Dunhill Group Sizes

[alfredo_buscatti]

I've always found this a confusing topic. Some weeks ago I was talking pipes with a friend that has a good knowledge of pipes and we disagreed about the size of a small Cavvichi prince. I based my opinion on the capacity of a group 4. Just about anyone can tell you that a pipe is a 4; and for that matter a 5 or a 6. The latter two sizes gradate in an expected way from a 4, each perhaps separated from the other by a ~25% increase.
I understand that the ODA designation is for sizes above a 6 but not yet a magnum.

But sizes 1-3 appear to have a less definite measurement. Size 1 is the capacity of a saucer, with flake smoked by someone who smokes slowly ~30 minutes? I'm just guessing and probably doing so poorly as the length of time it takes to smoke a certain capacity can vary widely according to the experience of the person smoking it. This won't do at all. I've named pipes group 2 or 3 depending on how I would envision a steady variance in size down from a group 4, group 1 being the smallest.

When I used to buy pipes from the defunct Knox Cigar Co, I would ask for their take on the size of the bowl, and the reps always replied, "it's about a Dunhill Group X." They made sure to say "Dunhill" and "about." Apparently there are other group designations amongst other manufacturers? Are there Ascorti group sizes? Tsuge? The "about" sizing includes a fudge factor. Thus could anyone judge differently than Knox, purportedly quoting Dunhill's sizing tradition?

Finally I've heard that a Dunhill group 4 for a Bruyere can be, say, different than the same size for a Cumberland. But what we are discussing quite simply is capacity; if sizes can vary among the different classes of Dunhill pipes, this would seem to be a useless scale.

 

[daveinlax]

It's useless in terms of measurements but I still think in group sizes for a general description. I always think a ODA is probably closer to a group 5 rather than group 6. If you want to talk sliding scale Castello through the years has been all over the board in both grain and size grading. Their various size grades are pretty inconsistent.

Knox was a great shop back in the day. Like many of the old timers on this board I was a member of that board. :shock:

 

[MisterE]

It's just a ballpark measurment IMHO. It gives you a general idea of how big or small a bowl is. Most pipesters are at least familiar with Dunhill, so if someone says Group 2, you know it's a smallish bowl. Group 6, it's pretty big.

 

[monbla256]

Besides the finish and which series the pipe was ( Bruyerre, Shell etc) , The group aizing also was a pricing guide used by the factory based on some loose overall dimensions ie, a grp 4 Billiard would not necessarily have the same overall size of bowl (HxW) as a grp 4 Pot or grp4 Rohdesian etc. They are supposed to have been the first to have given some sort of standardized sizing to pipe making and to throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing, Charatan used a numerical sizing of 1-6 on it's standard shapes but they were about one/one and a half size bigger than the comparable Dunhill. IE a Charatan "tanshell" Billiard I have is noted as a grp 4 Charatan size and I have a Shell finished Patent Dunhill Billiard which is noted as a grp 4 as well and the Charatan would have made it a s a large grp 5 to 6 if it were a Dunhill! From what a friend I have who worked for Lane back in the 70's told me, Dunhill exported more grp 3 and 4 pipes to the US as Americans liked BIGGER pipes than the usual grp 1 and 2 which sold in Great Britain at that time. I've never read or heard of any hard and fast definition given for the Dunhill sizing, it's one of those "traditions" of pipe smoking that ALL respect :twisted:

 

[KevinM]

I've noticced on pipe e-tail sites that go to considerable lengths to give pipe dimensions as well as Dunhill group sizes, that the group sizes vary among pipes with very similar dimensions. Perhaps it would be good to include a pic with someone's forefinger or thumb in the bowl. Buying pipes oand shoes online poses similar challenges.

 

[Brewdude]

jack-on-

Can't comment on the group size thingy, but let me be the first to say that I approve of your new avatar Mike. Much better than the previous one......

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.........

jack-off (no pun intended)


:rabbit:


Cheers,

RR

 

[alfredo_buscatti]

Then this Dunhill sizing is completely unreliable, in the sense of being able to replicate test results. Person A beholds a Dunhill pipe of type 1 and says it is a three; person B beholds type 2 and says it's a 1.

What I don't understand is why this sizing standard is used so many generations later, but then again the name "Dunhill" is still powerful.Their pipes are still said to be excellent but their sizing is poor.

This reminds me of Ferndown pipes. When Les Wood stamps his pipes, after finishing a subjectively defined group, he gives 3 Xs to the biggest, 1 X to the smallest, a completely relative scale as when he stamps the next group, he may well give the biggest pipe, which holds 25% more tobacco, 3 Xs and 1X to the smallest, which holds 25% less tobacco than the prior lot's pipe designated as 1 X.

