Looking for info on this bowlback

[pete.daw]

Hi folks,
I've been around the cafe for some time, but never posted on the forum. I am hoping someone can provide some info for me on a bowlback I just acquired. The tag on the inside says Maurer 'New Model'. I'm not a fan of playing a bowlback so my hope is to trade this eventually. I'm just trying to figure out the value of this thing. It's structurally sound, but has some cosmetic issues. Some scratches on the top and a ding on the back. I haven't put new strings on it yet, but tuned it up yesterday and it has a big sound even with the old strings. Any info would be very much appreciated! Thanks!!

[allenhopkins]

The "Maurer" label of course raises the tantalizing prospect of a valuable instrument made by the famous Larson brothers of Chicago.

A Larson guitar website states the following:

The Larson brothers set out from the ashes of the Cubley factory [in 1892]in search of work and found employment across town at Maurer Mandolin and Guitars. Robert Maurer was a music teacher and seller of guitars and other stringed instruments. The Larsons toiled as Maurer’s minions until 1900, when August and two investors purchased the ailing owner’s factory for $2,500. A few years later, the brothers most likely bought out the other investors and set out as partners in Maurer & Company. Carl and August were the company’s owners and its only two employees.

From the very beginning, the brothers built, in George Gruhn’s words, “exceptional instruments,” handmade in the truest sense of the word; neighborhoods like the Larsons’ did not receive electricity until the 1910s. In 1912, William Stahl proclaimed without hyperbole in his catalog that the Larson-made guitars he distributed were built by “hammer and hand.” He also accurately characterized the instruments as exhibiting an “artistic unity.”

Stahl, however, strayed dramatically from the truth when he claimed to be “the only manufacturer in the world making a specialty of manufacturing instruments for professional use”; indeed, Stahl was a music teacher, not a manufacturer. False claims of manufacture were endemic to distributors of Larson instruments, but because the Larsons were apparently unconcerned with these fictitious assertions, labels and sales literature do not provide reliable information as to the instruments’ origins.

What we do know today is that Maurer guitars built post-1900 and all instruments branded Euphonon, Prairie State or W. J. Dyer were created exclusively by the Larsons’ hands. Those branded W. M. Stahl and Stetson were usually Larson-made, and, on occasion, the Larsons built instruments for Leland, Southern California Music Company, C.Bruno, H. F. Meyer and Regal. To this day, Larson instruments appear in places like eBay bearing the labels of previously unknown makers (F.W. Winter, anyone?).

However, one should not get one's hopes up too far. Maurer was in the mandolin business before the Larsons went to work there, so there's no guarantee that a Maurer bowl-back was Larson-made. The "Larsons made it" guarantee apparently only applies to Maurer guitars made after 1900. This is an inexpensive mandolin, as shown by the lesser number of ribs in the bowl, and the lack of ornamentation. You can be pretty sure it's Chicago-made, somewhere around 1900, and it looks a decent instrument in good condition. The bowl is rosewood, a plus, and the old case is also a plus.

If you could do some comparative Google research and establish that it's Larson-made, you could flirt with a four-figure asking price, on the basis of its pedigree. (Not that it would be that much better than a contemporary non-Larson mandolin, but Larson-made instruments are highly collectible.) Even if it's not Larson-made -- which I'd say is likelier -- the "Maurer" name, and its association with the Larson brothers, does add a bit of a premium. So perhaps $3-500 as a start, with willingness to bargain. Were it from another recognized, but "non-Larson" Chicago maker, I'd say maybe half that -- though that neat old case is a good selling point.

[Bob A]

The last Maurer I saw - and this was nearly a decade ago (not because they're scarce, though they sort of are, but because I haven't been looking) - was about the same level of ornament as yours, though the bowl had alternating rosewood and maple ribs. It lingered in the marketplace for several months, and was sold for about 550, as I recall.

Larsons made nice bowlbacks. I have an ornate Stahl, and it is no shrinking violet, sound-wise. The fellow I bought it from used to enjoy letting people play it, and watching their amazement at the volume of sound it would out out. "An efficient transducer" was the phrase he used.

