Garfinkel Briars
Mike Stanley
eBay but they aren't here yet. The bent Rodesian/Author really caught
my eye for ten buck.
Mike Stanley
here's the link if anyone is interested
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3243984481&category=4119&rd=1
buck12ga
msta...@neo.rr.com says...
hardly miss for ten bucks.
buck
fred hanna
Hi Mike,
I have a nice Garfinkel in an LB shape scheduled to appear on ebay
tomorrow night. It is clearly a Dunhill 2nd and has no fills and a
nice stem. And the opening bid is 10 bucks with no reserve. From what
I have heard, that store did everything with a mind to quality. Some
of their English blends were made by Sobranie and are still highly
collectible, especially Orient Express, as many are aware.
Fred
G. L. Pease
(in message <c35a85a2.0310...@posting.google.com>):
> I have a nice Garfinkel in an LB shape scheduled to appear on ebay tomorrow
> night. It is clearly a Dunhill 2nd and has no fills and a nice stem. And the
> opening bid is 10 bucks with no reserve. From what I have heard, that store
> did everything with a mind to quality. Some of their English blends were
> made by Sobranie and are still highly collectible, especially Orient
> Express, as many are aware.
A couple comments from the peanut gallery...
How can a pipe be "obviously a Dunhill second?" I have a La Croix, a
Comoy, a Dunhill, and a Parker, all LB shaped, and nearly exactly
interchangeable. I know the Comoy and the La Croix are not Dunhill
seconds, but, of course, it's possible the Parker is. (Parker was a
separate company for many years, prior to being acquired by Dunhill.
Many, if not most Parkers were destined to be Parkers from the start,
though I'm sure it was a convenient way to dispose of "inferior"
Dunhills. I've got Parkers that rival anything ever produced under the
more prestigious name.)
I have had a few Garfinkels, and they have all been from different
sources. One was a probable Charatan second. (Charatan made many shop
pipes.) Another is French, possibly from La Croix, who also made a lot of
second label pipes. A third was difficult to pin down, though the shape
appeared to be Barling. There were also Garfinkels from Mastercraft, and
probably other US makers as well.
I agree that this shop was known for getting things of quality produced
for them. Their Orient Express series were made by Sobranie House, and
the #11 was possibly the finest blend of the type ever produced. Many of
their other blends were done by McConnell, also known for outstanding
tobaccos, and for producing blends for other labels.
Larry Garfinkel and his mom ran the shop until some time in the mid- to
late- 1980s. I nearly cried the day Larry called to tell me they were
closing the doors, and asked me if there was anything I wanted before it
was all gone. "The only thing I can think of, Larry, is for you guys to
stay in business forever." I did get a couple pipes, which I have kept,
unsmoked, as mementos.
One thing certain is that the pipes have been around for a while, and for
$10, Mike, you can hardly go wrong.
-glp
--
Gregory Pease
Principal Tobacco Alchemist
G. L. Pease Tobaccos, Intl.
http://www.glpease.com
Mike Stanley
if its not a Dunhill 2nd, I don't want it (lol) The shape was what
caught my eye actually. I just hope the off side isn't one big
fill!!!!
Mike Stanley
On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 18:59:44 -0700, G. L. Pease <g...@glpease.com>
wrote:
Mark Tinsky
I remember Dunhill was marketing a lot of pipes as "house brands" in
the 8- s I was at Georgetown when the rep was making his pitch so it
was a good chance they came from Dunhill but as Greg mentioned one
never knows MT
fred hanna
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2003 18:02:22 -0700, fred hanna wrote
> (in message <c35a85a2.0310...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > I have a nice Garfinkel in an LB shape scheduled to appear on ebay tomorrow
> > night. It is clearly a Dunhill 2nd and has no fills and a nice stem. And the
> > opening bid is 10 bucks with no reserve. From what I have heard, that store
> > did everything with a mind to quality. Some of their English blends were
> > made by Sobranie and are still highly collectible, especially Orient
> > Express, as many are aware.
>
> A couple comments from the peanut gallery...
>
> How can a pipe be "obviously a Dunhill second?" I have a La Croix, a
> Comoy, a Dunhill, and a Parker, all LB shaped, and nearly exactly
> interchangeable. I know the Comoy and the La Croix are not Dunhill
> seconds, but, of course, it's possible the Parker is. (Parker was a
> separate company for many years, prior to being acquired by Dunhill.
> Many, if not most Parkers were destined to be Parkers from the start,
> though I'm sure it was a convenient way to dispose of "inferior"
> Dunhills. I've got Parkers that rival anything ever produced under the
> more prestigious name.)
>
> -glp
Greg, I think you made an unwarranted assumption about this pipe,
which you have not seen, as well as pointing out a possible faulty
assumption of my own. Of course Comoy and La Croix pipes in any shape
are not Dunhill seconds. That is obviously true. I referred to the
Garfinkel in question as a Dunhill second, not only because of the LB
shape, but because of its characteristic "Made in London England"
stamping. And it is here that we may be able to set the record
straight on a a common designation in the hobby.
According to my understanding, it is the characteristic, 2-line "Made
in London England" (you know the one I am referring to) stamping on
the right side of such pipes that indicate that they were from the
Dunhill family, which included Parker, as you said, and don't forget
about Hardcastle. Also, according to my understanding, some Dunhills
were actually made in the Hardcastle or Parker factory for a while, as
well as Dunhill seconds. My information is not in agreement with yours
concerning Parker. I would like to have it corrected if inaccurate.
According to my sources which I learned many years ago and may be
wrong, Parker was started and owned by Dunhill from the start, while
Hardcastle started out an independent company later acquired by
Dunhll. And yes, Parker did make pipes intended for the Parker name
that were of good and sometimes great quality.
There is a tendency in our hobby to assign pipes made by Parker and
Hardcastle, that are not stamped with those names, to a general
category of Dunhill seconds. In this sense, I think that my Garfinkel
pipe in question is indeed "obviously" a Dunhill second made in the
Parker or Hardcastle factory. On the other hand, it is imprecise. Do
you think using this term is too general and therefore inappropriate?
Perhaps this tendency should be corrected? What do you think?
Anyone else more knowledgeable than myself care to correct or comment
on anything written here? Let's face it, our hobby is highly
influenced by hearsay and unverifiable "facts" that are tenuous at
best. But we can at least gather up all the different viewpoints and
sort them out as we puff.
Fred
G. L. Pease
(in message <c35a85a2.03100...@posting.google.com>):
> Greg, I think you made an unwarranted assumption about this pipe, which you
> have not seen, as well as pointing out a possible faulty assumption of my
> own. Of course Comoy and La Croix pipes in any shape are not Dunhill
> seconds. That is obviously true. I referred to the Garfinkel in question as
> a Dunhill second, not only because of the LB shape, but because of its
> characteristic "Made in London England" stamping. And it is here that we may
> be able to set the record straight on a a common designation in the hobby.
Good point, Fred, though are Dunhill the only company to use this
particular country of origin stamp? Ashton pipes sport the same stamping.
I am looking at a 1985 Ashton at the moment, which bears identical
country of origin stamping to the late 1950's Dunhill version. (Of
course, the style of Dunhill's changed over time, as did others.) Since
Ashton started up prior to Garfinkel going out of business, there's at
least one other possibility for the manufacturer of the pipe. It's
rumoured that Ashton have done house brands, though I've never discussed
this with Mr. Taylor.
> According to my understanding, it is the characteristic, 2-line "Made in
> London England" (you know the one I am referring to) stamping on the right
> side of such pipes that indicate that they were from the Dunhill family,
> which included Parker, as you said, and don't forget about Hardcastle. Also,
> according to my understanding, some Dunhills were actually made in the
> Hardcastle or Parker factory for a while, as well as Dunhill seconds. My
> information is not in agreement with yours concerning Parker. I would like
> to have it corrected if inaccurate. According to my sources which I learned
> many years ago and may be wrong, Parker was started and owned by Dunhill
> from the start, while Hardcastle started out an independent company later
> acquired by Dunhll. And yes, Parker did make pipes intended for the Parker
> name that were of good and sometimes great quality.
I have Parkers that are stamped "Made in London" over "England." These
pipes bear patent numbers that are clearly Dunhillesque, and occasionally
exhibit modifiers, such as f/t for fantail stems, though quite different
shape numbers and type face. While the pipes have Dunhill-like shapes,
their outstanding, fill-free briar would not implicate tham as seconds of
any sort. Hacker indicated that Dunhill acquired Parker, but we both know
that his information is not always reliable. The best source I know of
for good Parker information is Mike Reshke, who has a remarkable
collection of Parkers, and is a great storehouse of knowledge on the
marque. I'll see what I can find out from him.
> There is a tendency in our hobby to assign pipes made by Parker and
> Hardcastle, that are not stamped with those names, to a general category of
> Dunhill seconds. In this sense, I think that my Garfinkel pipe in question
> is indeed "obviously" a Dunhill second made in the Parker or Hardcastle
> factory. On the other hand, it is imprecise. Do you think using this term is
> too general and therefore inappropriate? Perhaps this tendency should be
> corrected? What do you think?
