Early? Bartlett & Bickley 'Barbic' Pipe

[doctorbob]

I have what I think is an early Bartlett & Bickley 'Barbic' Pipe stamped with a script "Barbic" on the left, BARTLETT & BICKLEY over 8 VIGO ST W on the right, PAT. No 211763 and MADE IN ENGLAND on the bottom. Shape 84, a medium to large taper stem pot. No markings on the stem, but clearly made to take a stinger

This company was unsuccessfully sued by Dunhill in 1921 to stop the use of a red dot on the top stem as a trademarked identification.

I'm trying to make down the date range of the pipe, I believe it to be before 1935 as the 8 Vigo St address was being used as the address of Penguin Book publishing by that date. Two other addresses are associated with Bartlett and Bickley, but appear to be later, and the Vigo St address is referenced in the 1921 lawsuit. My example doesn't have a red dot on the stem which leads me to wonder if it predates usage, or alternately if the stem is not original to the pipe.

To this end, I was wondering if there is any info on the 211763 patent out there. This stem is set to take a stinger of some sort, and it would be unusual to have a replacement stem fitted that retained the stinger fitment. This pipe currently has no actual condenser hardware.

Just looking to glean any info to help date.

Pipe is in good condition other than a burn on the outer rim at the 12 o'clock position.

 

[doctorbob]

Nobody has any info? Wasn't thinking anybody would have, as it's a rarer and non-collectable brand, but was still hoping...

 

[AJL67]

Did you try pipapedia?

 

[doctorbob]

Did you try pipapedia?

Yes, but didn't come up with much beyond the above. Pipe smokes well, and it is a neat piece of history. Another fine addition to the Britwood rack.

 

[greeneyes]

Yes, but didn't come up with much beyond the above. Pipe smokes well, and it is a neat piece of history. Another fine addition to the Britwood rack.

I have two or perhaps three Barbic pipes, including a pot identical to yours. Not sure what information I may have put together---I'll have a look once I get home this afternoon!

 

[doctorbob]

I have two or perhaps three Barbic pipes, including a pot identical to yours. Not sure what information I may have put together---I'll have a look once I get home this afternoon!

Thanks! I'm really interested in stamping and how Barbic is stylized.

Bob

 

[greeneyes]

From The Country Gentleman and Land & Water (1914):


In the same periodical Dunhill are still advertising their "motorities" somewhat before they decided to focus exclusively on pipes and tobacco.

In Printers' Ink (1903):



Mention of US Patent filing for the Barbic in Tobacco (USA; 1924):

 

[jguss]

To greeneyes' great info I'll add the following brief summary:

The firm of Bartlett & Bickley, cigar and cigarette merchants, was established about 1897 by Arthur Spencer Barlett (1861-?) and John McKinnell Bickley (1869-1951). Less than a year later, in January of 1898, the partnership was dissolved; Bickley assumed all the liabilities and carried on the business alone. Just a few years after that Charles David Jonas (1872-1931), already in the cigar trade, bought out Bickley in May of 1901. It was Jonas that played the key role in the building of the business we know today, and it is his name that figures in the B&B patent, trademarks, and litigation with Dunhill.

Besides importing Havana cigars and making its own cigars, pipe tobaccos and cigarettes, as you might expect B&B sold pipes. But up until 1920 all they offered were pipes made by other manufacturers that were stamped with these other companies' names. In 1920 that changed: B&B still outsourced the making of pipes to someone else (specifically the London Pipe Company), but began stamping them as Bartlett & Bickley pipes with the company's name and address. They also stamped the newly minted Barbic trademark on each pipe and placed a red dot on the top of the stem. Thus the Barbic was launched in September of 1920. The pipes were claimed to be made from "old seasoned bruyere root some 200 years old", a statement I'd take with an enormous grain, or perhaps tablespoon, of salt. They were also said to be "specially treated so that every pipe is ready for immediate smoking", and could be purchased "in a variety of shapes and styles".

Barbic, by the way, is an obvious portmanteau of the surnames of the two founders. The trademark was first registered in the UK in May of 1920 and as mentioned above appeared on pipes offered for sale starting September 20, 1920.

We all know the result; the red spot caused Alfred Dunhill to see red, and after a series of threats (each ignored by Jonas) Dunhill filed suit against B&B on September 22, 1921. The detailed summary of the lawsuit and its outcome is well worth reading but a waste of time to recapitulate here. The spoiler is simple: Dunhill's high priced lawyers failed to convince the judge that a reasonable person would be tricked by the B&B red spot into believing their pipe was a Dunhill. As the transcript rather charmingly says, the key question is "would a person of ordinary prudence, not a fool or an idiot, ...be deceived" . The judge said no.