Strings are important. Dogal Calace RW92b or Fisoma Consort are the ones I run on my bowls. Beware of strings made for Gibson-style instruments, the tension will damage your instrument. The ones I mentioned abouve are pricey - about twenty bucks a set - but they last a long time and are held in high regard. They differ one from another, with the Consort being bronze and the Dogals being steel-wound. Doubtless there are other brands available, but I'm not familiar enough to make any recommendations.

[brunello97]

I think it is a bit on the reckless side to even hint at this mandolin being a Larson product. I know I wind up being the 'doubting Thomas' viz the Larsons, but this example shows just about zero resemblance to anything of the Larsons in terms of style or detailing.

The "Mauer = Larson" shibboleth is one of the most misleading bits of information that gets propagated around here. Allen is being incredibly informative as well as all too careful / polite in my mind. This is not a Larson mandolin. We have seen so many mandolins being sold as Larson on Ebay and other locations based on hopeful speculation, misattribution and the flimsiest of supposed look-alike 'evidence' with astronomical (aka ridiculous) asking prices. The Larsons as "the only two employees" apparently built more instruments than there are splinters of the True Cross.

It is no skin off my back, but I think it helps undermine some of the incredibly positive flow of useful information that comes out the collective efforts of good folks at the MC. "How do you know it's not a Larson?" you can imagine the question. Proving a negative, right? It doesn't at all look like one, would be the simple answer.

Bob is right, this could well be a nice, modest mandolin which would sound lovely with proper strings. This era of building in Chicago produced an array of decent, well built, nice sounding mandolins at affordable prices using high quality material. Not everything needs to be a Larson to be a decent little mandolin. If this sold for $300 I think it would be time for a happy dance, and a good third of that price would be for the case.

I don't mean to be an Eeyore. The idea of this being a 'four figure mandolin' is hallucinatory. Even Bob Hartman has been backing off on some of his (excessive) claims of the Larsons supposed output.

Mick

[pete.daw]

Thanks everyone for the info. I did some research yesterday. I am not well educated on this kind of thing so the idea that this had the possibility of being a Larson-built instrument never crossed my mind. From what I've seen this differs significantly from any of the Larson bowl backs I could find. Just to be sure I emailed someone at the Larson Guitar Registry website. His response was that the first tip off that it is NOT a Larson made instrument is the full rather than half sound hole binding.
Learn something new everyday! I'm glad to have gotten some insight here. Ill assume that what I have is about a 300$ mandolin and perhaps try to trade it in the near future.

[DavidKOS]

From what I've seen this differs significantly from any of the Larson bowl backs I could find. Just to be sure I emailed someone at the Larson Guitar Registry website. His response was that the first tip off that it is NOT a Larson made instrument is the full rather than half sound hole binding.
.

Maybe a Chicago made mandolin? Lyon and Healy and others made lots of them with similar features. Experts, what do you guys think?

[allenhopkins]

Maybe a Chicago made mandolin?...

Think that pretty much goes without saying. Maurer, a Chicago music teacher and seller, apparently didn't build; he taught music, got local builders to make instruments for him under his label. He hired the Larsons to build for him. So "pre-Larson," if that's what this instrument is, he would have obtained it from another local builder -- could have been Lyon & Healy, or one of the other area builders.

[Jim Garber]

Here is a very similar Maurer from my files. The fretboard extension seems to be a Maurer feature. No weighing in here on the Larson connection tho anything is possible.

[brunello97]

Yup. Here we go: "Possible Larson mandolin....."

Mick

[Jim Garber]

Yup. Here we go: "Possible Larson mandolin....."

Sorry, Mick, but it is possible, esp with the Maurer brand mark. Whatever can you do?

[allenhopkins]

The fact that the Larsons never signed their work, and built instruments under a variety of labels, makes the whole "Is it a Larson?" issue more ambiguous. There are distinctive features that help ID Larson guitars and flat-back mandolins, but I'm not "up" on how you'd ID a Larson bowl-back.

