The Briar Trade: Makers, Manufacturers, and Brands That Time Forgot: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
(Created page with "'''''Still formatting this, but needed to save it!''''' <center></center><center>''Ben Rapaport''<br> Originally appeared in '''''Pipes & Tobaccos Magazine''''', '''Vol. 18,...")
 
No edit summary
Line 110: Line 110:
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+TABLE 2.  SUMMARY OF THE JUNG DATABASE
|+TABLE 2.  SUMMARY OF THE JUNG DATABASE
!STATE!!NR. MFGRS!!STATE!!NR. MFGRS
!STATE!!NR. MFGRS!!STATE
|'''NR. MFGRS'''
|-
|-
|Arkansas||3|||Missouri||||62
|Arkansas||3|||Missouri||62
|-
|-
|California||46|||Nebraska||||3  
|California||46|||Nebraska||3
|-
|-
|Connecticut||15|||New Hampshire||||5
|Connecticut||15|||New Hampshire||5
|-
|-
|Delaware||2|||New Jersey||||34
|Delaware||2|||New Jersey||34
|-
|-
|District of Columbia||2|||New York||||496
|District of Columbia||2|||New York||496
|-
|-
|Georgia||1|||North Carolina||||2
|Georgia||1|||North Carolina||2
|-
|-
|Illinois||58|||Ohio||||41
|Illinois||58|||Ohio||41
|-
|-
|Indiana||6|||Oklahoma|1
|Indiana||6|||Oklahoma
|1
|-
|-
|Iowa||3|||Pennsylvania||||86
|Iowa||3|||Pennsylvania||86
|-
|-
|Kansas||1|||Rhode Island||||8
|Kansas||1|||Rhode Island||8
|-
|-
|Kentucky||9|||Tennessee||||1
|Kentucky||9|||Tennessee||1
|-
|-
|Maine||3|||Texas||||2
|Maine||3|||Texas||2
|-
|-
|Maryland||40|||Vermont||||1
|Maryland||40|||Vermont||1
|-
|-
|Massachusetts||59|||Virginia||||10
|Massachusetts||59|||Virginia||10
|-
|-
|Michigan||19|||Washington||||1
|Michigan||19|||Washington||1
|-
|-
|Minnesota|4||Wisconsin||||4
|Minnesota|Minnesota||4||Wisconsin
|4
|}
|}


Paul identified more than 1,000 companies in 32 states, and he has yet to complete his research! The database is overwhelming, but the problems with it is that the directory word descriptions are vague or generic—i.e., “mnfr pipes,” “smok art,” “mnfr br, meer,”  “mnfr pat pipes,” “pipes,” and other ambiguous terms—so not only are the specific product lines not known, neither are their years of operation. Directories classified a company, if it was pipe-related, and some, as Paul indicates by the title, were probably importers, wholesalers, and distributors. There is also some redundancy in that more than one entry for a company appears in his database if it had either multiple, concurrent facilities at different addresses in a city, or its facility relocated frequently, according to each annual directory. Not all were involved in the manufacture of briars, and it’s difficult to discern who produced what, based on the minimal descriptors in these assorted directories. Any attempt at sorting or collation would certainly lead to faulty conclusions.  
Paul identified more than 1,000 companies in 32 states, and he has yet to complete his research! The database is overwhelming, but the problems with it is that the directory word descriptions are vague or generic—i.e., “mnfr pipes,” “smok art,” “mnfr br, meer,”  “mnfr pat pipes,” “pipes,” and other ambiguous terms—so not only are the specific product lines not known, neither are their years of operation. Directories classified a company, if it was pipe-related, and some, as Paul indicates by the title, were probably importers, wholesalers, and distributors. There is also some redundancy in that more than one entry for a company appears in his database if it had either multiple, concurrent facilities at different addresses in a city, or its facility relocated frequently, according to each annual directory. Not all were involved in the manufacture of briars, and it’s difficult to discern who produced what, based on the minimal descriptors in these assorted directories. Any attempt at sorting or collation would certainly lead to faulty conclusions.  


