Yes, but they are made much better.
We can talk about whether this justifies the higher expense, but the level of execution of the Dunhills is certainly superior to Peterson and Savinelli.
Estate Purchase
- Thread starter vcander
- Start date
We can talk about whether this justifies the higher expense, but the level of execution of the Dunhills is certainly superior to Peterson and Savinelli.
I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.
Dunhills from certain eras range from pedestrian to just bad (I'm talking to you the 1970's!)
High end Petersons compete well with Dunhills on build quality and so do Savinelli's (Autograph's, etc.)
Peterson and Savinelli also sell entry level pipes, Dunhill did not.
I've had five and the drilling on each left much to be desired. Four of them were straight and couldn't pass a pipe cleaner and this bent HT/XL Collector had a draft hole drilled slightly off to the side.
Dunhill has great P.R. but I'll not buy another. Savinelli's been around longer and I've not had a drilling issue out of over 50 owned. The true Dunhill pipes haven't been made for thirteen years.
Last edited:
A
When the factory was next door to the pub, you got “after lunch” pipes. I had an economics teacher in high school that used to say always buy a car built on Tuesday or Wednesday, if you get a car built on Thursday the workers are thinking more about tomorrow is Friday, if you buy a car built on Friday .. well it’s Friday you are certainly not going to get the best work off the line, if you buy a car built on Monday they are hung over from the weekend and the line work be shit then as well, so Tuesday and Wednesday are your quality build days. Now this was in the 80s pre-robots everywhere and it’s a bit of a generalization for all handmade products and was just a fun way to showcase things in general, but at the same time there is always a little truth in it.
Last edited:
It also says a lot about a product when the company wants to separate their brand name from pipes and pipe tobacco.
I got all into buying old pipes on ebay when I started smoking a pipe, and my thought was to buy and sell.
I have not even attempted to sell. I've give them away but I realized after accumulating way too many that I was just giving myself the illusion of enterprise.
My Dunhill too, was obtained both just to have one, and secondly, to have as a hedge. I figure it'll hold the value I paid for it, even with a replacement stem. Mine is a #656, a half bent billiard, and it does pass a cleaner. Made in 1954. I have less than $100 in it.
I have not even attempted to sell. I've give them away but I realized after accumulating way too many that I was just giving myself the illusion of enterprise.
My Dunhill too, was obtained both just to have one, and secondly, to have as a hedge. I figure it'll hold the value I paid for it, even with a replacement stem. Mine is a #656, a half bent billiard, and it does pass a cleaner. Made in 1954. I have less than $100 in it.
You must have bought into their "great P.R." if it took five terrible pipes for you to figure out you didn't like them.
Congratulations, a failure rate that isn't even found in basket pipes.
P. S.: All bent pipes necessarily have the hole on the stem offset.
I’m finding all this bitching about Dunhills very funny. Dunhill made excellent pipes. They also made some turds. Those 70’s pipes can’t hold a fit. Back in the ’90’s, I used to go to the Dunhill store in Beverly Hills with my late father in law, whose collection of Dunhill pipes ran close to 1000 pipes, from every era, including prototypes, all mint. He also collected Dunhill lighters, leather items, ceramics, etc. His home was a shrine to Dunhill. He was a Dunhill collector. The rest of you? Get real.
Anyway, we’d visit the Dunhill store and the salespeople were quite frank about the quality vs price for what they were selling, and it wasn’t positive in the slightest.
Dunhill made some great pipes, they made a lot of “decent smokers” to quote FIL, and they made crap, just like Peterson, just like Comoy, Barling, and every other manufacturer.
I’ve owned, and still own , Dunhills. I like what I get from Barlings better, which is why the Dunhills don’t get smoked anymore, and I like my Comoys better. One of you prefers Dunhills, someone else prefers cobs, another Grabows, yet another prefers Castellos, and it goes on and on. It’s all personal choice. That’s ALL it is.
Anyway, we’d visit the Dunhill store and the salespeople were quite frank about the quality vs price for what they were selling, and it wasn’t positive in the slightest.
Dunhill made some great pipes, they made a lot of “decent smokers” to quote FIL, and they made crap, just like Peterson, just like Comoy, Barling, and every other manufacturer.
I’ve owned, and still own , Dunhills. I like what I get from Barlings better, which is why the Dunhills don’t get smoked anymore, and I like my Comoys better. One of you prefers Dunhills, someone else prefers cobs, another Grabows, yet another prefers Castellos, and it goes on and on. It’s all personal choice. That’s ALL it is.
Great point. The passion in Dunhill collectors seem to be at another level. I suspect in your FIL's era, his Dunhill focus was not uncommon. I wonder how many of those guys we have left in 2024? (and I also surmise they were primarily males)
@sablebrush52
It's not a question of preferences, those are personal and have nothing to do with the discussion; the fact is that Dunhill pipes, for being industrial pipes, are made with a higher than average level of finish; a company that over the years has never succumbed to the temptation to lower its quality standards and which for this very reason has always been able to afford to keep prices higher without fear of losing customers.
This is an objective consideration, personal preferences are another thing.
Then, to remove any doubts of fanboyism, I only have three of which one is for sale; none of Peterson, someon of Savinelli. I'm not a fanboy and if anything I would be one of Charatan and Castello, not of Dunhill; but it's right to give Dunhill what belongs to Dunhill, and when I read that the pipe cleaner doesn't fit on 4 straight pipes in 5, allow me, it makes me smile.
