1905 Barling pipe

[jguss]

hi pitch,
good questions. i think some measurable part of the apparent confusion may be due to the difference in time period involved.
my take is this: nearer in time and nearer in geography each tend towards greater credibility. there are exceptions, of course, but that's my general rule. the article i mentioned was from the original (i.e. London) trade journal Tobacco, and was printed in the December 1, 1888 issue. the article you quote was written a generation later (July 27, 1922) and three thousand miles away (in the NY version of Tobacco).
i'd also point out that by the time your article was printed the value of "london made" branding was long established, and british companies were doing whatever they could to cash in on it. and much of that "whatever" involved misleading or outright deceiving the consumer. in 1888, however, the "london made" brand was barely a twinkle in the industry's eye; in fact it was the early experiments of players like frankau and comoy that ultimately led to "london made" having commercial value.
it's also important to note that testimony during the merchandise marks hearings suggest that at the time your article was published true completely-uk-made briar pipes were few and far between. hence barling's incentive to gain competitive advantage over its rivals by depriving them of the ability to claim domestic origin.
jon

 

[jguss]

hi orlando,
many thanks for the generous words; i appreciate them very much.
as for definite answers, that's a thorny enough problem without dragging in philosophy or (god help us) religion. as many of us remember from sunday school, pilate famously asked "what is truth?"; unluckily for us he didn't stick around long enough to hear the answer.
more seriously, i do believe that factual questions are susceptible to factual answers. sometimes we find them, however, and sometimes we don't.
i also believe that sometimes it's a process, where each fragment of information narrows the range of what the answer must be, and brings us incrementally closer to finality.
jon

 

[georged]

Damn, I love threads like this. :clap:
Thank you, Old Britwood experts, for freely sharing your knowledge.

 

[orlandofurioso]

Hi George,

Thank you for joining us.

 

[ssjones]

I was watching that one and despite knowing little about Barling's of that era, I was surprised that the bids did not go higher. I'd only be compelled to give that one a light tune up and enjoy it for another century or so.

 

[sablebrush52]

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)?

The source for the "Own Make" BBB vs the BBB without "own make" came from the BBB article found here.
As to your question about whether BBB was still using imported stummels circa 1910, the most probable answer is yes. Here's an interview with a director of BBB from 1906, so we know that they were using French stummels at that time.

Given that Dunhill fought the request made by Barling, in 1928, to apply the Merchandise Marks Act to pipes, the likely answer is that Dunhill continued to use stummels from outside suppliers. Then again, so did most of the marques.
Jon is being very modest. He knows way more about all of this than do I and very generously shares his discoveries with me. I'm more of a visual sleuth, looking at the minutiae of stampings, shaping, etc, collecting images, and trying to connect the dots.

 

[jefff]

I would really like a quality ninepence briar...

 

[pitchfork]

Thanks, Jesse. I don't think there's any question they were using imported stummels through at least 1922 (by which time they had gone bankrupt and been purchased by Oppenheimer), but I was wondering if they were using these for "Own Make" pipes as well. The 1922 source I cited stated that all BBB bowls were "imported from Europe," but I think Jon's argument on this is pretty persuasive that "Own Make" bowls were, at least for a time, made entirely in London:

in 1888, however, the "london made" brand was barely a twinkle in the industry's eye; in fact it was the early experiments of players like frankau and comoy that ultimately led to "london made" having commercial value.
it's also important to note that testimony during the merchandise marks hearings suggest that at the time your article was published true completely-uk-made briar pipes were few and far between. hence barling's incentive to gain competitive advantage over its rivals by depriving them of the ability to claim domestic origin.

Great stuff. Thanks again to Jesse and Jon for sharing their knowledge with the rest of us.

 

[orlandofurioso]

Thank you Al.

That is what I intend do do, give it a nice and cautious tune up ( little anxcious about the internal bowl condition ) and enjoy it for a hundred or more years .

We often watch the same auction, soulmates ?

 

[pitchfork]

Glad you posted that, billkay. I remember reading that long ago, but it provides some pertinent context to what we're discussing here.

 

[orlandofurioso]

Hi billkay,
Thumbs up for good old Weingott pipes. I own one "the temple bar briar" billiard.

Obscure and rare. The seller listed it as "eingott pipe" and I jumped on it. The family Era pipes are very rare

and by now and then the post family show up and make a lot of money, while the later pipes were actually rather

poor. Mine looks fine for me ; mediocre briar with even a small "blank", but it smoke like a charm.

The wood is extremely dense and rockhard, it almost gives a "ping" when you flick our thumb against it.

And the execution of bowl; God there's a song in my heart

I love this thread, may it last forever. Did I not launch it as a BARLING one ?

 

[orlandofurioso]

I have some friends, some honest friends

And honest friends are few.

An open fire, a pipe of briar

And a book that's not too new.
Thank you Billkay,I am and your kind words mean a lot to me.

 

[pitchfork]

The family Era pipes are very rare and by now and then the post family show up and make a lot of money, while the later pipes were actually rather

poor.

I didn't realize there was a "family era," but I have noticed that the newer Weingotts for sale are pretty mediocre looking. Do you happen to know the dates for the family era?

 

[orlandofurioso]

Here you are;

http://yeoldebriars.com/weingott.html
https://pipedia.org/wiki/Weingott

 

[sablebrush52]

I don't think there's any question they were using imported stummels through at least 1922 (by which time they had gone bankrupt and been purchased by Oppenheimer), but I was wondering if they were using these for "Own Make" pipes as well.

