Charatan Question

[jguss]

I also wonder (looking at my Charatans of different dates) just when the Extra Large stamp came into play (I think this was a Herman Lane invention)

Yes re: it being under Lane ownership. I think it happened in 1970 since a) the Extra Large is specifically mentioned in a 1970 price list, b) subsequent RTDA almanacs show prices as a range based on size, and c) the 1969 almanac lists prices as a single point for each model.

 

[bayareabriar]

Hah! I have the brother to your pipe, also an Executive, and also with the #4 on the bottom. I've had three or four Charatans with this marking, and one with a #3. I assume this is a size indication, but different from the sizing of the Relief, Belvedere,Special lines (here we go again!) Your date guess sounds in line with mine, but we could both be wrong. Anyway, this numbering in the bottom of the higher grades makes one more indication of date of manufacture...if only we knew what it meant. I also wonder (looking at my Charatans of different dates) just when the Extra Large stamp came into play (I think this was a Herman Lane invention) and when they began doing a machined rough top on some of their pipes, another date-indicator. And of course I'm still puzzled by the FH stamp, which appears to be used concurrently with the MADE BY HAND stamp...how was it determined which of those two stamps to use? I have only one FH, and it has a DC stem, which would indicate that the FHs did run past '65 and maybe to the '67 date in some sources, but when did it begin? I've seen dates back to the '40s from some sources.(I thought I was about done with this thread, but you dragged me back in!)

This one is pretty large. Were your #3’s smaller than your #4?

 

[Lemuel Pitkin]

Yes: this one (like yours) has a bowl about the size of a Honeycrisp apple...not a giant like some Charatans, but quite a handful. Very light though. I have one other stamped 4 at present, a large Dublin Supreme machined rough top along the same scale (straight with DC stem, unlike our bents). I had a bent Selected DC with a 4, and a straight freehand-ish (as opposed to a FH) pot DC #4 years ago. The #3 I can recall was a straight DC poker, smaller, but slightly bigger than, say a group 4 Ton (Tun?) shape in the standard catalogue. Again, these numbered high grades came with both tapered or DC mouthpieces, so MAYBE spanned Reuben and Lane eras. Hope I'm making sense with this, but I'm on my way out the door.

 

[Stonemonk]

That is a beautiful pipe! Well...Have most of you seen the Russian article on Charatans that shows up online from time to time? I have a rather rough Google Translate (I think) version I can share if there is interest. In that article, the author states that the use of the term and the mark FH date well before 1958. The terms referred to hand-turned bowls and pipes that were not standard in the Charatan catalogue. At this point, he says, Herman Lane insisted on the mark FH being replaced by the phrase "Made by Hand." Obviously, if Lemuel, you have a pipe with both a DC stem and the mark "FH" it must have been brought back at a later date. Murky indeed! But interesting!
On the subject of grading, which sometimes seems somewhat arbitrary or what one might call "skilled subjective," I asked Jon if he knew the names of the people who actually did the grading. He wisely sent me back to the Kennedy Barnes interview collection Jesse helpfully put together a while ago for a search. What I found is that he mentions three people who graded all straight grains and freehands: Dennis Marshall, who trained a woman named Maureen (he could not recall her family name), and also he mentioned someone named "Chera Singh" who graded pipes. He remembered Maureen was the principal pipe grader of the above straight grains and freehands between 1968 and 1980. He said pipes were graded based on the grain (assuming pattern and quality?), shape, balance, presence of small sandpits, watermarks, etc.

 

[Lemuel Pitkin]

There is always the possibility that, for instance, my FH went back to be re-stemmed with a DC mouthpiece, which then throws my reading of the time into a tizzy. That would be more likely than the resurrection of the FH stamp, if I read your meaning correctly. One might suggest that the Charatan FH stamp was analogous to Dunhill's HW (hand worked) stamp, but ALL Charatans were hand made, unlike the Dunhills. So....As far as grading of the pipes, that was always going to be subjective. Ken Barnes said that they made Upshalls all week, then on Friday looked them all over and made their determinations on grade. Of course there were standards, but if they had great wood one week you might have better "P" grades than usual, and in a week of lesser wood, weaker "B" grades, for instance.

I will mention to you that there was organized, about 15 years ago, a Charatan Collector's Society. I believe that Bob Swanson and Dennis Congas were the moving forces behind this; Bob died a few years ago, and I'm not sure how active Dennis may still be (he's even older than me...must be around 80 yrs old now) but the society may still be in existence, even if only among themselves (they used to meet concurrently with the RTDA, or IPCPR show); if still in existence they might be of help to you. Maybe someone on the forum here knows.