The home shop's work tends to be better than what's done at their "satellite" shops around the world.
That said, I'm willing to bet an in-hand examination of your pipe would show one or more of the indications of non-originality I listed.
My 100$ Dunhill
- Thread starter milk
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Someone is also privately suggesting the shank was sanded to fit the stem. This is worse news and more disappointing. Looking at the pipe, I guess it’s possible.The home shop's work tends to be better than what's done at their "satellite" shops around the world.
That said, I'm willing to bet an in-hand examination of your pipe would show one or more of the indications of non-originality I listed.
Yup. the button crease is wrong, and also the lip thickness front-to-back. Both are post-patent-era traits.
Do you have a shot of the tenon/stemface transition? Unless it has a crisp 45-degree shoulder, that would also be wrong for the production period.
I think this is probably a moot point. There is no way that this is a Dunhill stem. Actually, the feel of the stem, to me, isn’t cheap. It’s a vulcanite stem and I cleaned and polished it. I don’t know what it’s from but it’s clear at this point it’s not from a Dunhill factory. It wouldn’t be that bad if there wasn’t another factor: possibly the shank was sanded. I didn’t realize that until someone privately pointed that out. It may be true. That makes the pipe really worthless, except as a smoker - maybe to me, if I can get over the idea of it.
What's unusual is faking sandblast texture by hand is a tricky thing, and it seems to have been done fairly well.
The darker stain on the last third of the stem + a half-degree taper grind that's longer than standard for the shape definitely says "re-finished", though...
But if both of those things were done to "camouflage" re-stemming, there must have been a THIRD stem at some point. Not the original, and not the one in the pics.
Things are gettin' confused.
The comments you are responding to here ^^^^ was my response to photos that Alejo R. posted of his smooth patent-era pipe.
That sounds like a very far way to go for a pipe. The shape is 333 but it is a very long billiard. I don’t know. I’m very confused at this point. When the idea was suggested that it is sanded, I didn’t think about it. But that person is very trustworthy. I actually don’t want to bother them by asking…HOW? Yes, how is the sandblast maintained or redone after sanding? Or could this pipe NOT be sanded and the shank is just normal?
Even banding this pipe wouldn’t cover the sanding and staining that’s been done to it. That’s a real shame. There’s no way to get it to look nicer. I was thinking, re-stem it and band it, but the sanding and staining was done to a large part of the shank. 
Even banding this pipe wouldn’t cover the sanding and staining that’s been done to it. That’s a real shame. There’s no way to get it to look nicer. I was thinking, re-stem it and band it, but the sanding and staining was done to a large part of the shank.
For the record, pipes in exactly that condition CAN be made to look new again, but it's a labor intensive process.
It was worth it (financially speaking) here because the shape is one of the rarest Dunhills ever made, and the collector knew it was almost certainly a "this one, or I'll never get another opportunity" situation:
But why did they sand the shank? It’s horrible! Why would they do that instead of just getting a proper stem fitted? It seems like once the shank is sanded and the sandblast altered that the pipe is really marred. I don’t know what I could do to make this pipe look like something I actually want to hold in my hand. I’m just kind of too compulsive to smoke it like this. I really can’t imagine the idea of the person who sanded this and altered the sandblast and re-stained this. I can’t imagine what their aim was. I was thinking before that maybe I could band it and re-stem it. But the sanded and stained part is too long. But I’m watching the video now. This guys is great!
It's rather complicated, but the short answer is it's much less effort to re-stem a pipe by grinding both the stem material and shank material simultaneously than by "shrinking" the stem to match an untouched shank.
I see. Would you say that most repair shops would advise against doing such a thing to a Dunhill? I would think so. But I see. This video is a mirror of what’s happened here, including the lack of skill in the repair. It’s not terrible; it’s just not good.
As the pipe is actually somewhat of a rare bird, restoring it might be worth it if it doesn’t have other issues. That’s if your willing to throw the cash at it.
Then you’ll have something to be proud of.
Then you’ll have something to be proud of.
I see. The video makes it seem like an amateur could do it with a router and sandpaper. But I would hesitate. I could send it and pay or maybe someone wants to trade something. Maybe someone is interested. So, Georged is really the person in the video? Hello friend! Is that you? That’s a great video.
@georged is considered by many people, one of the best pipe restorers around, capable of magic and “invisible” repairs. There’s a reason rare Dunhills get sent to him.