5,741
edits
Dunhill Additional Stamps: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<q>I’m not sure whether it was Barry Levin or Bob Hamlin who first recounted the story of a visit to a famous pipe maker who explained that some nomenclature changes were simply the result of mislaying the right stamping tool and then later finding it again, but the point is not all pipe nomenclature is consistent or lends itself to ‘logical’ explanation. Similarly Michael Friedberg in his ’89 article on early Dunhill dating advised that "In the early years, Dunhill was not always consistent in its stampings." quoting for support Dunhill archivist Gomersall’s letter to the effect that:<br><blockquote>"We hope you can appreciate that it is only with some trepidation we issue information on this subject especially in reference form, for from our experience, the interpretation of such data, can be and often is, much adrift. The markings have to be taken as points of evidence and weighed in the balance of experience and ‘feel’, for at times all the factors do not add up for the uninitiated to make a positive judgment."</blockquote>Alfred Dunhill was very much a perfectionist, and while inconsistency and inadvertent omission are a necessary part of the human condition, I interpret Mr. Gomersall’s comments differently, for I have found that with respect to Dunhill nomenclature, seeming inconsistencies when viewed with sufficient nomenclature examples or given thought do in fact reveal a fairly consistent logic. So rather, I interpret Mr. Gomersall as simply saying that early Dunhill nomenclature is not without it’s complexities, that the factory records are incomplete for this time period, and the time increasingly distant. Thus when faced with seeming inconsistencies (e.g. the circled and uncircled "A") I believe it is most probably the result of having not yet developed a sufficient universe of pipe nomenclature examples to allow for an understanding of the underlying logic or alternatively simply not having thought the complexities through.</q> Loring, J. C., THE PRE ’25 DUNHILL PIPE - INCONSISTENT NOMENCLATURE (self-published, Chicago, 1997). | <q>I’m not sure whether it was Barry Levin or Bob Hamlin who first recounted the story of a visit to a famous pipe maker who explained that some nomenclature changes were simply the result of mislaying the right stamping tool and then later finding it again, but the point is not all pipe nomenclature is consistent or lends itself to ‘logical’ explanation. Similarly Michael Friedberg in his ’89 article on early Dunhill dating advised that "In the early years, Dunhill was not always consistent in its stampings." quoting for support Dunhill archivist Gomersall’s letter to the effect that:<br><blockquote>"We hope you can appreciate that it is only with some trepidation we issue information on this subject especially in reference form, for from our experience, the interpretation of such data, can be and often is, much adrift. The markings have to be taken as points of evidence and weighed in the balance of experience and ‘feel’, for at times all the factors do not add up for the uninitiated to make a positive judgment."</blockquote>Alfred Dunhill was very much a perfectionist, and while inconsistency and inadvertent omission are a necessary part of the human condition, I interpret Mr. Gomersall’s comments differently, for I have found that with respect to Dunhill nomenclature, seeming inconsistencies when viewed with sufficient nomenclature examples or given thought do in fact reveal a fairly consistent logic. So rather, I interpret Mr. Gomersall as simply saying that early Dunhill nomenclature is not without it’s complexities, that the factory records are incomplete for this time period, and the time increasingly distant. Thus when faced with seeming inconsistencies (e.g. the circled and uncircled "A") I believe it is most probably the result of having not yet developed a sufficient universe of pipe nomenclature examples to allow for an understanding of the underlying logic or alternatively simply not having thought the complexities through.</q> Loring, J. C., [https://pipedia.org/images/0/00/DunhillbyLoring.pdf THE PRE ’25 DUNHILL PIPE] - INCONSISTENT NOMENCLATURE (self-published, Chicago, 1997). | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<q>I have seen subscript square stops on DRs dating from the 1910's to 1922 stamped either before or after DUKE ST S.W. or LONDON. Other then the subscript stop noted with respect to a Root DR I have seen no such markings in connection with the root finish. However I have seen a subscript square on 1931 and 1937 Shells following the shape/category stampings. Likewise a square subscript stop has been found on a late '30s DR immediately following the "DRR" stamping (which is stamped where the "A" would normally be found on a Bruyere). I have found no information as to the rationale for these seemingly random circles, stops and numbers, but since there is nothing else random about the Dunhill nomenclature I strongly suspect that these ancillary stamps in fact began as uptick work/quality/pricing codes.</q> Loring, J. C., The Dunhill Briar Pipe, The Patent Years and After (self-published, Chicago, 1998). | <q>I have seen subscript square stops on DRs dating from the 1910's to 1922 stamped either before or after DUKE ST S.W. or LONDON. Other then the subscript stop noted with respect to a Root DR I have seen no such markings in connection with the root finish. However I have seen a subscript square on 1931 and 1937 Shells following the shape/category stampings. Likewise a square subscript stop has been found on a late '30s DR immediately following the "DRR" stamping (which is stamped where the "A" would normally be found on a Bruyere). I have found no information as to the rationale for these seemingly random circles, stops and numbers, but since there is nothing else random about the Dunhill nomenclature I strongly suspect that these ancillary stamps in fact began as uptick work/quality/pricing codes.</q> Loring, J. C., The Dunhill Briar Pipe, The Patent Years and After (self-published, Chicago, 1998). | ||
On [http://www.pipephil.eu/logos/en/dunhill/patent3.html Pipephil] we have this information: <q>The little squares are typical to older DR stampings. Their meaning is not established but may be related to pricing categories.</q> But Loring considered this in one of his articles: | |||
<blockquote><q>Information not reported here strongly indicates that while stop stampings continued after the early 1930s for Root DRs and into the post WWII period, both the placement of stops and grade system changed dramatically. In light of some inquiries and loose remarks on eBay it should also be noted that while one often sees stop stampings with standard Bruyeres (i.e. non DRs) of the 1910s and 1920s before either an A or a circled (A) there is no indication from the catalogs that these stops were value indicators. Undoubtedly whether a standard Bruyere pipe during this period was stamped with a circled or uncircled A or followed by a stop was meaningful, but that meaning most probably related to production or distribution concerns as opposed to grading or value.</q> Loring, [[Grading the Pre World War II Dunhill Bruyere DR]].</blockquote> | |||
<br> | <br> | ||