Can someone identify this Mandolin

[5 Strangz]

Hello All,
I am new here.
As you can tell by my user name, I play something else and frequent their forums.
Hope you all won't hold that against me.

Anyway, I came onto this mandolin from my Grandfather. Wondering if anyone can identify it.

I find no markings on it at all. No serial number, no name anywhere.

What ya'all think?

Thanks!!

[5 Strangz]

Here is the back of the headstock if that helps.

[brunello97]

I'll take a stab at it.....my guess would be a Chicago made instrument from the late '10s or '20s, high probability of it being from Regal or from their orbit of allied builders. We see lots and lots of these around with this basic format: flat back, canted top with broadly splayed scratchplate and the inset tuners with back coverplate. Different woods depending on the 'quality' form rosewood to mahogany to birch. Different amounts of detailing show up as well in the binding, rosettes, MOP, etc. I've had a few and played a few others and they have tended to be good quality, good sounding instruments. Basically ignored by the bluegrass crowd and of lesser tonal quality than the Martins or L+H G or E models of the time, but I think they are a great mandolin value. Usually they go on the ebay in the $150-250 range tops and you get a lot of mandolin for that kind of money.

Clean it up and get it ready to play. I wouldn't use anything heavier than light gauge strings on it if I were you (10-36.)

Nothing wrong with banjos, hombre. I like them a lot. Welcome to the bright side of the road.

Mick

[5 Strangz]

Thanks Mick! Your dates are a sure possibility. He died in the 60s. He lived in SW Michigan, so the connection to Chicago is also a strong possibility. Would have rather it been connected to Kalamazoo.

The neck looks like mahogany to me. The sides and back are harder wood - maybe the rosewood. The top is light colored - maybe spruce? The binding is white and herringbone.

Haven't strung new strings yet. I have some light strings I use on an F Alverez that should work. Will have to free up the tuners first. It has been siting for 50+ years.

[brunello97]

Could be rosewood on the back, I had one with rw and one with maple or birch with faux rw staining. Yours kind of looks like mahogany to me, but it is hard to tell from the photo. Certainly spruce top as you suggest. Nothing says Kalamazoo (i.e. Gibson) about it. They did make some flat top instruments in the '30s but of an altogether different overall design. These were made at a nice (maybe last) crossroads of high production and good quality in a low price instrument. As time went on the mass market mandolins got cheaper and the woods chosen were less desireable. But the (first) mandolin craze had kind of died out by then.

My hunch is that you will find this a nice sounding instrument. Now, if I could get a 5 string banjo of equal quality for that kind of price I certainly would. Any suggestions?

Mick

[Jim Garber]

Very similar to this one which is a Supertone sold by Sears prob made by Regal or Harmony.

[MikeEdgerton]

These were Chicago made, probably Regal, could be Harmony, sold under many brand names and sold many times with no brand name at all. Both Harmony and Regal (as well as most of the other builders at the time) made instruments for the trade that were either labeled with a distributors name (like Sears and Wurlitzer) or had no label at all. Here is a Wurlitzer ad for a similar mandolin. Wurlitzer didn't make anything, they had instruments manufactured with their name on it.

[Jake Wildwood]

I totally identify these with Regal builds, and that back certainly looks like rosewood to me.

[allenhopkins]

Looks a bit like this one Jake has at Antebellum Instruments. He's "guesstimated" his as a 1925 Regal (?).

[bobbyburns]

I'll go out on a limb here and disagree. I've been collecting Regal stuff for a while, and while the pickguard does look like the Supertone (which is a Harmony), or Jakes mando in the link (which looks like it could be an Oscar Schmidt, but I'm not sure), this one looks like a Larson to me.

There are subtle variations in the outline of these, especially the slight curve in the sides as they approach the neck block. Notice on Jake's mandolin, how the side are straight as they join the neckblock. The don't make any attempt to blend the curve of the sides into the neck. On the other two examples, the curve smoothly blends from the sides to the neck.

The Larsons made a lot of slightly different variations of this style, but some things were constant in the way they worked. Look at the heel of the neck. One of these is a lot smaller than the others, and the OPs mando has no heel cap. The back covers the heel of the neck and the back binding is a continuous piece all around the heel. Does this look like a Larson to anyone else?

Harmony and Regal made flat/bent top mandolins, are very similar to each other in shape, and also in the way that the heel is done. The back stops at the heel, and Regals usually have a separate heel cap on the neck. I've never seen a Regal with the back extended over the neck heel this way.