Good point. As I said, I've never paid much attention to Hardcastle, but
I've enjoyed many Parkers, and those that I own do bear different
appelation nomenclature than do Dunhills of similar vintage, though they
do carry the same date codes and patent numbers. I think it unfair to
consider them Dunhill seconds. They are first quality pipes by any
measure, and should be granted the respect they deserve as such. I've
also had a couple of old (from the 1930s), unsmoked Parker Super Briar
Barks that did not exhibit the typical oil-cured taste that was quite
characteristic in Dunhill's pipes of that era. Clean, air-cured wood.
(Though, after that many decades in the box, I suspect even green briar
would have transformed into air-cured. ;)
> Anyone else more knowledgeable than myself care to correct or comment on
> anything written here? Let's face it, our hobby is highly influenced by
> hearsay and unverifiable "facts" that are tenuous at best. But we can at
> least gather up all the different viewpoints and sort them out as we puff.
Indeed!
Cheers,
Greg
Bob Weiske
SNIP
>Since
>Ashton started up prior to Garfinkel going out of business, there's at
>least one other possibility for the manufacturer of the pipe. It's
>rumoured that Ashton have done house brands, though I've never discussed
>this with Mr. Taylor.
>
>Indeed!
>
>Cheers,
>Greg
I believe that one of Ashton's house brands was the Personal Reserve
line made for Barry Levin. I have one that Marty Pulvers inspected and
declared to be an Ashton.
FWIW,
Bob Weiske
Curmudgeon at Large
Trever Talbert
Jacono, did the house brand for McCranie's in NC. I don't know if he still
does this or not. IIRC, the brand name stamped on the pipes was McArris or
something similar ( someone correct me here if I'm wrong).
--
Happy smoking,
Trever Talbert
http://www.talbertpipes.com
James D. Beard
are a couple of points I am confident on.
1. Parker was founded by Dunhill, expressly to dispose of seconds.
This is from one of the Dunhill books, ¨Our Family Business,¨ if
memory serves me right, and I think attested to in John C. Loring´s
book. In any case, it is definitely the ¨word of Dunhill¨ on its
own actions. Seconds were not enough to make Parker viable, though,
and it soon started buying briar and making pipes on its own.
2. Not only did Dunhill send down stummels to Parker when they were
recognized as not up to Dunhill standard, for a time in the 1930s at
least a set of Parker stamps was held at the Dunhill factory and
used to stamp pipes that failed to meet standard just before being
finished. I cannot imagine what you would call these Parkers if
not Dunhill seconds.
3. Hardcastle was indeed an independent company, and it was
acquired by Dunhill and merged with Parker. The notion that
Hardcastle pipes were Dunhill seconds, thirds, fourths, or
fifths is technically conceivable but flat wrong.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
Unix is not user-unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Bob Rhode a.k.a. TBomb
> One other house brand I can add is that Bill Taylor, together with Tonino
> Jacono, did the house brand for McCranie's in NC. I don't know if he still
> does this or not. IIRC, the brand name stamped on the pipes was McArris or
> something similar ( someone correct me here if I'm wrong).
You seem to have all the facts pretty much right on Trever. It does
sound like Jocono does most of the work though.
Here's a url: http://www.mccranies.com/pipes-mccranie.html
Bob
Trever Talbert
sound like Jocono does most of the work though.
Here's a url: http://www.mccranies.com/pipes-mccranie.html"
Ah, cool - I couldn't remember the precise details of who did what, just
that one fellow did the shapes and the other did the blasting or carving or
something. The main thing I remember about them, from having looked at a
lot of them up close, was that they were the nicest "house brand" pipes I'd
ever seen. A considerable step above just buying a readymade unstamped pipe
and putting a store name on it! As a silly side remark on this, there's a
pipemaker here in France who does literally thousands of such "house brands"
for different shops, and is virtually unknown by his own name. We had about
80-100 of his pipes in here for the summer crowd, and the first thing he
asked us was for our store logo so they could be stamped "Talbert". I
explained that I wanted to sell the pipes as HIS, with his name on them
since he made them... and still about 3/4 of them arrived here unstamped.
This is how "mystery pipes" are born!
Hagley
Mike Hagley
"Trever Talbert" <tal...@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message
news:blreb6$e3ttm$1...@ID-130341.news.uni-berlin.de...
John
oil-cures them, blasts them, and finishes them. Older ones were sold
under the name McArris while newer ones are labelled McCranie's. The
quality of the pipes is excellent.
