Charatan or Dunhill?

[camaguey]

Both Charatan and Dunhill made great pipes. My late father-in-law was a serious Dunhill collector, with over 900 specimen from all eras, very rare pieces, all kept in fitted drawers. At the time I smoked primarily Dunhill pipes.

I got curious about Charatan and bought a few. My father-in-law got curious and borrowed them off me. I didn't get them back until after he passed, he loved them too much to give them back.

But both of these went away when I tried my first Barling. This was a pipe that delivered more flavor from the blends I was smoking, than any Dunhill I had and the bit was more comfortable that my Charatans.

A couple of top tier Dunhill dealers I knew, who smoked Barlings for their personal use, quite independently put it to me this way, Dunhill focused on passable wood with superb stemwork, Charatan focused on superb wood with passable stemwork, and Barling focused of superb everything. With more than a century of combined experience between them, who was I to argue?

So I'd have to go with the winning team, Team Barling.

I agree with you. Several years ago barling was my favorite. As i turned old , i had some problems with my gums where i was not able to hold a pipe in my mouth. Then , the comfort of the stem was not an issue as i have to hold the pipe on my hand and then the barlings where not so important to me. By then , i had the same satisfaction with barlings,dunhills or charatans. By then , i also realized that my best smokes on hand where from castello. I keep my old barlings , dunhills and charatans and smoke them with great joy. However , castello is my first choice as the best smoking instrument under my actual circunstances.

 

[Papamique]

I would say the top four pipes from England ‘back in the day’ were:

Charatan
Sasieni
Dunhill
Barling

For me, each one has their pluses and drawbacks but when everything is tallied, Charatan comes out on top. Here’s why:

1.) Charatan had excellent wood but unbeatable grain in their day. No one could come close in the straight grain category as dunhill, barling and even Sasieni specialized in a cross cut. Sure they put out some straight grains but they were rare and Charatan had straight grain in spades.

2.) They led the proverbial “charge” on freehands. They were doing free-hands long before Danish carvers and made them when the other three were producing mainly fraized bowls

3.) They put it ALL together. They had well cured and seasoned wood with straight grain made by hand in freehand shapes. They had traditional shapes and non-traditional alike. From Canadian to billiards to cup and saucer.

4.) IMO they had the most clenchable stems. Even though they were soft and oxidize and some people don’t like the DC stems, I love them and find them the most comfortable to clench albeit with the most upkeep.

5.) If you don’t care about straight grain they also had the excellent grain in a deep craggy sandblast. Dunhill shell before the mid 60’s was also good.

Of course this is all one man’s opinion but I’m sure you’ll agree.

 

[ashdigger]

Neither.

If I’m picking one marquee it’s pre-WW2 Loewe.

 

[OzPiper]

Charatan "lost" me when they started turning out large, overweight, clunky pipes with those fugly double comfort stems. And increased the number of grades exponentially.

 

[Papamique]

Charatan "lost" me when they started turning out large, overweight, clunky pipes with those fugly double comfort stems. And increased the number of grades exponentially.

I find it hard to be interested in their offerings too for the same reasons (except the DC bit. Love those) but once in a while I find one that I like and the pre-lane ones are more classic shapes and sizes but unfortunately without the DC stem.

 

[ssjones]

Most Dunhills were petite compared to Charatans, that's my draw. The only small Charatan I've ever owned was the 109 bulldog shape. I like the mouth feel of a Charatan stem, but those DC stems just put me off, where a Dunhill stem is a work of art.