Dunhill/White Spot "Group" Sizes

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

Watch for Updates Twice a Week

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

mso489

Lifer
Feb 21, 2013
41,210
60,611
We don't hear much about Dunhill Groups as the way of designating pipe sizes. Sensibly, most pipe retailers list specifications such as bowl height, chamber depth and diameter, and length and weight of the pipe, and that summarizes it nicely. But for years going back, and still, the oldest pipe shop in Chicago and maybe the nation, still refers to Group sizes. Group 1 are the smallest pipes; the Peterson Belgique would be an example. Group 2 and 3 are small bowls you see, along with others, from many French pipe makers notably. Group 4 is your standard medium size pipe beloved by many as the work horse of the pipe smoking world. Group 5 and Group 6 are your really big pipes in two steps. So far as I know, Dunhill never worked out a chart pinning down the required size specifications for the groups, but after a few years of buying pipes from Iwan Ries, i was used to it, and it made dependable sense, so I thought I knew what I was buying, and I never felt misled. But this is a sort of mysterious corner of pipe lore, the Group sizes, helpful but not really specific, that you have to learn by experience. I just thought I'd share this so new pipe smokers who haven't encountered it will know what it is. I say, check out the specifications, the actual measurements and weight, and don't make it guess work.
 

ssjones

Moderator
Staff member
May 11, 2011
19,000
13,038
Covington, Louisiana
postimg.cc
For my use, the equivalent weight in grams is always as important as the Group size.
You cannot strictly rely on Dunhill Group sizes to know what you are buying, but they do seem to be consistent over the decades/eras.

For example, Dunhills I own/owned, are all Group 4, but the grams vary slightly. I like pipes in the 45 to 50 gram weight range.

CK Shape (1969) - 45 grams
120 Shape - 50 grams
CK Shape (1971) - 44 grams
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grangerous

Chasing Embers

Captain of the Black Frigate
Nov 12, 2014
44,963
117,433
IIRC the group number and date were a reference for repair work if needed more than a size reference. Pipes within the same group can often be all over the place as far as dimensions and weights are concerned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosmicfolklore

Grangerous

Lifer
Dec 8, 2020
3,466
14,339
East Coast USA
Pipes within the same group can often be all over the place as far as dimensions and weights are concerned.
When my vintage Group #4 Dunhill arrived I was initially shocked by its diminutive size. — a Tiny pipe by today’s standards.

Looking to photos or advertisements from the 40’s and 50’s I see that what was once the norm would be quite small today. I imagine a Group #5 or #6 from yesteryear may be closer to expectations.
 
Last edited:
May 2, 2018
3,975
30,777
Bucks County, PA
When my vintage Group #4 Dunhill arrived I was initially shocked by its diminutive size. — a Tiny pipe by today’s standards.

Looking to photos or advertisements from the 40’s and 50’s I see that what was once the norm would be quite small today. I imagine a Group #5 or #6 from yesteryear may be closer to expectations.
Just ? here but It’d makes sense if the Dunhill Group Number sizes increased over the past century…so have we as a species more than any century in history on avg…based on worldwide food production & consumptive metrics. ?‍♂️☕
 
Dunhill group sizes, as I understand it, are based on the size of Ebauchon of briar used in making the pipe. This all would work if two things came together. The first is if all pipemakers used the same dimensions or ratios of width, length, chamber sizes. The second is if the damned group sizes made any damn sense.

Right now, some pipemakers make small pipes with huge chambers, and some make really large pipes with tiny chambers. It's all over the place when it comes to dimensions and pipe makers.

Now, if all pipemakers would just bow down to the English standards in pipe dimensions and accept that there is only one true way to make a pipe and only the English know the correct way... get rid of all of that nasty creativity and individualism. Then educate us as to why a Dunhill Group three can just be any wanky chamber size.

Honestly, group sizes mean nothing to me, and I would NEVER buy a pipe from a wank that used them. It actually just pisses me off. I'm not even sure why this keeps coming up. You say Iwan Ries uses these... that may explain why I've never given their pipes more than a glance. Smokingpipes and B&Ms are all I use. And, if a pipe retailer wants to run me off, just start talking Group Sizes to me.

I liken it to gemstone wholesalers who only talk in carat sizes when shopping for stones. Give me dimensions, because I can't remember the sp gravity of each stone that I use and translate stupid carat weights into mm's which would be similarly all over the place from stone to stone.
 
