What is meant by "Group 3" or "Group 4" etc?
- Thread starter tslex
- 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
- Status
I know this thread has been out here awhile but I keep coming back to it to receive illumination. So far, not so much. Are there actually objective criteria for grading size and for grading quality of pipes?
Spencer
Spencer
Iwan Ries, at their web site, gives a Dunhill Group size for every pipe, so if you go to their site and match
up various pipes you have or know, you can pretty much get the idea. There isn't a precise table of
dimensions, but if you roam their site for a while, you'll feel you have a good idea about it. The Peterson
Belgique is a Group 1, very small but an entirely useful pipe for short smokes, strong tobaccos, etc.
Group 2 and 3 are small pipes that graduate up from there. Group 4 is the standard medium pipe, which
covers the majority sold, I think. Group 5 is larger than average, and Group 6 is an hour or two of
smoking, and too big to clench much. If you look for pipes similar to those you own at the Iwan Ries
site, you can pick up a good feel for this. I know it really annoys the engineers and mechanics to have
to work this way, without specs, but for the artists and poets, it's probably okay.
up various pipes you have or know, you can pretty much get the idea. There isn't a precise table of
dimensions, but if you roam their site for a while, you'll feel you have a good idea about it. The Peterson
Belgique is a Group 1, very small but an entirely useful pipe for short smokes, strong tobaccos, etc.
Group 2 and 3 are small pipes that graduate up from there. Group 4 is the standard medium pipe, which
covers the majority sold, I think. Group 5 is larger than average, and Group 6 is an hour or two of
smoking, and too big to clench much. If you look for pipes similar to those you own at the Iwan Ries
site, you can pick up a good feel for this. I know it really annoys the engineers and mechanics to have
to work this way, without specs, but for the artists and poets, it's probably okay.
For me the whole "group size" thing is really a bunch of crap. I only use the term myself, the way one would use the terms "pretty big", "sort of small", etc...There's no science to it. What I really want to know is diameter and depth.
I've seen pipes with a .750 diameter x 1.5" deep called a group 3. I have a Dunhill which is called (by Dunhill) a group 1. The bowl is about .900 diameter by a little over 1" deep. It holds quite a bit more tobacco than the Stanwell I described earlier called a group 3.
If anything, the grouping refers to the pipes outer size, but has not much to do with telling you the bowl dimensions....which are, for me, a big part of what determines whether I'll like the pipe, and if it will work for my smoking style.
I believe the honest answer to the question is: There is no meaning behind Dunhill group sizes. But they sound really cool.
I know that I like either a narrow tall bowl, or a wide stubby pot. What I don't like is a wide and tall bowl, because I don't like to smoke for 2 hours straight. But, I'd never buy a pipe sight unseen with nothing but a "group" size. I need dimensions!
I've seen pipes with a .750 diameter x 1.5" deep called a group 3. I have a Dunhill which is called (by Dunhill) a group 1. The bowl is about .900 diameter by a little over 1" deep. It holds quite a bit more tobacco than the Stanwell I described earlier called a group 3.
If anything, the grouping refers to the pipes outer size, but has not much to do with telling you the bowl dimensions....which are, for me, a big part of what determines whether I'll like the pipe, and if it will work for my smoking style.
I believe the honest answer to the question is: There is no meaning behind Dunhill group sizes. But they sound really cool.
I know that I like either a narrow tall bowl, or a wide stubby pot. What I don't like is a wide and tall bowl, because I don't like to smoke for 2 hours straight. But, I'd never buy a pipe sight unseen with nothing but a "group" size. I need dimensions!
So I guess I agree with Bryan; there does not seem to be some objective assessment of what pipe size and quality are. Still waiting...
Spencer
Spencer
From speaking with the US Dunhill representative at the recent trunk show, group size takes into account not just the chamber but the overall amount of briar, and has more meaning in-house in terms of price bracketing. Ergo, a group 2 may be the same chamber size as a group 4, for example, but they often aren't.
I hope that clears things up.
I hope that clears things up.
I use it to loosely describe bowl size. Most regular-sized pipes I'd describe as group 4 or so. I have a Comoy 187 that I'd describe as a group 6, and an old Genod pipe that I'd describe as a group 2. It's tough though, because bowl sizes have been on a pretty steady increase over the decades.
So it's a loose terminology, but it works for me.
So it's a loose terminology, but it works for me.
Yeah, not really stumping me too much, either. I have a rough idea of what a "4" is. Less than 4 is smaller. Greater than 4 is bigger.
Based on what the site said, the incremental differences between 2, 3 and 4 are tiny. But from 4 to 5 to 6, you're taking leaps. And yes, it was based on how much to charge for the difference in chunk of briar, assuming, I guess, guys making tiny pipes weren't lopping off a lot of root from a giant starting block. Or other side of the sales counter, rating it on how much briar the customer is buying in a finished product, regardless of scrap left on the maker's floor.
Either way, hole size wouldn't make much difference. You can whack as much out of your briar for a hole you want. And I guess that's *why* you can't get bowl dimensions. It's not about bowl dimensions. (Within allowances. Like, you can't put in an 1-1/2" hole in a 1-1/4 inch pipe.)
So, referencing a Dunhill number to compare how tobacco smokes in a pipe... that doesn't make sense to begin with, does it? That's not what the number was for. But a lot of people seem to want to use it that way. For instance, I've read it used in a tobacco review saying that's what you could expect from a "number 4 pipe." I assumed from the context it meant, "In a typical pipe." But maybe it would have been more accurate to just say "in a standard pipe" rather than make people search the Internet, call a friend, and ask the audience.
I guessed from the reference that the author was speaking about a 5 1/2-incher with a Grabow-sized bowl -- myself never having handled a #4 Dunhill. I'm not running out to "get experience" by buying a bunch of Dunhills or bugging people to show me theirs.
So was I close? Close enough, I think.
Horseshoes, hand grenades and Dunhill sizing, my friends.
Based on what the site said, the incremental differences between 2, 3 and 4 are tiny. But from 4 to 5 to 6, you're taking leaps. And yes, it was based on how much to charge for the difference in chunk of briar, assuming, I guess, guys making tiny pipes weren't lopping off a lot of root from a giant starting block. Or other side of the sales counter, rating it on how much briar the customer is buying in a finished product, regardless of scrap left on the maker's floor.
Either way, hole size wouldn't make much difference. You can whack as much out of your briar for a hole you want. And I guess that's *why* you can't get bowl dimensions. It's not about bowl dimensions. (Within allowances. Like, you can't put in an 1-1/2" hole in a 1-1/4 inch pipe.)
So, referencing a Dunhill number to compare how tobacco smokes in a pipe... that doesn't make sense to begin with, does it? That's not what the number was for. But a lot of people seem to want to use it that way. For instance, I've read it used in a tobacco review saying that's what you could expect from a "number 4 pipe." I assumed from the context it meant, "In a typical pipe." But maybe it would have been more accurate to just say "in a standard pipe" rather than make people search the Internet, call a friend, and ask the audience.
I guessed from the reference that the author was speaking about a 5 1/2-incher with a Grabow-sized bowl -- myself never having handled a #4 Dunhill. I'm not running out to "get experience" by buying a bunch of Dunhills or bugging people to show me theirs.
So was I close? Close enough, I think.
Horseshoes, hand grenades and Dunhill sizing, my friends.
Also, I think I object to the tonal errors in dismissive posts like, "You either have experience and know this or you don't care, in which case, why are you reading this."
Besides the failed reasoning, there's the ad populum: You're either smart like us, or dumb like you.
It's not stupid to ask for a term or rating to be explained in a public forum to a general audience. We came here to learn. And what we've learned is that people have been misusing a single company's referencing system for so long, that most likely those who think they understand, maybe don't understand it well enough to explain it to anyone else.
Obfuscation and elitism in responses might honesty betray a poster's underlying motives and character, but they communicate little else. A physics professor told us, "When I have taught you something, you will have learned it well enough to explain to your 10-year-old niece, and she will be able to explain it to her friend. If she cannot, then you have not learned it well enough."
People winging around Dunhill numbers should probably ask their niece's friend if she gets it. If she doesn't, maybe they need to check first if *they* are using the numbers correctly or have imbued them with some other obscure and erroneous meaning.
Besides the failed reasoning, there's the ad populum: You're either smart like us, or dumb like you.
It's not stupid to ask for a term or rating to be explained in a public forum to a general audience. We came here to learn. And what we've learned is that people have been misusing a single company's referencing system for so long, that most likely those who think they understand, maybe don't understand it well enough to explain it to anyone else.
Obfuscation and elitism in responses might honesty betray a poster's underlying motives and character, but they communicate little else. A physics professor told us, "When I have taught you something, you will have learned it well enough to explain to your 10-year-old niece, and she will be able to explain it to her friend. If she cannot, then you have not learned it well enough."
People winging around Dunhill numbers should probably ask their niece's friend if she gets it. If she doesn't, maybe they need to check first if *they* are using the numbers correctly or have imbued them with some other obscure and erroneous meaning.
Lord, lord, I sure wouldn't disparage anyone for not relating to the Dunhill Group sizes! If you can pick up a feel
for them from the Iwan Ries site, where they give a Group size for every pipe, that's somewhat useful. But if it's
just mysterious and confusing, ignore it. People learn and know in so many different ways, it's laughable trying
to judge people by their intellectual methods. IQ tests and SAT scores verge on bunco, although they may have
value in rare little pockets of assessing people. One valuable lesson I learned in U.S. Navy boot camp: the guy
you immediately recognize as really dim is the one who is going to step up and tell you that you are wearing your
National Defense Medal on the wrong side of your uniform at the big inspection. Meditate on that.
for them from the Iwan Ries site, where they give a Group size for every pipe, that's somewhat useful. But if it's
just mysterious and confusing, ignore it. People learn and know in so many different ways, it's laughable trying
to judge people by their intellectual methods. IQ tests and SAT scores verge on bunco, although they may have
value in rare little pockets of assessing people. One valuable lesson I learned in U.S. Navy boot camp: the guy
you immediately recognize as really dim is the one who is going to step up and tell you that you are wearing your
National Defense Medal on the wrong side of your uniform at the big inspection. Meditate on that.
I didn't want to put someone on the spot, so I'm paraphrasing not quoting. Worried that some newbs would see it and duck their heads down, be squelched. Not wanting to derail the thread with a flame war. But I do want to firmly support people who also saw it and thought, "Well, why should I even bother to ask, then."
mso -- Good example!
mso -- Good example!
I have used the Dunhill sizes for years. When I am looking to purchase a new or estate pipe, I can dismiss huge numbers of pipes and not waste my time looking at listings if the Dunhill number is there. I do not buy group 1,2,3,6 or ODA's. I buy 4's and 5's. Once I see a listing for a 4 or 5 then I will look for all the measurements i.e bowl height, bowl depth, bowl width and length of pipe. If these measurements fall into my preferred category then I can decide if it is a pipe I may want to buy. The Dunhill sizes are just a guide as they are never exact. You can have one listed as a 4 but it could be a large 4 or a small 5 or even a full 5. One thing a pipe smoker should learn is what they like in terms of the size of their pipes. I prefer prefer 4-5 sized pipes for my flakes. When I smoked English blends I preferred larger pipes like 6's and ODA's. People should really pay attention to the bowl dimensions before they make a purchase and think about what type of tobacco they are going to be smoking. The Dunhill sizes can be a great tool if you take the time to learn about them.
One is a very small pipe, good for a short late night smoke of flake. Four is an average sized pipe. Six is very large. But more than size, the number refers to price. Smaller pipes that are more difficult to make or that have silver bands are given higher numbers than the bowl size would indicate.
- Status