

Any opinions ?
Cheers,

Roland

 

lightmybriar

Lifer
Mar 11, 2014
1,315
1,838
I've noticed size variations through the years. I think the largest dots I've seen were on pipes from the early 1960s. This would be a good place to gather some photographic evidence and possibly categorize them over the years. We'd have to be careful to make sure we are only cataloging authentic stems, though.

 

piffyr

Part of the Furniture Now
Apr 24, 2015
782
80
Personally and with all due respect to the seller, I'm a bit skeptical about the claims in that listing. I haven't noticed any transition material being used between the ivory and acrylic. So, the difference, if it exists, must be very subtle or it was only used for a very short while. The size of the dot, however, has definitely changed over the years and quite dramatically.
George is the guy that I really want to hear from on this. If there's a difference to be noted, I'm betting that he will have caught it.

 

lightmybriar

Lifer
Mar 11, 2014
1,315
1,838
I have spoken with the seller before, and I think he is a fine guy. That being said, I also find it a strange conclusion he has drawn, although, he does (as he mentions in the listing) have MUCH more experience with these pipes than I ever will. I would trust a date stamp on wood before I would trust a removable vulcanite stem. BUT, I will say again that I am not speaking from authority. I personally, in my own ignorance, would date this to a 1965.

 
Dec 10, 2013
2,316
2,942
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
"He has handled tens of thousands of them", also omitted decent pictures of the nomenclature on the shank .

My educated guess is a 1965.

Hard to tell if any mouthpiece on a Dunnie is "original" since Dunhill made perfect replacements.

The seller is a stand up guy, but could not give a clear answer when I asked him, again telling me how experienced he is and so on...

 

georged

Lifer
Mar 7, 2013
5,491
13,920
Hard to tell if any mouthpiece on a Dunnie is "original" since Dunhill made perfect replacements.
Not true. Making a stem after the fact is quite a different exercise technically than making one at the same time as the stummel, and Dunhill had to deal with that difference the same as anyone else. From everything I've seen---which is considerable---Dunhill's home shop made OK replacements, but never "invisibly good" ones.
The private shops around the world that Dunhill declared "authorized" to work on their stuff are another thing entirely. They were uniformly atrocious.

 

georged

Lifer
Mar 7, 2013
5,491
13,920
What is your opinion regarding a cellulose dot ?
I don't have one. :lol:
Dunhill dots were definitely ivory early on, and were replaced with some sort of plastic mid-century. That's all the history there is. The size varied a few thousandths over the hundred years the dot has existed, and for the earliest ones position did too (they started out much closer to the shank), but beyond that nothing is consistent enough to be worth noting.
With regard to replacements, I just duplicate the size and material of the original that accompanies the stummel. (The only technical difference is I use walrus ivory instead of elephant)

 

georged

Lifer
Mar 7, 2013
5,491
13,920
I just looked at the listing in question.
IMO, based on the pics, the stem is a replacement.
The seller's huff-and-puff paragraph about discernment of details being why some resellers should be favored over others is technically true, but only when that discernment is based on fact AND correctly interpreted. Neither of which is the case here (again, based on the pics).
Definitely disappointing. When unsure, our friend has a habit of reaching too far in his claims, relying on the PipeWorld to clarify the situation when/if the excesses are noticed. To his credit, he has always graciously adjusted those claims without pushback or complaint when called out. But you'd think after all these years it would start to sting a bit.

 

georged

Lifer
Mar 7, 2013
5,491
13,920
What if the original is no longer there, so only a stummel ?
Usually a model specimen can be found. If not, there are several comprehensive Dunhill historical catalogs available to fill in the gaps.
I would ship you my Dunnies that are in need of a new stem for sure.
Thanks for the implied trust. Much appreciated. But the throughput/backlog situation means I can accept work only periodically, and now isn't one of those times. Sorry.

 
Dec 10, 2013
2,316
2,942
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Does not sting him; he could sell sour milk to a cow and the pipes he sells constantly fetch high prizes. .

What makes you think the stem is a replacement; because of the mediocre stem fit, possibly overpolished ?

 

cigrmaster

Lifer
May 26, 2012
20,249
57,280
66
Sarasota Florida
George, I have used coopersark in the past and he was always very professional and helpful. Do you really think he misstates things on purpose knowing he is wrong and then waits for someone to correct him?

 

dmcmtk

Lifer
Aug 23, 2013
3,672
1,685
Interesting. In David Field's dating guide, 1955-60 MADE IN ENGLAND is all in one line, 1961-70 it's MADE IN over ENGLAND. Just on that and the size of the date code, I'd say 1965. The stem on my 1969 36 Shell fits better than the stem in the listing, with NO visible stem/shank gap.
:)

 

georged

Lifer
Mar 7, 2013
5,491
13,920
Do you really think he misstates things on purpose knowing he is wrong and then waits for someone to correct him?
That isn't what I said. How you paraphrased what I DID say is too general and sounds gratuitously accusatory.
Let me try it again. (Explaining accurately is important so requires linguistic precision. Please bear with me.)
What I am 100% sure is the case---because it's firsthand knowledge---is that when Rob isn't sure about something, he has been known to "go with" the best possible interpretation. And based on the accounts of others in the hobby I trust implicitly, that's his default approach.
The end.
Is that "wrong" or "bad"? When selling something, arguably no. That's just "sharp business."
Is the PipeWorld different than the rest of the world when it comes to trust, transparency, and etc? Arguably yes. All collecting/historical hobbies are.
That's the extent of my observation. I'm certainly not trying to tell people what to think about the situation. I do feel duty-bound, however, to do what I reasonably can to make sure their conclusions/opinions are based on full information.

 
Dec 10, 2013
2,316
2,942
Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Your help is greatly appreciated George !
The pipe is sold and I posted the seller mail inquiring if this could possibly be a 1965 pipe with an older mouthpiece.
No reply so far.
Many thanks to you all,
Roland

 

gnarlybriar

Might Stick Around
Jun 11, 2009
66
24
74
Chesterfield, VA
I admit to trusting both Coopersark (Rob) and George because of their experience. However you can still find crazy anomalies from any production - Dunhill's also. George has at this moment an ODA 838 of mine, and the doggone thing has a "squashed" stem - the sides of the stem are "scooped out", gosh knows why/who did such, so I sent the pipe to George to make a "proper" stem. I have finally tracked own the original owner who states that he bought it new and it was like that. No way I say, it's a replacement, or at least a modified factory, stem. Well, last night, I see another Dunhill pipe (this a billiard) with the same type of "squashed" stem! The gentleman who owns it says also that he bought it new from a tobacconist. Has anyone else ever seen such?
I'll bet that anyone out there would say - no, that's not original Dunhill - but unless the same nut modified those stems - perhaps they are original. Crazy things happen, but I'm still betting on that nut sneaking into pipe shops and squashing stems.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.