Intriguing 1908 Barling

[osiris01]

Hello all,

I thought I'd post a few pics of this pipe since it has a number of interesting aspects to it I've not seen in a Barling's before.

I guess first off is the shape. Somewhere between an apple and an egg - it's not a million miles from the artisan pipes of today - but I've never seen a Barling in this shape before. There are no stamps on the stummel apart from the makers mark, and although a small pipe, by Barling's standards, it is probably a M/L. The only family catalog I have is the 1914, and it is not in there, so I'll be interested to know if anyone else has seen similar.

And then there's the stem. I've never seen a tenon extension on a Barling - a bit Peterson-esque. I've been trying to work out if it is the original, and I can't really see how it is not. The crossed barling logo had me thinking the stem was older than the pipe, but my brain finally found a gear and realized that in order to retro-fit the stem, the mortice would need to be drilled out. Assuming it would be a DIY job, I would have thought that the budding DIYer would rather remove the extension than drill out a mortice. Orific bit, so in the right period.

I would love to hear peoples thoughts on these aspects - it's either an unusual barling's (at least for me) or a very well done mix-'n-match, but that tenon extension has whipped-up my curiosity. Sorry, terrible photos - my camera isn't syncing with the lights for some reason, so I had to improvise.

Cheers all.

 

[sablebrush52]

That's a beautiful little pipe! The Barling's Make stamp looks correct for the period. As for the shape not being in the circa 1914 catalog, Barling stated that they were only including a selection of their most popular shapes in that catalog. Barling, like other makers, had hundreds of patterns but only produced a percentage of them at any one time.

I have seen this extension on a couple of other early Barling pipes.

What feels off is the Barling crossed logo stem stamp. The earliest use I this I've seen dates to the very early 1920's. It's entirely possible that the stem stamp was added later, but it seems odd that they would have had this stamp much earlier and almost never used it. It's possible, but unlikely.

Because of the angle, I can't tell if there's a chamfer at the base of the tenon. The mortise has been cut to accommodate one.

 

[osiris01]

Hi Jesse,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, the stem logo was my hang-up, but looking into the mortice, it certainly doesn't look like a DIY job. I've attached one of the rejects showing the chamfer. It's an odd one - with replacement stems you can normally see evidence of a slight mis-match if you look hard enough, particularly with such a distinctive tenon/mortice design, but try as I might, I can't find it. Nice to know that the extension is genuine (well, a genuine Barling 'thing', anyhow).

Thanks again.

 

[sablebrush52]

Hi Jesse,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, the stem logo was my hang-up, but looking into the mortice, it certainly doesn't look like a DIY job. I've attached one of the rejects showing the chamfer. It's an odd one - with replacement stems you can normally see evidence of a slight mis-match if you look hard enough, particularly with such a distinctive tenon/mortice design, but try as I might, I can't find it. Nice to know that the extension is genuine (well, a genuine Barling 'thing', anyhow).

Thanks again.
View attachment 133705

The whole question of a vintage stem being "original" is an open one. We know that Barling did repair and refubrishing of their pipes for their clientele. The logo could have been added by the factory at a later date, or it's just an extremely rare usage. We'll have to keep an eye out for other examples that can be dated. Congrats on the lovely pipe!

 

[jguss]

The whole question of a vintage stem being "original" is an open one. We know that Barling did repair and refubrishing of their pipes for their clientele. The logo could have been added by the factory at a later date, or it's just an extremely rare usage. We'll have to keep an eye out for other examples that can be dated. Congrats on the lovely pipe!

The Barling cross existed quite early (or at least we know the company claimed it did); the frustrating thing is a lack of examples to substantiate the point.

As you can see below, in a 1958 US trademark filing the company asserted first use in 1889, and first use in commerce in 1924. Remember this is a US trademark registration: the distinction being made is a legal one based on American jurisdiction. In this context “first use” means first commercial use anywhere (which in this case was presumably England), and “first use in commerce” means the cross was put on goods sold in the US or otherwise subject to American law.



So is this a genuine stem with an early and rare example of the Barling cross? It certainly could be, but I’m damned if I know how to be sure.

