Slingerland Songster - built by Regal?

[nmiller]

I just acquired this 1930s Slingerland Songster. It's loud as Phillys Diller's laugh and a great player as well, with a 13 7/8" scale and a nice chunky neck.



I've read that many (if not all) Slingerland guitars and mandolins were built by Regal and Harmony. This one sure looks like a Regal instrument to me, especially the shape of the f-holes. Can anyone verify this? I'm just curious as an armchair instrument historian.

[MandoNicity]

Sorry I have no answer, but that lap guitar looks way cool!!!

JR

[bobbyburns]

That's a very cool one. I am into Regal made stuff pretty heavy. I've had quite a few Slingerland instruments. At first I thought that they were made by Kay, Regal or Harmony, but now I think that Slingerland bought a lot of parts from different makers, made some parts in house, and assemble the instruments. I have a mando exactly like yours, except the name on the head of mine is May-Bell. It isn't like any regal labeled mando I've seen, but the neck shape is Regalish. The fingerboard is the same as a lot of Harmony, Kay and Regal made mandos (I wonder if one maker supplied fingerboards to them all?). At first I thought maybe it was a Harmony, but the Supertones and Montereys and other Harmony made mando of this shape, are a little different shape, the body is deeper on the slingerland, and the upper part of the ribs close to the neck joint are constructed different than the Harmonys. The way the top arches, is also different than the Harmony. I think Slingerland may have actually made the bodies.
I'm eager to hear what some of the more experienced guys may think.

[MikeEdgerton]

Take a look at this site. Probably "the" source for all things Slingerland. I honestly think these mandolins look more like Harmony instruments but if I recall it says Slingerland was building them. I haven't been on this page in a long long time. Your mandolin is on this page.

[nmiller]

Take a look at this site.

I'm familiar with the site; unfortunately, the author doesn't know for certain either.

[F-2 Dave]

Don't know if it's Regal or Harmony, but I like it. It looks to be in great shape for 80 yrs. or so.

[bobbyburns]

The body is a little different shape than the Harmonys. Also, the ribs on the Harmony end on the end block, before they reach the neck joint. Part of what you see as rib at the neck joint is actually part of the end block wood. The ribs on the Slingerland curve all the way to the neck. The spruce top on a Harmony was steam bent into the arch and then joined (I've had a bunch of these apart and sometimes you can clearly tell from the inside that they were joined after arching), and the top on the Slingerland is more of the standard flat piece pressed into the arch and held by braces. The arch looks different.
There are a lot of A models shaped similar floating around with different names that some folks attribute to Regal, but I have yet to find one that actually says Regal on it. Most of those were Harmony made, folks just seem to want to believe they are something else. Until I see one like this labeled Regal, I'm sticking to the idea that Slingerland, or at least some place other than Harmony, Kay, or Regal, assembled them. I could not possibly count the number of Regal instruments I have owned, but there are around 40 of them in the pile right now, and I am always on the lookout for them. In the 30 or so years I have been into this, I have never seen a Regal labled mando built like the Slingerlands. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying if it's out there I REALLY want to see it.
These thinks don't bring a lot of money, but I think that they are fun to collect, just because there were so many brand names, lack of good documentation, several suppliers that overlap in weird ways, It's way more of a puzzle to find out something about your Slingerland, that It would be if you'd found a real Loar. And way fewer of them show up on the market.

PS..I'd love for someone to prove me wrong on this, and direct me to the web page with all the documentation of who's owned all the known Slingerlands made before the war. I know my interest in these cheaper instruments is weird, but I just like to root for the underdogs.

[nmiller]

I just took a look through a bunch of '30s catalogs from Harmony, Regal and several brands who sourced instruments from those builders. I didn't see a single instrument that even vaguely resembled the mandolin above or a May Bell archtop guitar I used to have (May Bell was Slingerland's cheaper sub-brand). I'm starting to agree with Bobby Burns - it looks like Slingerland did actually make these instruments.

Another piece of supporting evidence is the sparkles in the headstock inlay (see last photo). It just dawned on me that this is the same material used to cover drums (of course, Slingerland is best remembered today for their drums). Gretsch used the same kind of material on their Duo-Jet guitars - again, borrowed from Gretsch's drum department.

[barney 59]

If a company were to order from a manufacturer enough units but had specific specs that were different from the manufacturers normal line I don't think it would be unusual for a manufacturer to take that order if it could see a profit. Slingerland might not want to sell a instrument that was exactly like someone else's but I bet they had a pretty good distribution network. This is a common practice today --name brands at a Home Depot for example are not necessarily the same item you would get from someplace else, the only difference is the Home Depot item looks the same on the outside it's whats inside that is different. I would think that if someone was really up on construction technique for Regal, Harmony etc. they could tell more from looking inside the mandolin than the body shape.

