New Barling's

[sablebrush52]

Collectors rely on nomenclature and want to believe that the markings were carefully attended to. With all good intentions that wasn't always the case. Dunhill was the most consistent (in my experience) but I know from my companies that screw-ups happened. Markings were omitted, incorrect grades used, stamps applied at angles, etc. and shape numbers could add to the problems. Manufacturers just weren’t as meticulous as collectors expect that they were.

One of the legendary characteristics with Barling was the inconsistency of their stamping. But why stamp a model number on a different shape, if not a mistake? There have been Barlings where the logo stamp was upside down. Pretty good trick, that one.

So a Barling with an EXEL stamping might also have an original stem with the "Regd Design" stamp?

Nope. The "Reg Design" stamp dates the stem to 1935-36. The EXEL size didn't come into existence until 1938 or 39.

 

[buroak]

Nope. The "Reg Design" stamp dates the stem to 1935-36. The EXEL size didn't come into existence until 1938 or 39.

I guess I will always have a bit of mystery on my hands. Fortunately for me the pipe smokes like it is completely unaware of its anachronistic nature.

 

[dmcmtk]

Barling's Make arched pipes are immediate post-Family Era and about the same quality as their predecessors, handmade bowl and stem. The plumping of the bowl was impossible with machines of that time. If you bought it, congrats and enjoy.

Pete, I would suggest you re-read the pipedia article, it covers this issue in some detail. Any questions can be directed to Jesse! :wink:
The 1962 150th Anniversary and Retailers’ Catalogs
http://pipedia.org/wiki/Barling

 

[sablebrush52]

I guess I will always have a bit of mystery on my hands. Fortunately for me the pipe smokes like it is completely unaware of its anachronistic nature.

The thing about stems being "original" on old pipes is that it's largely taken on faith. There's no way to prove it. Who knows? Maybe your "Reg'd Design" stamp was used in 1938-39. It's assumed that the stamp went out of use after the patent was granted, but Barling was pretty loose about stamping. The EXEL size is a matter of record as Barling's published range of sizes expanded with its 1939 product listing.

 

[neverbend]

I hope that this image shows. "R" is carved into the pipe, not a stamp.

 

[neverbend]

@Dmcmtk,

Barling's Make arched pipes are immediate post-Family Era and about the same quality as their predecessors, handmade bowl and stem.

immediate post-Family Era, should have been before Barling's Make, not after it (quite a different meaning). Thanks for pointing out the confusion.

 

[neverbend]

Hi Jesse,

But why stamp a model number on a different shape, if not a mistake?

I’ll refer to Doctor Bob’s pipe as #1372A and mine #1372B.
There are enough #1372A so that it’s the expected shape and there are at least two #1372B. The ‘why’ can’t be known. A mistake, that was repeated (at least once) makes sense but there may have been another explanation. @DoctorBob, can you post a close-up of the shape number and Barling stamp on your pipe?

One of the legendary characteristics with Barling was the inconsistency of their stamping...There have been Barlings where the logo stamp was upside down. Pretty good trick, that one.

OK, my guys stamped some upside down too but I didn’t want to embarrass them. Barling’s process was streamlined but just on sheer numbers, mistakes would happen. Looking back we see every nomenclature mistake but I suspect that these pipes, in their day, were simply sold.

The thing about stems being "original" on old pipes is that it's largely taken on faith. There's no way to prove it. Who knows? Maybe your "Reg'd Design" stamp was used in 1938-39. It's assumed that the stamp went out of use after the patent was granted, but Barling was pretty loose about stamping.

There are ways to identify Barling (and Dunhill) stems because they were handmade rod vulc and have some distinctive work, identifying a factory replacement would be more difficult. For me, a Barling handmade stem (original or replacement) usually suffices.
Shank shaving is obvious. Rod vulc is more dense but you’d need about the same size stem to feel the difference. Barling stems have different jig patterns, tenon and flat work (on the saddles) that distinguish them from molded stems.

The EXEL size is a matter of record as Barling's published range of sizes expanded with its 1939 product listing.

Is it possible that the EXEL nomenclature was used before 1939 or was this date when the change was to be implemented? My experience is that Pipe companies, large or small, implemented changes on a regular basis that were reflected in published materials at a later date (if at all). Their marketing tended to be a trailing indicator. You’ve found examples of stamps used before what had been previously been accepted as the initial date and that makes sense. It’s not the same manufacturing idiom as, say, electronics.