 

[osiris01]

Thanks Jesse, John - very much appreciate your time. The whole 'original /genuine' bun fight reminds me of a conversation I had recently. Went something along these lines:

Them: Is the stem the original?
Me: It's genuine.
Them: Not what I asked. Is it the original?
Me: Yes. Or a genuine replacement.
Them: Are you sh*tting me?
Me: No.
Them. Then you're talking nonsense.
Me: Very possibly. So you don't want the pipe then?

'It might be' is close enough for me these days (but for some reason, I still bugs the hell out of me until I find another unicorn to chase).

On a slight tangent, I had assumed that the tenon extension was covered by the Peterson p-lip patent. I don't know much about patents, and tenon extensions are probably too vague to protect, but I'll be digging it out tomorrow (I need to get a life).

Thanks again chaps.

 

[sablebrush52]

The Barling cross existed quite early (or at least we know the company claimed it did); the frustrating thing is a lack of examples to substantiate the point.

As you can see below, in a 1958 US trademark filing the company asserted first use in 1889, and first use in commerce in 1924. Remember this is a US trademark registration: the distinction being made is a legal one based on American jurisdiction. In this context “first use” means first commercial use anywhere (which in this case was presumably England), and “first use in commerce” means the cross was put on goods sold in the US or otherwise subject to American law.

View attachment 133740

So is this a genuine stem with an early and rare example of the Barling cross? It certainly could be, but I’m damned if I know how to be sure.

This reminds me of the "Fossil" appellation, which you found dated to 1928, if I recollect correctly. But we've never seen it used until after WW2

 

[sablebrush52]

Them: Is the stem the original?
Me: It's genuine.
Them: Not what I asked. Is it the original?
Me: Yes. Or a genuine replacement.
Them: Are you sh*tting me?
Me: No.
Them. Then you're talking nonsense.

"Them" is an idiot. Considering that Barling had a department to do refurbishment, including replacing stems, it suggests that there was a need for that service. So "original" is an open question.

 

[OzPiper]

I cannot understand the logic of anyone turning down the opportunity to buy a vintage car because it didn't come with the original tyres ?

 

[ssjones]

I cannot understand the logic of anyone turning down the opportunity to buy a vintage car because it didn't come with the original tyres ?

I'm not sure that is the right analogy. Tires are disposable, stems less so. A vintage car with the original wheels is desired, tires less so. I think a pipe stem would be more akin to wheels.

And, that's a beautiful pipe. As a Peterson fan, that chimney is lovely! Is integral to the stem, or a screw in fitment like Peterson uses?

 

[osiris01]

Hi Al/Oz. Al, glad you asked if it was integral. I assumed it was, but I've just had a look through the loupe and it is bone. There is a seam of some sort, so I think it is probably threaded (you'll have to excuse my reluctance to find out for certain).

Unfortunately, I didn't get a life overnight, so I have dug out the Pete patents, and I think Barling were sailing fairly close to the wind: the extension is covered in the patent docs (whether it is binding, I don't know), but an excerpt:


I think the debate about disposability is an interesting one and highlights how our attitude to pipes has changed. If I spent £500 on a mid-range artisan pipe, I wouldn't smoke it 6 times a day and chuck it after 2 years. My grandfather was an avid piper, and he would buy a new pipe every year, just before Christmas (I later found out that the timing was to prevent relatives from buying him a crap one as a gift). He had 3 pipes on the go: his 'Sunday best' was the newest and he kept it for going out. Next down was his house pipe, followed by his gardening pipe. Every year, he'd chuck the garden pipe, move his house pipe to the garden, and the new one was his new Sunday best. They were disposable and he would probably consider it utter insanity if he knew the hoops people jump through to determine if the stem was the 'original'. That said, it still bugs the hell out of me if I don't know. Why? I have no idea - utter insanity perhaps?

 

[ssjones]

If that chimney is screw in, that's some serious craftsmanship and a step up from a vintage Peterson chimney's fitment.