[MikeEdgerton]

The Chicago builders all ordered from the same jobbers, the same suppliers, etc. I kind of lean in the direction that Slingerland could have easily built them. The trained labor pool was there and they had the facility. The only real difference I see between this and the few decent Harmony mandolins of the era (there were at least three different designs that I know of) is the headstock. The fretboard is obviously a stock part as are the tailpiece (waverly) and the bridge. I assume the same of the tuners. The true beauty of these Chicago built instruments is in seeing a nice example that obviously wasn't super expensive but wasn't plain jane either.

[Tom C]

Yes, it does look like drum material. Here is my 1932 snare drum with strings. It has original price tags on the inside.

[bobbyburns]

OK, I didn't just make up an opinion that the Slingerland is made different than the Harmony, I've actually had quite a few of them apart. Just to check myself, I went through the pile and found a few to look at.
I have a Harmony Monterey with the back off, you can see where the top center joint is, one side is a little higher than the other. This shows that no sanding was done to the inside of that top after it was joined, like it would have been if it had been glued up as a flat sheet and the pressed into shape. The to halves were steam bent into an arch, and then joined. The braces do not hold this top in it's arch, the arch in the top is firm (the back arch looks as if it is most likely pressed as a flat sheet. I have the back off another one, where you can see an imprint from the metal form it was bent over. This mando also shows the joint in the ribs before the neck joint. There are a lot of weak points in these mandos, but the arch in the top is not one of them (this only applies to Harmonys with a spruce top, the all birch ones have a different construction).
I also have the Slingerland Maybell, like the Songster above. If I hold the Harmony body on top of it, you can plainly see the shape is different. It has not got the joint in the ribs before the neck joint. The top of the Slingerland is X-braced, and I'm sure from the shape and distortion of the arch, this was glued up as a flat sheet and arched over the braces. This top would collapse with the braces removed ( it has tried pretty hard to collapse with them). The shape of the Slingerland really lookes more like a Gibson made Kalamazoo, but I don't think they made them either. I wish I had a K-zoo here to compare it too right now.
The fingerboard, and tailpiece are just like they are on most Harmony mandos, But the tuners are different. I have seen these tuners on other Slingerlands, SS Stewarts, and a few Stellas, but I haven't seen these on a Harmony myself.
I don't have my camera at the shop right now, but I'll try to post some picture of these construction details tommorrow.

[MANDOLINMYSTER]

Heres a few pics of mine. Its under restoration

[MikeEdgerton]

That would certainly support the concept that Slingerland built them themselves. I've never seen a Harmony that was that clean

[bobbyburns]

Micheal, thanks for those pictures. I can't get them to go larger on my computer though. What type of joint did the neck have? Was it dovetailed, doweled, or is it a straight tenon like a violin neck? In your picture, you can see the shape of the end block is different than the Harmonys also.
I am working on getting some pictures together. I may start a new thread comparing construction details of some of these, as I have a few in peices at this time too. I have the Slingerland, a few Harmonies from '30's to '70's, and a Stradolin apart at this time. I'd like to compare these to a Kalamazoo if anyone has one in pieces also.

[nmiller]

I just got the mando back from having a couple of top cracks repaired (fortunately, they're nearly invisible). The luthier informed me that the underside of the top is covered with fabric, and when I look in with a mirror I do indeed see some thin fabric with a texture similar to linen. This is definitely original to the instrument, and appears to be a method of strengthening the top; it actually worked pretty well - these cracks stayed very tight and were almost certainly the result of a hit rather than dryness.

Has anyone encountered this in any other mandolin? I know Gibson used fabric to strengthen the sides of their guitars, but I've never seen it used in a mando before. What amazes me is that this can only dampen the volume and tone of the Slingerland, but it's still very loud and sweet-sounding.

[MikeEdgerton]

You'll find fabric under the f holes on a large number of vintage mandolins.

[MANDOLINMYSTER]

[QUOTE=bobbyburns;822080]Micheal, thanks for those pictures. I can't get them to go larger on my computer though. What type of joint did the neck have? Was it dovetailed, doweled, or is it a straight tenon like a violin neck?

Its a dovetailed joint. And the neck has a maple or some type of hardwood center like a truss rod I guess.