EARLY FRENCH ENTERPRISES
=== EARLY FRENCH ENTERPRISES ===
Now I add to the mix with some from “over there” for comparison. First, what’s in print on the French pipe industry? Two books are from the noted briar pipe maker, Gilbert Guyot, both now out of print: Le Piper de Paris (1984), and Les Pipiers Français. Histoire et Tradition (1992). Both, intentionally, are broad treatises about the entire French pipe industry with too little historic detail about specific companies. Several companies had shops in Paris, among them LMB, Ganneval, Bondier & Donninger (later, Bondier, Ulrich & Cie/Bine, Marechal & Cie./A. Marechal, Ruchon & Cie), Goltsche (Guyot), Sommer Frères (R. Faivret, Successeur). Among the notable in the early days of St.-Claude, to mention a handful, were E. Buffard–Bontemps & Fils, Henry Dalloz, Alix Delacour, Ewa, L. Faton et ses Fils, Gefapip, G. Vincent-Genod, Guichard & Cie., Jeantet, Louis Lamberthod, Paul Lanier, Pierre Manzini, Lucien Morand, Henri Nicod, Prost & Sevenier, St. Claude Briar Pipe Co., Ltd., C. J. Verguet Frères, Vidaillet & Gros, Paul Viou, Emile Vuillard, Vuillermoz & Goujon, Wolf and Mathiss, among many others... names far from the tip of the tongue to anyone tracing the nascent French briar industry. Many of these facilities are now long shuttered, their machinery, tools, and stamping dies—all in perfect working order—were purchased by the late Alberto Paronelli, along with the machines, tools and, perhaps, the company archives, of a few Italian briar pipe manufactories, such as Rossi and Gallarte; all this stuff is on display at his home at Via del Chiostro 5, Gavirate, Italy, now converted into a museum.  
Now I add to the mix with some from “over there” for comparison. First, what’s in print on the French pipe industry? Two books are from the noted briar pipe maker, Gilbert Guyot, both now out of print: ''Le Piper de Paris'' (1984), and ''Les Pipiers Français. Histoire et Traditio''n (1992). Both, intentionally, are broad treatises about the entire French pipe industry with too little historic detail about specific companies. Several companies had shops in Paris, among them LMB, Ganneval, Bondier & Donninger (later, Bondier, Ulrich & Cie/Bine, Marechal & Cie./A. Marechal, Ruchon & Cie), Goltsche (Guyot), Sommer Frères (R. Faivret, Successeur). Among the notable in the early days of St.-Claude, to mention a handful, were E. Buffard–Bontemps & Fils, Henry Dalloz, Alix Delacour, Ewa, L. Faton et ses Fils, Gefapip, G. Vincent-Genod, Guichard & Cie., Jeantet, Louis Lamberthod, Paul Lanier, Pierre Manzini, Lucien Morand, Henri Nicod, Prost & Sevenier, St. Claude Briar Pipe Co., Ltd., C. J. Verguet Frères, Vidaillet & Gros, Paul Viou, Emile Vuillard, Vuillermoz & Goujon, Wolf and Mathiss, among many others... names far from the tip of the tongue to anyone tracing the nascent French briar industry. Many of these facilities are now long shuttered, their machinery, tools, and stamping dies—all in perfect working order—were purchased by the late Alberto Paronelli, along with the machines, tools and, perhaps, the company archives, of a few Italian briar pipe manufactories, such as Rossi and Gallarte; all this stuff is on display at his home at Via del Chiostro 5, Gavirate, Italy, now converted into a museum.


How does one sort out St.-Claude’s extensive briar pipe industry? With this industry jumble, one of the many obvious difficulties in wrapping one’s arms around the early years of St.-Claude is how to catalog all these firms by country and inclusive years of operation. Who should claim dominion? For example, Francois Comoy’s first factory was in St.-Claude until Henri, one of his grandsons, moved it to London in 1879. Another example is the Jobey, once an English original, then an American standard, and now a St.-Claude-machined pipe. So it’s difficult to determine whether a particular maker should be considered French, English, or Franco–English. For an historic gem, a diagram of the marriage (or merger) of early 20th century French and British briar pipe makers is at http://www.pipephil.eu/logos/en/infos/connect-en.html. No one, to my knowledge, has attempted to develop a similar wiring diagram depicting the combines, consolidations, and takeovers of American briar pipe companies from the same period.  
How does one sort out St.-Claude’s extensive briar pipe industry? With this industry jumble, one of the many obvious difficulties in wrapping one’s arms around the early years of St.-Claude is how to catalog all these firms by country and inclusive years of operation. Who should claim dominion? For example, Francois Comoy’s first factory was in St.-Claude until Henri, one of his grandsons, moved it to London in 1879. Another example is the Jobey, once an English original, then an American standard, and now a St.-Claude-machined pipe. So it’s difficult to determine whether a particular maker should be considered French, English, or Franco–English. For an historic gem, a diagram of the marriage (or merger) of early 20th century French and British briar pipe makers is at http://www.pipephil.eu/logos/en/infos/connect-en.html. No one, to my knowledge, has attempted to develop a similar wiring diagram depicting the combines, consolidations, and takeovers of American briar pipe companies from the same period.  
EARLY ENGLISH ENTERPRISES
 
