Pre-Lane Charatan Stem Question
- Thread starter bluegrassbrian
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
I don't know why it took me so long to get that.My bad, shank of course.
Sorry all , stupid me.
Ken Barnes often spoke of how (via Barry Jones I assume) Reuben Charatan would send pipes out for sandblasting to a neighborhood glass/window shop with a note to go "heavy on the bowls, light on the shanks".
Later, Ken would attribute the same quotation to Reuben as his directions toward the in-house sandblaster (Tony or Tom or Joe).
Could have been a lapse in memory or just a mantra at Charatan - Heavy on the bowls, light on the shanks!
Thank you, not a clue why it took me so long either.
Well, apperently I'm not a fox .
I don't know how else to say it.Not really helpful, but thank you
That information was typed on these forums by Ken Barnes.
I have a sandblasted Charatan with a rusticated shank. I read online that the reason was Dunhill's patent on sandblasting.
So maybe they couldn't sandblast a pipe entirely.
The rustication on the shank is so light that I never realized it wasn't sandblasted.
So maybe they couldn't sandblast a pipe entirely.
The rustication on the shank is so light that I never realized it wasn't sandblasted.
Whatever the answer is it’s not this. The patent was on a multi step process not on the sandblasting of briar pipes per se (read it; the claims are quite clear). There were numerous manufacturers sandblasting pipes from the early twenties on, and not one case of the famously litigious Alfred suing a competitor over violation of his patent.
This is quite true, and in America at least relatively unknown. I’ve read a great deal of 1920s testimony by UK industry leaders that used stem to refer to what we now generally call shank.
Last edited:
Like the OP, Charatans are typically too large for my taste.
I did own this smaller 109, this finish looks more rusticated than sandblasted, or at least a combination of the two. Right?
I did own this smaller 109, this finish looks more rusticated than sandblasted, or at least a combination of the two. Right?
I like the finish on this one a lot.
Rusticated first and then given one gentle blast ?
Suppose it is only semantics, but it makes more sense to me .
Just so that you all know; I stick to my "stems and mouthpieces".
Much prettier too
This is mine (I tried to photograph it as best as possible).
The guy who sold it to me had a blog where he talked about pipes. He talked about this too and from his research she understood that it dated back to the pre-Lane era.
There I also read about the rusticated shank otherwise I would never have noticed it (I don't look at my pipes in such detail). But in fact you can see that the head is clearly sandblasted, while the shank is slightly rusticated.
The reason for the Dunhill patent (which I have read in several places) has never convinced me either, but I cannot say that it is certainly false or true.
The guy who sold it to me had a blog where he talked about pipes. He talked about this too and from his research she understood that it dated back to the pre-Lane era.
There I also read about the rusticated shank otherwise I would never have noticed it (I don't look at my pipes in such detail). But in fact you can see that the head is clearly sandblasted, while the shank is slightly rusticated.
The reason for the Dunhill patent (which I have read in several places) has never convinced me either, but I cannot say that it is certainly false or true.