The French site, Fumeurs de Pipe states that "Own Make" indicated the pipe was wholly made by BBB, and the lack of that stamp indicated that the pipe was imported and finished at BBB. Jon's article from 1888 would seem to corroborate that statement.
On some level, we're taking all of this on faith. We don't have anything like a complete record of what was done, just dips in the river. As Jon points out, the value of "London Made" was such that pipes turned elsewhere were stamped "London Made" or "Made In England" by many manufacturers.
Manufacturers made claims that were not accurate when advertising their products. I caught one such example in this thread:
http://pipesmagazine.com/forums/topic/gbd-oppenheimer-on-cover-of-1922-tobacconist-magazine
What Jon is doing to bring the history of the pipe trade to light is amazing and a great service to all who appreciate the history of pipes.

 

[misterlowercase]

This is a great thread!
Well done.

:clap:
I love the multifaceted angles all abounding herein,

but I really love the R.J. Lea aspect as they were a pretty major manufacturing tobacconist in the way back when days and had a fairly large presence...
...here's an advert contemporary to your pipe,

1905:

...and another from 1907:

...and now for my tangent,

arguments regarding the whiteness of a spot.
In the case of Dunhill v. Bartlett & Bickley is found a rather curious notation of Barling at one time using a white spot on their stems...

One Barling produced a pipe with a white spot. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings to restrain him, but the action was formally discontinued in 1918. The Plaintiff says that, no further Barling pipes with a white spot have been sold.
+
In 1917 one Barling put some pipes on the market; with a white spot upon them and the Plaintiff commenced proceedings. The action would have been tried in March 1918, when conditions owing to the war were very difficult, and the Plaintiff accordingly served notice of discontinuance. This was the first challenge to the Plaintiff and has not been pleaded in the present action as one of the prior users.
http://rpc.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/15/426.full.pdf+html

Very interesting indeed, if I'm reading it right, Barling was the first of numerous pipemakers that Dunhill patently tasked over the famous White Spot --- I wonder if any of the Barling spotted pipes survived? Has anyone ever seen one or heard of one?
Dunhill lost the case versus B&B who continued to use their red spot, unlike Sasieni in the USA who under different laws had to give up his single blue dot.
The B&B case is quite interesting and I wish I could find a user-friendly law database that an average layman such as myself could use, as I think it'd be quite informative pouring over all the early Dunhill lawsuits.
An odd twist is a certain H.W. Simmons, tobacconist of Piccadilly, showing up as a witness on behalf of B&B,

and the irony of H. Simmons name itself coming to be owned by Dunhill later down the road.
Another neat twist:

Sir Duncan Kerly perhaps gives us the first recorded use of the term "pipe snob" and interestingly it is in relation to Dunhill, a very brief commentary, yet also at an early time, echoing the sentiments expressed by A. A. Milne two years earlier in his Smoking as a Fine Art essay...

This is amply borne out by Mr. Herbert Dunhill's evidence before me, when he told me that the Plaintiff's pipes are almost invariably spoken of as the white spot pipe, and that: except, to an extent not worth considering, the ordinary names in the trade and amongst smokers, for the Plaintiff's pipes are " the Dunhill pipe," " the white spot pipe," " the Dunhill white spot,," or " the white spot Dunhill.·"
For some mysterious reason the presence of this little white spot has attractions for many smokers. It was introduced by the Plaintiff in 1912, his output of pipes rose from 41,000 for the year ending 30th June 1914 to 276,000 for the year ending the 30th June 1921.
His pipes are, as to shape and general appearance, similar to the ordinary briar pipes with which all (including non-smokers) are familiar, except. for the presence of the white spot on the mouthpiece : but his lowest price for a briar pipe is one guinea while (according to his catalogues) you may, if you feel so disposed, pay as much as £6 lOs.
It seems difficult to believe that there should be enough people found in the world in one year and in the present times, of the requisite mental calibre to buy over a quarter of a million of briar pipes at the prices which I have mentioned. But I have Mr. Herbert Dunhill's evidence on the point. I must make an act of faith and accept it: but surely if Thackeray had been writing his " Book of Snobs " to-day he would add the " pipe snob " to his collection.

 

[sablebrush52]

Barlings with a white dot? First I've heard of it. Certainly never seen one, though I do have a Barling with a stem that has a white dot on it. I just assumed that it's a replacement stem, though it is perfectly shaped as a Barling stem. I'll have to take a close look at the stamps.
That Dunhill claimed some right to the white dot is kind of funny, as they didn't originate that logo. Vauen used a white dot before Dunhill. I also find it very interesting that the white dot was initially used for pipes fitted with their innertube.

 

[orlandofurioso]

The pipe arrived today and I felt like a spoiled little lad unwrapping a Xmas present; with anxcious anticipation.

Please forgive my English, I am still filled with emotion.

Cosmetics is fine for a 110 year old; the stem only needs a good cleaning and polish, no teeth clatter, or - bite, no damage except for a little reshaping of the button.The silver mount is just great,lovely chunky acorn shaped with only a little superficial scratching. Decent dark walnut stained briar and a short trip to the buffer will do the job, no dents, one or two tiny scratches.

The rim needs a little topping, it starts getting nasty from here;

The chamber is out of round ( maybe give the rim a tiny internal bevel ? ) as the picture clearly shows and I suspected some over reaming,

euphemistically speaking . The inside is scraped out with a pocketknife I believe, leaving it thin and uneven, some briar missing.

The bottom is "sunk" and needs to be raised, OK I can do that, but the chamber is a worry

The seller offers returns and I feel confused.

Will you please share your thoughts with me ?

I do not plan to resell, but to refurbish and enjoy it myself

 

[jpmcwjr]

Clear and large photos will help!
I'd rather live with an out of round chamber (unless there's a lot of thickness in the walls) than remove more wood, which can be risky, more so on a century-old. YMMV, of course.

 

[ssjones]

I'd top it, rebuild the interior and smoke it gingerly