Since all of these companies made instruments for a lot of the same distributors, it's very easy to assume that certain brands were made by certain makers, and get our cross-refrences mixed up on these unbranded examples. I base my identifications on instruments that I have seen with the original makers label on them, and not store brands that I know were commonly made by that maker. I've seen a lot of misattributed pictures in books and on the net.

If anyone has some information that might lead me to change my opinion on this, please let me know. I'm here to learn.

[5 Strangz]

Bobby, Thanks for your observation.

I am no expert on wood, but I am guessing the neck is mahogany. The sides and bottom are rose wood. They show alot more grain than the neck does.

Here are a few close ups of the neck / body.

THANKS ALL!

[5 Strangz]

Oh, btw
I strung it up and it does sound pretty nice. Still trying to find the bridge position for intonation, but the tuners are all moving and it is holding tune.

[MikeEdgerton]

Even I can't see it as a Larsen. These were honestly a dime a dozen, they are all over the place and fairly common. Also, just because it's a Supertone doesn't make it a Harmony. Oscar Schmidt was making guitars for Sears in this same period as well as others. Harmony didn't have a lock on that business at that point.

[bobbyburns]

I am aware that other folks made instruments for Sears other than Harmony. The Supertone in the picture looks Harmony to me. Could you point out some specific features in the construction style of the OP's mandolin that leads you to think it may be a Regal or a Harmony?

[brunello97]

Bobby, I'd be interested in what other Larson-esque features that you think think this mandolin has? I am not interested in getting into a debate, but to learn more, as you suggest in your post. In my estimation a lot of mandolins here have gained Larson attributions that seem quite dubious to me. (For me, Bob Hartmann's book which is helpful in many ways, also adds to some of that confusion.)

I have an Osbourne mandolin in my files (I don't think it is a Larson) with the same back detail on the OPs. Any number of mandolins do use the same (very) nice ribbon binding inlay that the Larsons (as well as others) used to great effect that this mandolin has. The OP mandolin does have a fret-dot array that is not common to the MOR Regals that I have in my files. The back detail you discuss, the fret-dots and the binding are the most Larson-y of the details here, but aren't decisive for me yet as they are present on other maker's instruments as well. Other common Larson details (fretboard edge/soundhole profile) aren't present here, but those in itself aren't necessarily exclusionary of a LarBros attribution either.

The pictures I've attached are the closest of anything I have in my files to the OPs. Not the greatest quality but I zoomed in pretty tight in Photoshop and it appears to have no heel cap either. Not that this couldn't be a Larson as well, but I think Mike and a few of us remain Doubting Thomases of sorts. I use the 'splinter of the True Cross' analogy when it comes to LarBros attributions. Don't get me wrong, I really welcome your specific points of reference.....I have a couple/three mandolins which I am suspicious of being Larsons, myself. We are always bringing this up for conversation around here and it would be great to advance the cause.

Mick

[bobbyburns]

I am not wanting to argue about this either. I'm just interested in learning about these things. I also have a Sammo mandolin that I have wondered if the Larsons made. I think it gets confusing because a lot of the brands labled as manufactors, never actually made anything, or at least didn't make everything labled as such. I agree that Mr. Hartmans book can sometimes add to the confusion, but I thank him greatly for sharing his information with us. Without him, there would not be quite as many folks even having this discussion. I have seen a lot of mandolins identified on the internet as Larsons, when I thought they should have been described as being most likely Regal or Harmony made. This is a rare example of a mandolin identified as probably a Regal or Harmony, when I think it looks like a Larson. So it's interesting to me to find out why others have a diferent opinion. I don't want to prove my knowledge so much as I hope to learn from the knowledge of others.

[bobbyburns]

I would like to add that I have never seen a Harmony or a Regal with the discussed back/heel cap feature this mandolin has. I'm not saying I know for sure that they made none this way. If any of you have, or has seen, a Harmony or Regal labled mandolin made this way, let's see it and talk about it. Also, if anyone knows more about the Samuel Osbourne/Sammo company, let's hear about it. It's possible that if they actually did make mandolins, they may have made some of the unlabled things identified as Larsons too.

[brunello97]

Here are my notes on the Osbourne Company--admittedly sloppily without attribution--probably from Mugwumps:

"Was established in 1897 at Chicago, IL by Samuel C. Osborn. They built guitars, mandolins, banjos, ukuleles and other small musical instruments, along with a zither variant for which Osborn was issued patents in 1917. In 1921 they claimed the largest factory of its kind in the country. The instruments were marketed under the Sammo and the Sammos trade marks, the latter being made entirely from koa wood. They were still in business in 1921."

