C. F. Martin & Co. 1902 Style 5 Mandolin
Serial No. 1109
...the expensive Style 5, 6, and 7 [mandolin] models were the most elaborately decorated production Martins ever made... – Washburn & Richardson, 1997, p. 67.
Martin bowlbacks are regarded as excellent instruments by those modern classical mandolinists who prefer traditional Italian style bowlback construction. – Gruhn & Carter, 1999, p. 462.
The bowl-backs in the upper end of the Martin line, like the Style 5, remain among the most fancifully decorated instruments in the company’s hostory. They are prized by collectors for their historic, as well as their aesthetic, appeal. – Gruhn, 1986.
C. F. Martin & Co., founded in 1833, is the oldest instrument company in the United States. The company has always been known for its integrity as a family-run business, the high quality of its instruments, and the understated decoration applied to them. Exceptions to this aesthetic conservatism have been infrequent.
Most Martin enthusiasts mark the 1930s as the time when “fancy” Martins first appeared, typically in the hands of singing cowboys such as Gene Autry. Pearl borders and inlaid fretboards may have been new to Martin's guitars in the 1930s, but their bowl-back mandolins were by far the fanciest instruments the company ever made. They were also the only instruments shown in the company’s first catalog, printed in 1896, which used the “Martin” logo appearing at the top of this page.
At the close of the 19th century, America was in the midst of what Mark Twain, with at least a hint of disdain, called the "Gilded Age," in reference to what he perceived as a preoccupation with wealth. In the closing decades of that century, there were extreme disparities in affluence with millionaire industrial robber barons in marked contrast to the many poor who suffered severely in the depression of the early 1890s. Industrial states like Pennsylvania, the home of the Martin Co., were especially hard hit. But by 1900, the depression that ended the19th century was over and most Americans were getting along fairly well. The year the instrument described here was made, 1902, was something of a historical nadir. The preceding year, 1901, Queen Victoria died and was succeeded by her son, Edward VII; also, President William McKinley was assassinated and Vice President Teddy Roosevelt ascended to the office of the nation's chief executive. Marconi sent the first radio transmission across the Atlantic. In 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright successfully flew their air machine on the beach at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina and Henry Ford founded the Ford Motor Company. During the year between these historic landmarks, little of enduring historical significance sees to have occurred.
In the music world, two events occurred in 1902 that would not be immediately appreciated. The Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Co. was created when a group of investors signed papers assuming ownership of designs from Orville Gibson. Also, Martin first produced an extra-fancy version of its Style 42 guitar, featuring extra pearl inlay on the headstock, back and sides of the instrument. That trim level would later gain its own designation as the Style 45 -- the fanciest of Martin's guitars, but a plain Jane compared to its top mandolins.
Throughout the period ending the 19th and beginning the 20th centuries, the mandolin was America’s most popular instrument. Initially, most were Italian imports built in the Neapolitan style, with eight strings, a rounded, multi-ribbed back, and a top bent in the area near (typically, behind) the position of the bridge. Frank Henry Martin, who had run the C. F. Martin & Co. since 1888, recognized the financial benefits of branching into the mandolin market and the company began making its own line in the Neapolitan style in 1895, just as the depression was ending.
With its mandolins, Martin introduced the practice of designating models by number, with higher numbers signifying more elaborate ornamentation. George Gruhn (1986) observed that, unlike most manufacturers, who indiscriminately lavished decorations on all of their bowl-back mandolins, ornamentation was applied selectively to Martins as a means of distinguishing high- from low-end models: “ornamentation was directly proportional to price, and even the plainest models were of consistently fine construction.” Although there is evidence of a certain amount of year-to-year and customer-requested variation within a given model, a general classification scheme holds. One can identify four tiers of original numbered Martin bowl-back mandolins at the turn of the 20th century, distinguished by the number of ribs originally found on those models: 18, 26, 34, or 42. (The plainer, student-grade Styles 0 through 000 were added somewhat later.) Within each of the last three tiers, there were two instruments: an ornamentally simpler (relatively speaking) and a more lavish model. The simpler of the pair within a tier typically resembled the fancier model of the lower tier cosmetically, but was constructed with a greater number of ribs.