Both scales are relative and subjective. Maybe it's something the English do. And then Charatan's scale is so different. I think MisterE's take is best, the sizes refer to a roundabout value, giving pipe smokers a general way to talk about size.

 

[monbla256]

Then this Dunhill sizing is completely unreliable, in the sense of being able to replicate test results. Person A beholds a Dunhill pipe of type 1 and says it is a three; person B beholds type 2 and says it's a 1.

What I don't understand is why this sizing standard is used so many generations later, but then again the name "Dunhill" is still powerful.Their pipes are still said to be excellent but their sizing is poor.

This reminds me of Ferndown pipes. When Les Wood stamps his pipes, after finishing a subjectively defined group, he gives 3 Xs to the biggest, 1 X to the smallest, a completely relative scale as when he stamps the next group, he may well give the biggest pipe, which holds 25% more tobacco, 3 Xs and 1X to the smallest, which holds 25% less tobacco than the prior lot's pipe designated as 1 X.

Both scales are relative and subjective. Maybe it's something the English do. And then Charatan's scale is so different. I think MisterE's take is best, the sizes refer to a roundabout value, giving pipe smokers a general way to talk about size.

As to one person saying "...it's a grp1 and the next it's a grp2" Dunhill stamped what THEY sized it as and THAT'S what it is regardless how it compares to something else. And yes Mister E is correct and that's the way most of us have looked at this "sizing" thing of Dunhill's over the years. They were made by hand with the use of machinery and did vary over time. Not like today's CNC produced wood products. It's what it is :twisted:

 

[alfredo_buscatti]

I assert that the purpose of communication is to communicate, and thus the purpose of assigning a size is to communicate it to someone else in the pipe world. What good does it afford anyone, then, if Dunhill assigns size idiosyncratically? So those among the Dunhill initiates can communicate privately with each other? This issue is simply about the capacity of their pipes. It is not a trade secret. Perhaps erratically assigning size was a way to befuddle the masses and thus the Dunhill makers could think themselves privileged.

And then for the generations of later pipe smokers who are trying to be precise when alluding to capacity to still be terming it a "Dunhill group X" perpetuates the myth that this has meaning, when in fact it was a silly convention from its origin.

I think of nothing sillier than to use the words "group X" to describe the capacity for one class of pipe and the same words to describe the capacity of another simply because of shape and finish.

Such nonsense! To me the whole thing thinks and stinks of British snobbery.

 

[MisterE]

It's a scam, I say!

 

[monbla256]

I assert that the purpose of communication is to communicate, and thus the purpose of assigning a size is to communicate it to someone else in the pipe world. What good does it afford anyone, then, if Dunhill assigns size idiosyncratically? So those among the Dunhill initiates can communicate privately with each other? This issue is simply about the capacity of their pipes. It is not a trade secret. Perhaps erratically assigning size was a way to befuddle the masses and thus the Dunhill makers could think themselves privileged.

And then for the generations of later pipe smokers who are trying to be precise when alluding to capacity to still be terming it a "Dunhill group X" perpetuates the myth that this has meaning, when in fact it was a silly convention from its origin.

I think of nothing sillier than to use the words "group X" to describe the capacity for one class of pipe and the same words to describe the capacity of another simply because of shape and finish.

Such nonsense! To me the whole thing thinks and stinks of British snobbery.

Then don't buy any of their pipes and while we are on the subject of snobbery, what about the UN-AVAILABILITY of all these Brit 'bacs due to the firms refusal to change production methods to meet market demand? Guess with your viewpoint, one would have to NOT buy and smoke them? I could care less how" in-accurate" they are as I go by what it looks, feels and how well it's made and if I can afford it as far as a pipe goes. Life's to short to get hung up in all the OCD "details" JMHO :twisted:

 

[KevinM]

It's a scam, I say!

Aye. And a successful one at that. Could also be a marketing gimmick. Sure, you have a group 4 shell billiard, but how about a group 2 for dog walking? What's that proverb, something like, "An enthusiast and his money are soon parted."

 

[Harlock999]

Exempting the occasional true anomaly, like a KKKKK grade, Castello's batch grading practice would seem to throw a huge wrench into the notion of any kind of grading system.
And I'm ok with that. Gives the brand character.
Beyond describing the pipe in only the most generalized sense, the various numbers and letters stamped on Dunhills and Castello's seem more like quaint reminders of an antiquated system that pre-dates the modern practice of buying items sight unseen over the Internet while at the time obsessing over minute details. A contradictory process at the very least.
I'm guessing that the various Groups and K's worked fine when purchasing a pipe the old fashioned way; in a shop, serviced by knowledgable staff, with the actual item in hand.
Ditching grading "systems" and photographing all pipes on a sterile grid of 1"x1" squares would work too, but would be kind of boring.

