1. This forum section is for discussing pipes, it is not for advertising in any fashion.

Need help! Is this a real Dunhill?

Discussion in 'Pipes' started by sorringowl, Jun 5, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sorringowl

    sorringowl Emoticonally challenged

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,379
    Hey guys,

    This morning, I picked up, what I think is a decent Dunhill bulldog that needs some work. It's a 47 shape, a bulldog, that looks like a real Dunhill 47 shape bulldog. But now, looking at the markings, I'm wondering if what I picked up is, in fact, a real Dunhill.

    There is no finish stamp under the "Dunhill" stamp (e.g., Root, Bruyere, etc.) and there is no date number after the "D" in the "Made In England" stamp. Did just buy a fake?

    The seller seems legit (good feedback) and just recently sold about 3 other vintage Dunhills, the stampings of which, seem more obviously legit (finish stampings as well as date stamp numbers are all there) so, if he did sell me a fake, even he might not know it.

    Here are some pics of the one I bought:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Does anyone have, or, has anyone seen Dunhill stampings like this? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks!
     


  2. furious

    furious Junque collector

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,287
    Was talking about this one with some of the fellas in the sub-group. It may be legit but with a poor replacement stem and some overzealous buffing of the shank. It is not unusual to have superscripts worn off over time, but it IS very strange to have the finish line (Bruyere, Root, Shell) obliterated and not a bit of wear to the "Dunhill" stamping. Odd to say the least. Stamping doesn't look properly struck either.
     
    Russell Hartman likes this.
  3. jdto

    jdto Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,337
    Is is possible the seller got himself a fake but didn't realize it, or it was just a badly stamped Dunhill that ended up out in the world? The stem definitely looks like the dot is larger than the usual white spot (Furious' replacement theory makes sense) and the stamping also looks sort of crooked, which isn't very normal from what I've seen in my obsessive perusal of Dunhill stampings on the 'Bay and other sites.
     
  4. sorringowl

    sorringowl Emoticonally challenged

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,379
    Crap. I should have looked around on the forum to see if anyone mentioned this one before pulling the trigger.

    I'm really torn though, because the shaping looks very much like a Dunhill 47 (as well as the finish, albeit it may be somewhat dirty and/or aged so it's a little hard to see). But the grain looks pretty good and the geometry seems to be there, but, the stampings. Well, even those, from what I've compared them to, don't look bad (I've seen some obviously bad fake stampings), but, yeah, the lack of finish and date number stamps concern me.

    Anybody else want to weigh in on this?
     
  5. Hawkwood

    Hawkwood Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    762
    The circle suggests a group number stamping. The button looks right. Curious that there's no date code. How is the drilling? I know there are anomalies during periods of marking change.
     
  6. sorringowl

    sorringowl Emoticonally challenged

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,379
    Yeah, Hawk, it's a group number 3. I thought the button looked pretty Dunhill too. Unfortunately, I just bought it this morning and I won't have it in my hands till end of June, so, I can't tell you about the drilling. It could be a total fake, or maybe just a Dunhill mistake, as you an Jdto possibly suggested. I'm really hoping it's at least that but, if anyone can tell me it's an out and out fake for sure, I'm listening.

    Thanks for weighing in, guys. Any other theories, opinions or expert advice is welcomed.
     
  7. Russell Hartman

    Russell Hartman Stay Silver

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    6,132
    I gotta go with what Furious said on this. I am a little concerned about the lack of date stamp #. Also the stem--yes the button looks about right, but the fit and appearance in the picture looks like a replacenment stem to me--NOW---thats just my opinion--NOT FACT--so don't go on my word. You need to do MUCH researcch to find out if perhaps the pipe lacking the date number could have in ANY way been issued from the factory this way. I highly doubt that it left the factory that way but hey--you never know--could have slipped through.
    Remember there were a few years when in the history of Dunhill that there were pipes made by guys who worked there and had removed tooling. I have somewhere in my paper documents a piece written about some of these pipes that were found and because they were kind of made out of malace and with tooling and men who left--well they are rare and worth money. THEY ARE NOT COMMON. They also require a VERY skilled person who knows Dunhill inside and out to recognise such pipes. I am NOT that person.
    I also as I said would recommend doing some digging into dating of Dunhills to see if during any changes such as when Dunhill started the circle and size # stamp to see if perhaps something for a short time was left out until things got back up to speed in Dunhills changes. I am simply throwing some ideas out there for you. PLEASE do not allow my ramblings to confuse you.
    I as you am now REALLY interested to see what you find out on this pipe.
    As I said the lack of date numbering and the stem fit and appearance other than the button are of concern to me.
     
    furious likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.