5,741
edits
Dunhill Curiosities: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
*<font size="3">See more about it here: '''[[Fellowship of The White Spot]]'''.</font> | *<font size="3">See more about it here: '''[[Fellowship of The White Spot]]'''.</font> | ||
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div> | <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div> | ||
=About Vernon Fitment= | |||
[[File:Screen Shot 2563-06-15 at 13.16.56.png|nolines|right|105px]] | |||
[[File:103835327 314828829523164 7867769095322195131 n.jpg|nolines|right|105px]] | |||
[[File:DunVernon16.jpg|nolines|right|105px]] | |||
There are two kinds of Vernon fitment: one was attached to the shank and other to the mouthpiece (Dunhill would have made the switch to the stem side because the wood being softer than vulcanite and more prone to wear). | |||
So, British record as 10225/31 on 7 April '31. Applied right after with provisional patent protection (Prov. Prot. N°:10225/31 and granted with final Nº: 363582 on 24 December 1931). In such a case, the patent record appointed a device attached to the mouthpiece. The same goes for the American patent No. 1861910. | |||
However, there is another patent that has also been applied to pipes with the same device, patent No. 358812. After researching this patent, I found a record that corresponds to the number but referring to another technology: "Improvements in and relating to pyrophoric lighters", being associated with Dunhill lighter technology (applied in the same period as the pipe fitment). Vernon Dunhill was involved with developing the first mechanical Dunhill lighter, so his association in both cases makes sense. The dates and period of use match. The two tenons and patents were used from the early 1930s up to mid-1936. Both used, without considering the installation of the device - i.e, the patents can be found in both cases. | |||
In short, the second patent is not about a modification in the same device, it actually deals with another technology. The device remained the same, only changed the place where it would be installed. New patent registration for a modification like this, doesn't make sense, does it? Would that be a mistake? A mess with patent numbers from the same inventor? Intriguing and perhaps unanswered. | |||
<gallery mode="packed-hover" widths=130px heights=130px> | |||
File:Screen Shot 2563-06-18 at 18.42.50.png | |||
File:Screen Shot 2563-06-15 at 14.12.01.png | |||
</gallery> | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
---- | ---- | ||
[[User:Yang|Yang]] ([[User talk:Yang|talk]]) | [[User:Yang|Yang]] ([[User talk:Yang|talk]]) 05:23, 20 June 2020 (CDT) | ||
[[Category: Pipe makers by nationality]] | [[Category: Pipe makers by nationality]] | ||
[[Category: Great Britain]] | [[Category: Great Britain]] | ||
[[Category: Dunhill]] | [[Category: Dunhill]] | ||