 

[monbla256]

Exempting the occasional true anomaly, like a KKKKK grade, Castello's batch grading practice would seem to throw a huge wrench into the notion of any kind of grading system.
And I'm ok with that. Gives the brand character.
Beyond describing the pipe in only the most generalized sense, the various numbers and letters stamped on Dunhills and Castello's seem more like quaint reminders of an antiquated system that pre-dates the modern practice of buying items sight unseen over the Internet while at the time obsessing over minute details.
I'm guessing that the various Groups and K's worked fine when purchasing a pipe the old fashioned way; in a shop, serviced by knowledgable staff, with the actual item in hand.
Ditching grading "systems" and photographing all pipes on a sterile grid of 1"x1" squares would work too, but would be kind of boring.

VERY GOOD points Harlock. Unfortunately for so many smokers these days, that way of pipe purchasing is probably gone forever. I have been able to experience it and during the years I did, I got a "feel" for what these firms meant by the various systems they each used. As they say, "... ya pays your money, ya take your chances" Such is life :twisted:

 

[sisyphus]

Then this Dunhill sizing is completely unreliable, in the sense of being able to replicate test results. Person A beholds a Dunhill pipe of type 1 and says it is a three; person B beholds type 2 and says it's a 1.

I strongly disagree with this.

The Dunhill group size cannot be generalized. You can't say that a 1.5" chamber depth with a 3/4" bore is a group 4, because you'll find group 3s that match those criteria.

However

once you're familiar with the difference between a group 3 Lovat and a group 3 Dublin, and the difference between a group 3 billiard's size compared to a group 4 billiard's size, and you multiply that by all the shapes in their catalog, you know the difference between a group 3 billiard and a group 4 billiard, etc etc etc, and this information can be applied to pipes made by other makers who made similar shapes.

It takes a while.

The reason this is useful is that someone else out there has gone through this exact same experience, so when you say that Lovat is a group 3, they know exactly what you mean. When I look at an Orlik shape 20 billiard I just know it's a group 4 without even thinking it, just the same as I know it's a billiard. That is the dividend of many, many English pipes coming into my hands over time.

Frankly if you're not into English pipes you shouldn't be using group sizes anyway. These general shape size and capacities can be applied to all pipes, but unless you're into the English stuff they're just numbers with no reference. A guy who has always smoked Petes or Savinellis likely has no idea what a group 4 is, nor really do they ever need to, and when they start throwing group sizes around they're usually wrong.

 

[alfredo_buscatti]

Mr. Monbla, I find you extremely defensive and opinionated, at the same time. I must congratulate you on that.

1. None of my posts said a word about the quality of Dunhill pipes; moreover, it is no concern of mine what pipes you smoke.
2. The motives behind SG's (I presume) choice of markets has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
3. Calling me or anything about my opinions "OCD" is distinctly not your province. I'm sure I know my psychiatric jargon better than you. Pray continue, you might persuade me to use it. A simple analysis of capacity illustrates your lack of it.

But in the end I'll probably withdraw from the discussion and let you sputter on; you're being ridiculous, old man.

 

[monbla256]

Mr. Monbla, I find you extremely defensive and opinionated, at the same time. I must congratulate you on that.

1. None of my posts said a word about the quality of Dunhill pipes; moreover, it is no concern of mine what pipes you smoke.
2. The motives behind SG's (I presume) choice of markets has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
3. Calling me or anything about my opinions "OCD" is distinctly not your province. I'm sure I know my psychiatric jargon better than you. Pray continue, you might persuade me to use it. A simple analysis of capacity illustrates your lack of it.

But in the end I'll probably withdraw from the discussion and let you sputter on; you're being ridiculous, old man.

As Kyle says "meh" :twisted: ( 58 huh? you're getting close :twisted: ) After re-reading things you've written, you maintain that you are NOT opinionated ? Interesting :twisted: :twisted:

 

[alfredo_buscatti]

Never said I wasn't opinionated. But when I chase after meaning and find only nonsense, I label it as such, whether it stems from vaunted pipe makers or old men that blow hot, and hard.

 

[monbla256]

Never said I wasn't opinionated. But when I chase after meaning and find only nonsense, I label it as such, whether it stems from vaunted pipe makers or old men that blow hot, and hard.

Blah, Blah, Blah. Whatever you say. :twisted:

 

[MisterE]

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! Asshole!"

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