A Duke Street 'DR': Difference between revisions

<languages />

<translate>

'''A DUKE STREET ‘DR’'', by John C. Loring'' <br>

''Contributed by Jean-Christophe Bienfait''

I recently acquired a most remarkable pipe,  a circa 1915 Dunhill ‘Duke Street’ ¾ bent, about the size of an early 120. A “DR” with graining easily the equal if not better then a 1960’s DR E or F.  Dunhill catalogs evidence that in the 1910’s and 1920’s Dunhill made some exceptional straight grains but while I have had or seen a number of early DRs this pipe is the only early Dunhill I have actually seen with ‘catalog’ quality graining.

[[File:Loring-ADukeStDR1.jpg|center]]

But beyond its beauty I have found it to be a most interesting pipe.  First, it has unique nomenclature, specifically a small oval ‘stop’ before the DUNHILL stamping.  As you may recall in an earlier Ephemeris I reported that based on catalogs and a survey of collections, it appears that up to the mid 1920’s Dunhill had three DR grades indicated by small square stops before or after the DUKE ST or LONDON stampings and for the highest grade after the DUNHILL;  that in the mid 1920’s a fourth grade was introduced indicated by a square stop before DUNHILL;  but that, I speculated, even before that fourth catalog ‘super’ grade was formally introduced there probably were always ‘special’ pipes priced above the then highest third grade.  The exceptional straight grain pipe in hand with its oval rather then square stop before rather then after the  DUNHILL stamp would seem to bear out that speculation.

[[File:Loring-ADukeStDR2.jpg|thumb|left]]But if the graining approaches perfection, the pipe does not.  In fact it has a hairline surface crack running horizontally across half the bowl. Most interestingly it must have been there from the beginning.  There is for instance no discoloration indicative of a post sale ‘heat crack’ brought on by over zealous smoking. Moreover, a close inspection of the ‘clean’ side of the bowl shows a potential continuation of the crack just below the surface.  This leads me to  suspect that in the final sanding and buffing of the bowl the flaw was just barely exposed on one side and left just barely protected on the other, and that when the pipe was initially smoked the exposed crack opened up just enough to make it apparent.  If that isn’t enough, as I looked at the pipe closely, I note a three or four natural ‘sand specks’ (as opposed to later smoker made ‘dings’).