The Style 1 was their most basic early model in the original numerical sequence, but even this had ornamental features that rivaled those of Martin’s finest guitars. The backs, originally with 18 ribs, were rosewood. (Later Style 1s had 20 and eventually 22 ribs. By the time the 22-rib model was introduced, the 18-rib Style 0 was in production, essentially replacing the original Style 1). The pickguards were genuine tortoise shell, inlaid with mother-of-pearl. The top was fully bound and the rosette featured fancy wood purfling. The head had a decorative tulip-shaped cutout and recessed, enclosed tuners. The tailpiece was elaborately engraved. By the standards of Martin guitars, this was a fancy instrument, but it was nothing compared to the higher-grade mandolins.
1899 Martin Style 3. Compare geometric fingerboard
inlays and wood purfling to the Style 5s below.
Styles 2 and 3 featured 26 ribs. Otherwise, Style 2 resembled a Style 1. The Style 3, however, featured more elaborate decorative touches, including genuine ivory binding and tuning knobs (in some years) and fancy wood purfling around the top.
Styles 4 and 5 were the 34-rib models. The 4 roughly resembled the Style 3 in ornamentation but had the more numerous ribs. Just as the Style 2 was a plainer version of the structurally identical Style 3, the original Style 4 was the “plain Jane” of the second tier. Despite that lesser status, it still had a fair amount of pearl and ivory on it. In 1901, the number of ribs was reduced to 30, presumably to distance it from the lavish Style 5.
Style 5s from the C. F. Martin Museum (left), Gruhn Gallery (center),
and an Australian dealer's (Great Guitars) photo gallery (right).
Note that the first two both are missing tailpiece covers
(the blue area is chenille on the string ends in the left photo).
The center instrument is from 1905 and shows the
less ornate fingerboard and headstock inlay used after 1904.
The Style 5 is the first in the Martin mandolin model sequence to achieve truly stunning presentation-quality ornamentation. The eye-catching top binding comprised alternating blocks of white pearl and tortoise shell, forming a corded pattern. Style 5 is the only model to have this corded top border. Even more striking, these instruments featured an elaborate vine-like pearl inlay extending over virtually the entire ivory-bound fingerboard. In 1901, the headstock similarly acquired pearl inlay, in the shape of a stylized lyre with scroll work above and below it. This enhancement further supports the idea that in 1901, Martin was widening the gap between Styles 4 and 5, moving the Style 5 up and away from the 4 and closer to the magnificent Style 7. In fact, until 1904, the Style 5 was the most ornate Martin instrument, mandolin or otherwise, listed in the catalog as a regular production model.
2/85 Frets magazine cover featuring Style 6
The Style 6 was actually a bit plainer than the Style 5, but featured 42 fluted ribs, separated by ivory spacers. With fluted ribs, each rib has a dome-like cross section. When joined, they create a surface made up of raised ridges separated by valleys, reminiscent of plow furrows. This design requires a great deal of hand work and accounts for the higher price of the Style 6 despite its less lavish ornamentation. There was also a model that has been unofficially dubbed the 6A, made primarily for a Lowell, Massachusetts distributor named Joseph A. Handley, and featuring a pickguard mounted beside rather than below the soundhole.
Finally, the Style 7, first cataloged in 1904 (although six were sold prior to that date, perhaps as special orders), had it all, and more: fluted ribs, ivory trimmed apron separating ribs from top, extensive gold pearl headstock inlay, white pearl vine on fingerboard, and wide pearl borders around the top and the sound hole. These are magnificent specimens of the luthier’s art. The very best Style 7s were special orders made before the model even appeared in the catalog. By 1904, they had already lost a little of their glamour, although they were still remarkably beautiful mandolins.
