In need of help identifying recent library donation.

[evanbib]

Our library received this mandolin as part of a donation and I'm having difficulty in identifying it. The donor mentioned that it was around the turn of the century, but had no more information. The label on the inside shows only Champion.

[NickR]

I'm sure the dating is fairly accurate. The neck looks American to me although the headstock is a very common style made in Europe as well. That lyre shaped metal ornamentation, I wonder if it has been added. Generally, the fancy tailpiece covers the strings so they can be muffled to prevent overtones and this is covered up by the tailpiece. Many American made tailpieces have various impressed numbers etc on them but not always.

[allenhopkins]

You may have a find there. The Mugwumps Index of American Fretted Musical Instrument Makers (http://www.mugwumps.com/AmerInstMkr.html) has two listings for "Champion," and one is as a brand associated with Maurer of Chicago. Robert Maurer was an 1890's musical instrument dealer, most noted for selling stringed instruments made by the Larson brothers; in 1900 the Larsons bought Maurer out, and thereafter made instruments under the Maurer label, as well as many other labels (Euphonon, Stahl, Prairie State, Stetson etc.).

Here's a 2009 thread (https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?54172-Maurer-mandolin-request-information) discussing Maurer instruments. It also mentions "Champion" as a possible Larson brothers label.

On the other hand, associating "Champion" with Robert Maurer doesn't guarantee Larson manufacture. Maurer was a dealer, and may well have obtained instruments from a variety of sources. The alternating types of wood in the ribs of the bowl are not a feature I associate with Larson construction, nor is the lyre tailpiece. However, the headstock profile closely resembles that of this Ditson, (https://jakewildwood.blogspot.com/2015/08/1900s-larson-made-ditson-victory.html) which Jake Wildwood attributes to the Larsons.

I will leave it to the resident bowl-back mavens to give this more thorough and informed scrutiny. I would only say, that if it can be established with fair certainty that this was built by the Larsons, its market value would be considerably enhanced. As a no-name, c.1900 low-to-mid-range bowl-back, it might command $100-300 on the market; it appears to be in decent shape, and while bowl-backs often don't sell readily, there is some demand for well-preserved, century-old instruments. If the market thinks it's a Larson, you could get several times that figure.

I await some more informed analysis and appraisal.

[evanbib]

Thanks, Allen! This is getting interesting and I look forward to more input so I can hopefully nail it down to give it a proper description for the collection.

evb

[brunello97]

Not a Larson. Not maybe a Larson. Not possibly a Larson. Not a Larson.

Not a hint of Larson, but for some remote association with a name.

This is not a Larson. Do not pretend it is, or hint that it is or even wish that it is.

I'm sorry, Allen. You do a disservice with this kind of loose speculation. You've seen enough instruments on here to know.

The only way "the market might think that this is a Larson" would be due to this same kind of groundless speculation based on the most superficial of assumptions.

The whole discussion around this topic has become so weirdly warped where an assumption becomes a fact and then becomes a sales pitch.

I apologize for coming down hard on this, but all this "might be a Larson" nonsense has to stop.

This is not a Larson.

Mick

[MikeEdgerton]

...I apologize for coming down hard on this, but all this "might be a Larson" nonsense has to stop...

Word.

[MikeEdgerton]

It's an entry level mandolin by all the appointments, probably built by one of the many builders that built for the trade. There is nothing outstanding about the construction or the hardware. It could have been sold by Mauer but Mauer bought from many sources. There's nothing here to even suggest it's a high end instrument or that there is any connection to the Larson's.

[allenhopkins]

...I'm sorry, Allen. You do a disservice with this kind of loose speculation. You've seen enough instruments on here to know. The only way "the market might think that this is a Larson" would be due to this same kind of groundless speculation based on the most superficial of assumptions. The whole discussion around this topic has become so weirdly warped where an assumption becomes a fact and then becomes a sales pitch.

I apologize for coming down hard on this, but all this "might be a Larson" nonsense has to stop.


Mick -- fine, it's not a Larson.

However, I really do resent the tone of your reply. I did a bit of research, found that "Champion" was a brand identified with Robert Maurer of Chicago, who was bought out by the Larsons in 1900. The thread I linked above also stated that "Champion" was a label the Larsons used. What part of this is "groundless speculation" or "weirdly warped?" What part of it are you refuting?