 

[sablebrush52]

Is it possible that the EXEL nomenclature was used before 1939 or was this date when the change was to be implemented? My experience is that Pipe companies, large or small, implemented changes on a regular basis that were reflected in published materials at a later date (if at all). Their marketing tended to be a trailing indicator.

The information is taken from the British tobacco trade publication, Tobacco World, courtesy of John Guss. John tracked the product line over a number of years and sent me a copy of the spreadsheet. There are some elements that I can't discuss because some of it is still active research, but I can discuss the sizes issue. Basically, I took the trailing indicator into account, as the larger array of sizes isn't listed in the journal until 1940. My bad on saying it was 1939. So suggesting that it might have been as early as 1938 is being generous. 1940 is when the Barling line is listed as having sizes from SS thru EXEXEL. Before that it is small, medium, and large.

There are ways to identify Barling (and Dunhill) stems because they were handmade rod vulc and have some distinctive work, identifying a factory replacement would be more difficult. For me, a Barling handmade stem (original or replacement) usually suffices.

Agreed. As a matter of practice, I discount any claims of a stem being "original". If it's correct, that's good enough for me.

Shank shaving is obvious. Rod vulc is more dense but you’d need about the same size stem to feel the difference. Barling stems have different jig patterns, tenon and flat work (on the saddles) that distinguish them from molded stems.

Also agreed. There are style elements to Barling stems, both saddle and taper, that are quite distinctive. It makes spotting a replacement made by an average craftsman pretty easy. GeorgeD or RonnieB, on the other hand, can produce a dead on replication. We're so screwed when these guys quit.

There are enough #1372A so that it’s the expected shape and there are at least two #1372B. The ‘why’ can’t be known. A mistake, that was repeated (at least once) makes sense but there may have been another explanation. @DoctorBob, can you post a close-up of the shape number and Barling stamp on your pipe?

I'd be interested to know what it is, since the Diversity Machine Works memo from September 1962, which lists all available Barling models (and there were one hell of a lot of them) doesn't list any variations under this model number.

 

[doctorbob]

This is as good as I can get right now...

 

[sablebrush52]

This is as good as I can get right now...

Good enough for me to tell you that the pipe probably dates from the late 1930's thru mid 1940's.

 

[doctorbob]

Thanks sablebrush52, I have learned so much from this thread and it's great and knowledgeable contributors.
This pipe is also stamped Made In London over England, and I did find a faint Reg'd 42/8968 on the bottom of the stem after cleaning, see the pictures half way down the thread.

 

[sablebrush52]

This pipe is also stamped Made In London over England, and I did find a faint Reg'd 42/8968 on the bottom of the stem after cleaning, see the pictures half way down the thread.

Yep. That's consistent with the period I suggested, kinda locks it in. Boy, I'm good.

 

[doctorbob]

Damn right! :-D

 

[buroak]

The thing about stems being "original" on old pipes is that it's largely taken on faith. There's no way to prove it. Who knows? Maybe your "Reg'd Design" stamp was used in 1938-39. It's assumed that the stamp went out of use after the patent was granted, but Barling was pretty loose about stamping. The EXEL size is a matter of record as Barling's published range of sizes expanded with its 1939 product listing.

I am not too worried whatever the case is. The fit is excellent, it was shockingly clean on arrival, and I have no plans to sell the pipe. The mismatch just gnaws at me a little because I bought the pipe in a lot from a single rural New England estate, and the condition of the lot tells me the guy was not the type to have stems replaced. I count myself lucky that he seemed not to have smoked the Barling much at all. The Wilke and Comoy's seconds, on the other hand, were rather brutalized.

 

[fnord]

I love threads like this, especially when they deal with the classic British pipe houses.
They meander through the swamp of pipe history: stamps, hallmarks, made in England vs. made in London, England, numbered shapes, renumbered shapes, Registration markings: legible or not.
The esoteric detail is mind numbing for most but I find it wonderful. And I'm double damned grateful to see several guys here who are so expert on the Barling brand. Jesse and Neverbend, thank you for being the go-to guys on Barling at this forum.
Doctorbob, you got a beautiful burner from one of the great houses. And you stole it - replacement stem notwithstanding. Good on you, man! I hope your great-grandchildren pull knives on each other over that pipe when you pass away.
Fnord

 

[buroak]

I hope your great-grandchildren pull knives on each other over that pipe when you pass away.

