23,116
edits
Deciphering an ODB 831: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Marked this version for translation
No edit summary |
(Marked this version for translation) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<languages /> | <languages /> | ||
<translate> | <translate> | ||
<!--T:1--> | |||
'''Written by John C. Loring'''<br> | '''Written by John C. Loring'''<br> | ||
''Contributed by Jean-Christophe Bienfait'' | ''Contributed by Jean-Christophe Bienfait'' | ||
<!--T:2--> | |||
The Dunhill 831 is one of those seldom seen ‘ODA’ shapes difficult to find if you look for it, but given its small size and awkward shape easy to pass on if you happen upon it. One though is an ongoing mystery for me and so remains on my rack. | The Dunhill 831 is one of those seldom seen ‘ODA’ shapes difficult to find if you look for it, but given its small size and awkward shape easy to pass on if you happen upon it. One though is an ongoing mystery for me and so remains on my rack. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
<!--T:3--> | |||
[[File:Loring-DecipheringODB831-1.jpg|center]] | [[File:Loring-DecipheringODB831-1.jpg|center]] | ||
<!--T:4--> | |||
The 800 shape series was not introduced until 1950 so the apparent initial “3” datecode seemed to date it to 1953, but in several respects the remaining elements of the nomenclature were inconsistent with that dating, to wit: (a) Dunhill pipes were stamped with a patent number until 1955 this one was not, (b) Dunhill stopped using “LONDON” under “DUNHILL” in 1951, but this pipe was so stamped, (c) in 1953 an OD stamp would have the shape number stamped immediately below, i.e. ODB / 831, but not on this pipe; and (d) what were the Group 4 stamps, two no less, and two “A”s and an “H” doing there. Nothing made sense, not even a ‘fake’ for why would any one sophisticated enough to forge a Dunhill ruin everything with such cockamamie nomenclature. In short, a pipe that seeming could not exist in a rational universe. | The 800 shape series was not introduced until 1950 so the apparent initial “3” datecode seemed to date it to 1953, but in several respects the remaining elements of the nomenclature were inconsistent with that dating, to wit: (a) Dunhill pipes were stamped with a patent number until 1955 this one was not, (b) Dunhill stopped using “LONDON” under “DUNHILL” in 1951, but this pipe was so stamped, (c) in 1953 an OD stamp would have the shape number stamped immediately below, i.e. ODB / 831, but not on this pipe; and (d) what were the Group 4 stamps, two no less, and two “A”s and an “H” doing there. Nothing made sense, not even a ‘fake’ for why would any one sophisticated enough to forge a Dunhill ruin everything with such cockamamie nomenclature. In short, a pipe that seeming could not exist in a rational universe. | ||
| Line 17: | Line 21: | ||
<!--T:5--> | |||
[[File:Loring-DecipheringODB831-2.jpg|center]] | [[File:Loring-DecipheringODB831-2.jpg|center]] | ||
<!--T:6--> | |||
Pipe in hand, I was able to discount ‘fake’, for (i) ignoring the nomenclature, the pipe (including the bit) is clearly a Dunhill; (ii) the nomenclature while collectively seemingly absurd, taken in its individual parts are correct Dunhill stamps; and (iii) the nomenclature is well worn (fakes tend to have crisp nomenclature). All of this ruled out, at least to my mind, forgery. On the other hand my experience has taught me to equally discount ‘factory error’ when it comes to Dunhill stampings. As with Job, if you don’t understand them, you can generally trust that the emphasis should be on the “you”. | Pipe in hand, I was able to discount ‘fake’, for (i) ignoring the nomenclature, the pipe (including the bit) is clearly a Dunhill; (ii) the nomenclature while collectively seemingly absurd, taken in its individual parts are correct Dunhill stamps; and (iii) the nomenclature is well worn (fakes tend to have crisp nomenclature). All of this ruled out, at least to my mind, forgery. On the other hand my experience has taught me to equally discount ‘factory error’ when it comes to Dunhill stampings. As with Job, if you don’t understand them, you can generally trust that the emphasis should be on the “you”. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 37: | ||
<!--T:7--> | |||
[[File:Loring-DecipheringODB831-3.jpg|center]] | [[File:Loring-DecipheringODB831-3.jpg|center]] | ||
<!--T:8--> | |||
And with some confidence this is where I am today. | And with some confidence this is where I am today. | ||
| Line 44: | Line 52: | ||
<!--T:9--> | |||
Back to Loring's articles [https://pipedia.org/wiki/Dunhill#John_C._Loring_Articles '''here'''] | Back to Loring's articles [https://pipedia.org/wiki/Dunhill#John_C._Loring_Articles '''here'''] | ||
</translate> | </translate> | ||