Adjusting the Lines of a Dunhill Shape 56

[AroEnglish]

The problem with trying to change reality via willful self-delusion (either internally generated or coerced Winston Smith-style, the result is the same), is that it doesn't work.

Put another way, those BMI charts are created from empirical evidence, and what's being measured is binary. Biological organisms are either dead or alive. There is no "C".

fat model died from obesity - Google Search

www.google.com

View attachment 284455

I’m so glad I finally have a label that fits me: infini-fat.

 

[ssjones]

You are a bold man George, with the skills to pull it off. I suspect you are a crowd of one these days.
I forgot that the 56 shape is a mini-me of the 120.
Most 120's seem to be proportioned similar to the Sasieni VLS, mine below, or did I get lucky?

Did the smaller 56, with less real estate to work with make the proportion ratio more challenger to the Dunhill carver?

 

[runscott]

I like it. Wouldn't have noticed the problem unless you had shown the end result.

But...hand-blasting isn't a skill I'm ready to add to my arsenal, so I'll have to let bloated pipes lie.

 

[runscott]

You are a bold man George, with the skills to pull it off. I suspect you are a crowd of one these days.
I forgot that the 56 shape is a mini-me of the 120.
Most 120's seem to be proportioned similar to the Sasieni VLS, mine below, or did I get lucky?

Did the smaller 56, with less real estate to work with make the proportion ratio more challenger to the Dunhill carver?

I know there is variance in these shapes, but my 56's have noticeably sharper shank angles than my 120's. I have a single lonely 9 that has about the same angle as the 120's, but the 120 is a touch steeper.

Top to bottom: large bowl 1958 '56, small bowl 1935 '120, 1924 '9' (the stems of the 56 and 9 are not original, so I didn't bother confusing people by showing them )

 

[ssjones]

I blame George for reminding me that I didn't have a Shape 56. I stumbled over this 1961 example, my birth year.
This one is 35 grams.

 

[Bbailey324]

I blame George for reminding me that I didn't have a Shape 56. I stumbled over this 1961 example, my birth year.
This one is 35 grams.

View attachment 287157

Wonderful sandblast on that pipe!

 

[runscott]

I blame George for reminding me that I didn't have a Shape 56. I stumbled over this 1961 example, my birth year.
This one is 35 grams.

View attachment 287155View attachment 287156View attachment 287157

Wow - that's as good a blast as I've seen on a 1960's Dunhill. Really superb! The 56 I showed above is my birth-year, and the 120 is my Dad's.

 

[Madhatter-boi-]

My perfectionator never stops zeroing in on things to perfectionize.

Last week I took a 1956 Dunhill shape 56 from my rack to snap a photo of its manufacture date to help someone determine if their Dunhill was from 1956 or 1966.

When I did, I noticed I hadn't smoked it in years.

I thought about why, and realized it was because the stem/shank transition was clunky. Specifically, the shank was "bloated" and leveling at the time of manufacture had been done heavy handedly.

It was noticeable in profile, and outright wince-inducing when seen from above (though no photos of that... I didn't plan on making a thread out of this).



View attachment 284245




What to do? Put the shank on a diet, of course. Reduce its diameter so it flows into the stem the way it should have to start with.

It's mucher gooder now, and smoking it is a pleasure. (It's being puffed on as I type)

Don't know why I didn't do it years ago. It's a fine smoking, friendly little guy.



View attachment 284247

It looks marvelous! Pray tell, what did you do to adjust it?

 

[Madhatter-boi-]

Looks marvelous!