I have a McArris, which I reviewed on the SMoke Shop Review site
(www.smokeshopreview.com). It's absolutely one of the best smoking
pipes I own, and one I go to time and again. I bought mine at
McCranie's as an estate pipe ($90), though it was unsmoked when I
bought it. It broke in quickly, and delivers the subtleties of taste
absent in so many pipes in the same price range. IMHO, the pipe
compares easily to a Dunhill or an Ashton in smoking quality.
"Trever Talbert" <tal...@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:<blpmtg$ec7op$1...@ID-130341.news.uni-berlin.de>...
G. L. Pease
(in message <vo11rtk...@corp.supernews.com>):
> I have no desire to get in over my head on this thread, but there are a
> couple of points I am confident on.
>
> 1. Parker was founded by Dunhill, expressly to dispose of seconds. This is
> from one of the Dunhill books, ¨Our Family Business,¨ if memory serves me
> right, and I think attested to in John C. Loring´s book. In any case, it is
> definitely the ¨word of Dunhill¨ on its own actions. Seconds were not
> enough to make Parker viable, though, and it soon started buying briar and
> making pipes on its own.
I've just spoken at some length with Mike Reshke, the preeminant
Parkerphile in the US, and you are absolutely right. Parker was
established by Dunhill in 1923 as a separate concern, with the idea of
providing a way of utilizing those pieces that were not 100% up to
Dunhill quality standards, which were quite high at the time. The pipes,
however, were not what we would consider seconds. They were first quality
pipes that were not grained as well as Dunhill demanded. They were not
putty filled. They were fitted and finshed with high standards, and were
excellent pipes.
In the early years, these were stamped "Parker's." In about 1937, the
patent number 116989/17 appeared on Parkers. This was the only number
used, and remained on the pipes until 1954, when Dunhill also
discontinued patent number stamping. Sometime in the mid- to late-1930's,
the "Parker's" stamp fell out of use, and "Parker" replaced it. During
the transition, it seems that whichever stamp was at hand was used.
During WWII, Parker and Dunhill, the two factories separated by a wall
and a door, would often share materials due to shortages. Pipes from this
time frame are apparently very hard to tell apart, if the nomenclature is
hidden from view.
Mike also tells me that to the best of his knowledge, Parkers were never
oil-cured.
> 2. Not only did Dunhill send down stummels to Parker when they were
> recognized as not up to Dunhill standard, for a time in the 1930s at least a
> set of Parker stamps was held at the Dunhill factory and used to stamp pipes
> that failed to meet standard just before being finished. I cannot imagine
> what you would call these Parkers if not Dunhill seconds.
Again, seconds is probably a misleading term in this regard. Every early
and mid-era Parker I have ever seen or owned has been a first quality
pipe in all respects. As the two factories were literally adjacent to one
another, it seems unlikely that Dunhill would produce Parkers when their
time was better spent producing Dunhills.
Not only did Parker obtain stummels from Dunhill, but also from other
sources, as did Dunhill...
> 3. Hardcastle was indeed an independent company, and it was acquired by
> Dunhill and merged with Parker. The notion that Hardcastle pipes were
> Dunhill seconds, thirds, fourths, or fifths is technically conceivable but
> flat wrong.
...Hardcastle were purchased by Dunhill in 1947 or 1948, and continued to
be operated as a separate entity. A subsequent merger of the company with
Parker occurred sometime in the 60s or 70s, and the quality of the Parker
pipe may not have been strictly maintained with the two companies under
the same roof. It is only then that Parkers could possibly be considered
"seconds," though it was Edwin Hardcastle's notion that these pipes would
simply be a more affordable alternative to the prestige marque of
Dunhill. It's hard to say exactly when the quality truly began to suffer.
As I've said, I've had Parkers that are every bit as fine as Dunhills
from similar eras. Fit, finish, construction and smoking qualities are
first rate, and in most cases, even the wood was exquisite. How Dunhill
determined that a bowl was not up to their standards is a mystery, but
pipe grading, in many cases, seems to be more a result of divination and
arcane, or even occult understanding than objective science, a notion
that can be attested by anyone who has tried to figure out Castello's
grading criteria.
Now, if we can just get Mike to write a book on Parkers...
-glp
Hagley
Hardcastle back in the 1930s. Sid told me that his first job at the factory
was to take the defective bowls and burn them in the stoves to keep the
factory warm. He told me that today those bowls would be Dunhills, the
biggest defect was graining, not imperfections in the wood.
Mike Hagley
"G. L. Pease" <g...@glpease.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BBA72435...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...