Thus when faced with seeming inconsistencies (e.g. Gomersall as simply saying that early Dunhill nomenclature is not without its complexities, that the factory records are incomplete for this time period, and the time increasingly distant. Gomersall’s comments differently, for I have found that with respect to Dunhill nomenclature, seeming inconsistencies when viewed with sufficient nomenclature examples or given thought do in fact reveal a fairly consistent logic. The markings have to be taken as points of evidence and weighed in the balance of experience and ‘feel’, for at times all the factors do not add up for the uninitiated to make a positive judgment."Alfred Dunhill was very much a perfectionist, and while inconsistency and inadvertent omission are a necessary part of the human condition, I interpret Mr. "We hope you can appreciate that it is only with some trepidation we issue information on this subject especially in reference form, for from our experience, the interpretation of such data, can be and often is, much adrift. Similarly, Michael Friedberg in his ’89 article on early Dunhill dating advised that "In the early years, Dunhill was not always consistent in its stampings." quoting for support Dunhill archivist Gomersall’s letter to the effect that: I’m not sure whether it was Barry Levin or Bob Hamlin who first recounted the story of a visit to a famous pipe maker who explained that some nomenclature changes were simply the result of mislaying the right stamping tool and then later finding it again, but the point is not all pipe nomenclature is consistent or lends itself to ‘logical’ explanation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |