Please Help Me Date this Parker Pipe

[buroak]

I am usually able to date pipes with available resources, but this Parker has me stumped. It is the possessive “Parker’s,” which should mean pre-WW2. The 5 should, then, mark this as a 1928 pipe. BUT there is no patent number stamp. Any ideas?

 

[buroak]

 

[buroak]

Sorry for the bad image followed by a post with two identical images.

 

[JimInks]

I have four patent Parker's and all have the patent numbers except for the 1924 Briar Bark. I never thought about it until now. Maybe it was production neglect?

 

[jpmcwjr]

Try wetting the nomenclature, and with a different angle of light. - Might make more visible.

 

[buroak]

I have four patent Parker's and all have the patent numbers except for the 1924 Briar Bark. I never thought about it until now. Maybe it was production neglect?

Neglect is my current theory. Is your 1924 the only 20s Parker’s in your collection? I am wondering if they did not start stamping the patent until later.

 

[buroak]

Try wetting the nomenclature, and with a different angle of light. - Might make more visible.

I will try to give that a go tomorrow.

 

[JimInks]

Neglect is my current theory. Is your 1924 the only 20s Parker’s in your collection? I am wondering if they did not start stamping the patent until later.

My other three patent Parker's (1926, 1933, 1948) are smooth, and they have the patent numbers on them. Looking at your sandblast and mine from 1924, I wonder if the numbers aren't there due to lack of room made by the sandblasters. That is just a guess, but I hope somebody reading this who owns a sandblast patent would chime in. That would be informative.

My patent Parker's in order of the dates I previously mentioned:

 

[buroak]

My other three patent Parker's (1926, 1933, 1948) are smooth, and they have the patent numbers on them. Looking at your sandblast and mine from 1924, I wonder if the numbers aren't there due to lack of room made by the sandblasters. That is just a guess, but I hope somebody reading this who owns a sandblast patent would chime in. That would be informative.

My patent Parker's in order of the dates I previously mentioned:
View attachment 324454
View attachment 324457
View attachment 324458
View attachment 324459

Those are a fine looking bunch! I would usually be drawn towards the sandblast almost regardless of shape, the Lovats would be second. Here, however, that stout bulldog is the star.

@jpmcwjr, I tried your suggestion. Beforehand, there were some impressions suggestive of stampings. Unfortunately, one was an extending swirl in the blasted grain and the others were dings.

@JimInks, the slender shank of your ‘24 has a better excuse for leaving off a line of nomenclature. That said, we have two 1920s Parker’s pipes with no patent markings. If Arlo Guthrie is right, a third example will make a conspiracy. Well, it will at least suggest there is a pattern to seemingly incomplete nomenclature.