Dunhill Experts- Pipe Date

[G-beard]

What say you? Is this a '56 or '66? It seems as though the underlined/raised numbers were more indicative of 50's and those without the underline more indicative of 60's, but both versions occurred in both decades. The size being smaller than the D or same size as the D is also supposed to be a hint, but it isn't clear to me if it's the number itself being smaller or the combination of the number and underline being smaller. I'm leaning towards it being a '66, but wanted to see what those with more experience have to say.

 

[craiginthecorn]

My understanding is that the underlined version was dominant in the 50s, but not exclusive. On the other hand, in the 60s, it seems they were never underlined. I’d be comfortable calling it 1956.

Dunhill: shell dating guide

www.pipephil.eu

 

[G-beard]

Also apparently '64 and prior, the T for Tanshell was smaller than the group size circle, and '65 and after, the T was "approximately the same size" as the preceding circle. It seems like both of these descriptions could be argued in this case.

 

[G-beard]

My understanding is that the underlined version was dominant in the 50s, but not exclusive. On the other hand, in the 60s, it seems they were never underlined. I’d be comfortable calling it 1956.

Dunhill: shell dating guide

www.pipephil.eu

Pipedia, however, suggests that underlined versions did occur in the 60's, at least for shell finishes - hence the consternation.

A Dunhill Pipe Dating Guide - Pipedia

pipedia.org

 

[craiginthecorn]

Pipedia, however, suggests that underlined versions did occur in the 60's, at least for shell finishes - hence the consternation.

A Dunhill Pipe Dating Guide - Pipedia

pipedia.org

Ah, yes. David Fields’ guide is authoritative. However, if I had to say that the size of the 6 is equal to the size of the D in ENGLAND, I would say it is smaller. I still think 1956.

 

[Cloozoe]

'56

 

[Cloozoe]

Pipedia, however, suggests that underlined versions did occur in the 60's, at least for shell finishes - hence the consternation.

I would de-consternate. If 'twere a Shell, a '56 would be more likely to be Algerian than a '66, if such matters to you, but Tanshells were allegedly Sardinian in any event. In my experience they made just as nice a pipe on balance in the mid '60s as they did in the mid '50s

 

[jaingorenard]

I would de-consternate. If 'twere a Shell, a '56 would be more likely to be Algerian than a '66, if such matters to you, but Tanshells were allegedly Sardinian in any event. In my experience they made just as nice a pipe on balance in the mid '60s as they did in the mid '50s

Apart from the first year or so of the Tanshell ('52) when they did use Algerian briar (not that it's relevant to this thread though!).

 

[Cloozoe]

Apart from the first year or so of the Tanshell ('52) when they did use Algerian briar (not that it's relevant to this thread though!).

I could be wrong, but I don't think they ever used Algerian briar for a Tanshell

 

[jaingorenard]

I could be wrong, but I don't think they ever used Algerian briar for a Tanshell

I believe they used it very briefly for a trial run in '52 - I'm lucky enough to have one.

 

[G-beard]

I believe they used it very briefly for a trial run in '52 - I'm lucky enough to have one.

Interesting. I also have a '52 Tanshell that is VERY craggy - much more so than typical Tanshells. I was wondering if they might have experimented with Algerian originally.

 

[jguss]

I was wondering if they might have experimented with Algerian originally.

I believe that to be true, as does georged and others. I’ve seen many first year Tanshells that have the craggier blasts associated with softer Algerian wood, which is quite distinct from the definition of the shallower blasts typically seen on Sardinian briar.

 

[G-beard]

I would de-consternate. If 'twere a Shell, a '56 would be more likely to be Algerian than a '66, if such matters to you, but Tanshells were allegedly Sardinian in any event. In my experience they made just as nice a pipe on balance in the mid '60s as they did in the mid '50s

There wasn't actually all that much consternation. I own the pipe and have never yet sold a pipe that I own, so it's relatively moot. I just like to know, for the sake of knowledge, and it can be useful for future potential purchases.

I have seen suggestion that Dunhill had to move away from Sardinian briar around the same time they had to move away from Algerian briar, but I don't know if that's true. I can't think how Algerian independence would affect Sardinian briar, but maybe they had to stop using it for other reasons (or maybe not at all).

I also haven't seen good evidence for when, exactly, Dunhill stopped using Algerian for Shells. Does anyone know? It seems to be most often stated nebulously as 'in the sixties'. Algeria won independence in 62', but supply might not have been cut off immediately, and Dunhill could have had a stockpile to get them through for a while. Does anyone have good evidence for a reliable cut-off year?

 

[Cloozoe]

[QUOTE="G-beard, post: 36969224, member: 34043]

...I also haven't seen good evidence for when, exactly, Dunhill stopped using Algerian for Shells. Does anyone know? It seems to be most often stated nebulously as 'in the sixties'. Algeria won independence in 62', but supply might not have been cut off immediately, and Dunhill could have had a stockpile to get them through for a while. Does anyone have good evidence for a reliable cut-off year?
[/QUOTE]

I've wondered myself. Clearly they must have had a significant amount on hand when they could no longer get any more.

 

[kcghost]

We could say it is Dunhill of indeterminate date.

 

[runscott]

Interesting. I also have a '52 Tanshell that is VERY craggy - much more so than typical Tanshells. I was wondering if they might have experimented with Algerian originally.

Would you mind posting the stamping on yours?

 

[runscott]

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.

 

[jaingorenard]

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.

I think the '2' is quite a noticably different size, particularly if you factor in the underscore. Here's mine, for the record:

 

[runscott]

I think the '2' is quite a noticably different size, particularly if you factor in the underscore. Here's mine, for the record:

Okay, I'm not seeing it, even with the underscore, but yours is exactly like the '52 I posted - same font, which is different from the 1962. Fortunately the patent seals the deal on the 1952's.

 

[jaingorenard]

Okay, I'm not seeing it, even with the underscore, but yours is exactly like the '52 I posted - same font, which is different from the 1962. Fortunately the patent seals the deal on the 1952's.

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.