I Wrote a New Guide for Dating Stanwell Pipes

[highwindows]

I've already posted this on Pipesmokersdens, but I figured for those that don't frequent both forums, I'd put it here too. Feedback regarding the treatment of Stanwells is welcome. Thanks again to MBSD for hosting it while I continue to iron out any kinks.

Dating Stanwell Pipes: A Guide and Commentary – MBSDpipes.com

www.mbsdpipes.com

 

[Roach1]

Thanks for your work.

 

[dunnyboy]

I'm not a Stanwell collector but that is a valuable guide. Thanks.

 

[AJL67]

That's awesome and a great contribution to the community, i only have one Stanwell, but knowing how hard it is to date some pipes, any of these guides are going to be valuable to "someone" out there!

 

[Hillcrest]

I've already posted this on Pipesmokersdens, but I figured for those that don't frequent both forums, I'd put it here too. Feedback regarding the treatment of Stanwells is welcome. Thanks again to MBSD for hosting it while I continue to iron out any kinks.

Dating Stanwell Pipes: A Guide and Commentary – MBSDpipes.com

www.mbsdpipes.com

Thank you ! Nicely Done ! Doesn't Barontini in Lovorno make Stanwell pipes now ? That may explain the Danish Design stamp vs Made in Denmark. ???

 

[highwindows]

Thank you ! Nicely Done ! Doesn't Barontini in Lovorno make Stanwell pipes now ? That may explain the Danish Design stamp vs Made in Denmark. ???

yes, that's exactly right, I probably should have been more explicit about that. I'll add it. Oddly enough, Stanwell have been using the 'Danish Design' slogan since the 1980s (possibly earlier, I'd need to check the catalogues again), but it's a good way for them to omit the Danish COM nomenclature while retaining the Danish lineage and brand appeal.

 

[highwindows]

I should add, if anyone does think these eras should be broken down further, I'm all ears. I think dividing early (1948-mid 1950s) from later (mid-1950s-1979) Registration Era pipes is feasible due to the shape codes used in the former, but it would be somewhat complicated of an addendum. As with the general theme of the guide, it's a case of whether it would be valuable to do so. I don't see many people claiming that early reg era pipes are 'better' than others, for instance, but people do on the other hand tend to covet the very early pipes of many makes.

 

[OzPiper]

Thank you very much for your research and effort in writing this guide.

Stanwell is my favourite non-Brit pipe maker.

Their collaboration with, and championing of now famous makers is very much a Danish thing.
W.O.Larsen and Pibe Dan are other makers that spring to mind.

While Dunhill had some illustrious alumni, they only came to light after leaving Dunhill to set up on their own.

 

[seanv]

Wow. Thank you for this. I am sure this will help many people

 

[greeneyes]

Congratulations! This is a great resource. And it reminds me that I too should get busy writing my own guide for Ben Wade pipes.

One recommendation I'd make--a point of constructive criticism--is to try to include attribution and sources in your guide. I noticed there's a guide on MBSD to dating Barling pipes: "Dating Barling Pipes: A Three Step Guide." There's also a guide on Smokingpipes "About Barling Pipes: A Pocket Guide." With the exception of mentioning Tad Gage in the latter, neither offers any indication of where they got their information.

I'm almost certain that the author at MBSD (whoever he was) drew from the research of others, notably our friends Jesse Silver, Jon Guss, and Tad Gage, who spent years doing the legwork and tracking down primary sources, just to offer us this information as a guide (for free) on Pipedia. It's certainly plausible that the author drew from other sources as well, which, if so, would be good to know.

In matters of scholarship, it's generally considered common courtesy and best practice to give attribution to the sources you draw from and to cite any references/sources accordingly. This gives credit where credit is due, and it also augments the authority of the work by buttressing it with factual evidence.

Congratulations again!

 

[highwindows]

Congratulations! This is a great resource. And it reminds me that I too should get busy writing my own guide for Ben Wade pipes.

One recommendation I'd make--a point of constructive criticism--is to try to include attribution and sources in your guide. I noticed there's a guide on MBSD to dating Barling pipes: "Dating Barling Pipes: A Three Step Guide." There's also a guide on Smokingpipes "About Barling Pipes: A Pocket Guide." With the exception of mentioning Tad Gage in the latter, neither offers any indication of where they got their information.

I'm almost certain that the author at MBSD (whoever he was) drew from the research of others, notably our friends Jesse Silver, Jon Guss, and Tad Gage, who spent years doing the legwork and tracking down primary sources, just to offer us this information as a guide (for free) on Pipedia. It's certainly plausible that the author drew from other sources as well, which, if so, would be good to know.

In matters of scholarship, it's generally considered common courtesy and best practice to give attribution to the sources you draw from and to cite any references/sources accordingly. This gives credit where credit is due, and it also augments the authority of the work by buttressing it with factual evidence.

Congratulations again!

I'll pass that along for the Barling guide, that's a good idea. I think the idea there was less one of making knowledge claims than of turning existing claims into an algorithm to be followed, but I'll ask what can be done on that front.

I had thought about it for the Stanwell one. In terms of referencing the Four-Era system, it's a fairly common approach, and I didn't want to seem to be denigrating those who had put it to page. The construction of the Five-and-a-Half-Era system was instead based largely upon testing Four-Era claims using specific Stanwell pipes that could, unlike most others, be isolated to a specific point, or on one side of a border, in time. That, and Stanwell's catalogues. But I will see what can be done to bring it closer to scholarly standards, as that is indeed good practice and helpful for posterity.