23,116
edits
A Hypothetical WWII Pipe: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Created page with "'''''Written by John C. Loring'''''<br> ''Contributed by Jean-Christophe Bienfait'' I have just written about how on rare occasion a single numeric date code on a pipe can be...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<languages/> | |||
<translate> | |||
'''''Written by John C. Loring'''''<br> | '''''Written by John C. Loring'''''<br> | ||
''Contributed by Jean-Christophe Bienfait'' | ''Contributed by Jean-Christophe Bienfait'' | ||
| Line 23: | Line 25: | ||
'''A PostScript To My LC Paper:''' In a previous Ephemeras I wrote at length about the LC so I add this postscript here. It appears that pipes stamped LC and 128 were never fitted with an inner tube, while pipes stamped 120 including what I term ‘120LC’s always were. Length per se cannot be the reason for Richard Esserman reports that a number of his straight magnums (including his enormous ODG Bulldog) but not his bent magnums, are. This suggests to me that there was a difference between the way LC, 128 and bent magnum air holes were drilled and the way 120, 56 and small bent shape air holes were drilled and that that difference precluded fitting the larger bents with inner tubes. | '''A PostScript To My LC Paper:''' In a previous Ephemeras I wrote at length about the LC so I add this postscript here. It appears that pipes stamped LC and 128 were never fitted with an inner tube, while pipes stamped 120 including what I term ‘120LC’s always were. Length per se cannot be the reason for Richard Esserman reports that a number of his straight magnums (including his enormous ODG Bulldog) but not his bent magnums, are. This suggests to me that there was a difference between the way LC, 128 and bent magnum air holes were drilled and the way 120, 56 and small bent shape air holes were drilled and that that difference precluded fitting the larger bents with inner tubes. | ||
</translate> | |||
[[Category:Dunhill]] | [[Category:Dunhill]] | ||