Dunhill Group Sizes

[monbla256]

Awrite, guys. Take it outside...

My scam comment was only in hopes of bringing a little levity into the discussion. :roll:

I think Sisyphus nailed it. Dunhill group sizes are probably most helpful to those who already know them. Not as useful for someone who has not.

Maybe another context. Golf?

A Ping 3 iron probably doesn't have the exact same face angle as a Wilson 3 iron. But when someeone says "3 iron" it gives an idea of it's basic shape and use. Give or take. In other words, you know its a distance club versus, say, a wedge or 9 iron.

To argue that the numbering system is flawed and therefore useless since the two brands differ by a degree or two seems silly to me. They're just ballpark figures like with pizzas or soft drink cup sizes.

You tell me Group 3, I know it's a smallish bowl. Exactly how small I can't say, but I can gather that it'll suit me for flakes. Better perhaps than a Group 6 because I like smaller bowls for flakes.

"Hello Domino's? Yeah, could you tell me exactly how many milliliters your small coke cup holds? What? You don't know!? What the hell use are you!? Get me someone competent, please! *******!"

I don't think black and white is the best way to consider pipes. Just saying....

Well put Mister E.

 

[Smoker99]

I find the Dunhill sizing to be very useful in a general sense. It is about the only sizing standard I know of. I smoke mostly grp 4 and up, and have found sizing to be fairly consistent. My favorite size the last few years is a grp5. I have half dozen Dunhill 5s, and they all have a .75 ID bowl. I have three ODAs, and all are much bigger that a grp6. They all have a one inch ID bowl, or slightly larger. Several other makers use the Dunhill standard, and stamp the size number on the pipe, they just don't use the word "group".

 

[Zeno Marx]

I think Sisyphus nailed it. Dunhill group sizes are probably most helpful to those who already know them. Not as useful for someone who has not...

To argue that the numbering system is flawed and therefore useless since the two brands differ by a degree or two seems silly to me. They're just ballpark figures like with pizzas or soft drink cup sizes.

Yep (and yep to Sisyphus, Smoker99, et al). It's useful, which is the whole point. I actually find it often more helpful than measurements. Measurements can be deceiving. When a knowledgeable person drops a group size, I can more readily visualize the pipe.

I recently picked up a 6x2 billiard, but this pipe is no standard billiard. It has a larger feel than what those measurements indicate. If someone called it a group 6, or a smallish ODA, I'd get a better idea of its size.

 

[Anonymous]

I can identify with both protagonists. I learned to state my view/presentations in an unequivocal manner. In forums particularly, this can lead to misunderstanding and confrontation. And, too often, it turns into flames. Besides that I find it fun to fire for effect. So, been there and done that and can show the bruises. Hopefully, we can now all laugh at ourselves --with serious grounds BTW.

On to the subject:
Ballpark seems to associate itself with everything but actual chamber measurements. Size table seem an artifact of an earlier time. Iwan Ries only gives Dunhill sizes -- no chamber stats. They are also a very old company and operate with many bygone artifacts. Some of our community sees that as a gentlemanly benefit.

How helpful do you want your data? As a programmer, that was a serious issue. Too much info is easy to do. How detailed should something be? There was never an answer or the correct answer had to take into account human nature along with specific data. So we'd work it out or create "executive summary" views that gave each group what the wanted. People are often more comfortable with empirical approaches; others aren't. Ain't that human?

 

[KevinM]

Well, as I understood it the group sizes were introduced by Dunhill for Dunhill pipes and were later hijacked by others, particularly wannabees and e-tailers who face a constant struggle to exhibit goods, produced by others, in a context that prevents fondling. (Grid backgrounds are awful imho.) One e-tailer we know frequently says re: her estate pipes, something like, "This beautiful Dunhill is stamped 3, but it looks more like a 4 to me." Lacking an accepted industry standard, we'll have to work with one in which the margins are blurred. It's the sort of thing in which one can be mistaken, but the consequences of the mistake are easily bearable.

 

[sisyphus]

During the transition Barling offered group 1 through 4 pipes, which was the first number of the four digit shape number. So that's like 1962 through 1967? That's the only other maker I can think of besides Dunhill who made a concession to sizing in their catalog, unless you count Loewe who as early as the beginning of the 1900s classified all their shapes as either Light Weight, Medium or Full Size.

Because all these makers were making fairly similar pipes once you had a handle on Dunhill groups it was easy enough to look at any Sasieni or Comoy's, etc, and assign a group size to it. That's the only reason it stuck around, it was the only way you could talk to someone else regarding physical size and capacity.

 

[cigrmaster]

I have always used the Dunhill group sizes as a guide and find them very useful. You can have a small 5 or a large 5, if you know the basic criteria you can then use their system on any pipe you purchase. It is the only system I know that is fairly accurate.

 

[Wayne_Teipen]

For the life of me I can't remember where I saw it but I recall an old video of Dunhill production where a particular worker was taking finished pipes and placing them in progressively smaller box-like jigs.  I think this is how they assign their group sizes.  Each box represented a group size and the smallest one the pipe would fit in was it's assigned size.  I'm guessing they had different jigs for different styles of pipes.  Full bents, for example, wouldn't likely fit in the same type of jig as a straight pipe of the same group size.  This is speculation on my part.  I can say, however, that I don't think chamber capacity plays a big factor if at all.  I prefer Dunhill group 3 pipes and the chamber capacity on a group 3 bulldog versus a group 3 billiard is very different but the overall size of the pipes are similar.

I find the Dunhill sizing very helpful.  In fact, I tend to describe my own pipes according to my loose understanding of the Dunhill sizing because that's the only standard sizing many pipe collectors and smokers know.  Maybe someone more knowledgeable will come along and shed more light on the topic.  It would be great if Dunhill would just share their sizing so we can have a standard across the board.

 

[KevinM]

My understanding, such as it is, has been that Dunhill "group size" refers to bowl only, and it doesn't matter whether the bowl is attached to a 5' or 7' pipe, bent or straight. Its the bowl that accepts X amount of tobak. So the phrase would be more descriptive if it were "bowl size."  My authority is something I seem to recall reading from somewhere some time ago

 

[Anonymous]

Group sizes for people examining pipes in a shop would have been irrelevant.

For people familiar with the system (or at least having an example on hand to go by) who were ordering a pipe by mail, they would have been very useful. 

An order for a "Group 4 Tanshell Rhodesian" would have brought the pipe somebody envisioned by mail.

:face: