Dunhill White Spot Drama

[pitchfork]

Howard says unequivocally that celluloid was indeed the early "ivory" material, and that no claim was ever made by the company that real ivory was used. (How the myth started is unknown).

:clap:
That's great info.

 

[georged]

...it isn't unreasonable to test this more than once to settle the point. If you've got some old orphaned stems that aren't candidates for restoration fodder, what bad can come from testing out a few others?

The problem being there will always be someone who claims that whatever the number tested, it wasn't enough.
That's why the burden of proof has reversed. After considering the evidence, that any of them ARE real ivory is the unreasonable claim.

 

[flakyjakey]

Gawd! Just as I was about to put the red-hot needle to the off-white dot of my 1918 dunnie churchie (Dunhill churchwarden) in the interests of science!!

 

[seacaptain]

Cool thread. Well done.

 

[georged]

Gawd! Just as I was about to put the red-hot needle to the off-white dot of my 1918 dunnie churchie (Dunhill churchwarden) in the interests of science!!

Be sure to do it on video in a public place with many witnesses (and notarized signatures for all of them). A mere before and after photo would would doubtless be declared a "Photoshop job" by the dot religion's faithful. :lol:

 

[flakyjakey]

George - Ha Ha! I do indeed own one of the above (and several more ancient Dunnies), but I accept your contention - where is the evidence that Dunhill ever did use ivory in their white dots? But, perhaps more interesting, how did that rumour arise??

 

[thomasw]

Thanks heaps for the information and experiment, George. TW

 

[georged]

But, perhaps more interesting, how did that rumour arise??

The notion seemed / felt consistent with Dunhill's perception as a luxury brand, I imagine.

 

[lordofthepiperings]

There’s many factors. You’d have to somehow have definitive proof that the stem was made prior to the ivory ban which I believe was some time in the 1960s and was made by the Dunhill factory themselves. Dunhill stems are the most reproduced/counterfeited stems in the pipe world. Then there’s also the possibility that Dunhill may have only done ivory inserts on certain grades.
As the great philosopher Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pops once said, “The world may never know.”.

 

[sablebrush52]

The world of pipes and tobaccos is replete with bubbe meises. No end of them. With Barling, the claim is that they never used wood less than 100 years old (and there's the bubbe meise about 100 year old wood). They never made that claim. In fact, their literature of the 1920's, specifically The Romance Of The Barling Pipe, wherein they present their harvesting and aging process, specifies wood at about 60 years of age or less.
These were businesses that existed to make a profit. Using a material that is hard to mill makes no sense, especially when a perfectly good alternative that is less problematic and costly is readily available.
But people will believe what they need to believe. And if bubbe meises make for magic, they will believe in magic.

 

[georged]

There’s many factors. You’d have to somehow have definitive proof that the stem was made prior to the ivory ban which I believe was some time in the 1960s and was made by the Dunhill factory themselves. Dunhill stems are the most reproduced/counterfeited stems in the pipe world. Then there’s also the possibility that Dunhill may have only done ivory inserts on certain grades.

Wut?
Ivory ban? The earliest ivory ban of any sort was in 1989, decades after Dunhill's celluloid ("ivory") dot had been replaced with the bright white acrylic one. There's no connection of any sort, hypothetically or otherwise.


Dunhill stems are the most reproduced/counterfeited in the pipe world? Their total number of pipes produced annually was small compared with many other prestige brands; and "counterfeit" pipes of any kind are numerically negligible, convincing or not. And that's only RECENTLY with some Chinese junk. Old pipes were never, and still are only very rarely, worth trying to copy. Anyone with the skill to do much better money-wise by simply making pipes under his own name. As for "counterfeit" replacement stems on existing legitimate Dunhill stummels (if that's what you meant), I can assure you that's not, and has never been, anything approaching a realistic concern. It's simply too difficult to do undetectably. Meaning there are MUCH better ways to make money with the time and effort required. Honest ways.


The possibility that real ivory was used on certain grades? Seriously? A company would spend considerable time and money to do something that was 100% undetectable without destructive testing, and then KEEP IT A SECRET. :rofl:

 

[cigrmaster]

lord, how would the ivory ban have an effect on Dunhill pipes? There is tons of ivory on the market and has been since the ban.

 

[lordofthepiperings]

This comment surprised me given how long you have been here. I don't wish to blow smoke up his arse but surely you're aware he's not just some guy on a forum and that he's an experienced and respected restorer whose work and knowledge has proven exceptional

Absolutely no idea who this guy georged is.

 

[virginialover]

lordofthepiperings: "Forgive me if I take Brian Levine's word over that of some guy on a forum who's profile picture is a random cat."
georged: "Further developments (as the saying goes):
I just spoke with Rob again, who spoke with Howard Smith, the chief archivist of the Dunhill Museum.
Howard says unequivocally that celluloid was indeed the early "ivory" material, and that no claim was ever made by the company that real ivory was used. (How the myth started is unknown)"
I like the way the guy on a forum, who's profile picture is a random cat, answered with facts and knowledge. One should never underestimate cats, they are curious and inquisitive. Well done Sir cat!

 

[sablebrush52]

I had a great chat with Rob, who called me about this thread and told me about Howard Smith's information. I'd say that the chief archivist for Dunhill is a pretty unimpeachable source.
As for who George Dibos is, he's one of the most respected pipe restorers in the business. We've been graced with a number of posts showing his work.

 

[virginialover]

lordofthepiperings: "There’s many factors. You’d have to somehow have definitive proof that the stem was made prior to the ivory ban which I believe was some time in the 1960s and was made by the Dunhill factory themselves. Dunhill stems are the most reproduced/counterfeited stems in the pipe world. Then there’s also the possibility that Dunhill may have only done ivory inserts on certain grades.
As the great philosopher Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pops once said, “The world may never know.”."
A feeble attempt at regaining the upper hand with statements that actually bring nothing to the table. One should always keep to verified and relevant facts for the subject at hand.

 

[ssjones]

I just read that it was Stanley Kubrick who shot those photos that George posted. If you view them in reverse chronology, the "Dibos" code about the moon landing is revealed.

 

[lordofthepiperings]

As for who George Dibos is, he's one of the most respected pipe restorers in the business. We've been graced with a number of posts showing his work.

I have a great local guy who does restorations and if I ever needed something done I would go to him not George. Especially after this arrogant rude thread.

 

[virginialover]

ssjones: "I just read that it was Stanley Kubrick who shot those photos that George posted. If you view them in reverse chronology, the "Dibos" code about the moon landing is revealed."
Funny you mentioned this moon business. I was told, by a cigarette smoking man, that Dunhills with the dreaded IVORY DOT are still made but in a secret base on the dark side of the moon. I choose to believe :D

 

[jguss]

I'm with George on this one. I've never seen ivory claimed by the company as the material used. The 1921 litigation wherein Dunhill sued the Wolf brothers over infringement for their usage of a white dot made no mention of ivory, or celluloid for that matter. Infer from that what you like; but where proof is elusive a standard of reasonableness applies. In light of Smith's testimony and George's experiment, the burden of proof is now overwhelmingly on those who claim ivory was used: who said it, and when? Is there any evidence supporting this assertion from a credible and contemporaneous source?
By the way, while it's true that Dunhill was far from being the largest pipe mfr, by the end of WWI I think they did dominate the true prestige end of the market (measured by avg price point of all production). From essentially zilch in 1912 they grew exponentially in their first decade, with the Great War providing a huge boost:
1914 10,000 pipes

1915 14,000

1916 30,000

1917 60,000

1918 134,000

1919 156,000

1920 256,000

1921 276,000