1946 Dunhill Shape 59 --- a Sandblast (Shell) Finish For the Ages
- Thread starter georged
- Start date
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
Starline 45-70, NOE 45-70 mold sized .461 over 37 grains of Blackhorn 209. Food for an 1888 Springfield Trapdoor.
This is just a dummy cart. And since it’s on the bench it got pressed into service as a tamper.
And yes, the pipe works just fine for me. Just gotta remember to turn the stem CCW when I want to take it off.
Such specimens make you wonder what the shop workers thought was happening when once every six months (or whatever) a pipe came out of the blast room looking like that. Completely different than the 50,000 before it, and the 50,000 to come after.
Also, did they think it was better or worse for being so different?
I'm sure they never imagined that people all over the planet would look at it simultaneously through Magic Screens and then talk about it, fight financially to own it, and so forth. lol
Well, on second thought, maybe they did:
You sound like someone who would really enjoy a tour of the Shiloh Sharps operation in Big Timber, MT.
Highly recommended if you ever get up that way.
My dad's ghost is doubtless pissed that I has to look that word up.
As for doing it, as we used to say in the Corps: "Not no but HELL no!"
View attachment 168622
It's a word museums tend to whisper rather than shout since future donations might taper off if donors thought what they were giving would be sold out the loading dock in the rear of the warehouse when money got tight.
Sorry to be late to this particular party--but MAGNIFICENT, George!
While generally ceteris paribus I subscribe to what I call the "Goldilocks Test" (too little, too much, just right), I cannot actually say I've ever seen a pre-war Dunhill I found too craggy for my taste. But I readily admit this is almost certainly a failure on my part, that may perhaps change as my connoisseurship evolves.
While generally ceteris paribus I subscribe to what I call the "Goldilocks Test" (too little, too much, just right), I cannot actually say I've ever seen a pre-war Dunhill I found too craggy for my taste. But I readily admit this is almost certainly a failure on my part, that may perhaps change as my connoisseurship evolves.