Dunhill: Difference between revisions

Although Alfred Dunhill was brilliant, he certainly did not imagine that this indicative spot would become his trademark. In March 1920, Dunhill had to go to the courts to defend his spot, the litigation was between Dunhill and Wolf Brothers and concerned the white spot<ref name=sdt>Sheffield Daily Telegraph (March 11 1920). Mr Dunhill's Action Against Wolf Brothers. England: Johnston Press[https://pipedia.org/images/d/db/Sheffield_Daily_Telegraph_%28March_11_1922%29.jpg]</ref>, which was being replicated by [[VAUEN]] (before that, In 1917, Dunhill had conflicts with Barling for using a spot, but that didn't go far. The action was formally discontinued in 1918<ref name=caselaw>In The High Court of Justice - Chancery Division. REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [VOL. XXXIX. Dunhill v. Bartlett & Bickley (June and July, 1922) PP 426-443.[https://pipedia.org/images/d/d5/39-15-426-3.pdf]</ref>). In their advertisements in the trade papers, they drew attention to the spot in such terms as "our brightest spot" (it was a silver spot).  Dunhill was successful, while VAUEN had to restrict its use to the German and Austrian borders. The White Spot trademark was first registered in 1923, eleven years after its introduction.

<blockquote>"(...)One small problem emerged, however, as customers could not tell which way up to insert the hand-cut vulcanite mouthpiece of straight pipes into the stems of the pipes. Alfred Dunhill, therefore, ordered white spots to be placed on the true upper sides of the mouthpieces, and thus a world-famous trademark was created.<br>

According to Bill Carter, the White Spot was introduced soon after the pipe-making unit was moved in 1912 from 28 Duke Street to 6 Mason’s Yard, about 40 yards down Duke Street on the left. Mason’s Yard is an interesting and ancient enclave. It was originally called St Alban’s Mews, after the Earl of St Albans, whose trustees were granted the freehold of the whole area in 1665 by the Crown. It was probably renamed after Richard Mason who, in the 1730s, was granted a victualler’s license for the house that became Mason’s Arms." One Hundred Years and More. <ref name=balfour23>Balfour, Michael. (1992). Alfred Dunhill, One Hundred Years and More (p.52). London: Weidenfield and Nicolson.</ref></blockquote>  

<blockquote><q>By the early 1920's the White Spot had become identified with Dunhill and a trademark for the same was obtained in 1922. In 1923 the company prevailed in enforcing the mark against the white dot of another pipe manufacture (Wolf), and about the same time in America (but not in Europe) against the blue dot of the then new Sassini pipe. On some bits however, mainly amber and ivory, the Dunhill White Spot is really a small black circle that effects the appearance of a White Spot.</q> The Dunhill Briar Pipe.<ref name=jcl12>Loring, J. C. (1998) The Dunhill Briar Pipe - The Patent Years and After (p. 43). Chicago: self-published.</ref>.</blockquote>  

At first, this rounded marking was thinner and made in celluloid, a species of an acrylic predecessor, which was used until the mid-40s, when it was replaced by high-quality acrylic. Because of its appearance, it was defended for years and by many, that the point was made in ivory. However, that is a widespread legend that lasted for years. We have as evidence, the description of The White Spot in an action that Dunhill advocated the exclusive use of the Spot in 1922.  

<blockquote><q>As evidence we can see the white spot (which consists of imitation ivory inserted in the vulcanite) was placed on the pipe with a twofold object, namely, to indicate which was the upper side of the mouthpiece and to distinguish readily the whole pipe<ref name=caselaw>In The High Court of Justice - Chancery Division. REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [VOL. XXXIX. Dunhill v. Bartlett & Bickley (June and July, 1922) PP 426-443.[https://pipedia.org/images/d/d5/39-15-426-3.pdf]</ref>.</q></blockquote>  

'''Note:''' All pipes come with a costly fitted black ebonite (is generically known as hard rubber and is obtained by vulcanizing natural rubber for prolonged periods. Ebonite may contain from 25% to 80% sulfur and linseed oil. The material has also been called vulcanite, although that name formally refers to the mineral vulcanite).  

