pipemakersforum.com

A while ago I bought a 1964 Dunhill Prince and fell in love with it. Therefore I decided to try and make a sandblasted sibling for myself. Well, I'm very new to sandblasting, this was my second sandblast, and the sibling turned into more of a distant cousin. I've added the Dunhill for comparison. Thanks for looking!

That depends on your view of what shaping and family relation is. Your rendition looks daintier, trimmed its waistline, and has a slightly more arcing stem, but in my eyes, they sure look like siblings.

I'm a big fan of the prince shape. Solid work!

I like yours better.

A very close match to the original without the bowl being pinched above the shank on the profile view.

You probably already see that on the 6th picture your bowl has the widest part a bit too close to the top of the bowl. Other than that, you have a very nice pipe. Keep up the good work!

Was the idea to make a true duplicate (except for the blast. of course), or an "inspired by" sort of pipe?

swilly wrote:That depends on your view of what shaping and family relation is. Your rendition looks daintier, trimmed its waistline, and has a slightly more arcing stem, but in my eyes, they sure look like siblings.

I'm a big fan of the prince shape. Solid work!

Thanks!

sandahlpipe wrote:I like yours better.

A very close match to the original without the bowl being pinched above the shank on the profile view.

You probably already see that on the 6th picture your bowl has the widest part a bit too close to the top of the bowl. Other than that, you have a very nice pipe. Keep up the good work!

Thank you!

There was some issues with the height of the bowl, first it was too high, then I took off too much. Also being new to blasting, I think I left too much meat in the wrong places, and the other way around.

LatakiaLover wrote:Was the idea to make a true duplicate (except for the blast. of course), or an "inspired by" sort of pipe?

Well, I wanted to get as close to the original as possible, but made no assumption I would be able to get it 100%, especially considering I was going for the blasting from the start. So you might say I was going for a duplicate but had no faith in it...

Lundell wrote: Well, I wanted to get as close to the original as possible...

In that case, here is the missed stuff. The things that would scream "fake" if someone tried to sell it as a Dunhill (not counting the stamping and missing dot, of course).

Stummel:

-- Too much wood mass above the midpoint of the bowl, and not enough below it

-- No "step kink" where the shank meets the bowl along the bottom (meaning you mated the shank and bowl flush along the bottom instead of raising the shank appx 1/2 mm)

-- It's difficult to be sure from the pics, but your tobacco chamber looks to be parallel-sided w/a 180-degree rounded bottom (like it was cut with a half round end mill). Dunhill's chambers are faintly conical, which gives a parabolic feel to the bottom when looking into them.

-- The masking ring at the end of the shank


Stem:

-- The stem's bite zone---and resulting end-on profile of the button---is slightly too thick in the center

-- There's a bit too much material left on the outside "tips" of the button

-- The side profile of the button is slightly too wedge shaped / steeply angled (high on the bowl side)

-- The slot looks to be square-ended instead of 180-degree rounded

-- The flare rate of the fishtail is slightly too gradual

-- The concave "dishing" of the end-face of the button is slightly too shallow


The good news is all but the first three are the result of too much material, not too little, so are still correctible if you're so inclined.

The blast itself looks quite Dunhill-y in depth & detail, and the stem's side profile is better than the original.

I can't tell from the pics if you captured the red undertone & highlights of an early-ish Dunhill Shell finish or not. (It's really difficult, so congrats if you did.)

Overall, quite a nice job. And tackling a Prince demonstrates that you are an especially Manly Man.

I think George nailed all the things that make this pipe not an exact replica. That being said, I think your stem looks better than the original.

On the stummel, I agree with everything George noted. I'll add that, when viewed from the bottom, there's an unequal amount of meat on each side of the shank where it meets the bowl. More on the left hand side than on the right. That could just be lighting, however.

Overall, this is a really really good attempt at a copy.

I made a copy of an old Sasieni Canadian for a guy a while back. It was the best thing I could have done from a technical standpoint. It really helped define what I needed to tighten up in my shaping because I had a visual to show me exactly what I had missed.

George has nailed what you missed in the "exact match" department.

I think your stem is great! From the side view, the subtle bend and the way it flows into the shank is spot on, IMO. Not an easy accomplishment. The stem on a prince is probably one of the hardest to make for me because of the subtly of the bend. Well done!

George is right of course, even about the chamber, which impresses me most! That, and the fact he spotted me as an especially manly man!
And no, I didn't get the red undertone right.

The bowl being top heavy and a bit uneven left to right I'm going to blame my lack of sandblasting skills mostly. It looked better, but probably not perfect, before the blast.

I'm glad you're liking my stem, as it was a nerve wrecking, time consuming pain to make. And that's probably part of the reason why I didn't get it looking more like the Dunhill. I was afraid to mess it up and see all that time wasted. But I'm pleased with the results anyway.

And Scottie is right about the learning you get by trying to copy something that is right there in front of you. I know if I had tried making a prince from my own head it wouldn't have come out this good!

Thank you all for taking your time to look and comment on my work, I really really appreciate it a lot!

d.huber wrote:IThat being said, I think your stem looks better than the original.

Definitely.

The original is unusually funky, though. One of those, "How did Dunhill QA ever green light this?" specimens. The shop still had its shit together in '64.

Funny: Holding back and NOT making a Danish-class stem for old Britwood is a part of the duplication game, but surprisingly difficult & stressful for perfection seekers. Replicating the off-center and tilted slot like the original's in the pics, for example, or the over-sanded / too-thin-for-the-shank look is a screechy, howly business psychologically.

Nice pipe. The only thing that really catches my eye is the bowl profile from behind. Dunhill aside, I would prefer to see it more rounded. I agree with the above comments: your stem is nicer than the original. The back of your bowl could use a tad more wood on it, but it's easy to over blast.