Consider, next, England. This is how the Brits report history: “During the late 1850s, however, a new kind of pipe, the briar, or brier, found its way to England from Corsica via France” (B. W. E. Alford, W.D. & H.O. Wills and the Development of the U. K. Tobacco Industry, 1786-1965, 1973, 111). England has a long and storied tradition of makers and manufacturers beyond the iconic BBB, Barling, Bewlay, Charatan, Comoy, Dunhill, GBD, Loewe, Peterson, Sasieni, and a few other standards. It’s not easy to find all the early English companies in operation. Similar to the aforementioned problem with U.S. directories, parsing English reports is just as challenging. In an 1891 census of trade, profession, and employment, within the category of “Tobacconists, &c.”, are two broad subcategories, “Pipe Makers and Importers” and “Tobacco Pipe Manufacturers” (James Salmon, Ten Years’ Growth of the City of London, 1891, 127). What’s the discrete difference, how does one differentiate one subcategory from another? The task became more daunting poring through a reference 30 years later, the (UK) Tobacco Year Book for 1921. Pages 59 and 60 list “Additional Pipes and Pouches, etc.,” and Pages 145–147 is a “List of Pipe, Pouch, Fancy Goods, etc., Brands.” Both sections contain not only myriad company names and a host of briar trade names, but space forbids mentioning all; neither list, however, clearly indicates whether a named company uniquely made briar, clay, meerschaum, calabash, or any other type of pipe. To wit, just three randomly chosen, Breeno Pipes (Breen Brothers), Ambush (Unbay Pipe Manufacturing Co.), and the Patent Urn Pipe Company, are pipe puzzlers to me, maybe less so to someone intimately familiar with the British tobacco pipe industry.
=== EARLY ENGLISH ENTERPRISES ===
Consider, next, England. This is how the Brits report history: “During the late 1850s, however, a new kind of pipe, the briar, or brier, found its way to England from Corsica via France” (B. W. E. Alford, ''W.D. & H.O. Wills and the Development of the U. K. Tobacco Industry,'' 1786-1965, 1973, 111). England has a long and storied tradition of makers and manufacturers beyond the iconic BBB, Barling, Bewlay, Charatan, Comoy, Dunhill, GBD, Loewe, Peterson, Sasieni, and a few other standards. It’s not easy to find all the early English companies in operation. Similar to the aforementioned problem with U.S. directories, parsing English reports is just as challenging. In an 1891 census of trade, profession, and employment, within the category of “Tobacconists, &c.”, are two broad subcategories, “Pipe Makers and Importers” and “Tobacco Pipe Manufacturers” (James Salmon, ''Ten Years’ Growth of the City of London'', 1891, 127). What’s the discrete difference, how does one differentiate one subcategory from another? The task became more daunting poring through a reference 30 years later, the (UK) ''Tobacco Year Book'' for 1921. Pages 59 and 60 list “Additional Pipes and Pouches, etc.,” and Pages 145–147 is a “List of Pipe, Pouch, Fancy Goods, etc., Brands.” Both sections contain not only myriad company names and a host of briar trade names, but space forbids mentioning all; neither list, however, clearly indicates whether a named company uniquely made briar, clay, meerschaum, calabash, or any other type of pipe. To wit, just three randomly chosen, Breeno Pipes (Breen Brothers), Ambush (Unbay Pipe Manufacturing Co.), and the Patent Urn Pipe Company, are pipe puzzlers to me, maybe less so to someone intimately familiar with the British tobacco pipe industry.


Table 3 is my best shot, nonetheless, and it’s far from complete. No doubt, the reader will recognize many, others not so much. Several of those in the table may have had manufacturing facilities in both England and France.   
Table 3 is my best shot, nonetheless, and it’s far from complete. No doubt, the reader will recognize many, others not so much. Several of those in the table may have had manufacturing facilities in both England and France.   
TABLE 3. A STARTER LIST OF LATE 19TH–EARLY 20TH CENTURY BRIAR PIPE MAKERS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND a  
TABLE 3. A STARTER LIST OF LATE 19TH–EARLY 20TH CENTURY BRIAR PIPE MAKERS OF ENGLAND AND IRELAND a  
(Those in italics may be the most familiar.)
(Those in italics may be the most familiar.)

Navigation menu