Martin Styles 5-7 are often thought of as a group because their ornamentation places them in a class apart from all other models. As Gruhn (1986) put it, “Styles 5-7 were positively dripping with pearl, marquetry work, and ivory,” (original emphasis). Of these fancy Martin bowl-backs, the Style 5 was by far the most popular. Still, it was produced in relatively modest numbers compared to even highly desirable prewar Martin guitars now regarded as scarce. There were about 2,000 D-28s and 000-28s made prior to WWII. The same size prewar guitars in the plainer and more popular Style 18 numbered over 5,000. Between its introduction in about 1897 and its discontinuation in 1920, only 280 Style 5 mandolins were built, slightly fewer than one per month, on average. For the Style 6, introduced in 1896 and discontinued in 1921, there were 106 made, plus an additional 39 6As. The Style 7debuted in 1899 and bowed out in 1917, with a total of only 32 made. These mandolin production figures include all dates of manufacture. According to Washburn and Johnston (1997), however, by about 1904, as noted earlier, the ornamentation on the high-end instruments had declined. So, the number of the finest specimens is considerably less than the total production for a given style. For example, Only 137 Style 5s – fewer than half of those eventually made – were built prior to 1904; and only 84 were built from 1901 (when headstock inlay was added) through 1904 (after which ornamentation declined), the period during which they attained their zenith. By comparison, the production totals for the Styles 1 through 4 total 2,664 over their entire run. The most numerous of the “low-end” models, the Style 2, was produced at more than 3 times the rate of the Style 5. In one year alone (1902) the Style 2 production (141) exceeded half of the total production of the Style 5 and all of the pre-1904 production.
The Style 5 appears to have been the primary professional grade instrument. It was the most plentiful of the top styles and appears in photos of professional musicians of the period. The Style 7s were produced in such limited quantities (only 32 in all) as to suggest that they were intended as presentation pieces rather than instruments that saw regular use. From 1898 to 1917, a Style 5 mandolin sold for $50, the same price as a 1-30 guitar, a pretty nice instrument then and now. A Style 7 cost fully twice as much, a huge premium. The Style 6 was priced between the two, at $75. Thus, about 25% of the price of the Style 7 was for its distinctive cosmetics rather than structural features it shared with the Style 6. This price, moreover, isn’t for all the cosmetic appointments but only for those above and beyond what the Style 5 had. Given the steep price for the Style 7, it is understandable that the demand for the Style 5 was far greater. Again for comparison, the most expensive guitar offered in 1902 was the 00-42, priced at $80. Not until the introduction of the 1-45 in late 1904 did any Martin guitar reach a price of $100! This, despite the considerably larger size and thus higher material costs of guitars vs mandolins.
Suffice it to say, the high-grade Style 5, 6 and 7 mandolins built in the opening years of the 20th century were among the very best instruments C. F. Martin & Co. was making. “Even the plainest Martin mandolin, with a pickguard inlaid with pearl curlicues and large engraved tuner enclosures on the front [sic] of the peghead, outshone the fanciest guitar, the pearl-bordered 00-42,” (Carter, 1995, p. 21). With respect to ornamentation, they have not been surpassed to this day. A few years ago, current Martin CEO, Chris Martin, IV, made the following rather astonishing comment about early Martin mandolins: “They apparently were bears to make, those bowlbacks. If we had to make some of those fancy ones with the fluted back they’d be 30, 40 thousand bucks today,” (Carter, 1995, p. 21).
Description
The instrument is very typical of Style 5s made during the “Golden Years” between 1901 and 1904. The top is spruce, the ribs Brazilian rosewood and the neck mahogany. Although Longworth states that ivory tuning buttons were used in this time period, this example, like the one depicted earlier from the Martin museum, has genuine pearl buttons. One original button was broken off. I have replaced it with a solid pearl button of the same style and vintage. Unlike the museum Style 5, which had an all-ivory bridge, this has the more common ebony bridge with an ivory saddle. It is gracefully sculptured, with a spear point at each end.
The design of the bridge employs a “negative saddle,” that is, one that lies below the top edge of the bridge. The saddle rests in a groove shaped somewhat like a bench, with a vertical wall as a back and a horizontal shelf as a seat. The front face of the saddle is exposed while its back face rests against the wall in the ebony saddle and its bottom surface rests upon the shelf. The bridge’s back wall extends above the edge of the saddle, with notches that allow the strings to bear down onto the ivory. The saddle and bridge groove into which it fits are cut at a dovetail angle wider at the rear, so that the saddle can only be removed in an upward direction. As a result, while the saddle is removable (and thus can be altered to adjust string height) the pressure of the strings holds it firmly in place.
