Dunhill White Spot Drama

[virginialover]

R: "Maybe the "ivory" has been a FIGment of the imagination all along..."
For some, it's quite real and no amount of proof, fig or cellulose, will show them otherwise.

 

[georged]

OK, we're 3 for 3.
I was talking to Mark Price the pipe maker earlier tonight (his stuff is EXCELLENT, btw), and this dot business came up. He said he happened to have a 1938 "ivory dot" Dunhill with a split bowl, so offered to heat-test it.
It doesn't look as impressive as the earlier two because he used the tip of an Xacto knife instead of a needle (which wouldn't stay red hot from a lighter flame because the blade and handle acted as a heat sink), but it still plunged in instantly---the little black-edged slot in the center of the dot is appx 2mm deep.
.

 

[jvnshr]

The ivory was gone and in its place was a fig.

What the FIG?

 

[beefeater33]

He said he happened to have a 1938 "ivory dot" Dunhill

Not that it matters a fig whole lot, but that pipe is a 1948 model, the 1938's had the underlined 18, and without the /34 patent number. (in the name of science you know...... :wink: )

I'm 99% convinced George, but nobody yet has tried the needle on a "proven" early stem, i.e. one with a Regd# on the underside........... and that Mark Price stem......... look at that dot........... ::

 

[beefeater33]

"Celluloid Heroes".................... :mrgreen:

 

[crashthegrey]

Thanks for scientifically exploring this. I never really believed that those white dots on Dotties were ivory, it just seemed far fetched. But I kept my mouth shut so as not to offend the Dunnie fans.

 

[georged]

Earlier, when I posted the photos that Rob emailed me, I summarized his note that accompanied them.
I just spoke with him on the phone, and it turns out he intended his remarks be cut and pasted in their entirety for both clarity and accountability. (Given the nature of the Internet, I can't say I blame him. :lol: )
Since the edit window closed long ago on that post, the best that can be done is to add it now, with a verbal "pointer" to his picture set earlier in the thread (the shiny, bent stem).
---------

Greetings George:
While my iPhone camera is nowhere near the level of your camera, the photos attached will serve as yet another example of a Dunhill not using ivory, but rather cellulose. I chose this stem, as your example represented a Dunhill pipe stem from the early 1950's, and I wanted to help dispel the ivory myth, by performing your test on a much earlier example, so that any "naysayers" would also accept this as fact, and not state "well the earlier Dunhill pipes had ivory dots in their stems". This stem is from the late 1920's. The dot is smaller in size. I strongly believe this stem came from a Shape number 59. I keep a Shape 52 in my office from 1926. The dot size is identical, the tenon is that old wide style, the button shape is identical - only this stem is a bit longer in length.
Again, while the photo of the dot is a bit blurred, you can clearly see the needle mark that cut through that dot like a hot knife through butter. Nice little puff of smoke when I touched the hot needle to the dot. Louping the dot, I can clearly see the off white stem dot material has bubbled out. While it was difficult for me to ruin an almost perfect Dunhill stem, the sacrifice is worth it for the hobby and the collective knowledge of dispelling this long held myth.
If there are any doubters, I strongly suggest that they take a before and after photo of their Dunhill stem and display it on this thread after performing the same experiment. Have them "put their money where their mouth is" so to speak. You proved my initial thesis, and I just backed you up. If there are any disbelievers, let them prove us wrong. Have them perform the same test on one of their vintage Dunhill pipe dots, and show the results on the forum for all to see. After all, a hot needle wont burn ivory. Otherwise - "case closed!"
With all my best regards,
Rob Cooer

 

[ashdigger]

I'm lucky enough to own several Dunhills from 1920 through 1943 and then a few in the early 1960's and all I can say is thank you for the info. This has been super informative.
The knowledge base, for open minds, is quite astonishing.