The Larsons were indubitably involved with the Maurer label for an extended period of time, so an instrument labeled "Maurer" at least hints at their manufacture. You've gotten some insight on such matters as the soundhole binding, which seems to indicate that the Larsons didn't build this one. And, in any case, it's pretty much a "plain Jane," though decently constructed.

So, in terms of its value -- which is what you asked about -- the "Maurer" label adds to the value, mainly due to the Larsons' association with that company. Probably can't be established definitively whether they built this one or not, at least not by us. So the ambiguity is in your favor. As is the period case. "Possible Larson" is definitely as close as we can get to a firm attribution.

[brunello97]

The fact that the Larsons never signed their work, and built instruments under a variety of labels, makes the whole "Is it a Larson?" issue more ambiguous. There are distinctive features that help ID Larson guitars and flat-back mandolins, but I'm not "up" on how you'd ID a Larson bowl-back....

And this one doesn't have any of them, Allen.

To me this kind of speculation grows wearisome. Because there is some apparent link between the Larsons and Mauer, then every Mauer becomes a "possible" Larson. The same thing happens with "Loar Era" Gibsons--but at least there is some documented evidence to support that. Sure its a possible Larson. But it's probably not a Larson, so why not speculate on that?

That would be a great ebay ad: "Vintage Bowlback Mandolin: Probably NOT a Larson."

I have no quarrel with shoot-the-shixx talk between friends wondering about the provenance of their instruments. When "Possible Larson" gets turned into a sales pitch is when I get chapped. You see it all too often. Just about any mandolin coming out of the Midwest that can't be directly attributed to L+H, Regal or Gibson winds up a "Possible Larson". That's not too much of an exaggeration. How did two guys make all those instruments in addition to all the guitars they were building?

All this does is inflate prices, and conflate information and confuse sellers and buyers. "Possible" turns into "Maybe" into "Likely" into more misinformation. It has more to do with people's hopes of discovering an unknown prize than in trying to determine what is real and what is myth. Ambiguity turns into a sales angle or a way to inflate the assumed value of something. People scrape off historical labels from mandolins dreaming that there is a prize label underneath. One piece of speculative history gets written on a website somewhere and then is cited over and over as "fact". Frankly, I think the first edition of Bob Hartman's book is a mess, poorly organized and full of both great information and a lot of ungrounded hypotheses, if not specious material. There. I said it.

"Whatever can you do?" We can stop this kind of speculative talk.......

I know my Larson-debunking can start to sound like whining around here, but the confused speculation goes on and on and on.

There's my rant. I'm pixxing in the wind.

Mick

[allenhopkins]

OK, but --

1. There is "a link between the Larsons and Maurer." So some instruments labeled "Maurer" were made by the Larson brothers; others weren't. Which is this one? Can we tell, without a doubt?

2. OP asked about the value of this mandolin. IMHO, part of ascertaining that value is recognizing the Larson-Maurer linkage. As I opined earlier, the possibility that it's Larson-made, whether it is or not, enhances that value.

3. Carl and August Larson didn't sign their instruments -- probably never occurred to them. They were a couple of craftsmen, building stringed instruments for a variety of Midwest sellers, no big deal. We can pretty much determine which Gibson F-5's Lloyd Loar inspected and signed, though a few "unsigned" mandolins seem to bear the same characteristics as the ones he signed. As to "Loar era" but non-F-5 Gibson mandolins, all that the "Loar era" designation should imply, is that Gibson made some really good instruments in the early 1920's. The Larsons built for nearly 50 years, so there are many Larson-built instruments around, labeled Maurer, Stahl, Prairie State, Stetson, Euphonon, etc. etc. Some are clearly identifiable, some less so, as far as my (admittedly limited) research seems to show.

4. Basically, I agree with you about the Hartman book, which also contains examples of "possible Larson" instruments. Probably we will not ever have a definitive archive of Larson instruments.

5. Saying that an instrument labeled "Maurer" may have been made by the Larsons is not "speculation." Saying that this particular mandolin is (or isn't) Larson-made probably is speculation. In estimating its value, omitting that speculation probably makes the estimation less accurate, rather than more so.

My 2¢, and I'm outta here...