Not much, eh? Hopefully someone has more.

Attached are pictures of the Sammo mandolin I have which resembles the back of the OPs.

I think there is a presumption around here that Regal didn't label everything they made and jobbed things out for others (with or without extant labels.) This may lead to the quick draw attribution on some of these nameless flatback mandolins. Sammo is a bit of a mystery to me. More sleuthing in the works.

Mick

[brunello97]

Yikes. Just to add some kindling to the conversation, I just turned up a Supertone in my files with the back detail similar to the one in question. Looks like the back of the one Prof. Garber posted earlier. Again, a uzzy picture but I did use Photoshop to zoom in pretty tight. Can't make out a heel cap.

Mick

[bobbyburns]

I realize that a lot these companies made a lot more instruments than just the ones they used their own labels on. But I think it's safe to assume that a mandolin labeled Regal was actually made by Regal. It also makes sense that a mandolin that is not made like any known Regal labeled instrument, may have been made by someone else. That Supertone is very interesting. I know that other places other than Harmony made Supertones. I've seen a few that I suspected were Oscar Schmidt made. I remember reading somewhere that the Larsons may have made a few Supertones too, but I'd never seen one that I thought may have been made by them.
I'm not exactly sure that the Larsons made this Supertone, or the OP's mandolin, but if they didn't, someone else was using this style of back construction, and I'd like to know who! I've seen way more mandolins made like this that were unlabeled than labeled. The labeled ones usually have the label of a brand name rather than the mark of a company know to actually make the things. Maybe if Samuel Osbourne really had such a large facility, they made a lot of these? That would make sense in a way. I know the Larsons had to be super industrious to turn out as many indisputable instruments as they did. Having such a small shop, it would have been an amazing thing for them to turn out all the unlabeled instruments that are attributed to them.

[bobbyburns]

Check out this one on ebay #320705057476. It's a Sammo with the back to neck joint in the familiar Regal/Harmony style. I'd guess this ones Harmony made?
I hope you guys know that I'm not trying to dispute anyones knowledge about these things. I don't aim to insult anyone, and I'm sure not going to be offended by any of you disagreeing with me. I just think it's important for us guys who are actually into these less popular mandolin styles to have these discussions, before another eighty or so years goes by, and the only old
mandolins anyone knows about are the Gibsons.

[Jim Garber]

Bobby: Please do not worry about those of us who answered here. We do value any discussion on this subject of identifying these unlabelled instruments. I think some of us are a little hesitant to use the L-word when attributing makers but of course are open to that possibility.

[Holger]

The back of your mando looks much similar to the back of headstock of my "STAHL"-mandocello ...

[brunello97]

No worries from me, Bobby, I am glad you kick-started the conversation. And you are so right about the need to build a collective conversation about these old instruments. So much information and records have been lost. While our friends Keef and Bob might produce great books on the Washburns and Larsons, I'm not sure if Sammo, for instance, is going to get the same historical treatment. The MC is the best collected resource on mandolins that exists these days, in my opinion. These conversations always tease out a few more shreds of information and your attention to the mandolin back and neck-block detail is an important observation and definitely adds to the questions (if not necessarily answering them all.....) But it is a very good addition to the overall discussion and definitely something I will keep more of an eye out for, after admittedly being focussed more on the front side detailing.

Your question is the one I have. Could the Larsons have really cranked out all the work out of their small shop that has been positively or vaguely attributed to them? Jim has a nice bowlback that he good reason to be confident is a Larson so I know he is tuned into these conversations. I have a couple Leland flatbacks that I am unsure about their provenance. Bob Hartman is unsure as well as to the full extent of Larson contribution to the Leland line. Others here are more convinced. I'm on the fence. I have a 'boatback' mandolin which has all the hallmarks of a Larson, but is just so weird that it would seem an odd attribution. In any event, there are a lot of interested parties to the conversation and I know we all appreciate your contributions and insights. We're not going to solve all the mysteries in one fell swoop but maybe bit by bit as new examples turn up. For me it is a very enjoyable break from my day to day work!

Mick

[5 Strangz]

I knew I could count on this board to get me some GREAT detail about something I know very little about. This is fascinating to me.



Thanks to all that contribute!