New Dunhill Billiard...Real? Or Fake?

[Fran the Pipe Man]

So I just won an auction on eBay. For a very nice looking Dunhill Billiard shape 39. I believe 1964 or 1974. It will be my first Dunhill, so I am excited to say the least. Only thing I am concerned with is the nomenclature. No Root Briar stamp under DUNHILL, no F/T, or R stamp after the 3. Has anyone else seen this before? Is this pipe real? What do you guys think?

 

[autumnfog]

Stamps and white dot looks off, as does the mouthpiece.
My layman impression says fake.

 

[mawnansmiff]

The missing nomenclature is most unusual. I'm no Dunghill pipe expert but would wager it's a knock off.

Regards,

Jay.?

 

[verporchting]

Fake. I’m no expert but it looks wrong to me on too many points.

 

[lightmybriar]

Don’t worry yet. The photography isn’t the greatest. There’s enough authenticity that it wouldn’t alarm me. More nomenclature may be evident once the pipe is in your hands. Additionally, people are devils with buffers and some nomenclature may have been buffed off. Don’t panic yet.

 

[lightmybriar]

The DUNHILL stamp to me looks like 1970s to my eye. Post some more photos for us once you receive it!

 

[americaman]

The gentleman above, @lightmybriar, is a Dunhill collector. So hopefully his words give you some calm until you have it in your hands to inspect it further.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Yes, and when you photograph it, get the light levels right! The photos above are over exposed, leaving detail out. Hopefully not on purpose.

 

[donjgiles]

Yes, and when you photograph it, get the light levels right! The photos above are over exposed, leaving detail out. Hopefully not on purpose.

That is why I dislike using white backgrounds.

 

[georged]

It's authentic

 

[americaman]

It's authentic

The man has spoken. Sleep peacefully tonight, OP.

 

[doctorbob]

It's authentic

I agree, it would be most unusual for a counterfeit pipe to both have a shape stamp, and to remain true to the shape. That is about what a 39 should look like.

 

[mso489]

I'm not a Dunhill owner nor student, so that's my disclaimer. The photo certainly doesn't look like a Dunhill, but I've been surprised before. The proportions of the pipe look a little off for the brand, and the stem and bit as well. The finish is nice, but not as refined, at least in the photo. It may be a Dunhill, but the photo raises suspicions. I'll be interested to learn what you conclude.

 

[kcghost]

There's always one person that doesn't get the message.

 

[Fran the Pipe Man]

Thanks for the responses. I have a good feeling about it, but I will certainly post more photos once I receive the pipe. I have also heard of Dunhill pipes being stolen off the production line, possibly the case?

 

[verporchting]

I’d bet the farm on the opinions of the serious collectors here and they say authentic so it’s authentic, period full stop.

Hope you enjoy your find!

 

[PaulTheScandinavian]

To me this look like genuine,and so does the stem

 

[anotherbob]

I know nothing about this so I'll just offer a contrasting opinion. It's fake, but it's better then the real thing. Well it was maybe Albert Dunhill the more talented pipe maker less talented marketer. I know that's not true but it won't change the actual pipe so why not go with it.

 

[Fran the Pipe Man]

Hello everyone,

So I just received the pipe. Here's a few photos. Not sure if my pics are much better than the ones I already posted, but oh well I only have a phone camera.

There is no additional nomenclature or signs that any was buffed off. I must say this pipe is insanely small. I would have thought a Group 3 would be a bit bigger. This is what I would have imagined a group 1 to be. Any thoughts? Thanks.

 

[workman]

Compared to that tin, the size looks about right for a group 3 billiard.
They will be around 130-140 mm long, with a chamber size of 18x36 mm, give or take. Weight maybe 30-40 grams.

PS. Your hand is not a very good measuring device.