I want to say the 1981 pipes without the x/1000 numbers were seconds from that original run
Peterson Mark Twain 1981 Anomaly
- Thread starter runscott
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
It's all described either in 'The Peterson Book' or Mark's blog - I can't remember which.
This sounds right. Not sure if they’re seconds but at least it makes sense that that x/1000 would come before the unnumbered batches.
I had a 1981 Mark Twain and that was what I remember from when I looked into it. “Seconds” with fills, or as we now see, bizarre stamping.
I see I got my x/400 and x/1000 round the wrong way. Apologies. Evidence as to why I am not a Pete geek.
Maybe not a certified one but those certification tests are a racket anyway. And no, I’m not just bitter because I got it wrong too.
Oh I’m definitely certified…
Edit: memory is a funny thing. I was certain that the original drop was X/400 gold mounted pipes, followed by X/1000 silver mounted ones, and then 1000 unnumbered, so 2400 in total.
Ok updated speculation:
x/400 got the stamp that we know. When the unnumbered batch was being produced in 1981 they wanted to set them apart more than just not having the serialized numbers so they created the large stamps. Started doing a few/many this way until they realized it looked like
. They go back to the old, small stamp and don’t look back.
x/400 got the stamp that we know. When the unnumbered batch was being produced in 1981 they wanted to set them apart more than just not having the serialized numbers so they created the large stamps. Started doing a few/many this way until they realized it looked like
. They go back to the old, small stamp and don’t look back.
Hey, to be a 'Geek', all you have to do is declare yourself such!
Yet they only produced 1 ?!?!?Ok updated speculation:
x/400 got the stamp that we know. When the unnumbered batch was being produced in 1981 they wanted to set them apart more than just not having the serialized numbers so they created the large stamps. Started doing a few/many this way until they realized it looked like
I guess my original post should have been to request comments by others with the odd stamp!
I sold a pipe to someone on ebay, and he asked me what he had to do to get his 'Pete Geek' certification. Rather than to tell him that he is one if he wants to be, I gave him some official steps. Am I bad?
He wanted to jump through a hoop and you obliged him. I’d say you’re very kind.
I would not have even told the story, except he told me he doesn't participate in pipe forums. All I told him was that he just needs to read the PetersonPipeNotes blog, participate in any event, and he'll get sent a PDF certificate.
Now me - I have the mugs, the hat, the travel tobacco containers, have bought the last two 'Pete Geek of the Year' pipes, and participate in every single event. That is WHY they call us 'Geeks'!!!
If there were a 'Dunhill Geek' club, I would be a member of that as well.
I rather like the notion that someone tried a stamp on an otherwise fine pipe but the powers that be didn’t fancy it and that you have a unique test case. It certainly could be the case, right? I have a hard time imagining someone binning a nice pipe that would certainly be enjoyed by a Pete enthusiast for an unusual stamp. Probably figured out if the number of pipes sold there would be little chance of being noticed or remarked on, especially on the nonexistent internet! What are the odds pre internet of it being noticed? Rank speculation but it holds water I think?
Well, I was looking for unbiased ideas about this stamp, but my personal thoughts were that they made the 'odd' stamp first - number unknown - then decided it wasn't so great and went to the one we're familiar with. Since it was in a normal box with papers, I'm guessing they made a number of these before changing the stamp, and someone will chime in here with another example.
But the terrible line down the side really surprises me - it was an original 1981 issue, so you'd think that on an early run example they would notice things like this and at least finish the stem correctly.
Hey, it was just an oddity I thought I'd share for discussion, so thanks to all. I have plenty of Peterson oddities that I'll share as time permits.
