Another old Dunhill Shell. This pipe was deformed enough from it's intended shape that it didn't receive a shape stamp, just the inner tube size of 9. Another great example of an early blast.
1923 Dunhill Shell Briar Bent Billiard
- Thread starter doctorbob
- Start date
.gif)
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Beautiful pipe! I bet the first owner got a great deal on it being off the shape charts! Very nice!
What's the overall length?
If it's within an eighth inch of this pipe, I'd say you have a 151.
(You'll have to get with Pappymac for the measurement, though)
If it's within an eighth inch of this pipe, I'd say you have a 151.
(You'll have to get with Pappymac for the measurement, though)
1926 Dunhill Bruyere Shape 151 restem --- Excellent Specimen, Uncommon Shape :: Pipe Repair and Maintenance
The 151 is quite large for its time---effectively a chunky 120 with a shorter bowl. And not many were made for some reason. I've only seen two others in 45 years. The nomenclature is not only museum-quality preserved, but was PERFECTLY applied. (Craftsmanship jobs weren't just a paycheck back...
pipesmagazine.com
As it happens, I own a 1923 Bruyere 151 in the earlier, taller bowl variety (Loring felt that in the early 20's the 151 was the shape and size of the modern 120 and the period 120 was slightly smaller overall, by the mid 20's the 120 had increased to its modern size and the 151 had its bowl height cut down almost to a bent pot)
I think this was more a 56.
Doc
Spiffy pipe Bob, what a great blast from the past .
For some odd reason these blasts move me so much, I love my old Dunnies from that period.
Allegedly the Dunhill management adviced to ship them off to the US. since the often deformed, inconsistent shapes and craggy blasts were more appreciated by the New World pipe crowd .
Last edited:
If I recall, from the late great foggymountain, back in the fifties and before, Dunhills were some of the better pipes but by no means the most expensive. For a long time, Kaywoodie cost more, and both were within reach of the working guy. Or gal. That's a classic. Foggy' remembered working in pipe shops in Manhattan in the 1950's, where presumably he sold his share of both brands.
I was given to understand that the craggy blasted ones often suffered from cracks because of the inconsistent heating of the briar.
It makes sense , not ?
It makes sense , not ?
I hear this repeated a lot, but I honestly don't think that is true. At least in the 40-50-60's.
In the 1941 George Yale catalog, Barling's and Dunhill pipes were $10 minimum and the highest priced Kaywoodie's in the catalog were the same (drinkless pipes were 3.50 and supergrains were 5.00). In other words, the buy in for the cheapest Dunhill and Barling's pipe was the same as the most expensive Kaywoodie. This holds true for the 1945 catalog from the same company, except base for Dunhill is now $15 and the highest priced Kaywoodie is now at $12.
The 1949 and 1955 RTDA catalogs show increasing price splits. Again the only Kaywoodie pipes that even remotely approached Dunhill in price were the ultra rare lines such as the 95er and the centennials.
By the early 60's it was game over with the Owl Shop asking more than $28 for a small smooth Dunhill and $15 for a high grade Kaywoodie connoisseur.
This isn't a slag on Kaywoodie, they made some really excellent pipes, but by trying to make a pipe for everyone, they lost the majority of the high end market from an early point in time.
Bob
I believe I saw two very early Dunhill blasts on Marty Pulvers site that he sold for in the $700.00s.
Didn't the process include an oil cure and heat before they were blasted?
Didn't the process include an oil cure and heat before they were blasted?
- Status