I just took a look at Iwan Ries website... Yeh, without giving me chamber sizes and weights, I would never even consider buying from them. Dunhill group sizes are just too inconsistent, with two different venders possibly using two different group sizes for the same pipe, when talking about pipes outside the English pipe genre. And, the fact that they use group sizes prevents me from corresponding with them before making a purchase, because it makes them look like wankers that I don't want to talk to.

You guys can all go buy his pipes.

I also give Skip a lot of crap about the way he doesn't put chamber sizes on The Briary's pipes also. He actually had me come in about 8 years ago and spent a couple of hours measuring and adding the sizes and weights to the pipes on his website. It only took me a couple of hours. Then afterwards when he added new pipes he just kept doing it the way he always did it, saying it just takes too long. Whiney baby. Ha ha.

I just know that if a vendor is going to give me incomplete information on their website, I am most likely not going to email them with a question about it. I'm more of a pull the trigger, ask questions later... and if I don't like it when it gets here, I plop it into a drawer with a feeling of disgust for the company I bought it from. Return shit is what my wife does. I aint got time to deal with it, nor will I.
 

mso489

Lifer
Feb 21, 2013
41,210
60,611
Many online retailers don't give weights, and many don't even venture naming the shape. I think a comprehensive set of specs should be pro forma if you're trying to get people to buy a pipe over $40, and even below. Being shocked by the diminutive Dunhill Group 4 you'd ordered is terrible, at those prices. When I trusted Iwan Ries, they pretty much came up right. All the medium sized, Group 4's, I ordered were that. You could say people can see the shape for themselves, but I think it helps with many pipes to get confirmation. An apple can look like a brandy, and a yacht is quite similar to some straight Dublins, and so on.
 

sablebrush52

The Bard Of Barlings
Jun 15, 2013
20,714
49,035
Southern Oregon
jrs457.wixsite.com
Dunhill group sizes, as I understand it, are based on the size of Ebauchon of briar used in making the pipe. This all would work if two things came together. The first is if all pipemakers used the same dimensions or ratios of width, length, chamber sizes. The second is if the damned group sizes made any damn sense.

Right now, some pipemakers make small pipes with huge chambers, and some make really large pipes with tiny chambers. It's all over the place when it comes to dimensions and pipe makers.

Now, if all pipemakers would just bow down to the English standards in pipe dimensions and accept that there is only one true way to make a pipe and only the English know the correct way... get rid of all of that nasty creativity and individualism. Then educate us as to why a Dunhill Group three can just be any wanky chamber size.

Honestly, group sizes mean nothing to me, and I would NEVER buy a pipe from a wank that used them. It actually just pisses me off. I'm not even sure why this keeps coming up. You say Iwan Ries uses these... that may explain why I've never given their pipes more than a glance. Smokingpipes and B&Ms are all I use. And, if a pipe retailer wants to run me off, just start talking Group Sizes to me.

I liken it to gemstone wholesalers who only talk in carat sizes when shopping for stones. Give me dimensions, because I can't remember the sp gravity of each stone that I use and translate stupid carat weights into mm's which would be similarly all over the place from stone to stone.
Correct. Dunhill group designations refer to block size, not chamber size. Over the years we have erroneously come to use them for chamber sizes and we have developed a sense for what we think that represents.
 

sablebrush52

The Bard Of Barlings
Jun 15, 2013
20,714
49,035
Southern Oregon
jrs457.wixsite.com
Would the group size correlate to chamber size in the same shape, or not really. i.e. billiard group 4 is smaller than billiard group 6?
It seems to work out that way, a larger block being selected for a larger bowl.

Barling's size nomenclature deas with chamber sixes, which is why some collectors are surprised that a larger sized model may have an EL stamp instead of an EXEL or EXEXEL stamp. In this instance the thickness of the walls surrounding the chamber account for the size of the bowl.
 
The problem is that not all pipemakers see proportion in the same way. For example, Neerups are tiny little pipes but some have HUGE bowls. Mine range from .85-.95", and Nording uses almost the same chamber size for everything... almost. He has some huge honkers with only a .75" chamber size. The appeal of different pipemaker's is these differences in proportions, IMO... which prevents Dunhill group sizes from working the same for all makers.