Dunhill 197 Copy

[d.huber]

It's been a personal goal of mine to make an English billiard by shaping first so when a commissioner asked me to do a Dunhill copy, I jumped at the chance. He sent me his Dunhill 197 so I would have it as a reference point during the process. The 197 isn't a classic billiard for sure, but it was great practice.

Critique is welcome and encouraged!

[JMG]

Well...for starters, your stem looks nothing like the original. GEEZE! How did you not catch that one? Yours is red for Pete's sake.

Seriously though, the only thing I see that really sticks out to me is that the Dunhill's shanks appears to have just a bit more taper and flare from bowl to stem than yours does. That being said, I like yours better. That blast is killer.

[JMG]

I hope this doesn't come across as an insult, but your blast reminds me a lot of an old Dr. Grabow (though yours is better) that I found in a flea market about 6 months back.

[baweaverpipes]

One of my FAVORITE Dunhill shapes!
Good job!

[LatakiaLover]

Yup, sorry... The red stem is indeed a giveaway. (How DID you miss it?)

The shank taper on Dunnies is a two stage thing. The overall shank itself is never truly cylindrical, but faintly conical, and there's always a bit of further tapering in the 1/4" or so before the stem. A leveling artifact from before blasting, I suspect. It's subtle, but always there.

Your blast is a little too Weaver-ish for a Dunnie, as well. Arguably better because of it, but that's not the aim of the exercise. For a convincing copy you'll need to find a combination of media, pressure, and exposure time that results in something slightly more pebbly/softer.

Your stem's button isn't even close (but you already know that). Pre-1970's Dunhill buttons and bite zones are surprisingly flat, while the sides AT the button are always sharp, never rounded. It's a difficult combination to get just right the first few times. Also, you have a slight, but perceptible "ballooning" of the entire stem, at least the top and bottom. Check with a straight edge. Pre-70's Dunhills never had even a trace of that (though quite a few from the 70's did). Many of the longer ones up through the early 60's were even microscopically concave.

I can't tell for sure from the pics whether or not you captured the reddish highlights of a Shell, but my guess is no. Yours looks uniformly black. Getting it just right is a tricky business.

Finally, no Dunhill of any era ever had a masking ring at the end of the shank, no matter how narrow. Getting everything to transition properly and flow smoothly without one is critical. I don't know how the factory used to do it, though. (I just replicate a given pipe's blast texture by hand. It's easier, simpler and faster for one-offs, though not practical as a production technique.)

Here's an example: (Gimme a call if you want to talk through any of this stuff)

[d.huber]

I hope this doesn't come across as an insult, but your blast reminds me a lot of an old Dr. Grabow (though yours is better) that I found in a flea market about 6 months back.

Nah, not an insult at all. I see what you're referring to.

Thanks for the compliments!

[d.huber]

One of my FAVORITE Dunhill shapes!
Good job!

Thank you, Bruce! Now that I've had the time to study it, I'm a big fan myself. I have to admit that it wasn't easy mailing these off.

[d.huber]

George, you da man!

I think you pretty much hit everything that makes this pipe fail as a copy. Your exacting comments (which address exactly what I asked for) point out something important to me about my approach to this exercise. I realized that even though I've been thinking "copy, copy, copy" the whole time, I've also had "boy that's ugly, I'm gonna do something different" running through my mind about certain aspects as well. I think my true aim was to copy the shape while fixing the things about the pipe that I didn't like or thought could be better. So, even though I said "copy" I guess I didn't actually mean "copy." Copy?

Yup, sorry... The red stem is indeed a giveaway. (How DID you miss it?)

Lol! This was something the customer wanted. I think it works pretty well with the stummel in person. The stummel isn't actually black (but no one would guess from the photos). It's black over British Tan with some of the black wiped away to expose orange highlights in the grain and on the high spots. I just suck at photography.

The shank taper on Dunnies is a two stage thing. The overall shank itself is never truly cylindrical, but faintly conical, and there's always a bit of further tapering in the 1/4" or so before the stem. A leveling artifact from before blasting, I suspect. It's subtle, but always there.

That's really interesting! I didn't realize that this was a consistent Dunny move. That's the ugliest aspect of the original, IMO.