Notice detail in pickguard, binding, rosette, and neck
inlay
The attention given to small decorative details is remarkable. The pearl inlay on this instrument is exquisite. Its iridescence cannot be adequately captured in photos. Not only is the work very clean but different colors of pearl are used to highlight various portions of the design. At the base of the fingerboard vine, for example, the curlicue ends in a floral shape. The petals are made of an especially colorful pearl, giving the flower even greater appeal. Another interesting feature of the vine is that it incorporates either single or double dots at the traditional fret locations to aid the player in navigation. These are done with considerable subtlety and are not obvious unless you look for them. Despite their presence, small abalone position dots also appear on the binding. The fingerboard itself is ebony.
The neck inlay on this 1905 Style 5 is considerably less ornate than on the 1902, with a lot more "naked" ebony visible.
Inlay flower detail
The top’s edge trim is the feature that is most characteristic of the Style 5. It consists of a border of alternating white pearl and tortoise shell segments. On the top, within that border, is a fine triple layer of very thin black-natural-black wood purfling, a broader band of abalone, and another black-natural-black triple stripe. The natural wood in the triple layer is probably holly (or maple) and the black, ebony; purfling strips made up of these materials are common on later Martin mandolins. The soundhole is unbound (i.e., the innermost edge is the spruce top), but has a highly decorative rosette. The outermost band is a triple black-natural-black wood strip, followed by a band of ivory, a thin black strip, a wider band of gold abalone, another thin black strip, another band of ivory, and a final black-natural-black strip. The unadorned edge of the spruce top is the innermost element of the rosette. The top itself is close-grained book-matched spruce. The tortoise pickguard inlay is very extensive, covering nearly the whole surface. The pearl used has pieces with a rich gold tone, lending further elegance. It appears that this tone was achieved by putting a transparent yellow-gold finish on selected pearl pieces. The effect is very elegant.
Exquisitely detailed woodwork
Moving from the pearl and tortoise cording down the sides of the instrument there is an 11-ply purfling strip consisting of two sets of five narrow bands of alternating black and natural wood, with a wider band of natural wood at the center. The butt features an ebony insert, roughly the shape of 1/3 a circle, like a very generous slice of pie. Each of the ribs and the light wood (again, the same holly or maple) separators between them converge on the rounded edge of this insert. Adjacent to it is a another ebony insert, this time chevron-shaped, with the notch matching the point of the pie shape, running under the tailpiece. Both of the ebony pieces are outlined with thin natural-black-natural purfling.
Note neck-headstock joint and engraving on tuner cover (above left)
and quality of pearl inlay (above right). Also note replaced tuner button.
Below, compare the neck joint on the Style 5 (left) to the carved volute
of a late teens Martin flat-back (center) and the unadorned
neck-to-headstock transition of a 1925 flat-back (right).
The heads of these instruments are separate pieces of wood grafted to the neck using a complex joint. Rather than concealing this fact, the joint is treated as a decorative feature, with an arrowhead of mahogany from the neck piercing the very dark rosewood overlay at the rear of the headstock. The headstock face is capped with rosewood. The tuning machines are inset from the rear of the headstock and covered with an intricately engraved cover plate. Stamped into the wood just above the cover plate is the word “Martin.” The face is inlaid with pearl. The figure resembles a lyre set on a fanciful pedestal, with a stylized fleur de lis hovering above it. The headstock has the tulip-shaped cutout that remained a feature of better-grade Martin flat-back mandolins. On the bowl-backs, however, it is more sculptured, with the top border more clearly resembling two scrolls meeting at the center line.
Tuners before (left) and after (right) cleaning, lubrication, and reassembly
The tailpiece cover was missing, another feature this instrument shared with the one in the Martin museum, and numerous others. A substantial proportion of pictures I have encountered of old Martin bowl-backs show missing tailpieces, suggesting that they must have been lost quite commonly. I suspect that their removal and reinstallation was sufficiently awkward that they were left off of the instruments between string changes and eventually misplaced. Replacements are very scarce. Checking several sources of vintage parts and builders of new bowl-back instruments failed to yield an acceptable replacement. Consequently, I fabricated a replacement from 20 gauge nickel-silver sheet. Pictures of tailpiece covers of the period indicate that they are essentially identical to the style later used on Martin's flat-back mandolins, but smaller. Thus, I used the design of an early Martin flat-back tailpiece cover as a model, but reduced its size 14% so as to be in proper proportion. My rather clumsy engraving is not nearly the quality found on originals, but it copies the type of design used and can pass as original from a distance of several feet. It gives the instrument a more complete look and, of course, is easily removable should an authentic replacement become available.
