What a great thread; and I feel like an idiot for letting trivialities like work get in the way of keeping up to date with this forum.
I do have a few thoughts to share. First, as Jesse knows, I think there's much additional work that can be done on creating a dating rubric for Barling pipes. It would take a collective, disciplined effort and a fair amount of time; and even then would be a work in progress for years. Right now the dialogue is piecemeal.
Secondly, Jesse, I think you skipped a line in your reading of the shape number on the DMW equivalency chart: 1372 is indeed Large (i.e. EL), but it is a billiard slender, not a billiard chubby. And equally importantly, it's equipped with a "saddle bit with long bite length". This last point suggests a few alternatives:
a) that doctorbob's pipe has an original stem, while Pete's does not
b) that the definition of what constituted a 1372 changed over time, and the saddle stem specified at the time of the transition was not standard at some other point in time
Pete, if you talked about the markings on the stem of your 1372 I missed it; sorry. Does it have the Barling cross? Or a Reg number? Or anything else that cries out "Barling" to you?
If hypothesis (a) is right, then two further possibilities come to mind to account for the stem on Pete's pipe:
i) that Pete's stem is indeed a Barling, but a factory replacement (perhaps accounting for the "R" that has been the subject of so much debate?)
ii) that Pete's stem is a non-Barling replacement done at some later point due to damage or owner preference
Of the various hypotheses above (and I'm sure there are others too), I tend towards thinking that the first one (i.e. that doctorbob's pipe has the original "correct" stem, while Pete's does not) the more likely, simply because it's supported by the evidence we have in hand. It could be wrong, of course, but I'd look for something concrete that contradicted existing documents. I also give weight to Jesse's statement that his data suggests strong evidence that shape numbers represented consistent shapes (and stems?) over time.
As for accounting for the taper stem on Pete's pipe, I would dismiss hypothesis (ii) because I know that Pete is highly knowledgeable about Barling stems, and think it probable that he would have already said if he had doubts about the authenticity of the stem on his pipe.
I guess where this leaves me is the belief that doctorbob's pipes is the "real" Barling 1372, and Pete's either had an authentic Barling replacement stem, or less likely represents an earlier rendition of that shape. Or perhaps it's Pete's scenario, but with his pipe being the one fitted to an unorthodox stem at the factory instead of doctorbob's.
On another topic that came up in the thread: the table I prepared from my notes shows that the first usage of the new sizing nomenclature in the industry annual price list published by Tobacco World appeared in the 1941 edition. That's consistent with the transition I've found so far in contempory advertisements. But I think Pete's point is a good one, and it's possible that changes in nomenclature preceded changes in advertising or publication in trade price lists. If so, however, I'm with Jesse in the belief that it is unlikely to have been by more than a year or two.
Finally, I want to clear up a misconception about UK registered design numbers. They do not represent patents, or pending patents. They are meant to protect "decorative elements" as opposed to the details of "how an item worked". This is an important distinction. In the case of Barling's design 754068, it was registered between April and October of 1930.
I do have a few thoughts to share. First, as Jesse knows, I think there's much additional work that can be done on creating a dating rubric for Barling pipes. It would take a collective, disciplined effort and a fair amount of time; and even then would be a work in progress for years. Right now the dialogue is piecemeal.
Secondly, Jesse, I think you skipped a line in your reading of the shape number on the DMW equivalency chart: 1372 is indeed Large (i.e. EL), but it is a billiard slender, not a billiard chubby. And equally importantly, it's equipped with a "saddle bit with long bite length". This last point suggests a few alternatives:
a) that doctorbob's pipe has an original stem, while Pete's does not
b) that the definition of what constituted a 1372 changed over time, and the saddle stem specified at the time of the transition was not standard at some other point in time
Pete, if you talked about the markings on the stem of your 1372 I missed it; sorry. Does it have the Barling cross? Or a Reg number? Or anything else that cries out "Barling" to you?
If hypothesis (a) is right, then two further possibilities come to mind to account for the stem on Pete's pipe:
i) that Pete's stem is indeed a Barling, but a factory replacement (perhaps accounting for the "R" that has been the subject of so much debate?)
ii) that Pete's stem is a non-Barling replacement done at some later point due to damage or owner preference
Of the various hypotheses above (and I'm sure there are others too), I tend towards thinking that the first one (i.e. that doctorbob's pipe has the original "correct" stem, while Pete's does not) the more likely, simply because it's supported by the evidence we have in hand. It could be wrong, of course, but I'd look for something concrete that contradicted existing documents. I also give weight to Jesse's statement that his data suggests strong evidence that shape numbers represented consistent shapes (and stems?) over time.
As for accounting for the taper stem on Pete's pipe, I would dismiss hypothesis (ii) because I know that Pete is highly knowledgeable about Barling stems, and think it probable that he would have already said if he had doubts about the authenticity of the stem on his pipe.
I guess where this leaves me is the belief that doctorbob's pipes is the "real" Barling 1372, and Pete's either had an authentic Barling replacement stem, or less likely represents an earlier rendition of that shape. Or perhaps it's Pete's scenario, but with his pipe being the one fitted to an unorthodox stem at the factory instead of doctorbob's.
On another topic that came up in the thread: the table I prepared from my notes shows that the first usage of the new sizing nomenclature in the industry annual price list published by Tobacco World appeared in the 1941 edition. That's consistent with the transition I've found so far in contempory advertisements. But I think Pete's point is a good one, and it's possible that changes in nomenclature preceded changes in advertising or publication in trade price lists. If so, however, I'm with Jesse in the belief that it is unlikely to have been by more than a year or two.
Finally, I want to clear up a misconception about UK registered design numbers. They do not represent patents, or pending patents. They are meant to protect "decorative elements" as opposed to the details of "how an item worked". This is an important distinction. In the case of Barling's design 754068, it was registered between April and October of 1930.
