Group Sizes, Especially ODA

[cosmicfolklore]

Maybe it's just because I've handled and owned enough English pipes that I have a good sense of group sizes. Smoking a group 4~5 size Bonfiglioli pipe right now, but it's too warm for the smoking jacket.

Cosmic, please realize my reply is totally tonge in cheek.

Same goes for Americans who use metric. Why? It’s hard enough to know WTF Europeans are talking about.

 

[LikeDadDid]

You can't misinterpret those unless you try to.

Subjective people tend to misinterpret everything with seemingly no effort. But why are you taking that tone?

 

[Valliantpiper]

When I used to ask about group size from this one veteran retailer, he would say "It's Dunhill X," and as he said the word "Dunhill," his voice would have an odd inflection. He never said what he was communicating with the inflection, nor did what he say ever make the definition for group size clear. But hey, I'm no dummy, I understood it to be a large pipe, which in my mind approximated a group 6.

But I've been looking at listings for ODAs online and smokingpipes listings at length, in the course of which I found the words behind the acronym, "Over Sized Dunhill." But even in sp writeups, size is by no means the determining factor in the designation. Apparently shape and what Dunhill meant for the size in that shape figure in.

When I want to know size I want to know size, and just size. What does size have to do with shape? Very little, to my mind! The further convolution of what Dunhill meant for size in a particular shape is only of interest for a Dunhill historian. For me these added considerations have amounted only to years of confusion.

I daresay that even among seasoned retailers there is a good amount of confusion. If someone calls about the size of a particular pipe, are they going to say that it's

Dunhill Bruyere (ODA) (850 F/T) (1966/69)​

when its chamber is 17mm X 37mm? The caller is going to hear group 6 when the pipe is a 4. Does the retailer really have the time to explain this contradiction? He likely is going to translate what he says into the common use of group sizes.

Even worse, consider:

Dunhill Root Briar Patent (ODA) (834) (1952)​

with a chamber of 22 X 29 mm, I would say a prince. So yes the chamber width is oversized for a prince, but the pipe size overall is hardly worthy of of the ODA pronouncement.

Finally there are several indeed large pipes in these listings that are also called ODA.

What a mess!

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Have you ever come across a Dunhill ODA 838?

 

[georged]

Have you ever come across a Dunhill ODA 838?

Those are rare indeed. Enough that the few guys who collect them buy them on sight, in virtually any condition.

Why do you ask?

 

[Valliantpiper]

Those are rare indeed. Enough that the few guys who collect them buy them on sight, in virtually any condition.

Why do you ask?

I have a good friend who has been searching for one for over a decade I think. He wrote up the section on Dunhills in Pipedia

 

[georged]

I have a good friend who has been searching for one for over a decade I think. He wrote up the section on Dunhills in Pipedia

If he likes them that much he'll probably enjoy this, then:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFwwtvtKlXW9LSrvtgfAwvFnp9jz7X0Sp

 

[condorlover1]

The whole 'Group Size' thing just overloads my main frame of a brain. My only concern is the hole big enough to stuff enough tobacco in for a 45 minute smoke and can I draw smoke through the little hole (i.e the stem) without recourse to having to wear a surgical truss. Beyond these facts everything else is a moot point to me. People get very excited by these things, especially the technical 'stuff' relating to a pipe. I tend to just embrace my inner George Carlin and ask 'will it do what it say on the box' and beyond that I guess YMMV!