Sept. 1, 2010
|
Every so often, an internal issue captures the attention
of all pipe hobbyists and demands thoughtful analysis
and commands many column inches of copy. Issues
such as that provide satisfaction to me because I stay far
away from them
No, what brings me to the fore is rumor and
gossip...the stuff fueled by insinuation and innuendo of a
quality that would make old Senator Joe McCarthy proud.
We are lucky to have just such a topic hitting the
market, in the guise of a story in Pipes & Tobaccos
magazine. We are talking about the article on Dunhill,
which has a number of hobby veterans annoyed, their
claim being this is purely a puff piece.
Yes, it is a puff piece, but isn't everything that Pipes &
Tobaccos publishes a puff piece? I haven't seen a single
pipe maker labeled mediocre and over priced. We old
timers have seen this before, when Bruce Spencer
published a magazine that avoided any whiff of honest
criticism in its aim to promote the hobby to sell more
magazines. Correspondent Regis McKenna (who writes
and collects money from Pipes & Tobaccos as have I)
notices this unenlightened self-interest about the
magazine and it's hard to disagree with his assessment.
Much of the criticism of the Dunhill article centers on
credibility. The Dunhill spokesmanalleges only 5% of the
briar they buy specifically to produce Dunhills makes it
into a pipe and the rest is burned. Why would they have
such a difficult time buying wood as good as everybody
else? Nobody throws that much briar away, including the
most exclusive, high grade pipe makers. Plus, if the
Dunhill briar is so much better than the Parker &
Charatan briar, as he claimed (foolishly, I should think)
why not use it for those pipes if it is already on hand and
superior. It makes no sense at all.
What is credible is the statement that Dunhill's
Stephen Wilson made to P&T writer Stephen Ross,
saying that "I can tell you that the same quality standards
in place in 1969 are still in place today." Sadly, according
to Bill Ashton Taylor in a conversation we had in England
a few years ago, Dunhill's quality standards nose-dived
in 1968 when they went to using an 8 pipe frasing
machine and ceased their oil-curing process.
I think Bill Taylor had a good handle on how Dunhill
operated. He worked there for 25 years.
I personally question the statement that "all White
Spot (notice the absence of the word 'Dunhill' the craven
dogs) pipe bowls are turned at the factory in north
London."
Bjarne Nielsen told me, point blank, that Dunhill came
to him during the RTDA and asked him to sell them
bowls. Bjarne explained that the only bowls he could
possibly make available was inferior briar because he
used all the good pieces. According to Bjarne, and
I did not misunderstand or mis-hear any of this, the
Dunhill people said they did not care. Now, as far as I am
concerned, after years of close observation (Bjarne
stayed at our home for years when he made his annual
pipe-sellng trip to Northern California) Bjarne was
incapable of fabricating such a story. Furthermore, he
requested that I not repeat the story, which I did not
while he was alive. He's dead now and I feel no
obligation to keep quiet. You, of course, are fully
licensed to believe who and what you want.
I also have heard information, directly from the owner
of a pipe factory in France, that they make pipes for
Dunhill and have for years. But, when it comes down to
taking the stand and raising my right hand, it has to be
acknowledged that I am dealing in second hand
information. I have no first hand information with which
to finger that Dunhill article as a pack of prevarication. It
is, as suggested above, a bunch of innuendo and
insinuation, a low form of communication in which I
excel...as do so many other people, many of whom,
unlike me, call themselves public informants.
I'm sure that I don't need to tell you that whatever it is
you want to believe, that is what is true.
Marty
P.S. New pipes on the italian page, mostly.
|
|
