Mappin&Webb Pipes

[jguss]

I doubt Dunhill made M&W-branded pipes.

Mine is clearly a Dunhill, but with the M&W name on the case in gold. Dunhill is also visible as an impression in the leather on the outside and on a label on the inside.

View attachment 79020
View attachment 79022View attachment 79023

Beautiful pipe Craig!

As you say the key here is the presence of the word Dunhill on the pipe and case. This isn’t an example of a private label pipe, but rather Dunhill branded pipes made for a given retailer to sell to its customers (Barling did the same thing). It would be interesting to know if Dunhill continued the practice after it opened its own Paris store a few years after your pipe was made. I’d guess not. In the States Dunhill pretty ruthlessly cut off other avenues of distribution when their NYC store opened in 1921.

 

[orlandofurioso]

I doubt Dunhill made M&W-branded pipes.

Mine is clearly a Dunhill, but with the M&W name on the case in gold. Dunhill is also visible as an impression in the leather on the outside and on a label on the inside.

View attachment 79020
View attachment 79022View attachment 79023

Splendid pipe and case, Craig !

 

[EA/DC]

Dear pipesmokers,

I have just registered here on this great site. I am from the Netherlands and the owner of fthe two Mappin&Webb pipes above.

Nice to find this thread!

I was just looking to find any more information about them again today and found my picture of my two pipes on Google.
The picture comes from the Dutch site 'Pijprokersforum' where I asked fellow pipesmokers in Holland if they knew anything about these pipes. I have never offered them for sale...

I have two more that are really bad with a crack in the bowl. They must have been great pipes beause they were used so much.
I bought all four M&P pipes together with a 1924 Dunhill Bruyere that was used a lot less.

In my surch for more info the past few years I have found one interesting thing. When I bought an old Dunhill prince E17 pipe from 1925 last year, there was also a Dunhill London marked pipe tool made by Cowlishaw, Sheffield.

Looking for info about it I found the following:

" John Yeomans Cowlishaw was related to the Mappin family through his mother Mary; he was nephew to John Newton Mappin, who founded the Mappin Art Gallery (which later became Weston Park Museum) and was cousin to the Mappin brothers, who founded Mappin Brothers and Mappin & Webb."

So they knew Alfred Dunhill and he knew them.




So they may have been made by Dunhill.



The 1924 Dunhill above, the M&P below.

Except for the M&P logo there is nothing stamped in the wood or mouthpiece.

 

[EA/DC]

( Where I mention "M&P" above, that should ofcourse be M&W.)

 

[Papamique]

My daily drivers are Mappin&Webb with ivory scales. They were definitely a luxury company and I can see them contracting with Dunhill.

 

[canucklehead]

Not pipes, but it is a M&W/Dunhill "collaboration" product:

Mappin & Webb Dunhill Sheffield stainless steel stag horn 6 steak knives boxed | #288445591

This is a set of 6 Mappin & Webb / dunhill stag horn steak knives. They have a serated blade at the top and the blade is made of Sheffield stainless steel. The blades measure approximatly 4.5 inches.

www.worthpoint.com

 

[Papamique]

Now to find a nice Mappin Webb pipe

 

[EA/DC]

Not new but still nice..

 

[jguss]

Not pipes, but it is a M&W/Dunhill "collaboration" product:

Mappin & Webb Dunhill Sheffield stainless steel stag horn 6 steak knives boxed | #288445591

This is a set of 6 Mappin & Webb / dunhill stag horn steak knives. They have a serated blade at the top and the blade is made of Sheffield stainless steel. The blades measure approximatly 4.5 inches.

www.worthpoint.com

This is not what I would call a collaboration, with or without quotes; for it to be a true collaboration Dunhill would have had to have been involved in design or manufacture. And both parties would have shared profits in some agreed upon fashion. In the business world collaboration refers to something more involved than "I sell you this thing and you then resell it to someone else". Otherwise almost every business is in a collaboration with all of its customers. and that construction attenuates the word into meaninglessness.

I'm disinclined to believe that any true collaborative act was involved here. In this instance as in others (Dunhill sold a variety of things that were made by other companies that bore the manufacturer's name on it as well as Dunhill's) it was a question of distribution. Dunhill was simply looking for additional high-end products to buy and move through their channel (i.e. retail stores and catalogs).

As for the likelihood that Dunhill made pipes for M&W that didn't have the Dunhill name on them I remain skeptical. What we know is that Dunhill was unbelievably knowledgeable about the value of his brand, and was almost a vexatious litigant when it came to defending it. I find it implausible that he would make private label pipes; as far as I know it hasn't been demonstrated before. It would at best have been a distraction that couldn't possibly have been worth his while economically, and at worst it could have put competitors into his business. That someone who sold Dunhill accessories was related to someone who sold him steak knives is interesting but hardly proof that Alfred Dunhill personally knew and was close to any of these men; and even if he was hardly proof that any collaborative efforts were undertaken. But having said that it would be interesting if EA/DC showed additional pictures that revealed enough of his two pipes' construction to have real Dunhill experts (not me; I'm thinking especially of George D) opine on a comparison of the tenons, buttons, etc. Dunhill manufacturing was extremely consistent in certain respects at this time and I would expect that consistency to be reflected in the two pipes shown above if both are Dunhills.

The whole question of attributing private label pipes to a specific manufacturer is a sticky one, particularly where there is no shape number or COM stamp (the lack of the latter is for me a particular warning sign). It's a bit like attributing unsigned paintings to old masters. Significant judgement and experience is brought to bear, and even then attributions flow back and forth as successive generations of art historians seeks an opportunity to make their name.

 

[canucklehead]

This is not what I would call a collaboration, with or without quotes; for it to be a true collaboration Dunhill would have had to have been involved in design or manufacture. And both parties would have shared profits in some agreed upon fashion. In the business world collaboration refers to something more involved than "I sell you this thing and you then resell it to someone else". Otherwise almost every business is in a collaboration with all of its customers. and that construction attenuates the word into meaninglessness.

I'm disinclined to believe that any true collaborative act was involved here. In this instance as in others (Dunhill sold a variety of things that were made by other companies that bore the manufacturer's name on it as well as Dunhill's) it was a question of distribution. Dunhill was simply looking for additional high-end products to buy and move through their channel (i.e. retail stores and catalogs).

As for the likelihood that Dunhill made pipes for M&W that didn't have the Dunhill name on them I remain skeptical. What we know is that Dunhill was unbelievably knowledgeable about the value of his brand, and was almost a vexatious litigant when it came to defending it. I find it implausible that he would make private label pipes; as far as I know it hasn't been demonstrated before. It would at best have been a distraction that couldn't possibly have been worth his while economically, and at worst it could have put competitors into his business. That someone who sold Dunhill accessories was related to someone who sold him steak knives is interesting but hardly proof that Alfred Dunhill personally knew and was close to any of these men; and even if he was hardly proof that any collaborative efforts were undertaken. But having said that it would be interesting if EA/DC showed additional pictures that revealed enough of his two pipes' construction to have real Dunhill experts (not me; I'm thinking especially of George D) opine on a comparison of the tenons, buttons, etc. Dunhill manufacturing was extremely consistent in certain respects at this time and I would expect that consistency to be reflected in the two pipes show above if both are Dunhills.

The whole question of attributing private label pipes to a specific manufacturer is a sticky one, particularly where there is no shape number or COM stamp (the lack of the latter is for me a particular warning sign). It's a bit like attributing unsigned paintings to old masters. Significant judgement and experience is brought to bear, and even then attributions flow back and forth as successive generations of art historians seeks an opportunity to make their name.

To my completely untrained eye, the M&W pipe doesn't look like the Dunhill past the general shape, it is thicker in the bottom and shank, and the bend is different, less graceful.

 

[Jbyrd]

My daily drivers are Mappin&Webb with ivory scales. They were definitely a luxury company and I can see them contracting with Dunhill.

View attachment 210644

View attachment 210643

They are beautiful before I grew a beard I was shaving with straight razors. It is a great way to slow down and enjoy the small things in this life just like smoking a pipe.

 

[EA/DC]

This is not what I would call a collaboration, with or without quotes; for it to be a true collaboration Dunhill would have had to have been involved in design or manufacture. And both parties would have shared profits in some agreed upon fashion. In the business world collaboration refers to something more involved than "I sell you this thing and you then resell it to someone else". Otherwise almost every business is in a collaboration with all of its customers. and that construction attenuates the word into meaninglessness.

I'm disinclined to believe that any true collaborative act was involved here. In this instance as in others (Dunhill sold a variety of things that were made by other companies that bore the manufacturer's name on it as well as Dunhill's) it was a question of distribution. Dunhill was simply looking for additional high-end products to buy and move through their channel (i.e. retail stores and catalogs).

As for the likelihood that Dunhill made pipes for M&W that didn't have the Dunhill name on them I remain skeptical. What we know is that Dunhill was unbelievably knowledgeable about the value of his brand, and was almost a vexatious litigant when it came to defending it. I find it implausible that he would make private label pipes; as far as I know it hasn't been demonstrated before. It would at best have been a distraction that couldn't possibly have been worth his while economically, and at worst it could have put competitors into his business. That someone who sold Dunhill accessories was related to someone who sold him steak knives is interesting but hardly proof that Alfred Dunhill personally knew and was close to any of these men; and even if he was hardly proof that any collaborative efforts were undertaken. But having said that it would be interesting if EA/DC showed additional pictures that revealed enough of his two pipes' construction to have real Dunhill experts (not me; I'm thinking especially of George D) opine on a comparison of the tenons, buttons, etc. Dunhill manufacturing was extremely consistent in certain respects at this time and I would expect that consistency to be reflected in the two pipes shown above if both are Dunhills.

The whole question of attributing private label pipes to a specific manufacturer is a sticky one, particularly where there is no shape number or COM stamp (the lack of the latter is for me a particular warning sign). It's a bit like attributing unsigned paintings to old masters. Significant judgement and experience is brought to bear, and even then attributions flow back and forth as successive generations of art historians seeks an opportunity to make their name.

Here some extra pictures from the 5 pipes.

 

[EA/DC]

Anyway, for me they don't have to be possible Dunhill pipes. I am just really interested in their history since I can't find anything about that.