Yet Another Request for Dunhill Dating Help

[craiginthecorn]

While I have a pretty nice collection of Dunhills, until a month ago, they were all 1970s through current. No patent era pipes. The 1927 wasn't well-listed and the double patent caught my eye. A search revealed a Smokingpipes sold listing that mentioned that they were rare, that they'd seen only five or six, so for once, I placed a bid beyond the pure bargain level. I agree that it should clean up beautifully. I'm not concerned at all about the oxidation. The button looks to be in good shape and I don't see depressions. I'll post a photo following refurbishment. I've refurbished probably 200 pipes and am confident that I can do this one too, but I'm considering shipping this off for professional restoration.

 

[craiginthecorn]

Overreamed? That's a strong pronouncement based on a so-so photo of a vintage pipe. Perhaps you're right, but based upon photos of Shells of similar vintage, it looks pretty typical to me. Also, the chamber looks even. Most older pipes I've seen that we're overreamed have been quite uneven, probably due to the use of a knife as opposed to a multi-bladed reamer like the Pipnet.

 

[craiginthecorn]

Back to the original question of dating the two pipes. After re-reviewing the available guides, I am now inclined to believe that they're both from the 1950s.
The Tanshell's 7 is definitely a bit elevated and looks smaller than the D in England. If it was 1967, the 7 should be full-sized. Although a Bruyere rather than a Shell, look at the 7 on this 1967 pipe. It's definitely bigger than the 7 on the Tanshell.

According to pipephil, the 1950s numbers were not always underlined, but no similar statement is made about 1961-1970 suffixes sometimes being underlined. From 1965-70, the suffixes were always full-sized.
This brings me to the bent Shell. The 8 is underlined. This seems to prove it is from the 1950s, not the 60s.
This guide for dating Dunhill Shells from pipephil.eu is the most easily understandable one I've seen. I wish I had found it earlier.

 

[craiginthecorn]

Here's the double patent 1927 Shell, following my refurbishment.

The only issue I noticed is that the draft hole seems quite large. This was designed for an inner tube, but my modern inner tubes fit quite loosely. Maybe a byproduct of heavy use of bristle pipe cleaners? Or were early inner tunes a slightly larger diameter?

Interestingly, I'd swear there was still some stain visible on my alcohol-tipped pipe cleaners during cleaning, and I don't believe it was from the mortise.

 

[mothernaturewilleatusallforbreakfast]

Great job craig! I have a 1923 billiard that has a large draft hole. I'm not sure if 20's era Dunhills were drilled this way or if it's from use? My notion is that it may be both? I've had some stain come off a 1945 billiard while cleaning that did come from the mortise. You've given this pipe new life. I hope it smokes like a champ.

 

[orlandofurioso]

Amongst my appreciated Dunnies is a full bent 1925 DUNHILL'S "SHELL" MADE IN ENGLAND with the double patent. The tenon accomodates an exactly 8,5 mm draft hole and the odd shapenr. is 56/9 .

Who can enlighten me about the shape nr. ?

 

[orlandofurioso]

It is a 1932 ( so tiny )!