Headstock on 1913 Martin

[eugenehelix]

Hi all, what a great forum!

I have a few questions about a Mandolin I am considering. It appears to be a 1913 Martin Style 4 bowlback / taterbug without a case. Some small cracking near the edges of the soundhole but seems quite minor. The condition and playability are both very good. The owner wants $1200 for it. In my research, I find that to be somewhat near what it's worth but perhaps closer to the high end.

I am somewhat concerned, though, that the headstock doesn't look exactly like pictures of other early 1900's Style # instruments. Many others in pictures have a decorative void near the top. This one does not. Is it possible it's a replaced headstock? Is it possibly a fake? Or did 1913 just use a less ornate headstock? Would that make it more collectable? Or does $1200 seem high?

This picture shows what seems to be the typical headstock. It's not the mandolin I am looking at but this is a 1904 version of the same 1913 model I am referring to. Note the hole in the headstock:
http://bit.ly/W1akaZ

Here is the actual mandolin. The owner was nice enough to let me film it for further research. Notice the different headstock.
http://bit.ly/RAbqWx

Thanks

[sunburst]

Everything looks different. The end of the fingerboard, the pick guard shape, the pick guard inlay, the fingerboard inlay, the top purfling... They don't look like the same model at all, and perhaps not even the same maker. I'm not a Martin bowl back expert by any means, but the one in the video just doesn't look like a Martin to me.

[eugenehelix]

Everything looks different. The end of the fingerboard, the pick guard shape, the pick guard inlay, the fingerboard inlay, the top purfling... They don't look like the same model at all, and perhaps not even the same maker. I'm not a Martin bowl back expert by any means, but the one in the video just doesn't look like a Martin to me.

Thanks sunburst,

Good points all. There are 9 years between the 1904 on the website and the 1913 in the video. I can find almost no information about these Martin's in 1913 and what I should expect. I could also have the model wrong ... it appears to be a style 4 but I will heed your warning. I have seen other guitar lines with one-off years where things, for whatever reason, were different.

[sunburst]

To repeat myself, I am not an expert on Martin bowl back mandolins, but I'm reasonably familiar with C.F. Martin as a company and with their history. They tended to be pretty consistent in their designs and methods, not like Gibson where almost anything was possible and "strange" things that deviate from catalog description are so common that we just shrug and say "it's a Gibson, anything is possible".
How is the mandolin marked? Is there a Martin label? In other words, where does it say it's a martin?
"Fake" Martin guitars show up regularly, but would someone "fake" a martin mandolin?

Anyway, an expert (or more) will probably show up here before long and recognize the mandolin in the video so stay tuned.

[Jim Garber]

I may be able to check my files for a teens Martin bowlback, but I tend to agree with John's assessment. It looks a lot more like a Lyon & Healy style instrument. The headstock does not say Martin to me. Actually it sort of resembles more the Larson-made Maurer bowlback I have. I will see if I can access my files -- my computer is in the shop but I have an external hard drive with jpegs.

Check out my Rohlfing/Maurer --also pictured below. There are some similarities esp in the headstock and the neck join and collar.

[brunello97]

It doesn't look like any Martin I have seen or match anything I have in my files. The headstock shape, headstock/neck joint, neck/bowl joint, serial number location, fretboard end extension, (maybe) the scratchplate shape (hard to tell from the video) don't resemble any Martin bowlback I've seen. What leads you to believe this is a Martin?

Mick

[Marc Berman]

Did you get the serial number? According to a few web sites the number should end with 4162.

[Jim Garber]

"Fake" Martin guitars show up regularly, but would someone "fake" a martin mandolin?

And I highly doubt they would bother faking a Martin bowlback.

BTW it looks like there is a stamped serial number on the end of the headstock.

If it is a Larson-made mandolin, that is still pretty good and IMHO as good as a Martin. If this is in completely playable shape, all original, $1200 is still prob in the high range for it, but conceivable. I like my Maurer a lot (see my signature below) and it gets a lot of play lately sitting next to me in my computer room.

[Jim Garber]

Here is a ca. 1900 Style 4. Over time the styles stayed relative consistent but they actually got less ornate as they moved into the teens. As you will note, tho, the headstock is not the same as the mandolin in question and it does not have that tell-tale collar over the neck join which, I believe, is representative of the Larson's work.

[EdHanrahan]

My best guess from the video is that the serial # is 7708, or maybe 7798. Per the recent Martin technical reference (if it actually is a Martin), that would make it a 1920. But, at least on guitars, Martin stopped stamping the end of the headstock about two decades earlier.

[eugenehelix]

It doesn't look like any Martin I have seen or match anything I have in my files. The headstock shape, headstock/neck joint, neck/bowl joint, serial number location, fretboard end extension, (maybe) the scratchplate shape (hard to tell from the video) don't resemble any Martin bowlback I've seen. What leads you to believe this is a Martin?

Mick

Mick, The owner has this paperwork with it:

http://orgs.usd.edu/nmm/PluckedStrin...nMandolin.html

I think he believes that since it resembles it so much that it is the same. He also has said, "It's a Martin". Isn't that proof enough? haha, just kidding. I looked for a Martin marking and I couldn't find that. I think I need to update my youtube video title to indicate it's likely not a Martin...

Thanks

[eugenehelix]

Did you get the serial number? According to a few web sites the number should end with 4162.

It's 3888 which puts it in early 1913 ... if it were a Martin.

[Jim Garber]

I think I need to update my youtube video title to indicate it's likely not a Martin...

I think a few sharp still photos taken outside with a digital camera (as opposed to a cell phone) would be much better than the video. It is hard to see the details in the video.

[Ray(T)]

If it is a 1920 Style 4 you're unlikely to find many others to compare it with as they only seemed to have made 5 of them.

[eugenehelix]

... not like Gibson where almost anything was possible and "strange" things that deviate from catalog description are so common ...

Exactly what I had in mind. I kind of like that about Gibsons.

[eugenehelix]

I passed on the mando. Thanks for the assistance, everyone!

[FL Dawg]

I passed on the mando. Thanks for the assistance, everyone!

That sounds like the right choice.

[Jim Garber]

I would say 1/2 of what he is asking would be sort of reasonable. I am convinced that if it does not have any major issues, it is a quality mandolin and would be worth having.