Dating My New Dunhill

[Deleted member 2386]

I lucked out and found this Patent era Dunhill--it was in pretty decent shape, too, but I still sent it off to Mike at Walker Pipe Repair for a full refurb instead of messing with it myself. Just got it back and it looks great, but I'm not quite sure what year it is as the stamping seems a little weird. Hoped some local expert might be able to help me date it!






It's hard to get a good picture of the stamping but it looks like maybe an underlined 16 after the patent number, but there's also maybe a 5 right after it as well? Any help would be much appreciated!

 

[Deleted member 2386]

Here are a couple more shots, between my camera phone and the faintness of some of the stamping it ain’t easy to get a good shot—pretty sure the patent number is 417574 with a underlined 16 after it...or is a 16 and 5? Just a 6?




And some other shots, just because:

 

[LL]

Based on your photos, it looks like your pipe is actually a Chinese fake.

There has been periodic floods of them in the past few years.

The stamping makes little sense, stem is definitely molded, and the shape number is for Dunhill's "Duke" shape, not a pot.

 

[Richard Burley]

Based on your photos, it looks like your pipe is actually a Chinese fake.

There has been periodic floods of them in the past few years.

The stamping makes little sense, stem is definitely molded, and the shape number is for Dunhill's "Duke" shape, not a pot.  

Was thinking the same. Didn't actually know, but suspected. Hope we're wrong, but look on the bright side: maybe it smokes better than a Dunhill. :|

 

[Ozark Wizard]

Perhaps you can do a rubbing of the markings. You know, thin paper, lightly rub the side of a pencil over it and the writings can appear. Might help...

 

[Deleted member 2386]

Huh hasn’t considered that, though I rather doubt it—was part of a small personal collection that was mostly bought new in the sixties and seventies, and I’m guessing/hoping there wasn’t much of a counterfeit market back then. As for the shape number being wrong, maybe they changed it at some point because looking up 463 I see a lot that are the same Pot shape. Talked about it with Mike at Briar Repair and he definitely didn’t mention noticing anything fishy!

 

[Deleted member 2386]

Ah and between a bit more research and help on another forum it’s looking like it’s almost definitely a ‘36—that was the window for their using the patent number 417574 followed by the date code, before adding the /34. So the only enigma is why that 5 slipped on there, but I’m guessing she’ll take that secret to her grave! I know in-house they occasionally added stamps when they marked them down after not selling for a while and such, or maybe it’s some esoteric Masonic code...

 

[LL]

Remove the stem and take a close-up of the end of the button, and another shot of the tenon so that its base---where it joins the larger diameter part of the stem---is visible.

As for being a 463, that's definitely it:

https://www.smokingpipes.com/pipes/new/peterson/moreinfo.cfm?product_id=40746

The middle numeral looked---and still does, to my eye---so much like an "8" that I never considered checking anything else. Go figure.

In any event, the stem still looks off, and those two views of it should clear the matter up straight away.

 

[Deleted member 2386]

Thanks so much for your help, LL, here are some pics of the stem:

 

[LL]

Yeah. The stem is definitely a molded replacement. That plus the 6/8 confusion is what led me to conclude the pipe was a copy.

Turns out you have a legit old Dunhill stummel (bowl), but a more recently made stem.

The smoke that travels through it doesn't care, of course (in the pre-collecting era stems were like shoe soles or car tires... you just replaced 'em as needed). So, unless you're a serious-minded collector it makes no difference at all.

Anyway, as the saying goes, thanks for playing. I love the old British stuff and can't resist a mystery, so had to dive in. Appreciate your indulging me.

 

[Deleted member 2386]

Yeah.  The stem is definitely a molded replacement.  That plus the 6/8 confusion is what led me to conclude the pipe was a copy.

Turns out you have a legit old Dunhill stummel (bowl), but a more recently made stem.

The smoke that travels through it doesn't care, of course (in the pre-collecting era stems were like shoe soles or car tires...  you just replaced 'em as needed).  So, unless you're a serious-minded collector it makes no difference at all.  

Anyway, as the saying goes, thanks for playing.  I love the old British stuff and can't resist a mystery, so had to dive in.  Appreciate your indulging me.  

Ah, that makes sense--I did think the stem in particular was in pretty decent shape for being that old, definitely less beat up than the stummel before Mike cleaned them both up. I'd compared the stem to my only other Dunhill, a '65 Zulu, and the tenon/stem junction looked about the same, making me think they were both original...but are they both maybe copies? Or did Dunhill stop doing hand cut stems at some point? Are there other things I should be looking for in terms of figuring out whether a stem is molded or hand cut?

And really, thanks for lending your time and brain--one of the things I love about pipes is figuring out their histories. In terms of mysterious British pipes I also snagged an Inderwick's in the same lot, which I gather was a London tobacconist who maybe commissioned Comoy to make their house pipes...but will start a new thread for that!