The Guildhall London Pipe 5

The Guildhall London Pipe 5

England, 1950-70s

This is the sister of our represented below Guildhall’s apple. The same time, the same manufacturer, the same excellent quality of a briar, the same three shining aluminium stripes. We had a bit more efforts for the mouthpiece restoration and the repair point is slightly remarcable. Therefore our generall score will be, say, 4.9.

The pipe markings are “The Guildhall London Pipe”, “Made in London England” and “5”.  The lenghts is 14.3 cm, bowl’s hight is 5.0 cm. External and internal diameters of this bowl are 3.0 cm and 2.0 cm. The depth is 4.0 cm and this pipe weights 30 gr. Briar, vulcanite stem, no filter. The overall score is 4.9.

Similar Posts

  • COMOY’S Everyman 6

    England, 1950-70s A pleasant representative of the very popular Comoy’s second line from the 1950-70s. Traditional English middle size billiard becomes an eye-catching, unusual and even a bit “freehandish” look with the newly made fancy acrylic stem.

  • The Guildhall London Pipe 164

    England, 1950-70s There was a legend about a white spot, which was made out of a whole elephant. That is why all pipes with the white spot are so expensive. Perhaps these three aluminium stripes on Guildhall pipes were made from German bombers which were shot-down over London. And as far as there were no…

  • COMOY’S Kent 309T unsmoked

    England, 1980s The shape number 309 is perhaps the most successful and popular Comoy’s canadian shape and became already a kind of a standard. Therefore we’re really happy to offer you this legendary, shiny, capacious and unsmoked (!)  Comoy’s canadian pipe made after 1980. The pipe markings are “COMOY’S / KENT”, “MADE \ IN \…

  • COMOY’S Carlyle 296

    England, 1930s Both stampings and the shape number (296 for a canadian)  testify that it’s a Comoy’s creature. Moreover such the stamping in a circle with “MADE” at the top, “IN” in the middle, and “ENGLAND” forming the bottom of the circle proves that the pipe was undoubtedly made not later than in the 1930s…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *