Interesting Completed Ebay Auctions - British Pipes

[ssjones]

Thank you

For quite some years Ken sold a C grade to me, one from his own collection.
Make an educated guess about the C grading

They all must have had a good laugh coming up with that grading system, I'm guessing some pints were involved. Later, they added a rusticated finish as well.

 

[orlandofurioso]

They all must have had a good laugh coming up with that grading system, I'm guessing some pints were involved. Later, they added a rusticated finish as well.

Me thinks those were the days Al.
Grading systems do not really make sense, not ?
Inside jokes and marketing plots.

 

[ssjones]

Wow, $300 for a Shamrock (unsmoked)

PETERSON RARE 1950's UNSMOKED SHAMROCK X220 BENT BILLIARD ESTATE PIPE COMPLETE | eBay

I know you fellow Peterson enthusiasts will have great interest in this rarity, an unsmoked Shamrock X220 from the 1950's; wow! The X220 is one of those shapes that is quintessentially Peterson and captures their "House Style" as well or better than any.

www.ebay.com

 

[TheIronMonkey]

Wow, $300 for a Shamrock (unsmoked)

PETERSON RARE 1950's UNSMOKED SHAMROCK X220 BENT BILLIARD ESTATE PIPE COMPLETE | eBay

I know you fellow Peterson enthusiasts will have great interest in this rarity, an unsmoked Shamrock X220 from the 1950's; wow! The X220 is one of those shapes that is quintessentially Peterson and captures their "House Style" as well or better than any.

www.ebay.com

Not entirely surprising, given it has its original packaging.

 

[AroEnglish]

Not entirely surprising, given it has its original packaging.

I was going to say it was crazy until I read your comment. The price seems fair for a collector piece. But I guess you could also argue that the lube lessens to value.

 

[ssjones]

This is one of the craggiest Taylor Ashton's that I've seen in quite a while.

ASHTON 2001 TAYLOR MADE PATENT 8515730 PEBBLE SHELL CRAGGY RHODESIAN ESTATE PIPE | eBay

This particular pipe was carved 23 years ago in 2001 and is a magnificent bent Rhodesian in an XXX format which is about a Group 5. Clean throughout, a fantastic piece from Taylor ready to enjoy! I hope you enjoy them as much as I enjoy bringing them back to life!

www.ebay.com

 

[orlandofurioso]

A real bargain If it is indeed a Dunhill pipe :

RARE ANTIQUE ALFRED DUNHILL NUBIAN SILVER MOUNTED PIPE DATED 1912 ANDROGYNOUS | eBay

The silver mount for Alfred Dunhill 1912. It is difficult to say whether male or female. Condition is shown - Well aged. Smoked but not too much. The amber stem has a repair. The pipe supplied in original purpose made case.

www.ebay.com

 

[ssjones]

This is the first Comoy's Consul I've seen. Unsmoked.
I thought it would have gone over $400.

UNSMOKED PRE 1914! COMOY'S CONSUL STRAIGHT GRAIN FULL BENT ENGLISH Estate Pipe | eBay

CONSUL BY COMOY'S FULL BENT SHAPED estate pipe. This VERY old Comoy's is pretty easy to date. The 3 piece C was not instituted until 1919, so obviously it wouldn't be here. Lastly, Comoy's did not actually stamp "COMOY'S" on the shank of their pipes until 1914.

www.ebay.com

 

[jguss]

This is the first Comoy's Consul I've seen. Unsmoked.
I thought it would have gone over $400.

UNSMOKED PRE 1914! COMOY'S CONSUL STRAIGHT GRAIN FULL BENT ENGLISH Estate Pipe | eBay

CONSUL BY COMOY'S FULL BENT SHAPED estate pipe. This VERY old Comoy's is pretty easy to date. The 3 piece C was not instituted until 1919, so obviously it wouldn't be here. Lastly, Comoy's did not actually stamp "COMOY'S" on the shank of their pipes until 1914.

www.ebay.com

View attachment 318514

Interesting listing Al. A couple of very minor questions: the only other Consul I recall offhand definitely had an orific bit; have you seen others besides this one with a slot? Secondly, any idea what the origin and evidence is for the statement that Comoy’s wasn’t stamped on shanks until 1914? The first catalog, which is replete with pipe illustrations with the possessive form of Comoy on the briar, clearly dates at least a year earlier, and Derek Green believed it was issued in 1909 (personally I think 1911).

 

[ssjones]

Interesting listing Al. A couple of very minor questions: the only other Consul I recall offhand definitely had an orific bit; have you seen others besides this one with a slot? Secondly, any idea what the origin and evidence is for the statement that Comoy’s wasn’t stamped on shanks until 1914? The first catalog, which is replete with pipe illustrations with the possessive form of Comoy on the briar, clearly dates at least a year earlier, and Derek Green believed it was issued in 1909 (personally I think 1911).

I've never seen another Consul. You are right on the orific shape button. The only Comoy's connection I see here is the HC stamp on the briar and band. I suppose the band/stem could have been added later. I didn't look up the hallmark.

 

[jguss]

I think the answer re the omission of the Comoy’s stamping on the Consul is not, as Chance says, a universal absence of such stamps before 1914 (which was not true) or that this pipe was named for the store that sold it (also untrue) but rather a distinction between more premium pipes that included Comoy’s in the name (eg Comoy’s Prima) and lesser lines which did not. This distinction is pretty much continuously made by Comoy over the course of the Family Era.

This photo of part of a page in the 1927 Tobacco Year Book illustrates the point. Note that the Comoy’s name was reserved then (as in later decades) for a small subset of models offered by the company. And by a nice alphabetical coincidence in the same snippet you can see the Consul some lines below listed as a brand belonging to H Comoy & Co.



As for the absence of the three part C while it did apparently originate around 1919 it’s not clear to me that this expensive and difficult-to-make mark was lavished on seconds.

All of which (combined with the slotted stem, assuming it’s original) suggests that the pipe might have been made a number of years later than 1914.

 

[mannerhead]

Hello Gentlemen. This is Chance, the Chance who posted the aforementioned Comoy's in discussion. While it's my first post here, I do follow a few threads on the forums here, this being one of them, and this one finally got me out of my years long lurker mode and actually posting.

When push comes to shove, I would almost always defer to Mr. Guss in all things historical pipes. I absolutely recognize that his knowledge and research abilities dwarf my own. To be honest, I'm not even sure I disagree with him on this pipe, though I would be interested in his thoughts on a couple of items I will get to shortly.

My main purpose in writing this is to VERY gently push back against the statement that I may have taken (or ever would take) some "poetic license" in my listings. I try VERY hard to present the most accurate descriptions I can, and would never lean towards presenting something as more than it is. This is not to say I don't occasionally make mistakes, I have, but I try to be as researched as I can and to present things as accurately as I can. Saying that, I will present sources of my information used for this listing. If I've put them together incorrectly, I assure you it was not intentional "poetic license".

First, pipedia states Comoy's was first to use the term LONDON MADE, and that this style (block & straight LONDON over MADE) was the first style used by them, starting about 1902 and giving way to the Rubgy style in the 1920s.

Second, Pipedia also states the the HC in a cartouche started in 1904.

Third, regarding the orific or slotted button, in this thread here there is discussion of a similar pipe, in which it was stated that:

1) a slotted stem was in use at the time, and thus is not definitive for later manufacture. Being that Mr. Guss was involved in that thread, and didn't dispute the assertion that a slot was not definitive, I assumed there was no disagreement from him on that point. I recognize that is making an assumption from silence, which obviously is not in itself definitive, my point is only that strong evidence was presented and there was no dispute of the matter.

2) the Comoy's name was not used prior to 1913. Based on info seen here, I concede that this may not be the case, my only point in bringing it up is to show I wasn't just making things up whole cloth. However the markings on that pipe are almost identical this one, except that this one says CONSUL where that one has HC over the COM stamp, which it seems logical to mean HENRI COMOY. Since it was stamped HC rather Comoy's, I believed that lent credibility to the idea that Comoy's was not being stamped on their pipes yet.

In order to show my respect for Mr. Guss' research, I thank you for pointing out that Consul was a second line from Comoy's. Here I was obviously incorrect in my assertion that it was a store name. Because I was unable to find any information regarding this specific line (hats off to you you for the find on the Tobacco Yearbook!), combined with with this line on Pipedia regarding a pipe hallmarked 1904, "(Stamped on the side “J.R.” in an oval and “LONDON MADE”. (Comoy’s supplied many shops that had their name stamped on the side of the pipe. J.R. was obviously one.)" were my reasons for the jump to Consul being a store stamp. Again, I acknowledge this was incorrect.

I hope this information is sufficient to show that I really do try to be as informed and accurate as possible. As this was the best information I could find (and I tried hard!) and that there is no reason based on the COM stamp to put this pipe past "the 1920s", combined with it's being near identically stamped (only the name is different) to a pipe in the other thread in which Mr Guss did not dispute it's dating to 1902-1912, I felt I could be confident in my dating of this pipe. If my conclusion was incorrect, it was not because I was taking license, but rather the best information I could find at the time may not have been as conclusive as I'd believed.

I would very much be interested in hearing further (especially from Mr. Guss, but also from anyone else) why the dating would be outside of the time I asserted though. I think it would certainly be safe to say it was made before the shift in the COM stamp, and based on it's similarity to the other pipe, would it not be likely to date to the same approximate time? I truly welcome the discussion and any other criticism.

Kind regards,
Chance

 

[mannerhead]

My apologies for a second post on this, but I forgot to include one other data point which went into my calculations. I wish this discussion to be as thorough and robust as possible, as I always enjoy learning about pipes, even if it means I am to be corrected.

On the Pipephil Comoy's page there is another similar pipe to the one I listed. About 1/2 way down the page is a pipe called LR 1904. That pipe is another example of one stamped identically to the one I listed, again, except for the specific name/line. That pipe, like the other two in discussion here, has the name/line in a circle above the same COM stamp. Interestingly and pertinent to the discussion, is this line "A straight (one or two lines) "London Made" stamping may be found on Comoy's pipes from 1902 until about 1915." This would seem to push the date further back from "the 1920s" to "about 1915" more specifically.

Kind regards.
Chance

 

[Ahi Ka]

I have a 1909 hallmarked comoys which is stamped with the comoys name in script on the shank.

Also have a super sports with the London made rugby stamp COM from 1920. It has a similar slot bit to the one you sold.

On pipedia there is an example of a comoys Prima with the straight London made COM and a 1920 hallmark too.

I’d be comfortable with a c1920 dating on your pipe, unless the use of the straight London made com was to do with the specific seconds (not necessarily inferior) lines - eg look at the Canadian club towards the end of the comoys page.

Edit: great to have you posting regardless

 

[jguss]

Hello Gentlemen. This is Chance, the Chance who posted the aforementioned Comoy's in discussion. While it's my first post here, I do follow a few threads on the forums here, this being one of them, and this one finally got me out of my years long lurker mode and actually posting.

When push comes to shove, I would almost always defer to Mr. Guss in all things historical pipes. I absolutely recognize that his knowledge and research abilities dwarf my own. To be honest, I'm not even sure I disagree with him on this pipe, though I would be interested in his thoughts on a couple of items I will get to shortly.

My main purpose in writing this is to VERY gently push back against the statement that I may have taken (or ever would take) some "poetic license" in my listings. I try VERY hard to present the most accurate descriptions I can, and would never lean towards presenting something as more than it is. This is not to say I don't occasionally make mistakes, I have, but I try to be as researched as I can and to present things as accurately as I can. Saying that, I will present sources of my information used for this listing. If I've put them together incorrectly, I assure you it was not intentional "poetic license".

First, pipedia states Comoy's was first to use the term LONDON MADE, and that this style (block & straight LONDON over MADE) was the first style used by them, starting about 1902 and giving way to the Rubgy style in the 1920s.

Second, Pipedia also states the the HC in a cartouche started in 1904.

Third, regarding the orific or slotted button, in this thread here there is discussion of a similar pipe, in which it was stated that:

1) a slotted stem was in use at the time, and thus is not definitive for later manufacture. Being that Mr. Guss was involved in that thread, and didn't dispute the assertion that a slot was not definitive, I assumed there was no disagreement from him on that point. I recognize that is making an assumption from silence, which obviously is not in itself definitive, my point is only that strong evidence was presented and there was no dispute of the matter.

