Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: BBB Bent Billiard c.1920

  1. #21
    PSU Member Piffyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Real Name
    Anthony
    Pipe smoker since
    2014
    Posts
    3,487


    3 members Liked or found this post helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by sablebrush52 View Post
    As we all now know, the "MADE IN LONDON" or "MADE IN ENGLAND" stamps are legally proof of nothing.
    In the states, there is (or at least was) some legal requirements regarding COM stamps. In 1936, Wally Frank was smacked down by the FTC for, among other things, misleading COM stamps that could lead buyers to believe a pipe was of British manufacturer when it actually wasn't...



    Who knows how much those regulations have changed since then though? I suppose that's why Peterson and Dunhill simply dropped the "MADE IN" part.
    Follow me and watch calamity ensue: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

  2. #22


    2 members Liked or found this post helpful.

    That's a sweet BBB Wes!
    A stone cold classic indeed and looks to be quite pristine with lovely grain to boot.
    Congrats and smoke thee well.

    I think Anthony has covered everything with his excellent research,
    but I'll offer up this interesting article from The Tobacco World, October 1st 1916




    Bonus 1911 advert!


  3. #23


    4 members Liked or found this post helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Piffyr View Post
    In the states, there is (or at least was) some legal requirements regarding COM stamps. In 1936, Wally Frank was smacked down by the FTC for, among other things, misleading COM stamps that could lead buyers to believe a pipe was of British manufacturer when it actually wasn't...



    Who knows how much those regulations have changed since then though? I suppose that's why Peterson and Dunhill simply dropped the "MADE IN" part.
    GREAT FIND!

    Wow.
    Good stuff Anthony, I had never heard of this happening and it is pretty astounding stuff,
    thanks for sharing.

  4. #24
    PSU Member Piffyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Real Name
    Anthony
    Pipe smoker since
    2014
    Posts
    3,487


    3 members Liked or found this post helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by misterlowercase View Post
    GREAT FIND!

    Wow.
    Good stuff Anthony, I had never heard of this happening and it is pretty astounding stuff,
    thanks for sharing.
    The bonus is that it's an easy way to date pre-1937 Wally Frank pipes and ephemera. Here's a Wally Frank advert from '34...



    Notice the name, Wally Frank, Ltd., London, and the British Royal Coat of Arms in the logo. The later logo was similar, but it dropped the lion, the unicorn and changed some of the other details.
    Follow me and watch calamity ensue: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

  5. #25


    2 members Liked or found this post helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Piffyr View Post
    The bonus is that it's an easy way to date pre-1937 Wally Frank pipes and ephemera. Here's a Wally Frank advert from '34...



    Notice the name, Wally Frank, Ltd., London, and the British Royal Coat of Arms in the logo. The later logo was similar, but it dropped the lion, the unicorn and changed some of the other details.
    Most excellent,
    thanks.

    Veering slightly off topic,
    somehow I recently stumbled across a book called Sizzlemanship : New Tested Selling Sentences and it's only natural that the author, Elmer Wheeler used Wally Frank adcopy as good examples of "word magic"...






  6. #26
    PSU Member sablebrush52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    California
    Real Name
    Jesse Silver
    Pipe smoker since
    1971
    Posts
    274


    1 members Liked or found this post helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Piffyr View Post
    In the states, there is (or at least was) some legal requirements regarding COM stamps. In 1936, Wally Frank was smacked down by the FTC for, among other things, misleading COM stamps that could lead buyers to believe a pipe was of British manufacturer when it actually wasn't...



    Who knows how much those regulations have changed since then though? I suppose that's why Peterson and Dunhill simply dropped the "MADE IN" part.
    In 1928, Barling attempted to have the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887, as amended in 1926, be amended such that pipe manufacturers would have to state the country of origin of the bowls, since all other British manufacturers imported a significant amount of bowls from France and Germany. Dunhill threatened that they would be forced to move their operations out of England. Sasieni stated that the bowls were an inconsequential part of the pipe. Comoy flat out stated that the skills needed to turn bowls didn't exist in England, nor could they be brought to the UK on a sustainable basis. The Standing Committee of the Board of Trade ruled that pipes of foreign origin should be marked as such, but that bowls of foreign origin did not need to be so marked.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •