Parker vs Dunhill?

[jchaplick]

I understand that parkers are seconds, which means they may have pits or fills or not as nice grain, but is there any difference in their manufacturing?

 

[nsfisher]

i dunno, i have a Hardcastle estate pipe that i luv and it is made by Dunhill and smokes like a dream. I googled it awhile ago an when it was made bout 15-20 yrs ago it retailed for $74.00, I am often curious if it is also a dunhill second.

 

[bigvan]

This is just a guess based on my experiences, but I think that Hardcastles are Dunhill seconds. Meaning the line is set up to run Dunhills, but somewhere during production they notice a spot or a pit or something that doesn’t meet QC standards so it’s set aside and refinished later (probably to lesser standards) as a Hardcastle.
Parkers are a sub-brand of Dunhill, meaning that the line is set up to run Parkers. The wood used is probably of a lesser standard as are fit and finish, but they were intended from the very beginning to be Parkers.
I write this because as Hardcastles are initially intended to be Dunhills, use the same wood and at least some of the same fit and finish (until the flaw is revealed), the price point is higher than Parkers, which are “lower shelf” from the very beginning. Like I said, this is just a guess based on owning several of each over the years. If anyone knows better, please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[harrumphicus]

From the article on Pipedia, Parker hasn't been truly Dunhill seconds since before WWII. Hardcastle has always simply been a subsidy. It's quite possible that Dunhill provided them both with unfit briar (for the Dunhill name, at least), but very little if any Dunhill production went into pipes under either name. It seems they both function as standalone manufacturers rather than a branding for substandard Dunhills. This is what the Parker article says about both companies, but the Hardclastle article seems to imply a true seconds branding.
I said Dunhill WAY too many times in that.
edit: I guess I was beat to the punch!

 

[withnail]

As far as I know, most Parkers are made as that and from the start are intended to carry that brand name. However, I recently bought a pipe with the brand name Parker that the seller marked as being a Dunhill second. I have no reason to doubt their claim as it was noted as being unusual in that it was a Dunhill second. Based on the weight of the wood and the workmanship, I can easily believe it is indeed a second.

 

[tedswearingen]

If you look at both the Parker and the Hardcastle entries on Pipedia it's pretty clear that Parker was conceived by Alfred Dunhill to be a second line, while Hardcastle was acquired by Dunhill later, and then was, allegedly speaking, turned into a pipe of lesser quality than it had been originally. Today Hardcastle is a Dunhill third, while Parker is a second.
If I had to take a wild guess, based on my experience, I'd say that when Dunhill buys turned stummels from France they decide which will be a Dunhill and which will be a Hardcastle. Then at the Dunhill factory in London, if any flaws come up during production said pipe is deemed a Parker. But I'm probably wrongish.

 

[tedswearingen]

Also, there's a lot of documentation to support the notion (notice I don't say evidence or proof) that Dunhill went out of their way to destroy the brand of the competitors they ended up absorbing. If that's true, it should also stand true that Parker would remain a more "quality" brand than the once competitive Hardcastle. Thus, Parker a second, and Hardcastle a third.

 

[ohin3]

I had an older parker zulu that smoked as good as any high grade I have ever smoked and it was one of my favourite pipes. It was, unfortunately, sat on by a large friend at a bbq and snapped. It was a sad sad day and I still miss that pipe. It smoked Esoterica Dorchester and most other Virginia/perique with a finesse like none other. I have since purchased a Parker pot and was not as happy with the pipe. I have never seen another rusticated jockey club zulu, but if I do I will buy it just in hopes that it is half the pipe that my old Parker zulu was.

 

[bigvan]

Ted,
I'm looking at an online retailer, and Hardcastle pipes are more expensive than Parkers.
Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[kamikazesasquatch]

This is from iwnaries.com:
Today Hardcastle pipes use funneled down bowls that are not deemed suitable to bare the Dunhill or even the Parker name, as well as obtaining briar from other sources.

 

[nsfisher]

i dont believe that is corect kamikazesasquat, hard castles pipes r more expensive than some parkers. some parkers start at $59.00
http://pipesandcigars.com/hardcastle.html
http://pipesandcigars.com/parkeroflondon.html

 

[kamikazesasquatch]

I have no idea. Just relaying what that site said. They certainly seem to believe it as they're selling the hardcastles for $40 :D

 

[nsfisher]

is cool mate, here is a site for parkers and ur right the site u entered for hardcastles is sellin em really cheap too. Glad i got me an older one
http://www.cupojoes.com/cgi-bin/dept?dpt=W&srch=DW&tier2=72

 

[billinsfl]

Dunhill says they destroy any pipes that are not up to snuff; they don't sell seconds. Parker pipes are nice; a good value for the money. But if one looks at a Parker pipe of the same shape and size as a Dunhill, you can see this for yourself. The mouthpieces on Dunhills are all made one at a time from vulcanite or brindle; Parkers use pre-molded stems. I own several Parkers and numerous Dunhills. I don't have any Hardcastles though, so I can not comment on those.

 

[nsfisher]

mine is a hardcastle camden estate pipe(actual name) and is an older one. when i first bought it i took if for a canadian. It has the same short smallish bit as a canadian and the same long oblong type shank

 

[jchaplick]

Hmmmm... There doesnt seem to be an actual answer to this question does there?

 

[recoilrob]

I have a bunch of Hardcastles from the 1950's I got NIB about 15 years ago, I think from a shop in Tennessee. They are very well made pipes, nothing like the Hardcastles of the 1970's onward. I have no trouble believing they could have been Dunhill seconds. On some I could find no pits or fills, others may have had one or two tiny fills but you really had to look. Each came in it's own green Hardcastle box with liner and smoke as good as any pipe from that era.
I bought another from John Loring about the same time and in his note to me he stated that the pipe I had purchased for $50 only had one tiny fill that kept it from being sold for $500 as a Dunhill Root LB.
Here's a pic of another LB sized Hardcastle from the same era, the stummel probably had pits so they just made it a carved pipe.

 

[dkaye201]

I own 3 Parkers. Each one is a superior smoking pipe. I can't afford very expensive pipes, and these are great. If they're seconds, I don't care. I smoke tobacco in them, not gold!

 

[jackswilling]

Zombie thread. Interesting that most of the disappeared members still visit but do not post. I think the Parkers are a good value.

 

[mso489]

I think maybe Parker, Hardcastle and Britannia pipes are all made at the Dunhill factory, but I believe there aren't any Dunhill seconds per se. If you study the Dunhill shapes and go look at these other brands, they aren't the same. However, the other three brands are fine pipes. I own a Parker cherrywood and a Britannia bent Dublin, but no Dunhills.