2) the Comoy's name was not used prior to 1913. Based on info seen here, I concede that this may not be the case, my only point in bringing it up is to show I wasn't just making things up whole cloth. However the markings on that pipe are almost identical this one, except that this one says CONSUL where that one has HC over the COM stamp, which it seems logical to mean HENRI COMOY. Since it was stamped HC rather Comoy's, I believed that lent credibility to the idea that Comoy's was not being stamped on their pipes yet.

In order to show my respect for Mr. Guss' research, I thank you for pointing out that Consul was a second line from Comoy's. Here I was obviously incorrect in my assertion that it was a store name. Because I was unable to find any information regarding this specific line (hats off to you you for the find on the Tobacco Yearbook!), combined with with this line on Pipedia regarding a pipe hallmarked 1904, "(Stamped on the side “J.R.” in an oval and “LONDON MADE”. (Comoy’s supplied many shops that had their name stamped on the side of the pipe. J.R. was obviously one.)" were my reasons for the jump to Consul being a store stamp. Again, I acknowledge this was incorrect.

I hope this information is sufficient to show that I really do try to be as informed and accurate as possible. As this was the best information I could find (and I tried hard!) and that there is no reason based on the COM stamp to put this pipe past "the 1920s", combined with it's being near identically stamped (only the name is different) to a pipe in the other thread in which Mr Guss did not dispute it's dating to 1902-1912, I felt I could be confident in my dating of this pipe. If my conclusion was incorrect, it was not because I was taking license, but rather the best information I could find at the time may not have been as conclusive as I'd believed.

I would very much be interested in hearing further (especially from Mr. Guss, but also from anyone else) why the dating would be outside of the time I asserted though. I think it would certainly be safe to say it was made before the shift in the COM stamp, and based on it's similarity to the other pipe, would it not be likely to date to the same approximate time? I truly welcome the discussion and any other criticism.

Kind regards,
Chance

Hi Chance, welcome to the forum. I am unfortunately packing to leave town for a long weekend and so don't have time for a comprehensive response. But as we all know things delayed have a way of never happening so I wanted to give at least a partial reply right away.

First off let me say publicly that I have bought several pipes from Chance over the years and never been less than completely satisfied. Chance sells beautiful pipes, well presented, accurately described, and backed by his word. No matter how short a list of trusted sellers on eBay you care to compile I believe his name would be on it. On top of all that he is, irritatingly enough, a very decent human being. In short Chance is what unions used to call a rate buster.

My comments were solely directed at the kind of pipe history arcana that focuses on minutiae that only a true pipe geek could tolerate, let alone love. And perhaps also at the kind of triangulation analyses that all too often suggest precision and certainty where I believe nuance and hesitation should be the order of the day.

In this particular case the burden of my remarks were just that some of the elements employed in the triangulation yielding a date of 1914 are suspect. I have no reason to doubt that the pipe was made by Comoy, or that it dates from a century ago, more or less.

A lot of what you say in your post I either believe or have no view; if I have no information one way or the other (I tend to only really believe things that I've independently verified myself; I'm paranoid that way) I tend to be agnostic. A lot of your points speak to how old the pipe could be, i.e. what might be the earliest possible date it was made. On that ground I wouldn't spend much time quibbling. True I didn't find the Consul in earlier brand directories (I checked, for example, the 1921 edition and it doesn't appear there) but absence of evidence is not evidence and I wouldn't consider that meaningful. My remarks were more oriented towards the latest date by which the pipe would have had to been made; this is where I take issue is with the points suggesting 1914 as the terminus ad quem.

My argument was just that I think the rules that applied to the higher end Comoy's were different than those that applied to everything else (and in the case of Comoy everything else meant a shit-ton an impressive array of less expensive models produced over the course of many decades). So I personally believe that the absence of a Comoy's stamp on a lower tier pipe (which was clearly in accord with their strategy of reserving the Comoy's stamp for higher grade pipes) and the presence or absence of the 3 part of C on any pipe that was clearly not a Comoy's branded pipe doesn't mean much. As for the slotted stem while suggestive as you say that can go either way. On balance I think of them as more of a post-WW1 artifact, but you're absolutely correct; they did occasionally appear earlier, and absent more and better data by itself it tells us nothing determinative.

I always happy to admit that we know what we know until we learn something better.