Or they could just schedule a fishing trip, right?

 

[fnord]

Nah.
For a Barling?
What's come over you, Buroak?
Fnord

 

[buroak]

You are right, Fredo, erm...Fnord, what has come over me? Nothing some Hail Mary utterances can't fix.

 

[neverbend]

Fnord said...

Jesse and Neverbend, thank you for being the go-to guys on Barling at this forum.

Jesse's the dating expert, not me. I collected Barlings in the 1980s and forgot more than I remember. I tend to view Barling from a manufacturing perspective.
@DoctorBob,

Thanks for the fast response and very clear shot of your Barling's nomenclature. I compared the shape numbers on our pipes and there are some differences. My '1' is shorter and slightly above the level of the '372'. Our '3's are subtly different. Nothing definitive to draw any conclusions from.
Something that Jesse and I haven't discussed is whether Barling used a fixed stamp that had all the numbers for a shape, single numbers, or a replaceable type stamp. My #1372 appears to have had the '1' added onto the '372'. I've studied (just a bit) numbering in the post-Family era and I believe that they used a combination of stamps.
@Buroak said...

The mismatch just gnaws at me a little because I bought the pipe in a lot from a single rural New England estate, and the condition of the lot tells me the guy was not the type to have stems replaced.

From your description it sounds like the owner (who had the pipe before you) treated the Barling as a special pipe that was less often smoked than his others. That can't insure that it wasn't a repair.
I too admire Jon Guss' research but I've been in many factories and seen anomalies (stamping or otherwise). I'll present a plausible way that your pipe is authentic, bowl and stem, and that also matches Jon's research, so that you can gnaw on some holiday turkey rather than the origins of your pipe.
The fact that your pipe has a registration mark virtually insures that the stem was stamped in the Barling factory, and implies an original part. This isn't a stamp that Barling would have allowed out of the factory, even to their own repair shop. Since the date of the stem is before the bowl (by research) that suggests that it was made before the bowl. Can that be?
Pipe makers invariably save stems and bowls that, for whatever reason, were fashioned without ending up on a finished pipe. For a company that hand-cuts stems it's more crucial because there's already a considerable amount of time invested in them. From time to time they'll dip into these stems (or bowls) to try and use them.
Your stem (in my scenario) was fitted to a pipe, stamped with the Reg Design and then, removed from that pipe for some reason. Probably quality control, perhaps a bowl with a split or crack in the shank. A couple of years later this stem was a near perfect fit for another bowl and it was used. It's also plausible (with Barling) that they took turned a bowl to mate with the stem. Hand-cut rod vulc stems are nearly as costly to make as the bowl.
How often did this happen? If there's a lull in production or especially when materials are short, like in WW-II, perhaps when your pipe was actually made. Mark Tinksy made me a beautiful poker last year. He knows my affection for hand-cut rod vulcanite, so he fitted the pipe with an existing (rod vulc) stem to my delight.
How's your turkey?

 

[sablebrush52]

Something that Jesse and I haven't discussed is whether Barling used a fixed stamp that had all the numbers for a shape, single numbers, or a replaceable type stamp. My #1372 appears to have had the '1' added onto the '372'. I've studied (just a bit) numbering in the post-Family era and I believe that they used a combination of stamps.

Yep. There's enough variation in line up to justify that view. And, on some pipes you can see some variation in the depth of the strike.

Your stem (in my scenario) was fitted to a pipe, stamped with the Reg Design and then, removed from that pipe for some reason. Probably quality control, perhaps a bowl with a split or crack in the shank. A couple of years later this stem was a near perfect fit for another bowl and it was used. It's also plausible (with Barling) that they took turned a bowl to mate with the stem. Hand-cut rod vulc stems are nearly as costly to make as the bowl.

No reason that that could not have happened. Craftsmen tend to be very thrifty with materials and don't easily throw anything away that could possibly be put to use later on. That hallmarked 1941 Sasieni 8 Dot that I own, with a bowl from the 1920's is another example.