5,741
edits
Dunhill: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 725: | Line 725: | ||
= Just One More Thing = <!--T:47--> | = Just One More Thing = <!--T:47--> | ||
== About | == About New and Old Pipes == | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
Among the brand lovers, there are always doubts as to the quality of the pipes and their relationship with the period when it was manufactured. It is often said that Dunhill only manufactured good pipes until mid-1968 and after that, the quality was compromised. The patents Era ended in 1954, but it is said that good pipes continued to be made until mid-1968. | Among the brand lovers, there are always doubts as to the quality of the pipes and their relationship with the period when it was manufactured. It is often said that Dunhill only manufactured good pipes until mid-1968 and after that, the quality was compromised. The patents Era ended in 1954, but it is said that good pipes continued to be made until mid-1968. | ||
| Line 747: | Line 747: | ||
<blockquote><q>Since the early 1960's Algerian briar has been largely unavailable to Dunhill and much harder briar (primarily Grecian) has had to be used for the finish. As a consequence since the mid-1960s, the Shell finish is generally found with a significantly shallower blast.</q> Loring, J. C., The Dunhill Briar Pipe, The Patent Years and After (self-published, Chicago, 1998).</blockquote> | <blockquote><q>Since the early 1960's Algerian briar has been largely unavailable to Dunhill and much harder briar (primarily Grecian) has had to be used for the finish. As a consequence since the mid-1960s, the Shell finish is generally found with a significantly shallower blast.</q> Loring, J. C., The Dunhill Briar Pipe, The Patent Years and After (self-published, Chicago, 1998).</blockquote> | ||
<blockquote><q>According to David Webb, the Dunhill pipe did have a problem in the mid-1970's, not so much with quality as with the outward signs of quality. Those in charge of policy at the time decided that the "shell" must be totally black and shiny - a blue-black stain was used, eliminating any reddish highlights. At the same time, the "bruyere" finish was lightened from its original plum color. These two changes have dampened the pipe's reputation and may be the cause for some criticism I have heard; but, even with these pipes, the underlying quality is still there. Since that time, of course, there has been a return to the original "bruyere" finish, and the new "deep shell" has reached our shores in limited quantity.</q> R.D. Fields for Pipe Smoker in Fall 1983.</blockquote> | <blockquote><q>According to David Webb, the Dunhill pipe did have a problem in the mid-1970's, not so much with quality as with the outward signs of quality. Those in charge of policy at the time decided that the "shell" must be totally black and shiny - a blue-black stain was used, eliminating any reddish highlights. At the same time, the "bruyere" finish was lightened from its original plum color. These two changes have dampened the pipe's reputation and may be the cause for some criticism I have heard; but, even with these pipes, the underlying quality is still there. Since that time, of course, there has been a return to the original "bruyere" finish, and the new "deep shell" has reached our shores in limited quantity.</q> The Dunhill Pipe: a comparison of then and now by R.D. Fields, for Pipe Smoker in Fall 1983.</blockquote> | ||
The metrics used in defining the concept of "quality loss" seems to be related to misperceptions of changes and aesthetics subjective values. In these circumstances, any definitive conclusion may be premature and unfair. Even the process of oil curing, that was considered determinant in quality, in the end, it not so decisive, as we can see in another consideration of Dr. Hanna: | The metrics used in defining the concept of "quality loss" seems to be related to misperceptions of changes and aesthetics subjective values. In these circumstances, any definitive conclusion may be premature and unfair. Even the process of oil curing, that was considered determinant in quality, in the end, it not so decisive, as we can see in another consideration of Dr. Hanna: | ||
| Line 759: | Line 759: | ||
<blockquote><q>I will say that I have smoked hundreds of Dunhill's - from all time periods and have found that the smoking qualities are great - no matter what the date of manufacture. I have the largest standard Production Roots from the 1970's - magnums from the early 2000's - just bought a 2019 Ring Grain Magnum - and have many great Magnums from the 1920's - 1930. So the 1968 date is meaningless.</q> Richard Esserman.</blockquote> | <blockquote><q>I will say that I have smoked hundreds of Dunhill's - from all time periods and have found that the smoking qualities are great - no matter what the date of manufacture. I have the largest standard Production Roots from the 1970's - magnums from the early 2000's - just bought a 2019 Ring Grain Magnum - and have many great Magnums from the 1920's - 1930. So the 1968 date is meaningless.</q> Richard Esserman.</blockquote> | ||
<blockquote><q>In order to discern quality in a pipe, one has to look at only a few things (of course much of the real judgment is in the smoking): the turned and bored bowl; the shank bore; the tenon/ferrule connection; the lip of the mouthpiece; the look and feel of the finish. Dunhill, I submit, has as high a standard of quality as it has ever had. This does not mean that every Dunhill released for sale, today, is a perfect pipe, for some are not! What it does mean is that the percentage of imperfect Dunhills is no greater today than, say, 1924. I have discovered two imperfect pipes in my 1920-1927 collection. </q> | <blockquote><q>In order to discern quality in a pipe, one has to look at only a few things (of course much of the real judgment is in the smoking): the turned and bored bowl; the shank bore; the tenon/ferrule connection; the lip of the mouthpiece; the look and feel of the finish. Dunhill, I submit, has as high a standard of quality as it has ever had. This does not mean that every Dunhill released for sale, today, is a perfect pipe, for some are not! What it does mean is that the percentage of imperfect Dunhills is no greater today than, say, 1924. I have discovered two imperfect pipes in my 1920-1927 collection. </q> The Dunhill Pipe: a comparison of then and now by R.D. Fields, for Pipe Smoker in Fall 1983.</blockquote> | ||
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div> | <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div> | ||