Having safely navigated the Dunhill iceberg, the good ship B&B went merrily on its way and introduced a tube system akin to that created by Dunhill years before. Their timing was wise since the absence of such a tube was used by B&B as a point of difference in its defense. The "aluminum device" to which I refer is the one associated with the 211763 stamped on your pipe, and is explained in the patent filing reproduced below:







Skipping ahead to your question about dating your pipe, while the patent is relevant more useful still is the address. Here is a brief chronology of where I think B&B was operating over most of its lifespan:

1897-1900: 7 South Molton St

1903-16: 17 Brook St

1918-27: 8 Vigo St

1928-1940: 10 Burlington Gardens

1943-46: Spencer ho South pl

1947-1962: 10 Burlington Gardens

1963: not listed

So my take would be that your pipe dates from between late 1920 (when the Barbic was first introduced) and 1927 (the last year B&B was still at the Vigo address). My strong impression from the legal record is that Barbics were all provided with stems that had red dots; if yours doesn't that would suggest to me that it's a replacement.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[doctorbob]

Thank you both! I'll take the pipe as having a replacement stem although it is set up to take an apparatus substantially similar to that in the patent, to include a threaded/trapped portion in the tenon of the stem. It has no evidence of a dot whatsoever.

So the stummel should date between 1924 and 1927 due to the presence of both a parent number stamp and the 8 Vigo Street address stamp.

Again, thank you both!

 

[greeneyes]

I've got two. I have a feeling the Picadilly address is a later pipe.

 

[jguss]

So the stummel should date between 1924 and 1927 due to the presence of both a patent number stamp and the 8 Vigo Street address stamp.

Yes, thank you for the correction. The terminus a quo is indeed 1924; I slipped a cog when writing the last paragraph!

 

[doctorbob]

Could you

I've got two. I have a feeling the Picadilly address is a later pipe.

Could you show me the tenon's on your pipes?

 

[jguss]

I've got two. I have a feeling the Picadilly address is a later pipe.
View attachment 196463
View attachment 196464
View attachment 196465
View attachment 196466
View attachment 196467

Very neat!

As for the 217 Piccadilly address, there you sail into deep and murky waters. I can tell you the address was associated for decades with Peter Jackson (Overseas) Ltd, which a little digging reveals to be a subsidiary of BAT. My personal speculation is that B&B was sucked into the BAT behemoth, from Jonas’s wife (who I believe inherited his equity in B&B) some years after he died in 1931. And I would further speculate that as the pipe manufacturing industry contracted eventually B&B was placed under Peter Jackson (Overseas) and the stamping was updated to reflect the new situation. But to be perfectly clear for speculation read slightly educated guess. If any of that is remotely correct the 217 Piccadilly stamping would have started in the 1960s and continued until the Barbic was no longer made.

As a curiosity here’s a SP listing for a Peter Jackson branded pipe with the 217 Piccadilly address:

https://www.smokingpipes.com/pipes/estate/england/moreinfo.cfm?product_id=372528

 

[LotusEater]

I stumbled across this B&B looking for nicely shaped older Canadians. It’s stamped Piccadilly London and does not have a
@jguss (or anyone else) Do you think this pipe is from 1963-1966 or might it be earlier?


These images are from the sellers ad

 

[ssjones]

I stumbled across this B&B looking for nicely shaped older Canadians. It’s stamped Piccadilly London and does not have a
@jguss (or anyone else) Do you think this pipe is from 1963-1966 or might it be earlier?
View attachment 319035
View attachment 319036
These images are from the sellers ad

"Who Made That Pipe" shows this for that stamp:

 

[LotusEater]

"Who Made That Pipe" shows this for that stamp:

View attachment 319039

Thanks for taking the time and effort to post this information. I also just realized that the posts above discuss the Piccadilly stamping. I somehow managed to skip over that part and only focused on the post with operating addresses listed by year. Oops

 

[greeneyes]

"Who Made That Pipe" shows this for that stamp:

View attachment 319039

Al, he is showing a photo of the address, not the model.

 

[kcghost]

Whatever its pedigree it's a very nice pipe!!

 

[LotusEater]

Whatever its pedigree it's a very nice pipe!!

I agree
I just purchased it for a very reasonable sum

 

[ssjones]

I can't read the entire stamping (only the incorrect Picadilly)