I then said, "associating 'Champion' with Robert Maurer doesn't guarantee Larson manufacture." I also stated, "The alternating types of wood in the ribs of the bowl are not a feature I associate with Larson construction, nor is the lyre tailpiece." I don't claim to be an expert on Larson bowl-backs, which is why I continued "I will leave it to the resident bowl-back mavens [a group of which you are a member] to give this more thorough and informed scrutiny."

I never stated that the mandolin was made by the Larsons. What I said was -- and perhaps if you re-read my post a bit more carefully, you would see this -- that the "Champion" label was associated with Maurer -- as were the Larsons, who in fact took over Maurer's business -- and that, if the mandolin were believed to be Larson-made, it would command a higher price on the market.

I don't see where this is "nonsense" or "loose speculation." Of course, you or anyone else here on the Cafe is free to disagree with the ideas any of us put forward. I would only say, that when I disagree with another's conclusions, I try to avoid being either self-righteous or contemptuous.

This has surely been a lesson to me -- not that I made "loose, groundless, weirdly warped speculation," but that the Cafe atmosphere has gotten a little too caustic. Through twelve years and over 15 thousand posts, I've never been attacked with such vehemence. Seems like it's time for me to pack it in, and leave the field to those who, apparently, have sufficient expertise and knowledge to protect the Cafe from my uninformed meanderings.

[Larry Mossman]

I saw a Mom walking with her kids the other day with a T-shirt that read - “kindness is the new cool” ... may we all take that up as a mantra and a mission in these days of discord...!

Allen, I seldom post ... but I always read yours with an appreciation for your efforts, your general goodwill and willingness to support this community and it’s members. Stick around - you are a valued member.

L

[MikeEdgerton]

OK, let's step this back. When someone on the cafe even hints that a mandolin that probably can't get $200.00 on a good day on eBay might be a rare and valuable instrument to a person coming on seeking real information then that is a disservice to the person that has asked the original question. There are more instruments identified as Larson's than the Larson's ever built. We have a habit of calling anything associated with Mauer a Larson. This is not a Larson and explaining all about the connection does nothing but get the original posters hopes up and disseminate bad information. If anyone can prove this is a Larson please by all means post the proof. Even the Larson book that came out a few years back misidentified instruments as Larson built instruments that were not. This a bowlback mandolin of American origin from sometime around the turn of the century (1900) give or take a few decades that is not particularly outstanding in it's accouterments that has no great value. If this was a family member posting this question the over-riding response would be that its value was in the fact that it was owned by a member of the person's family. In this case it was a donation to a library that hopefully means something to the library because of who donated it. Sometimes we don't hear what we want to hear.

[Mandoplumb]

I would take the opposite view. If I had something I knew little about and someone saw a picture of it or a brief description of it and said that could be valuable I would appreciate being told. It might save me from cheating myself at some point in time. In my opinion this is what allenhopkins did, he just said maybe Check it out. I think that was and is good advice.

[Seter]

I always look forward to your well researched and insightful posts Allen, your breadth of knowledge on stringed instruments is a valuable asset here.

[DavidKOS]

As a no-name, c.1900 low-to-mid-range bowl-back, it might command $100-300 on the market; it appears to be in decent shape,.

Well, whatever make it is, I would not call it "decent" shape - the picture of the side of the instrument seems to show that the neck block has shifted and the action is not very playable.

Thanks for all the info.

[Jim Garber]

The reality is this. If a guitar is identified as Larson-made it can be worth quite a bit of money, often into 5 figures. For mandolins, it would be valued higher but nowhere near that much.

I suggest that we can have a calm discussion about possibilities while still maintaining composure on this issue. It ain’t worth it. I didn’t see how Allen bringing up the Larson name was so bad. In this case it was very unlikely but it can be a remote possibility in some other cases.

[rcc56]

To me, it looks like this might be a piccolo mandolin. Piccolo mandolins are not especially valuable, but they are interesting and rather unusual.

Evan, can you take a measure the distance between the crease in the body and the bone piece at the end of the fingerboard?

[Jim Garber]

I am not sure why you think it is a piccolo. Unless evanbib has very small hands his fist would cover most of a true piccolo's neck. Just for fun, while we are waiting for OP to provide measurements, some quick photos to compare piccolo with standard bowlback:

171699 171700 171701

[AndyV]

Jim,

Are you in marketing? - In the first pic your palm is partially over the body of the mandolin, but on the piccolo starts on the neck. ;)

[AndyV]

This has surely been a lesson to me -- not that I made "loose, groundless, weirdly warped speculation," but that the Cafe atmosphere has gotten a little too caustic. Through twelve years and over 15 thousand posts, I've never been attacked with such vehemence.

I was saddened to see the tone the conversation had take. I've found the cafe to be such a breath of fresh air in the online world. I've mentioned this in face to face conversations; how welcoming, generous and civil the members are. Let call this a blip.

[Mandolin Cafe]

Agree this has turned into some kind of nasty corner to not just question but to humiliate others, and it seems to be going multiple directions. It stops here. If you have nothing positive to add, move on to another discussion.

No further warning.

[Mandoplumb]

<violates forum posting guidelines. thanks for your concern but taking sides and pointing out who YOU think right or wrong does not assist.>

[Jim Garber]

Jim,

Are you in marketing? - In the first pic your palm is partially over the body of the mandolin, but on the piccolo starts on the neck. ;)

Sorry, you are right. I was just trying to get a sense of proportion in the OP's photo with a standard size mandolin vs. a piccolo.

[rcc56]

No, I'm not at all sure it is a piccolo, I was just wondering because of the proportions. The head looks large in relation to the body. This could also be an optical illusion created by camera angle or lens. That's why I asked for a measurement.

The piccolo that Jim shows in his picture is smaller than the few others I have seen.

[Graham McDonald]

When I started writing The Mandolin, I started a spreadsheet with the idea of documenting what I could of 'who built what' in the days of the American mandolin craze. A lot was based on advertisements in the Cadenza and The Crescendo but was a start. I realised quite quickly that this was a road to confusion and eventual frustration if not total madness, but was able to attach a number of labels to who might well have actually them. As Allen described, Champion was a trade name of Robert Maurer who advertised these mandolins in The Cadenza in at least 1894 and 1896. The interesting thing here is that Carl and August might well have been working for Robert Maurer from around 1893, knocking out whatever number of mandolins and guitars as required to turn a dollar for old Robert and honing their craft before the buyout a few years later. Whether or not this would add any value to what looks like a fairly low/medium grade bowl back mandolin in questionable condition is doubtful. A solid mahogany neck is almost always and indication of American manufacture in that period and a small number of alternating maple and mahogany ribs puts any mandolin of that time in the lower order of quality.

Cheers

[evanbib]

Good Morning good Mandolin lovers! Wow, I really feel bad that some of the replies/opinions festered up so. My intent was not to find a monetary value, but more of a good historical description for a display case in the library Archives, and to allow the family to be able to reflect on what they had donated in that historical sense. The value of the instrument plus all of the other donations from the family goes way beyond the value of a manufacturer's name, and I never intended for it to get this far out of kilter.

My sincere thanks to everyone for trying to help with this endeavor, and perhaps we can nail it down to within a few years of its 'birth' and possibly a general region of its manufacture.


p.s. To rcc56, the measurement you asked for is 13.5"


"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however the amount of respect for one another whilst conveying that opinion is most paramount."
c. vibbert

[rcc56]

It is indeed a regular mandolin. My guess is that it was made circa 1910 by the Lyon and Healy Company in Chicago.

[Jim Garber]

No, I'm not at all sure it is a piccolo, I was just wondering because of the proportions. The head looks large in relation to the body. This could also be an optical illusion created by camera angle or lens. That's why I asked for a measurement.

The piccolo that Jim shows in his picture is smaller than the few others I have seen.

rcc56 [hey, do you have an actual name? your posts are always knowledgeable, just checking :) ] Sorry about that, you are quite correct that that little bowlback of mine has a very short scale. Here, for comparison is my Vega style 3 next to a Leland (L&H) piccolo (I have the standard Leland one also) and that piccolino(?) bowlback. Scale length for the Leland is 10-1/4" and the piccolino is 9.5".

171717

[Jim Garber]

It is indeed a regular mandolin. My guess is that it was made circa 1910 by the Lyon and Healy Company in Chicago.

This might verify what rcc56 says and at least get close to the date of appearance of a somewhat similar one in the L&H catalog. This scan is from my 1912 L&H catalog. The center one pictured is close in specs and looks to the OP's. Not exactly but then again L&H may have made these for sale to retail music stores. In 1912 the Lyon & Healy line was a budget line in the catalog. By the end of that decade the L&H brand was one of the upper ones and took the place next to Washburn as the top of the line.

171718

[rcc56]

My guess on the origin of the instrument is based upon instinct and process of elimination. I do not know bowl-backs well.

We do know that the majority of bowl-backs we see in the US were made in the US. The largest manufacturers were Lyon & Healy, Vega, Martin, and Oscar Schmidt. This one was clearly not made by Martin, and does not remind me of Vega workmanship. For the record, I do not see any Larson characteristics, and the off-center inlays are not something I would expect to see from the Larson shop.

The work reminds me more of Chicago than New York/ New Jersey [where Oscar Schmidt was located], and Lyon & Healy was by far the largest manufacturer of fretted instruments at the beginning of the 20th century. So I'll go with L & H.

If there are any experts on bowl-backs on the forum who can identify this instrument with a high level of certainty, I would welcome their comments, especially about details and characteristics that aided their identification.

Bob Chuckrow

[Jim Garber]

My guess on the origin of the instrument is based upon instinct and process of elimination. I do not know bowl-backs well.

We do know that the majority of bowl-backs we see in the US were made in the US. The largest manufacturers were Lyon & Healy, Vega, Martin, and Oscar Schmidt. This one was clearly not made by Martin, and does not remind me of Vega workmanship. For the record, I do not see any Larson characteristics, and the off-center inlays are not something I would expect to see from the Larson shop.

The work reminds me more of Chicago than New York/ New Jersey [where Oscar Schmidt was located], and Lyon & Healy was by far the largest manufacturer of fretted instruments at the beginning of the 20th century. So I'll go with L & H.

If there are any experts on bowl-backs on the forum who can identify this instrument with a high level of certainty, I would welcome their comments, especially about details and characteristics that aided their identification.

Bob Chuckrow

Nice to know your name, Bob! Yes, we all work the same way, process of elimination. I have a moderate collection of original and photocopies of catalogs plus I collect jpegs of lots of vintage instruments. A few years back (decade or so) I decided to dive into and learn as much as I can about bowlbacks to see esp which were the quality and which the dross. That included Italian and other European makers as well. It is a deep well but I have learned something I think.

As for lower end instruments like the OP's I doubt there is anyone who can ID with any degree of certainlty but we can make an educated guess.

[rcc56]

A few things that complicate the identification of instruments of this age are the lack of surviving catalogs, the lack of catalog pages available for viewing on the web, and the fact that some of the manufacturers [especially L & H] changed their models and specs more often than some people change their strings. And we can add to that the crude quality of old catalog illustrations.

An on-line database of string instrument catalogs would be a great thing.

[Jim Garber]

Another thing that complicates is that often the catalogs are not accurate, that some items never appear in them or appear with completely different features, woods, ornamentation, etc. In addition many of the larger companies made instruments for each other and to be sold in wholesale lots for retail shops to put their own labels on. For instance, how many of the reverse scroll Regals are out there—some with Regal logos, others with a multitude of others logos and some with no label or logo at all. Same with Strad-O-Lin clones and those oddball Blue Comet mandolins. Hey, that is what makes all this detective work fun.

OTOH compare our work with determining violin attributions. Even crazier.

BTW some time ago, when eBay allowed you to see who you were bidding against, I got outbid on instrument catalog by one bidder. I contacted him and it turned out to be the librarian of NAMM. They have a bi collection of catalogs and I asked them if I could get some pages relating to mandolins. That is what they are there for, so they might make those available online at some time.

Another source is Acoustic Music (in Guilford, CT). They have a bunch of catalogs online (https://acousticmusic.org/research/history/catalogs/) and other useful instrument history resources. (https://acousticmusic.org/research/history/).

[Bob Clark]

Another source is Acoustic Music (in Guilford, CT). They have a bunch of catalogs online (https://acousticmusic.org/research/history/catalogs/) and other useful instrument history resources. (https://acousticmusic.org/research/history/).

Wow, Jim, this is a pretty amazing resource. Thanks for posting these links.

Bob