 

[beefeater33]

I'm still at 99% convinced, I still hold a little doubt about the EARLY pipes being celluloid......... Rob has no proof that the errant stem was from the 20's........ its just a guess. In fact he claims the bent stem came from a Dunhill #59???.....WTF?? A STRAIGHT billiard?
He PROBABLY meant a shape 56? Hell, he didn't even spell his last name right.............. :crazy:
Before one can claim "Case Closed", one should have the FACTS in order.............

 

[georged]

Before one can claim "Case Closed", one should have the FACTS in order.............

Typos hardly constitute "facts not being in order"...
:roll:

 

[beefeater33]

But they sure don't contribute to the accuracy of a "scientific study" either.............. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[crashthegrey]

There will always be the doubter of facts. Although it is kind of funny that he misspelled his own name, it doesn't make me doubt the results.

 

[sablebrush52]

And leave us not forget that Dunhill's own archivist stated that they didn't use ivory. I suspect that he would have a clue.

 

[georged]

But they sure don't contribute to the accuracy of a "scientific study" either..............

Seriously?
We're not talking tabulated data, here. There was no math or otherwise delicate data TO be affected by typos.
Wait a minnit... You're trolling, aren't you? :clap:
Good one. You got me.

 

[beefeater33]

Let me clarify a few things.

For one, this is a HUGE dicovery, and very commendable. It WILL rock the Dunhill (collectors) world if proven correct.

This is worthy of some presentations at pipe shows, addendums to books, etc. It really is HUGE NEWS!

But to undo 100 years of collective thinking, even wrong thinking, will take some serious facts, and that is what I feel is lacking.
Back to my earlier questions which no one addressed: Dunhill offered an "ivory" stem option in their early catalogs. Was it ivory???? Was it ivory with a celluloid dot???? Was it actually a celluloid stem???? Perhaps the Dunhill archivist can shed some light?
My brain is wired such for me to buy into something, I have to have reasonable proof. Again, I'm 99% convinced that ALL Dunhill spots were cellulose/acrylic/plastic.
That 1% of doubt lingers because none of these stems have been the very EARLY ones, George's was from the 1950's?, Rob's from the 1920's(maybe??), The one from Mark Price looked to be a newer replacement to me...........
All I'm saying is I personally still have that 1% doubt............ If Dunhill can make a 3 million dollar Gold Eiffel Tower pipe, with all of the extravagance, its not much of a stretch to imagine there just might be some original stems with ivory dots out there........ (original being the key word here, George :wink: )
And George, your attention to detail is what I admire about you, I'm surprised that you are so easily convinced on some things.
I do have an old one that I will try this expirement on, I'm at work now, but it will be done........... But the dot on that old girl is so TINY, it may be hard to hit the bullseye with these old shaky hands........... :D

Wait a minnit... You're trolling, aren't you?

Saw this after I posted...... Not trolling at all, just trying to learn. I'm not a scientist, but it sures seems like a scientific study to me....... if its not a study, what the hell is it then? Thats why I "Quoted" the Scientific Study.....

 

[georged]

Beefeater,
Besides the experiments in this thread, there's this:

And leave us not forget that Dunhill's own archivist stated that they didn't use ivory.

 

[workman]

This is a great read. I have purchased my first Dunhill and should get it in a couple of days and I am excited to try smoking a higher grade pipe.I am a little baffled by the importance people place in the dots though. Snobbery, perhaps? I just hope the bowl isn't celluloid

 

[cigrmaster]

With George's experiments and Dunhill's own expert saying ivory was never used, not sure how much more proof is required. I am a pretty skeptical person and I have no doubts ivory was never used.

 

[georged]

I am a little baffled by the importance people place in the dots though.

There's a big difference between importance and interest.
Pipe collecting isn't exactly an adrenaline junkie's first choice for a hobby, you see, because things don't change much over time. So when a trademark detail of a high profile brand widely thought to be one thing for a century turns out to be something else, there's disproportionate interest in the "news."

 

[workman]

I love your experiment and I am totally convinced. I am just a little surprised by the apparent unhappiness it causes in the Dunhill camp.