Quelques réflexions à propos de tuyaux

Musing On Bits, by John C. Loring: re-published here by permission © John C Loring, with all rights reserved.

Dunhill’s ‘push’ bit while not invented by Dunhill may well have been an important reason for its early success. At the time Dunhill began making briar pipes, circa 1911, most pipes were fitted with either ‘screw-in’ or ‘military’ bits and I suspect that the relatively few that were fitted with ‘push’ style bits had ‘fit’ problems because the briar bowl and vulcanite bit were probably made separately. In contrast Dunhill’s ‘push’ bit was rough fitted to the rough cut bowl and went through the finishing process with its bowl, rather then being hastily introduced at the end of the process. These hand cut bits probably represented better then a third of the overall pipe making labor and fit the shank so well that a small ‘white dot’ was added to the bit to indicate the top of the bit. So all and all the bit is an important element of a Dunhill pipe.

The damnable part of it though is that it is virtually impossible to determine if a bit is truly ‘original’ to the pipe. There are basically three reasons for this dilemma. First, Dunhill, most especially before the 1960’s, and others since, became remarkably proficient in making replacement bits that both appear to be and fit as well as the ‘original’. Second, while there are ‘tell tale’ signs of a correct Dunhill bit, those signs are hardly ever dispositive. Third, Dunhill, especially prior to the 1960’s, prided itself in offering alternative bits as well as custom bit work.

I still remember with no little embarrassment advising in absolute terms some years ago that there was no way a weird looking ‘dental’ bit could have been Dunhill’s, only to find some months later that it was offered in a 1930’s catalog I was perusing. Similarly, Dunhill offered bits in alternative materials, amber, tortoise shell, ivory, and by force during WWII, in horn. Bits in the first three materials could easily cost far more then the briar bowl and I suspect that a good number, if not most, WWII era pipes were initially fitted with horn bits. A vulcanite Dunhill bit with a gold lip is also known.

I have also seen apparent Dunhill bits fitted with metal ‘screw in’ fittings with simply no way of telling if such customization was done by Dunhill or post purchase by a third party. I have earlier written about the Dunhill 482 shape and the reader will note that the bit on the third pictured 482 has been severely planed down to achieve an angular effect. However, close inspection and comparison leaves one comfortably certain that the underlying bit was Dunhill’s, who may or may not have done the custom shaping. Another case involves a shape that in most rare examples has a very broad but standard bent saddle bit. In one known example however, the bit has been ‘cinched’ to visually suggest a ‘fish tail’ lip (actually the lip is identical in width with a standard lip). One might jump to the conclusion that it is a dreaded ‘replacement bit’ until one notes that there was a clear restamping on the shank to include a squeezed in “F/T” next to the shape number, signifying a ‘fish tail’ bit, making it almost certain that in fact the bit represents factory customization. (Note, as a practical matter the standard bit in question is so broad that one could not achieve a ‘fish tail’ bit other then by ‘cinching’ the bit.)

Bien sûr il existe des signes distinctifs d'un tuyau Dunhill, mais en fin de compte ce ne sont que des indices. Les premiers tuyaux Dunhill étaient marqués d'un numéro d'enregistrement sur le dessous, mais ce chiffre s'efface facilement au polissage. De plus, les tuyaux Dunhill originaux et les tuyaux d'usine de remplacement de la première époque portaient tous un numéro d'enregistrement, ce qui fait qu’en définitive un numéro d'enregistrement prouve uniquement qu'il s'agit d'un tuyau Dunhill des débuts. La lentille d'un tuyau Dunhill est assez caractéristique, mais si on fait réellement une comparaison sérieuse de quelques tuyaux, on sera surpris par les changements résultant de l'usure d'usage et du polissage.

De façon similaire, on doit souvent jeter un coup d'oeil à la jonction tige-tuyau pour voir si la tige a été poncée pour ajuster un tuyau de remplacement; cependant dans les temps anciens les pipes étaient souvent « condamnées » à la roue de polissage et l’abus de cette pratique peut induire un aspect semblable. D'autres vérifieront si l'ajustement entre le tuyau et la tige est régulier, mais là encore si le tuyau seul est poli assez souvent, spécialement si le tuyau est bien oxydé, ce polissage rendra la jonction tige-tuyau irrégulière.

Certains pratiquent l'art de l'analyse du “Point Blanc”. Il est sûrement vrai que la taille du point a changé au cours des ans, en substance très petit au tout début pour être plutôt grand aujourd'hui, et que quelque part au cours des années 60 le plastique a été substitué à l'ivoire. Mais tout ivoire n'est pas similaire, dans certains cas le point d'ivoire (en réalité un petit cylindre) se rétractera et tombera avec le temps, et on pourra le remplacer avec un point plus grand et en plastique.

Souvent l'ivoire se colorera avec l'âge, mais certains ivoires resteront d'un blanc pur durant un siècle voire plus et à partir de la petite surface d'ivoire visible du point, même à la loupe il peut être difficile de faire la différence entre l'ivoire et le plastique. De même l'ivoire peut être assez poreux et une coulure accidentelle de teinture peut parfois lui donner une apparence de plus de point du tout, c.a.d. l'immonde “point noir”. (A noter également que pour les matériaux autres que l'ébonite, Dunhill utilisait intentionnellement un point qui n’était pas blanc).

Un autre “test” habituel consiste à regarder le tenon (ou floc) qui d'habitude est un cylindre lisse avec un chanfrein à la base. Mais les équipements et les pratiques pour faire les tuyaux de chez Dunhill n'ont pas été uniformes au cours du siècle, certains chanfreins sont moins prononcés que d'autres, le “cylindre” n'a pas été toujours poli lisse et avant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale les tenons de certaines formes, particulièrement les courbes, pouvaient varier selon qu'on adaptait ou non un “Inner Tube”. Et, bien sûr, en définitive un tenon non conforme peut indiquer seulement une réparation de tenon sur un tuyau Dunhill par ailleurs d’origine.

So in the end while I often use the term “original bit” because it is our lingo, in fact I am of the opinion that all we can really say, at least for older Dunhills, is whether a bit appears to be Dunhill made, contemporary to the bowl and in a standard or non standard style. I suppose if ‘pipe collecting’ was a traditional collecting activity I would end here, but in fact unlike with other collectables, most all pipe collectors actually use the pipes they collect – indeed I am of the view that a new, unsmoked pipe is an unfinished pipe given the pronounced changes in a pipe after it has been smoked -- so beyond “is it Dunhill” or “is it original” for me at least there is a far more important question: “is it a good bit?”. The “482” bit I spoke of earlier was Dunhill made and likely as not Dunhill customized but it is currently being replaced with a third party hand cut bit cut to the standard Dunhill 482 bit style because both ascetically and for smoking I find the latter far more satisfactory. I suppose that when the pipe get back to me an occasional negative ‘replacement bit’ thought will come to mind as I smoke the pipe but for me that’s a cheap price to pay compared to not smoking it at all because the ‘original’ customized bit was ill-conceived and uncomfortable to smoke.