More interesting to me, actually, is the absence of hallmarks. It's my understanding that by law bling on all pipes meant for the domestic market had to be sent off to one of the assayer offices for hallmarking. So if this has no hallmarks and yet is marked sterling I'm not sure what to make of it. That it was meant for export? A plausible answer but perhaps a bit too pat. I should add that this isn't the only sterling band without hallmarks that I've seen on a Comoy second.

Cheers,
Jon

 

[sablebrush52]

Hello Gentlemen. This is Chance, the Chance who posted the aforementioned Comoy's in discussion. While it's my first post here, I do follow a few threads on the forums here, this being one of them, and this one finally got me out of my years long lurker mode and actually posting.

When push comes to shove, I would almost always defer to Mr. Guss in all things historical pipes. I absolutely recognize that his knowledge and research abilities dwarf my own. To be honest, I'm not even sure I disagree with him on this pipe, though I would be interested in his thoughts on a couple of items I will get to shortly.

My main purpose in writing this is to VERY gently push back against the statement that I may have taken (or ever would take) some "poetic license" in my listings. I try VERY hard to present the most accurate descriptions I can, and would never lean towards presenting something as more than it is. This is not to say I don't occasionally make mistakes, I have, but I try to be as researched as I can and to present things as accurately as I can. Saying that, I will present sources of my information used for this listing. If I've put them together incorrectly, I assure you it was not intentional "poetic license".

First, pipedia states Comoy's was first to use the term LONDON MADE, and that this style (block & straight LONDON over MADE) was the first style used by them, starting about 1902 and giving way to the Rubgy style in the 1920s.

Second, Pipedia also states the the HC in a cartouche started in 1904.

Third, regarding the orific or slotted button, in this thread here there is discussion of a similar pipe, in which it was stated that:

1) a slotted stem was in use at the time, and thus is not definitive for later manufacture. Being that Mr. Guss was involved in that thread, and didn't dispute the assertion that a slot was not definitive, I assumed there was no disagreement from him on that point. I recognize that is making an assumption from silence, which obviously is not in itself definitive, my point is only that strong evidence was presented and there was no dispute of the matter.

2) the Comoy's name was not used prior to 1913. Based on info seen here, I concede that this may not be the case, my only point in bringing it up is to show I wasn't just making things up whole cloth. However the markings on that pipe are almost identical this one, except that this one says CONSUL where that one has HC over the COM stamp, which it seems logical to mean HENRI COMOY. Since it was stamped HC rather Comoy's, I believed that lent credibility to the idea that Comoy's was not being stamped on their pipes yet.

In order to show my respect for Mr. Guss' research, I thank you for pointing out that Consul was a second line from Comoy's. Here I was obviously incorrect in my assertion that it was a store name. Because I was unable to find any information regarding this specific line (hats off to you you for the find on the Tobacco Yearbook!), combined with with this line on Pipedia regarding a pipe hallmarked 1904, "(Stamped on the side “J.R.” in an oval and “LONDON MADE”. (Comoy’s supplied many shops that had their name stamped on the side of the pipe. J.R. was obviously one.)" were my reasons for the jump to Consul being a store stamp. Again, I acknowledge this was incorrect.

I hope this information is sufficient to show that I really do try to be as informed and accurate as possible. As this was the best information I could find (and I tried hard!) and that there is no reason based on the COM stamp to put this pipe past "the 1920s", combined with it's being near identically stamped (only the name is different) to a pipe in the other thread in which Mr Guss did not dispute it's dating to 1902-1912, I felt I could be confident in my dating of this pipe. If my conclusion was incorrect, it was not because I was taking license, but rather the best information I could find at the time may not have been as conclusive as I'd believed.

I would very much be interested in hearing further (especially from Mr. Guss, but also from anyone else) why the dating would be outside of the time I asserted though. I think it would certainly be safe to say it was made before the shift in the COM stamp, and based on it's similarity to the other pipe, would it not be likely to date to the same approximate time? I truly welcome the discussion and any other criticism.

Kind regards,
Chance

Pipedia is a great resource, but not faultless. It's good to have a few different sources for confirmation. It's one of the reasons why I've collected catalogs, either originals, or copies, as well as advertisements and company memos. For example, the 1909 (or 1911) Comoy catalog shows the Comoy logo in use on the shanks. I also learned from this catalog that Comoy also did their own harvesting at that time, like Barling, so that they could control their product from the ground to the sales counter.

