Trying to date my Mandolin

[Sears]

This seems difficult as I am still not near a time period and or a possible maker. Is there another way and or person to take it to? It is in excellent shape as far as I can tell.

[Jeff Mando]

I would say based on your great great grandmother using it pre-1900 and the experts chiming in with dates of 1890-1920 based on labels and catalogs, that would narrow it to 1890-1900. I would say the "clown shoe" case would also put it in that time period. Without an original bill of sale there is nobody who can give it a more precise date. An educated guess is as close as you will get, in this situation.

As far as maker, it doesn't really affect the value, unless it would be Martin, which the experts here don't believe made it for the reasons stated. Seems to be in very nice condition, but unfortunately bowl backs in general don't bring much money, maybe $100-200 max, IMHO.

So, I would call it a late 1890's Bruno and leave it at that.

[MikeEdgerton]

When it was built was answered here.

This model was introduced sometime between 1913 and 1917, based on the few Bruno catalogs available to me, and it was gone by the late '20s.

Who built it will stay a mystery. That's the way these things go barring some sort of identifying feature and this mandolin doesn't have anything that stands out. With the case do a happy dance if you can get over $200.00. Without the case you might get $100.00 for it, maybe a little more. Bowlbacks fail to sell weekly on eBay. This may not be what you want to hear but you have several people that know more than a little on this thread and you have the answers you have.

[brunello97]

Underlying Mike's post is one of my pet peeves about folks seeking information here.

Entitling a post with clear concise language such as "Identifying my Bruno Labeled Mandolin" instead of a generic "What do I have here?" type title enables more folks to respond now and an easier search for topics down the road when more information might arise.

Sears isn't the first and won't be the last trying to ID a maker. We've often determined the ID of something here weeks, months or years after the original post when another instrument or another key piece of information becomes available.

Posting a full array of photos helps because the photos will stay with the posts far longer than links will stay active.

A full-frontal photo of the Bruno would be actually more helpful than the full-back. Many of the builders who did contract work used the same molds that they used for their own instruments.

Martin bowlbacks are subtly--but clearly--different from the shape of other bowlback makers from the era (in a way that Embergher and Vinaccia, and to some extent Calace, are identifiable by the shape of the bowl.) A bowlback that Martin made for Ditson or Stewart, for instance, looks just like a Martin. You don't need a label to ID it.

Jeff and Mike have dialed it in as well as you are likely going to get for awhile in terms of the date and likely fetching price. Bernunzio might put a $500 price on this if they were selling it on commission and it would likely sit around waiting a long time for the right buyer. Trying to sell it on the open market yourself for anywhere near that price would necessitate a lot of patience and crossed fingers.

There's no place in the known universe that has more collected knowledge of vintage mandolins than the MC. Post some more photos, open a cool refreshing beverage and wait......

Mick

[Sears]

Underlying Mike's post is one of my pet peeves about folks seeking information here.

Entitling a post with clear concise language such as "Identifying my Bruno Labeled Mandolin" instead of a generic "What do I have here?" type title enables more folks to respond now and an easier search for topics down the road when more information might arise.

Sears isn't the first and won't be the last trying to ID a maker. We've often determined the ID of something here weeks, months or years after the original post when another instrument or another key piece of information becomes available.

Posting a full array of photos helps because the photos will stay with the posts far longer than links will stay active.

A full-frontal photo of the Bruno would be actually more helpful than the full-back. Many of the builders who did contract work used the same molds that they used for their own instruments.

Martin bowlbacks are subtly--but clearly--different from the shape of other bowlback makers from the era (in a way that Embergher and Vinaccia, and to some extent Calace, are identifiable by the shape of the bowl.) A bowlback that Martin made for Ditson or Stewart, for instance, looks just like a Martin. You don't need a label to ID it.

Jeff and Mike have dialed it in as well as you are likely going to get for awhile in terms of the date and likely fetching price. Bernunzio might put a $500 price on this if they were selling it on commission and it would likely sit around waiting a long time for the right buyer. Trying to sell it on the open market yourself for anywhere near that price would necessitate a lot of patience and crossed fingers.

There's no place in the known universe that has more collected knowledge of vintage mandolins than the MC. Post some more photos, open a cool refreshing beverage and wait......

Mick

Thanks for your input it is greatly appreciated. I will post more pictures as I take them. I have ZERO experience with this and or any other string instrument. I was just looking to place it. It has been in the family for at least 120 years from the buffalo NY region. Again I have Zero experience as I have inherited it but as far as I can see it is in excellent condition.

Thanks again for your input

[MikeEdgerton]

Your a little over on the number of years. The dates this was in the Bruno catalog have been determined. Is there part of that you think is wrong?

[brunello97]

Your a little over on the number of years. The dates this was in the Bruno catalog have been determined. Is there part of that you think is wrong?

There might be a little flex on the years of "production" vs catalog sales dates. There was considerable back-stock of bowlback mandolins that had to move through the mill in the US from the later '10s to late '20s as tastes changed and the hegemony of carved mandolins--or easier to build flatback alternatives-- begin to exert themselves.

The kind of design flourishes on Sears' model (broken pediment headstock, alternating wood staves) do seem like late '90s design ideas that were eventually being retired by the late '10s as bowlback mandolins were pretty much being replaced by 1. archtop Gibsons, etc, and 2. economical flatback alternatives in the shorter bowlback scale.

Of course this was the same time period when Calace and others were just ramping up their exotic Art Nouveau-to-Art Deco design extravaganzas in Italy. US makers were reining it in at the same time.

No arguing about the Bruno Catalog date, though it would nice to see the pages posted here for reference.

The design style of Sears' Bruno does seem to be the product of a couple decades earlier aesthetic.

Looking for more voices to weigh in on this....pro or con.

Mick

[MikeEdgerton]

Even Bruno wouldn't have that much flex in their catalogs. They were there to sell stuff. If you didn't have it in the catalog you didn't sell it. If you had it in the catalog and didn't have the stock you didn't sell it and angered your customer that went to the trouble of sending their order to you via the US Mail. If one of your sales guys took the catalog in and took the order and Bruno wasn't able to ship they angered not only the customer but the sales person. I was still selling things from a catalog before the advent of this wonderful thing we call the Internet. Before e-mail and computers. People went to great lengths to actually have the items in their catalogs because otherwise their customers found a different source. I'd go with the catalog dates. Yes, they could be a little off but their isn't anything else to hang your hat on.