[HSI]

I recently got a May Bell mandolin off off of ebay that is similar to the one dissasembled, except itmy hasfull F scrolls. I was surprised how thick it was. The rim height (wood between the top and back bindings) was 1-3/4" thick. I wonder if the pressed arched top has more to do with the thin sound of this mando or the extra deep body.

[Jake Wildwood]

I know this is a thread resurrection -- but I have a definitive answer for you guys as to who made these and many of the really nice top-end Slingerlands (including the archtop guitar pictured on my Antebellum homepage)... GIBSON!

These are built like Kalamazoos!

Specifically, I've attached some photos that will help.

The dead giveaway is the wide-base rosewood bridge and funky f-holes.

[MikeEdgerton]

Then they were probably built by Regal. There's an entire section of the new Regal book that describes the fact that Regal copied the Gibson Kalamazoo shapes. I'd think Joe Spann's books would have them listed if Gibson built them, and they'd have a fon on the headblock as well. Now if somebody has one with a fon, that would be interesting to look up. The Carlin Regal book really is a treasure trove of information.

[Jake Wildwood]

Are you not seeing what I'm seeing?

Why would Regal copy them down to the last detail, including exact hardware? Pickguard bracket, pickguard, bridge style with wide, 30 degree cut offs on the end, exactly the same f-hole shape?

I'm picking up a copy of the Regal book in the near future but I have my doubts to this being made by anyone other than Gib. I know that the various Slingerland Songster archtop guitars I've played/had through have felt just like Kazoos I've played/had through and the build style was all wrong for a Regal -- heavier, more bulk, and definitely sturdier over time, with entirely different neck cuts from the usual Regal builds.

To top it off, for me the bridge and hardware sort of seals it -- it's all wrong for Chicago makes, especially lower-end Chicago makes, which tended to use a variety of easily Chicago-available hardware that the various factories used interchangeably. I honestly think that, while these books are awesome, they're certainly not the end-all-be-all of knowledge on "who made what, where, and when."

But, like in science, you need definitive proof -- and there just aren't enough surviving examples to satisfy -- and usually not two of the needed specimens in the same place at the same time.

RE Carlin's book - I'm looking forward to possibly seeing some of my instruments in it...

[MikeEdgerton]

I just looked through all the FON's from the mid 20's through 1945. No mention of Slingerland. There is however an entry in1942-45 for "Non-Gibson mandolin". I'm seeing what appears to be guitars with the name "Black Special". I have no idea what those are but as most of the brand names for other companies (Washburn-Tonk, Wards brands (Recording King and Wards) and such are listed, I don't know why they wouldn't have listed Slingerland. If anyone has one of these look inside through the f-holes at the neck block and see if you see a number printed there. A Gibson FON for a mandolin would be definitive proof in my eyes. Gruhn doesn't list Slingerland as an other brand made by Gibson but that also doesn't mean all that much. I'm not totally sure where George got his information. If it was from years of seeing these instruments he might not have seen one. Joe Spann on the other hand appears to have compiled at least some of his information from the factory records. As complete as it appears to be it's hard to imagine that there would be huge holes in it. If there was a connection I'd love to find it, I always like unraveling a good mystery.

[nmiller]

The Slingerland mandolin was definitely not built by Gibson. Aside from the body shape, nothing else is similar to those Kalamzoo/Cromwell/Robinson/Gibson mandos. The f-holes, neck profile, hardware, woods, bridge, floating fingerboard extension and fret markers are completely unlike any Gibson-built mandolin. Additionally, the headstock veneer is made from materials used to cover drums - material that Slingerland, as a drum manufacturer, had laying around but Gibson did not. The pickguard is also made of the same Bakelite used on Slingerlands, not the ivoroid or tortoise used by Gibson.

[Jake Wildwood]

Alright, I concede this one... took some closer looks.

They're honestly very close, though, but I'm seeing what you're seeing now (in the morning!) -- hardware is very similar but slightly different, body shape is similar... but the finish is very close to late 30s/early 40s Regals -- and the split F-holes on the other mandolin is VERY characteristic of Regal mandos. I think you're on the right track with the Regal attribution -- that medium rosewood color and simplified cut-off bridge design is closer to lots of other Regal mandos I've worked on (and guitars) more than the darker rosewood I'd expect more from a Gib... and I know that's not "great evidence" -- but most of the floating-bridge Regal instruments from the time I've worked on have had that sort of creamy, medium-reddish/orangey/brown color rosewood for the bridges (and many fretboards) -- probably all from the same stock of wood.