Dunhill Experts- Pipe Date

[runscott]

No, I think you're right. At first glance, I thought your '52 was underscored (with a smaller 2), but actually zooming in they are a similar size.

You had me worried - my eyesight is terrible (worthless) close-up, but I thought when I magnified things I was okay

I have had this issue with the 'small' vs 'large' date number thing, for a while. Sometimes the number is very obviously large, as in most 1960's shells, but for post-patent pipes in the '50s I am often befuddled.

 

[G-beard]

Would you mind posting the stamping on yours?

 

[G-beard]

You had me worried - my eyesight is terrible (worthless) close-up, but I thought when I magnified things I was okay

I have had this issue with the 'small' vs 'large' date number thing, for a while. Sometimes the number is very obviously large, as in most 1960's shells, but for post-patent pipes in the '50s I am often befuddled.

Glad I'm not the only one. The T or S following the group size circle being the same size as the circle, almost the same size, or smaller than the circle also seems a bit nebulous at times. I've seen examples where it clearly seems to be the same size as, or clearly smaller than the circle, but on some, it seems to be smaller than the circle, but not by much, and with those, it seems to fit two categories.

Curious as to what your vote would be on my Tanshell in question - '56 or '66?

 

[runscott]

Curious as to what your vote would be on my Tanshell in question - '56 or '66?

Well, I only have one 1956. To me, the underlined '6' in mine begins even with the top of the 'D' and the underscore is about even with the bottom of the 'D'. So I'd go 1966 on yours, but here is a photo that you can use to make up your own mind:

 

[georged]

Here's a 56 from '56, with a close-up of the date:

 

[runscott]

Here's a 56 from '56, with a close-up of the date:


View attachment 282694
View attachment 282695
View attachment 282696

Yeah, that's a tiny '6'. So are you thinking my '56 is actually a '66? ... and the original pipe that we have been discussing is a '66?

(You have to be more straight-forward with us Dunhill mental midgets.)

 

[TheIronMonkey]

The 'date number size' thing can be problematic at times. Here are stampings from a 1952 Tanshell and a 1962 tanshell. The 2's look pretty much the same size to me, but obviously the patent has to be 1952 and the non-patent, 1962.

When I look at the stamping of the pic at the top of this image, I see a tiny “2” that has an underscore. This “2” is a good deal smaller than the one in the bottom photo.

 

[TheIronMonkey]

This is what I see (traced in hot pink), but looking now, it does seems similarly sized with the “D”:

 

[runscott]

This is what I see (traced in hot pink):

View attachment 282704

Okay.

But...the expert has joined us, so it's just a matter of time before he gives us the definitive answer.

 

[Cloozoe]

Okay.

But...the expert has joined us, so it's just a matter of time before he gives us the definitive answer.

Well, since called upon, here is the final, inarguable word on the subj...

Oh, wait. Did you mean georged? Sorry; never mind.

But I'll still stake my non-existent reputation on the fact that the original pipe on the thread is a '56.

 

[runscott]

Well, since called upon, here is the final, inarguable word on the subj...

Oh, wait. Did you mean georged? Sorry; never mind.

But I'll still stake my non-existent reputation on the fact that the original pipe on the thread is a '56.

Yeah, I don't think there actually is an expert on judging how large stamped numbers are