Inside, the instrument is very clean. It is difficult to tell whether the paper lining is original or from repair work performed in the past. If the latter, the work was very neatly done. Stamped on the neck block are the customary C. F. Martin, Nazareth logo and the serial number, 1109. The latter places the date of manufacture in the latter part of 1902. There is another historically interesting mark stamped on the heel block. It was double-struck and consequently very difficult to read. I first recognized the words “Lowell, Mass.” The line above was less legible, but the latter part appears to be “Handley.” Thus, it seems this instrument was built for Joseph Handley, the individual responsible for the Style 6A. This seems quite plausible inasmuch as Handley was obviously a major distributor of Martin mandolins of the era.
The overall condition of this mandolin is excellent. This is especially remarkable when one considers the vast number of discrete pieces of wood, pearl, ivory, and other materials that make up the instrument. There are a daunting number of seams and material interfaces that potentially could have failed but are intact a century after the mandolin left the shop. Some undoubtedly have been mended since the instrument was built, but they can't be easily identified, which is precisely as it should be. Gruhn (1986) noted that these early Martins tended to built more sturdily than many other bowl-backs of the era. This really isn’t surprising as rugged, durable construction is a hallmark of all Martin instruments. That sturdier construction certainly has served this specimen very well. Except for the tailpiece cover and one tuner button (both now replaced), all the original parts are there. There is some evidence of reattachment of segments of neck binding, but this has been done with respect for originality and is hardly noticeable. Careful inspection reveals a few very minor dings and scratches, but these are quite trivial and inconspicuous. The mahogany neck itself is straight. The frets show some wear but not enough to interfere with playing or to warrant refretting. The ribs are solid. The inlays are all intact. The top has a small area of pick abrasion but is otherwise in outstanding condition. The finish is rich and lustrous. Taken as a whole, the condition is remarkable for a century-old instrument, yet consistent with the loving care such a high-quality mandolin would receive from discriminating owners who have appreciated its beauty.
Demand for these very special instruments seems to be increasing relative to their scarce supply. As I write this, there is a later, less ornately inlaid one listed for sale, with the ubiquitous missing tailpiece, for $4000 at a well-known West Coast outlet.
This is the tailpiece cover I fabricated.
Although clearly not of the quality of an original,
its general appearance conforms to the proper style.
When I acquired this instrument, I was prepared for it to be visually remarkable, which it certainly is. What came as a much bigger surprise was its sound, which is full, rich, and surprisingly loud. The feel of the instrument demands a light hand. Its diminutive size, flat fingerboard, narrow frets, and extra-light gauge strings evoke a gentle touch from the player. Nonetheless, a surprising amount of sound is produced. The bowl-back shape is as well-suited for supporting and projecting sound as it is ill suited for holding against one's body. The tone blends strength and delicacy in a very appealing way. The instrument plays very easily. The spacing of the strings above the fingerboard and their light gauge combine to produce an excellent feel.
Sources
Carter, W. (1995). The Martin Book: A Complete History of Martin Guitars. San Francisco: GPI Books.
Gruhn, G. (1986). Martin’s bowl-back mandolins. Frets, 8 (3), p.53.
Gruhn, G., & Carter, W. (1999). Gruhn’s Guide to Vintage Guitars: An Identification Guide for American Fretted Instruments. San Francisco: Miller-Freeman.
Longworth, M. (1994). Martin Guitars: A History (3rd ed.,2nd printing). Minisink Hills, PA: 4 Maples Press.
Washburn, J., & Johnston, R. (1997). Martin Guitars: An Illustrated Celebration of America’s
Premier Guitarmaker. Emmaus. PA: Rodale Press.