Your blast is a little too Weaver-ish for a Dunnie, as well. Arguably better because of it, but that's not the aim of the exercise. For a convincing copy you'll need to find a combination of media, pressure, and exposure time that results in something slightly more pebbly/softer.

You're 100% right. If I had been aiming for a true recreation, the blast is all wrong.

However, and maybe this is the whipper-snapper in me, I think blasts from the likes of Bruce put Dunny blasts to shame.

Your stem's button isn't even close (but you already know that). Pre-1970's Dunhill buttons and bite zones are surprisingly flat, while the sides AT the button are always sharp, never rounded. It's a difficult combination to get just right the first few times. Also, you have a slight, but perceptible "ballooning" of the entire stem, at least the top and bottom. Check with a straight edge. Pre-70's Dunhills never had even a trace of that (though quite a few from the 70's did). Many of the longer ones up through the early 60's were even microscopically concave.

Thank you! This is awesome! I feel like I'm getting a deeper education on what Dunhill normally does in their production.

The stem was another of those aspects that I decided to change to "improve" the design. I know that there are a lot of Dunnies whose stems carry a convex line into the stem's taper so I thought that would be appropriate and look nicer here.

For Dunhill's longer stems, is it just the newer production (last 40 years or so) that have the convex lines?

I can't tell for sure from the pics whether or not you captured the reddish highlights of a Shell, but my guess is no. Yours looks uniformly black. Getting it just right is a tricky business.

Yup, you guessed correctly. I wanted to mimic the finish, but not mirror it. The stummel I made is dark with orange highlights in person, repeating the color scheme of the stem with the color focus reversed.

Finally, no Dunhill of any era ever had a masking ring at the end of the shank, no matter how narrow. Getting everything to transition properly and flow smoothly without one is critical. I don't know how the factory used to do it, though. (I just replicate a given pipe's blast texture by hand. It's easier, simpler and faster for one-offs, though not practical as a production technique.)

I was torn about blasting to the stem on this one. As I got close to the final shape before blasting, I was a little concerned that I hadn't left enough meat on the shank and I think that's visible on the top line as the shank approaches the bowl. In order to save myself extra work if I blasted too deep, I opted for the masking ring.

Thanks a lot, George!

[LatakiaLover]

10-4 that copying can mean "capturing the essence of" as opposed to literal imitation. Adam Davidson and Mike Lindner both produce occasional Dunhill semi-replicas along that line. Keeping the strengths and improving the weaknesses makes perfect sense... Kind of like those classic-on-the-outside-but-modern-on-the-inside AC Cobra cars that are available these days. Best of both worlds.

Most of the Old BritWood guys I work with prize originality, authenticity, and undetectable fixes, though, which is why I tend to get literal minded when people post "critique my copy" photos.

[d.huber]

10-4 that copying can mean "capturing the essence of" as opposed to literal imitation. Adam Davidson and Mike Lindner both produce occasional Dunhill semi-replicas along that line. Keeping the strengths and improving the weaknesses makes perfect sense... Kind of like those classic-on-the-outside-but-modern-on-the-inside AC Cobra cars that are available these days. Best of both worlds.

Most of the Old BritWood guys I work with prize originality, authenticity, and undetectable fixes, though, which is why I tend to get literal minded when people post "critique my copy" photos.

Absolutely. I really appreciate that you went there. I would've been disappointed if you hadn't.

[sethile]

Nice work, David! That's a beautiful version of a classic shape and I like your liberties with it a lot... Hopefully your client appreciates them too... I suspect they will love this pipe! And if for some reason they really wanted an exact replica they should have looked for another Dunhill rather than asking you to make one for them.

[d.huber]

Nice work, David! That's a beautiful version of a classic shape and I like your liberties with it a lot... Hopefully your client appreciates them too... I suspect they will love this pipe! And if for some reason they really wanted an exact replica they should have looked for another Dunhill rather than asking you to make one for them.

Thank you, Scott!

I was fortunate that the customer asked for "my version" of the Dunhill 197. I talked him into sending me his so I had something in hand to work from. Based on his response (another commission) he liked it!