OK Need Your Opinions And Help On Birth Year Dunhill

[shikano53]

Hi folks, I finally found myself a 1953 Dunhill Shell Briar in what I think is good shape. My eyes. I would appreciate any opinions please. The seller is Ben, at Pipelist.com I requested close-up photos and he was very good at taking these close ups for me and also asked me if I had any more questions. The pipe was listed at $510.00 I talked him down to $425.00 I don't know if I actually 'talked' him down or if it was he was willing to move on.
http://www.pipelist.com/specials/dunhill-pipes/dunhill-shell-1943-patent-era-lovat-style-smoking-pipe/

In his video he states it is a 1943 but I questioned him on that and said it is his mistake and it is in actual fact a 1953.

I realize a lot of folks wouldn't pay that much on an old Dunhill but I am willing to pay for a birth year Dunhill. I would sure value your folks opinions, especially those with eyes that have been examining pipes for a lot of years more than my scant 4 months. I am waiting for his response on if the stem is original or not. To me it looks like there is a 1mm gap between the shank and the stem.

Kindly

 

[iamn8]

Original stem to my eyes, whatever it counts for. The spot seems a bit odd... but could be photo. Very very nice pipe! Buy it!! Congrats!!

 

[shikano53]

Thanks Nate. I can't tell.

His answer to my question about the stem is this.
I'm not sure about those sorts of things Chris. Is there a more detailed angle I can send you so that you can make that decision yourself?

 

[georged]

Based on those photos, I don't think the stem is original.

 

[iamn8]

Not by photos... Need to be able to run thumbnail over spot. He have a good return policy just in case? I'm less worried about a gap than they spot.

 

[shikano53]

Thanks guys. That is what I want to know.

 

[shikano53]

What would I be looking for if I asked him to run his hand over the spot? If it was flush, raised, sunk?

 

[georged]

Need to be able to run thumbnail over spot. He have a good return policy just in case? I'm less worried about a gap than the spot.

Please explain.

 

[iamn8]

First, please understand that I could be totally wrong here. I'm not certain, but in my limited experience, especially in patent years, you can feel that the dot isn't smooth, being raised or just with almost undetectable gaps. Also from here it looks way too white, not having aged with time. Also it appears reamed meaning use so the white seems even more too white.

Again, maybe not PLEASE someone tell me if I'm wrong!!

 

[shikano53]

I'm still not sure. If some of the Dunhill experts could please offer an assessment it would be kindly appreciated. I'm thinking of buying it; not buying it. There is a difference. I have been looking for a birth hill Dunhill. I realize it won't be cheap and some will think it a huge waste of resources. I just want to be as certain as I can be if I do decide to pull the trigger that all parts are original.

Thanks guys.

 

[georged]

The smooth / level dot thing varies quite a lot, and isn't a reliable indicator of originality.
The dot's color CAN be useful, but only in one direction. If it is small-ish (.051" through .059" or so) and has a "semi-translucent milkiness" together with an off-white color, it is almost certainly real ivory, and therefore almost certainly original. Plastics don't necessarily change color over time, though, and there was no hard conversion date when it came into use, so a bright-ish white dot is NOT a reliable indicator of a rep stem on an old pipe.
There are several indicators of dot authenticity, but they are combinatorial, and have to be weighed together on a case-by-case basis, and can only be done with the pipe in hand.
It's simpler to ignore the dot and look at the stem itself to see if it's a replacement. There is much more to go on.

 

[shikano53]

Thanks Georged, I appreciate the information. What are the indicators on this particular stem that verified for you that it was a replacement? I'm going to pass on this particular pipe. I'll keep looking for a 1953. Maybe I'll find one in 2053 and can celebrate with a very fine cellared English. Wouldn't that be a centennial find.

 

[mso489]

Just be glad you weren't born in '46 during the briar shortage. Those babies are near non-existent. Fortunately, I'm not a Dunhill guy.

 

[georged]

What are the indicators on this particular stem that verified for you that it was a replacement?

Tells must be considered in total. One thing slightly "off" doesn't necessarily mean much, but several in the same specimen does.
First off, the stem is "too much" for the pipe. Stems were cut well at Dunhill during the 50's, and one way they achieved elegance was through visual balance via minimal material. Here is an example of a pipe made the next year, in 1954. There isn't a speck of excess material anywhere, but neither are there any "hammock-ed" areas showing too much material removal:

The stem on the pipe that's the topic of this thread is overlong, has a bulged out area at the base of the saddle when viewed from above, the sides of the blade are squarish and thick, the radius of the bite zone is shallow/flat, the slope cut(s) of the saddle are crudely contoured, and the button does not match the profile of of the period.
VERY importantly, the saddle portion of the stem is uniformly larger in diameter than the shank, which is something that's virtually unheard of with old Dunhills---they are almost always level, or the stem is slightly smaller than the shank. Such a thing is a common artifact of poor quality re-stemming, though. (The repairman wraps the shank with a single layer of tape, cuts the vulcanite cut down to it, removes the tape, and calls the job finished.)
In every case, the listed problems are caused by insufficient material being removed, NOT from too much removed, which is the signature error of amateur and low quality professional work as a categorical thing, and not something Dunhill would do.
Next, in the early 1950's, the point at which the tenon meets the shank should look like this:

Though not a good photo of the area, the tenon of the subject pipe is definitely radiused, not angled/flat (look at the gleam line.)
Finally, the blade portion of the stem droops (is angled) significantly below the centerline of the shank. Another amateur / low-quality trait that Dunhill QA would never pass. (easily seen in photo number 3 of the linked sales site)
Something that's not visible in any of the photos is the slot. Always check the slot first in cases like this because when it's wrong, there's no need to keep looking. (Dunhill slots are quite distinctive).

 

[ssjones]

Chris - I missed the video portion of the ad earlier, which explains the presence of only 3 photos, viewed on my phone, sorry!
I agree with the others and would pass on this one. I still think it is a bit over-priced compared to what you might find on Ebay from a reputable seller.

 

[bigpond]

If I were in your shoes I would call Mike Glukler at briar blues and/or Marty Pulvers to see if they can help you track down a '53.

 

[shikano53]

A big thank you to georged for taking the time to gather information, put it together and share it. I have copied it and saved it in my Dunhill files that I am accumulating.

Al, I am going to pass on this one and will drop Mike a note. I've bought from him before and quite frankly I don't think there is anyone I trust more. Part of the fun is the hunt. I know there are a lot of people seeking birth year Dunhills.

Thank you again.

Chris in RD AB

P.S. Is it OK that as I sit here sipping my first coffee of the day I mention the dreaded 'S' word as in snow?

 

[foggymountain]

I would not make this purchase. The shell is the worst smoking of all the Dunhills, and this pipe is very overpriced.

 

[shikano53]

Thanks foggy. I stepped away from it.

I'm hoping that unlike the unicorn, a 1953 Dunhill isn't a myth.

 

[mcitinner1]

Shikano I am seeking the right '53 Dunhill myself. Mine will be a smooth billiard. No hurry, it'll happen.