Thanks Doc!
400 pipes and never seen a "D" over-stamp is pretty compelling evidence to me, and that seems like expert qualification in my book!
I just wasn't sure if Comoy did such a thing, and it appears that they did not, so I'm thinking that Panhandler nailed it with the face of the die striking the briar and leaving an odd mark.
Also makes more sense to me than messing around marking or over-stamping a pipe as a defect for such a tiny, tiny blemish as the only possible defect that I could see on an otherwise beautiful pipe.
400 pipes and never seen a "D" over-stamp is pretty compelling evidence to me, and that seems like expert qualification in my book!
I just wasn't sure if Comoy did such a thing, and it appears that they did not, so I'm thinking that Panhandler nailed it with the face of the die striking the briar and leaving an odd mark.
Also makes more sense to me than messing around marking or over-stamping a pipe as a defect for such a tiny, tiny blemish as the only possible defect that I could see on an otherwise beautiful pipe.