<br>

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: left;"

|<center>'''The Black Spot'''</center>  

A piece of information about this material, taken from BBC, "A History of the World"<ref name=bbc>The British Museum, BBC (2011). A History Of The World. Erinoid Plastic. Retrieved 24 March 2020 from [http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/ZlmnlY2MT5a9ecQAnfJyKA BBC]</ref>.):  

<blockquote><q>Casein plastic was made under the trade name "Erinoid" at Lightpill Mills in Stroud for about 70 years from 1912. Unlike the later plastics such as Bakelite, Casein plastic could be dyed in many bright colours. It could withstand the rigours of washing and ironing, dry-cleaning solvents, etc, and became popular for buttons and other household goods. It was eventually replaced by oil-based plastics for most users but is still made today on a small scale for high-quality goods.</q></blockquote><br>

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: left;"

|<center>'''Marbled Grey & Beige'''</center>

|}

The White Spot did on special request (2021), a limited production run for the Italian market of a variety of shapes in Shell Briar finish (with a grey marbled Vulcanite mouthpiece) and in Cumberland finish (with a beige marbled Vulcanite mouthpiece). All pipes are fitted with silver bands, both plain and engraved<ref name=hener31>Hener, K. S. Product Line Director - The White Spot Smoker's Accessory Division and Walthamstow site. (e-mail in 1/13/2021)[https://pipedia.org/images/9/9d/HENER_Kalmon_Wed_1_13_2021_5.41.png]</ref>.

  '''Note''': Genuine ivory always has grain. The grain is characterized by lines of random spacing and irregular thickness.

  '''Note+''': All the stems were hand-cut until 1976. They have since been machine made due to labor costs. They use a 3.7mm drill for both mouthpieces and stem bore (for bore pipes, 4mm)<ref name=hener>Hener, K. S. Product Line Director - The White Spot Smoker's Accessory Division and Walthamstow site. (Conversations held between 2019 and 2020).</ref>.<br>

  <!--T:267-->

  <font size="2">'''Addendum:''' In the mid-20s, any Dunhill pipe could be supplied fitted with a mouthpiece of Amber, Tortoiseshell, or Ivory with an extra cost<ref name=asbp>Dunhill Ltd., 1928 catalog, about Smoke, An Encyclopedia of Smoking (p. 48). Briarbooks Press.</ref></font>.<br>

  <font size="2">'''Addendum2:''' Apparently, using some kind of spot on mouthpieces was a common practice at that time. For example, in 1912 some 200 gross of a pipe called "The Durbar," with a white spot on the side of the mouthpiece, were manufactured and placed upon the market in England. However, that pipe disappeared from the market seven years later. It seems there were also other brands, represented by Frankel, Wolf Brothers, and even Charatan & Son, bearing a spot on the mouthpiece at some point. On 22 September 1921, Alfred Dunhill commenced an action against Bartlett & Bickley, represented by the owner, Mr. Charles Davis Jonas. The business that carried on under the firm name of Bartlett & Bickley had belonged to Charles David Jonas since 1901, and it had been moved to Vigo Street in 1910. Before the 1920s, Mr. Jonas had sold pipes of other people's manufacture, but in 1921, he brought out a pipe specially manufactured for him with a red spot on the mouthpiece, similarly placed to the white spot on Dunhill's pipes. Such pipes were marked on the shank with Mr. Jonas’ trademark "Barbie" which was registered in May 1920. They were also marked with Jonas' firm name and address. Alfred had requested Mr. Jonas to discontinue the use of such a spot on their pipes, but Mr. Jonas refused to do so. Mr. Jonas also stated that they intended to continue to manufacture and sell pipes having such a spot on the mouthpiece and would do so unless restrained by the Court. The action came to trial on 29 June 1922. It is interesting to notice in the file of this action, that Mr. Alfred Dunhill tried to disassociate the spot from the popularly known function, i.e. being a useful resource to aid customers in replacing the stem right side up, and suggested that initially it was added to stems largely to be a decoration. Despite the Wolf brothers' case law, the decision was unfavorable and the action failed, being dismissed with costs. Apparently, Alfred would have to get used to seeing spots in other colors on the market, facing his much-esteemed white spot.<ref name=caselaw>In The High Court of Justice - Chancery Division. REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [VOL. XXXIX. Dunhill v. Bartlett & Bickley (June and July, 1922) PP 426-443.[https://pipedia.org/images/d/d5/39-15-426-3.pdf]</ref></font>

<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>