It's not a question of preferences, those are personal and have nothing to do with the discussion; the fact is that Dunhill pipes, for being industrial pipes, are made with a higher than average level of finish; a company that over the years has never succumbed to the temptation to lower its quality standards and which for this very reason has always been able to afford to keep prices higher without fear of losing customers.
This is an objective consideration, personal preferences are another thing.
Then, to remove any doubts of fanboyism, I only have three of which one is for sale; none of Peterson, someon of Savinelli. I'm not a fanboy and if anything I would be one of Charatan and Castello, not of Dunhill; but it's right to give Dunhill what belongs to Dunhill, and when I read that the pipe cleaner doesn't fit on 4 straight pipes in 5, allow me, it makes me smile.
One of my best pipes is my 1926 Dunhill Bruyere with a swan neck stem. It easily passes a pipe cleaner.
One of the pipes I liked the least was a 1976 Red Bark. It was straight but the only way to get it to pass a pipe cleaner was to remove the stem. After explaining what I didn't like about it, I sold it to someone who wanted it as a birth year pipe. The purchaser stills smokes it.
Compared to my Savinelli Giubileo d'Oro made in the mid-1970s, the Red Bark was poorly made in my opinion.
One of the pipes I liked the least was a 1976 Red Bark. It was straight but the only way to get it to pass a pipe cleaner was to remove the stem. After explaining what I didn't like about it, I sold it to someone who wanted it as a birth year pipe. The purchaser stills smokes it.
Compared to my Savinelli Giubileo d'Oro made in the mid-1970s, the Red Bark was poorly made in my opinion.
If I understand your post correctly, your objective assessment is that Dunhill is the only factory brand that never gave up its standards and that you're not saying this as a fanboy because you only own a few of their pipes, one of which you're selling. Therefore my view that preferences are a personal matter do not apply to you, or as you framed it, anyone.
Objectivity is subject to knowledge, so I'll assume that you are knowledgeable about the history of various English brands and are therefore in a position of factual knowledge sufficient to make an informed objective assessment.
I'd like to know your take on a few facts of pipe history.
In 1906 the carvers in St Claude went on strike for better prices on their product. The Director of BBB, speaking to the Trade press stated that the strike created serious issues with being able to meet the demand of the pipe buying public, a situation which exacerbated existing issues with the increasingly variable quality of stummels coming out of St Claude, accorting to his printed statement.
As a result of the strike, Barling made the decision to bring all of their manufacturing in house. No more buying stummels from France, which was the common practice in that era.
In addition, both Barling, documented in their pamphlet, The Romance Of The Barling Pipe, and Comoy, documented in their 1909, or some say 1911, Catalog, set up harvesting, milling, curing, and seasoning operations in Algeria. This allowed them to select and control the quality of their briar from the ground to the sales counter. Both of them used air curing and seasoning, believing that the result was "superior" to artificial means, like oven baking, and worth the extra time and effort, documented in Barling's pre WW1 catalog, which I published in facsimile.
Dunhil bought their briar from brokers, like everyone else. How does this make Dunhill superior?
In 1928, in response to Barling's attempt to have the Merchandise Marks Act, amended in 1926, be further amended so that only pipes fully manufactured in England could be stamped "Made In England", Dunhill led the successful effort to defeat that attempt in court, declaring that such a change would be "disastrous" for the pipe making industry. Up til that point the requirement was that pipes only had to be finished and assembled in England, with the stummels coming from St Claude, Nuremberg, or wherever. Why would Dunhill have such concerns about pipes not being allowed to be stamped "Made In England" if made from parts supplied by various suppliers, such that they felt impelled to fight this amendment in court? Does this suggest that Dunhill felt that outsourcing from suppliers made for a superior product? We're already aware that such outsourcing resulted in variable quality from the Director of BBB, then considered the finest maker of pipes in the world. How did protecting such outsourcing make Dunhill demonstrably superior.
When Joel Sasieni, manager of Dunhill's factory, left Dunhill in 1919 to found his own company, claiming that he had developed a superior mothod for drying the briar blocks, which he patented, was he lying?
In 1967, when Dunhill revamped their pipeline to increase the use of fraising and machine shaping, does that indicate that something was lacking in their former methodology, or were they facing economic realities in profitability and making changes to reduce costs. Jon Guss' article, Too Many Angels posits that Barling's refusal to make changes to their time honored manufacturing methods lowered profitability and contributed to their decision to sell the company in 1960
I could ask many more questions, but I'm not writing a book here. If you are knowledgeable enough to have an objective position regarding Dunhill's superiority, you can answer these questions.
Regarding the definition of fanboy, the number of pipes of a particular make does not correlate to being, or not being, a fanboy. We've had numerous posts over the years from members who don't own, and have never owned, a single Dunhill, who stated that owning one was their lifelong goal, some who even wrote that they "aspired" to Dunhill ownership. "Aspiring" to own a pipe is pretty fanboy.
What I wrote about my FIL was that he was a Dunhill collector, the real deal. I didn't write that he was a Dunhill fanboy. He was hardly that. As he told me several times, Dunhill made some "pretty good pipes but not better than everyone else". He liked their jewelry, lighters, leatherwork, and other objects, which he used and kept in display cases around his home. But, he also smoked other makes. When he expressed curiosity about the Charatans I had, I lent them to him. I didn't get them back until after he passed because he liked them too much to return them.
Reality is much more complex than blanket statements can cover.
Last edited: