Showoff Your Dunhill Pipes Here!

[strongcity]

Noting this thread has been dormant for some time, I thought this photo-post might cause it to stir and perhaps awake.

1954 Tanshell showing just a wonderfully deep and figured blast. I just love this pipe; and it was almost perfect, with original inner tube. However, it had been hardly smoked at all, so I have not yet been able to bring myself to smoke it.

 

[jguss]

Noting this thread has been dormant for some time, I thought this photo-post might cause it to stir and perhaps awake.

1954 Tanshell showing just a wonderfully deep and figured blast. I just love this pipe; and it was almost perfect, with original inner tube. However, it had been hardly smoked at all, so I have not yet been able to bring myself to smoke it.

What a beauty, a really unusual specimen of a Tanshell on several counts. I understand your reluctance but would probably go ahead and smoke it. For me “unsmoked” is a barrier but “hardly smoked” is not.

 

[jguss]

In the spirit of keeping this thread active here is the first of three recent acquisitions, found more than a little the-worse-for-wear in the wild and immaculately restored by George D.

The first is a birth year Canadian ODA (made in 1959, sold in 1960). It came with a shoddy replacement stem; George made a new one that Alfred Dunhill himself would have envied:

 

[BarrelProof]

In the spirit of keeping this thread active here is the first of three recent acquisitions, found more than a little the-worse-for-wear in the wild and immaculately restored by George D.

The first is a birth year Canadian ODA (made in 1959, sold in 1960). It came with a shoddy replacement stem; George made a new one that Alfred Dunhill himself would have envied:

View attachment 68258

View attachment 68259

View attachment 68261

View attachment 68260

Nice!!! That thing is a beauty, for sure!

I've got my first Dunhill on the way right now. I haven't posted any photos of it, yet, because I'm afraid that might somehow jinx the delivery and I'm not willing to take that risk!

 

[ssjones]

George's stemwork always amazes me, what craftsmanship.
I'm glad to see this thread revived!

 

[guylesss]

Noting this thread has been dormant for some time, I thought this photo-post might cause it to stir and perhaps awake.

1954 Tanshell showing just a wonderfully deep and figured blast. I just love this pipe; and it was almost perfect, with original inner tube. However, it had been hardly smoked at all, so I have not yet been able to bring myself to smoke it.

Wow!

 

[jpmcwjr]

Mon. Guss: Sacre bleu! Some great photos of a fabulous pipe! I love esp. the closeup of the front of the bowl. Do you get photo credit?

 

[jguss]

Mon. Guss: Sacre bleu! Some great photos of a fabulous pipe! I love esp. the closeup of the front of the bowl. Do you get photo credit?

No, on the contrary I forgot to give credit where credit is due. George Dibos took those photos and I should have stated that in my post. Thank you for the reminder John. And George, my apologies!

 

[strongcity]

What a beauty, a really unusual specimen of a Tanshell on several counts. I understand your reluctance but would probably go ahead and smoke it. For me “unsmoked” is a barrier but “hardly smoked” is not.

Thanks for the encouragement to enjoy this pipe; I only needed a little nudge.

 

[Greenmage]

I finally pulled the trigger and got this one off the ebays. 1926 dunhill shape 55. It's in amazing condition for being 95 years old!
I've wanted a pre-war dunhill since I started with a pipe, mostly because Tolkien smoked a dunhill. I just prefer a bent pipe to a straight...

 

[guylesss]

I finally pulled the trigger and got this one off the ebays. 1926 dunhill shape 55. It's in amazing condition for being 95 years old!
I've wanted a pre-war dunhill since I started with a pipe, mostly because Tolkien smoked a dunhill. I just prefer a bent pipe to a straight...

Well done! And congratulations. Despite the seller's misreading, it is in fact a shape 56--a classic bent that
was probably made during its earliest years by French carvers, and one which many of us regard as a part of the Dunhill LC family (along with the 120). While it does appear in Dunhill's 1926 "Export Catalogue" a far better illustration is shown in the 5th edition of About Smoke, published the next year (where those with sharp eyes will duly note shapes 52, 53, and 54 but no shape 55).

 

[Greenmage]

I

Well done! And congratulations. Despite the seller's misreading, it is in fact a shape 56--a classic bent that
was probably made during its earliest years by French carvers, and one which many of us regard as a part of the Dunhill LC family (along with the 120). While it does appear in Dunhill's 1926 "Export Catalogue" a far better illustration is shown in the 5th edition of About Smoke, published the next year (where those with sharp eyes will duly note shapes 52, 53, and 54 but no shape 55).

I do believe you are correct, looking closer it is a 56 not a 55. The tiny 6 next to "made in england" would still mean made in 1926 correct? Also I was reading something about briar grade markings around the "Dunhill London" stamping, but it doesn't seem to have any.

 

[guylesss]

I

I do believe you are correct, looking closer it is a 56 not a 55. The tiny 6 next to "made in england" would still mean made in 1926 correct? Also I was reading something about briar grade markings around the "Dunhill London" stamping, but it doesn't seem to have any.

The early patent and the small underlined 6 date code means you can be confident about the 1926 date (as per John Loring's invaluable The Dunhill Briar Pipe/The Patent Years and After). To go a bit further down the relevant rabbit holes, yours is a Bruyère finish (as opposed to a "Dead Root Bruyère")--which most Dunhills of that time would have been.

As for Dunhill pipes of their earliest period--I believe the earliest catalogue to survive, "Things the Soldiers are Asking For!" dates to December 1914 (reprinted by Briar Books Press a few years ago), and it has the earliest shape chart I've seen. This does depict a very small bent with the shape designation of "55" (which does not appear in the 1920 edition of About Smoke); so it may have been eliminated during the period that Dunhill is believed to have largely ceased using French sourced stummels in their manufacturing operations). You definitely have a 56. Which also happens to be one of my longstanding favorites. (Indeed--to confess all--I own five, dating to 1920, 1932, 1949, 1952 (unsmoked), and 1969--all of them acquired during a six month period 15 years ago).

 

[edger]

I've laboriously read thru all of this and I've concluded that Dunhill is Welsh for Grabow.

 

[Greenmage]

The early patent and the small underlined 6 date code means you can be confident about the 1926 date (as per John Loring's invaluable The Dunhill Briar Pipe/The Patent Years and After). To go a bit further down the relevant rabbit holes, yours is a Bruyère finish (as opposed to a "Dead Root Bruyère")--which most Dunhills of that time would have been.

As for Dunhill pipes of their earliest period--I believe the earliest catalogue to survive, "Things the Soldiers are Asking For!" dates to December 1914 (reprinted by Briar Books Press a few years ago), and it has the earliest shape chart I've seen. This does depict a very small bent with the shape designation of "55" (which does not appear in the 1920 edition of About Smoke); so it may have been eliminated during the period that Dunhill is believed to have largely ceased using French sourced stummels in their manufacturing operations). You definitely have a 56. Which also happens to be one of my longstanding favorites. (Indeed--to confess all--I own five, dating to 1920, 1932, 1949, 1952 (unsmoked), and 1969--all of them acquired during a six month period 15 years ago).

View attachment 72084

Thank you for the information! I absolutely love the pipe, and shape, and can't wait to give it a try.

 

[jguss]

Here's a second recent acquisition, in this case a 1937 LB 8, again made virtually new by the tender ministrations of M. Dibos. Photos taken by George Dibos, esq.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Your fine acquisition and Mon. Dibos' ministrations make an excellent combination!

Fine pipe and fine photos.

 

[kilroyjune6]

Dunhills are normally way out of my price range, but in the last two years I've found a couple estates that were just under $200, which is still out of my price range, but close enough to make an exception. I've got a 1980 Cumberland 11031 and a 1997 Bruyere 3103.

 

[telescopes]

My Dunhill's stand waiting for attention.

 

[telescopes]

My oldest Dunhill is a 1949 Pot.