Forciori, the rejection you speak of , or doubt for me comes from the amazing coincidences you state in the start of the thread. You describe how it seems almost impossible for this pipe to be made in the timelines you know of, but the stampings suggest you are correct.
This.
I am no Dunhill expert, but as I said in my first post on the subject, their are anomalies about that pipe
beyond the spelling of one word in the nomenclature. I merely shared, with the benefit of limited personal experiences that were memorable to me because they came early on and served as a warning, some history of counterfeit Dunhills.
I never said one word about whether I thought the pipe was a genuine Dunhill works, produced in the normal course of business, piece or not. I am not expert enough to opine. I would not do so if I had the pipe in hand. But I saw many of the early 1980’s counterfeit Dunhills in hand, had knowledgeable collectors point out what was queer about them, and reread the Loring article before I said one word.
Based on that, I will say exactly what I thought when I first saw the pictures.
That piece bears no resemblance to the 1980’s counterfeit Dunhills I saw. I But I never saw all of them, and rumors persisted for well,over a decade that more were made than ever surfaced in the US at that time.
It is still an anamoly. It is a spectacular piece from what I can see. I would love to see it in hand. Anamolies are not unheard of in Dunhill collecting, nor are disagreements.
And anything that is worth counterfeiting will be counterfeited. Were I still into Duhills, I would only buy it after getting some other opinions. And I might buy it in the face of other’s doubts, as did John Loring, to my personal knowledge, with a few pieces that he acquired after the1980’s fake “cat was out of the bag.”
@forciori, I could care less about your ethnicity or country of residence. If I read your OP correctly, this is not even your pipe , and you acknowledged the basic issues in your post. Why you are getting so upset?