Semi orific stems, stems with slots, were in use before 1913. I have a hallmarked Barling calabash that dates to 1908 as well as a couple of other hallmarked pipes from a couple of years around 1908 with semi orific bits.

Jon has a staggering collection of industry materials that he uses in his studies. Most unfairly, Jon also carries all of this information in his head with a faultless, or nearly faultless recall. This reminds me, Jon sent me a massive pile of information that I have yet to sift through. Gotta get off my ass.

 

[georged]

Chance ---

I bet the reason Rodrigo "went minimal" years ago is becoming more clear to you every day, eh?

 

[ssjones]

Chance ---

I bet the reason Rodrigo "went minimal" years ago is becoming more clear to you every day, eh?

Bingo.

"Poetic license" was a poor choice of words by me and not intended as a slight, although now I can see how it would have been heard that way. I've bought pipes from you, with zero issues. I've removed that comment from my post above.

Dating for some of these pipes is always an educated guess and I like your statement that you strive to be as accurate as possible.

And it is always fascinating to see what gems of documentation Jon uncovers.

 

[mannerhead]

Hi George! Good to hear from you! I'm not sure what you mean about Rodrigo, but I actually find the discussion fascinating. This thread is titled "interesting completed ebay auctions" and, for me personally, what makes them interesting is not price, but rather history. It is the reason I've followed this thread for years. I've learned a lot from it, much of my learning from the very people who have responded to me.

To all: I wonder if it would be "safe" to at least posit the following. The COM stamp LONDON over MADE in straight line block is the first Comoy's COM stamp. Of course I will note that when dealing with things this long ago, almost nothing is ABSOLUTELY certain, but there are certain things that given the evidence, are most likely.

Here is my reasoning. All hallmarked pipes with this stamp that I have seen, which is admittedly a small sample, but is at least 3 pieces, all are hallmarked prior to 1909. All straight line pipes in a single line with a hallmark seem to be after this, but prior to the Rugby style, which Ahi-Ka says he has an example of dating to 1920. So I'll ask this question in two parts:

1) Are there any known examples of the two line version hallmarked later than 1909?
2) Are there any known examples of the single line version hallmarked prior to 1909?

I've not seen or heard of an example of either 1 or 2, but admittedly there are a lot more pipes out there than I've seen. I'm merely asking the questions to try and narrow down what's likely (though again I stress not definitive).

Another thing that keeps nagging at me. The pipe stamped HC (in a circle) over the two line COM stamp. This would SEEM (again, not definitive) to indicate at least A name stamp that was used prior to the Comoy's name being stamped, and it was used concurrently with the two line version of the COM stamp.

IF, and I accept that it's an if, one accepts that these two stamps, the HC for the name and the two line version of the COM stamp, are the earliest versions of both the name and the COM stamp, and given that Ahi-Ka has a 1909 hallmarked pipe with Comoy's on it, this would SEEM to indicate that pipes with the HC and two line version predate that 1909 pipe.

Now I certainly recognize that none of this is definitive. As with many things, we are often left with saying "such and such is most likely given available evidence". And of course there are always alternative explanations that must be explored, such as my listed pipe being a sub or second line. But I keep coming back to that HC stamped pipe and wondering why they would stamp HC on the shank if they were already stamping Comoy's. Is it possible for some reason... sure. But is it likely? I wonder.

In my opinion, which is subject to change with better evidence, is that it is most likely that the HC stamped pipe predates Comoy's stamped pipes. Of course when speaking about opinions, it should always be remembered that opinions are like a$$holes... everybody has one and they are all full of $#!+ from time to time, mine included.

As for Pipedia not being a perfect source, I couldn't agree more. Had it been the only source I had at the time I listed the pipe, or that I presented for discussion here, I would have made no assertions at all about it's age other than "it's a super old pipe".

Lastly, in all of this discussion, please note I don't care at all about defending myself in this. I'm writing only because I enjoy the discussion of the history, and if we can make educated guesses to try and narrow down dating, that is always a benefit to us all who care about these things, even when, or perhaps especially when, I have to say I'm wrong.

Thank you Gentlemen... I look forward to your replies.

 

[ssjones]

I believe this might be the longest running thread on the forum? (started in 2017)