 

[jguss]

I think Barling were sailing fairly close to the wind

Patent law is a very deep rabbit hole, at least in the states (and I'm guessing in the UK as well). Claims tend to be deliberately broad, but enforceability is another thing entirely. Moreover as with all things legal a very narrow and precise reading of the language used is key. The parsing of claims is a tedious and frequently contentious process. At first glance it's easy to mistake the Dunhill patent, for example, as a grant of exclusivity on the application of sandblasting to pipes, but as we see from industry activity (and a closer reading of the patent) it was no such thing. I've been involved in litigation where a patent we were actually granted was accused of infringing on another patent; so as you can see the issuing of a patent is neither a guarantee of originality nor a shield against competing claims. All of which is my way of saying that I would be leery of drawing conclusions from a layman's reading of the patent. More useful, although not always available, is a look to see if other industry players are doing what Barling apparently did here; if so it suggests that this was not infringement. On the other hand if the answer is no that doesn't necessarily imply anything other than a lack of interest in this approach.

utter insanity perhaps

Perhaps it is, but I wouldn't be too proud about it. The question isn't whether everyone else you meet is insane, only what the form and focus of their particular insanity happens to be. And of course how it manifests. Most people are taught through the abrasion of life to hide the crazy. This works pretty well until marriage.

 

[burleybreath]

The question isn't whether everyone else you meet is insane, only what the form and focus of their particular insanity happens to be. And of course how it manifests. Most people are taught through the abrasion of life to hide the crazy. This works pretty well until marriage.

This belongs in any collection of pithy epigrams, I believe. It explains the initial apprehension when meeting someone new. How well are they hiding their insanity? I always wondered about this, and now I know. Kudos, sir.

Oh. The pipe? It's absolutely adorable. The curves alone make it desirable, at almost any cost. They just don't quit, and extend even to the transition. Reminds me of a woman. Or some damn thing. But I'm not insane. Really.

 

[sablebrush52]

I cannot understand the logic of anyone turning down the opportunity to buy a vintage car because it didn't come with the original tyres ?

We're American. We don't need no stinking logic.

 

[OzPiper]

I'm not sure that is the right analogy. Tires are disposable, stems less so. A vintage car with the original wheels is desired, tires less so. I think a pipe stem would be more akin to wheels.

And, that's a beautiful pipe. As a Peterson fan, that chimney is lovely! Is integral to the stem, or a screw in fitment like Peterson uses?

Al, you're right of course. I did mean wheels.

 

[snagstangl]

And by wheels you mean the rims the tires are mounted on.

 

[ashdigger]

Here’s a new Barling with the same Extension or “condenser” as the OP’s. This does not have hallmarks, maybe lost to time; however, it has pipe shop stamping.

These are from the very reputable seller.

 

[sablebrush52]

Here’s a new Barling with the same Extension or “condenser” as the OP’s. This does not have hallmarks, maybe lost to time; however, it has pipe shop stamping.

These are from the very reputable seller.
View attachment 144302View attachment 144303View attachment 144304View attachment 144305View attachment 144306

Since Doug contacted me to vet this particular pipe, I'll weigh in. When Doug contacted me, being the brilliant historian I am, I immediately punted it to jguss, who was able to supply me, and from me to Doug, what information there was on the MARTIN pipe. The MARTIN trademark was owned by Skillington, and later by Josiah Brown.

We don't have any idea who made the pipe. There are no makers' marks visible on the silver. It might, or might not, have been made by Barling, or by any of a number of other manufacturers such as BBB, or Comoy, or any of the smaller shops that turned out pipes on contract for tobacconists who sold them to the public. There is certainly precedent for Barling, since they supplied pipes to Bewlay, but they weren't the only manufacturer to supply pipes to Bewlay. Bottom line, the maker of the actual pipe is unknown at this time.

 

[ashdigger]

Since Doug contacted me to vet this particular pipe, I'll weigh in. When Doug contacted me, being the brilliant historian I am, I immediately punted it to jguss, who was able to supply me, and from me to Doug, what information there was on the MARTIN pipe. The MARTIN trademark was owned by Skillington, and later by Josiah Brown.

We don't have any idea who made the pipe. There are no makers' marks visible on the silver. It might, or might not, have been made by Barling, or by any of a number of other manufacturers such as BBB, or Comoy, or any of the smaller shops that turned out pipes on contract for tobacconists who sold them to the public. There is certainly precedent for Barling, since they supplied pipes to Bewlay, but they weren't the only manufacturer to supply pipes to Bewlay. Bottom line, the maker of the actual pipe is unknown at this time.

What do you think about the extension/condenser?