Is this a genuine GBD?

[georged]

I love how human interests (regardless of subject) so often have an inverse "passion to significance ratio". :lol: Nothing gets people so riled as the small stuff.
(My latest favorite is the President of the United States lecturing--and threatening--the nation's public schools (all the way down to the elementary level?!) regarding their bathroom policy. In my day, Presidents occupied themselves with projects like landing men on the Moon.)
In any event, how the subject GBD came to be nomenclature-less hardly matters. Gone is gone. My guess was based on the pipe having been obviously refinished, and having seen a number of "sand to wood before re-staining" projects over the years. The "got nicked by someone in the GBD factory" is also entirely possible. For that matter, maybe the QA guy had a hangover one day and just wanted to go home to bed so boxed stuff blindly. We'll never know.
Nor does it matter. Had it been left entirely alone, un-smoked and un-refinished, some GBD enthusiast collector would probably have loved having such a specimen. Now, though, it's just another tobacco access device. A really well-cut and nicely grained one to be sure, but nothing more. That's not so bad, though, is it? Smoking the things is why we all come to this party. :D

 

[mawnansmiff]

Right then, below are two pictures (slightly off focus) of the pipe afore I sanded it prior to restaining it. If I recall correctly I started at 1000 grit then gave it several wipes with alcohol that removed much of the red stain then continued up to 3000 grit afore restaining then hand buffing with wax to give the colour/finish you see in my original pictures. Dutch, it is interesting that you say that red was never used by GBD, more fuel to the fire perhaps that it may not be a genuine GBD pipe?

As can be seen, the pipe was as I stated initially an unsmoked one, also very evident is the nasty red stain that had been applied. I have just had it under the microscope and am certain that there are no traces of any worn stampings so am also certain that it never had any. What I did see however were about a half dozen minuscule pits, so tiny they are not visible to the naked eye.
If as has been suggested the pipe had been over buffed (thereby removing any stampings) then of course as has already been mentioned the stem would not register with the shank but it does perfectly.
Still a mystery to me.
Regards,
Jay.

 

[ssjones]

If the pipe had been sanded to the point where all vestages of the nomenclature were completely effaced (naked eye exam), if would have been necessary to re-shape the stem (corresponding diameter reduction) as well.

That was my thought, if someone took a buffer/sandpaper to the nomenclature heard enough to completely remove the nomenclature, the shank/stem fitment not being altered seems unlikely.
Of course I suppose that someone could have fitted a GBD stem to a no-name pipe, but the grain looks too nice for that possiblity.
It certainly does look better in the new stain color!

 

[mawnansmiff]

"Of course I suppose that someone could have fitted a GBD stem to a no-name pipe, but the grain looks too nice for that possiblity."
Al, interesting comment you make. I assume you mean that a pipe with gorgeous grain would always be marked with a maker's name. I have mentioned on several threads that I have more than a few pipes with outstanding grain yet are not marked at all. This has baffled me for some time. Why go to the trouble (and expense) of making a lovely pipe yet forego signing it in some manner?
Most odd methinks.
"It certainly does look better in the new stain color!"
Al, if I could get my head round the correct technique for contrast staining I reckon this pipe would have been a good candidate for that. Alas my skills at contrast staining are somewhat lacking.
Regards,
Jay.

 

[georged]

Al, if I could get my head round the correct technique for contrast staining I reckon this pipe would have been a good candidate for that. Alas my skills at contrast staining are somewhat lacking.

http://www.pipemakersforum.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=35