Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Pipes & Tobacco
General Pipe Discussion
Dunhill Group Sizes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support Brothers of Briar:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="alfredo_buscatti" data-source="post: 312259" data-attributes="member: 36"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="alfredo_buscatti, post: 312259, member: 36"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Pipes & Tobacco
General Pipe Discussion
Dunhill Group Sizes
Top