Could this be an unlabeled 1927 Martin?

I just snagged a uke in a local auction, and everything about it screams 1927 Style 1 Martin. Except.... there is no branding and no serial number anywhere on it.

Tuners are correct, back radius feels right, shape, binding, fretboard and dots, tie block, everything I can compare against the Martin book seems right.

The heel of the neck seems a little chunkier compared to a 50's Martin, and the bookhas no good heel photos, but some look like they could match this as well.

There are a couple of hairline cracks, but other than that and a bunch of scratches and a few dings it's in excellent condition. And it has the Martin bark, so no matter what it is, it's a keeper.

The lighting here is bad, so the pictures aren't great, but I can try again in the daylight if I need better ones.

I suppose one of the top would help too... duh.

While some things look correct, the bridge is wrong and to my knowledge, Martin always identified their ukes with a Martin name on the back of the headstock. the front of the headstock or a name inside the uke. They did not use serial numbers or paper labels. Until something can be proved otherwise, it is not a Martin uke.

Send the pics to Martin! koolkayaker1 may be able to help

The bridge looks right to me, what's wrong with it?

The lack of a stamp or decal is what bothers me about it, but I wasn't sure if any of the models they made for other companies would be missing it.

I just looked at my 1925 Martin 2K and see that on the back of the headstock is stamped the Martin identification, along with the same thing seen through the soundhole inside the ukulele. There is no paper label. One other thing about my ukulele is that it is incredibly light - feels like it has almost no weight at all. The newer Martin ukuleles seem a lot heavier by comparison. Also it is LOUD. Some describe the sound as "that Martin bark". So there is a lot about these old Martin ukuleles that is quite distinctive. I would think the difference between a 1925 and a 1927 Martin ukulele should be minimal, if even detectable.

I am not an expert on these things, but I did purchase from a nationally known and reputable/knowledge dealer of vintage instruments, who is fortunately in my back yard, s to speak so I could try before I bought. They cited a Martin book on ukuleles that allows you to identify the age of a ukulele based on certain identifying aspects of the instruments such as the style of the tuners, the location and style of the labels, and things such as that. I don't recall the name of the book, but it is mentioned frequently in this forum whenever the discussion comes up about vintage Martins.

I am not a collector and really don't know much about vintage Martins. The only reason I have one is because it was the only soprano ukulele that I really liked the sound of. Had I found THAT sound in a newer, less expensive ukulele, I would probably have gone for that, but it is "kinda cool" to have a piece of history. I feel a sort of responsibility to try to make sure this one doesn't get any cracks and is well taken care of in a way that I probably wouldn't feel so strongly about with a new (non-vintage) model.

Tony

PhilUSAFRet said:

Send the pics to Martin! koolkayaker1 may be able to help

Click to expand...

I already PM'd Steve but didn't have pics then. He wondered that if everything checked out that it might be an employee's personal uke. I am in PA, so that's possible I suppose.

Maybe its your photo, but the Martin bridges are rounded off on the sides and back edges. The bridge in the photo looks flat on top, never saw a Martin bridge that is total flat. Maybe a different photo from the side? As far as I know Martin only made ukes for the Wurlitzer company and the shape of that uke is different.

aquadan said:

The bridge looks right to me, what's wrong with it?

The lack of a stamp or decal is what bothers me about it, but I wasn't sure if any of the models they made for other companies would be missing it.

Click to expand...

It's the picture, the bridge is rounded on the sides and back.

The martin book listed several companies that they made instruments for. It doesn't look like a ditson or wurlitzer, but there aren't good pics of the other ones to compare against.

BlackBearUkes said:

Maybe its your photo, but the Martin bridges are rounded off on the sides and back edges. The bridge in the photo looks flat on top, never saw a Martin bridge that is total flat. Maybe a different photo from the side? As far as I know Martin only made ukes for the Wurlitzer company and the shape of that uke is different.

Click to expand...

Looks a lot like my 1930's Martin, your heel is a little chunkier, the tuners are different. I thought 20's Martins had peg tuners.

This style Grover started in 1927 on the style 1.

The heel is the other part that doesn't seem quite right to me, but I haven't seen anything older than a 50s Martin to be able to compare.

UkerDanno said:

Looks a lot like my 1930's Martin, your heel is a little chunkier, the tuners are different. I thought 20's Martins had peg tuners.

Click to expand...

Steve wouldn't know anything more than is already in the Martin book. So since you already have the book, I'd suggest heading over to The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum or Flea Market Music Bulletin Board. If you search back far enough through the posts of yore, you'll find a wealth of knowledge from real experts who are incidentally even thanked in "the book." My hobby when UU used to be down and offline was to read all the backlogs of the real experts out there, so if you want some names, shoot me a pm and I'll try to help you locate some people who really know what they're talking about. -- Matt

My guess would be possibly a Martin employee uke. I do believe that even the ukes that Martin made for other companies would have had some sort of stamp either on the back of the peghead and/or on the inside.

PS for what it's worth, and I could be wrong- as I'm no expert- but my understanding of Martin is that the employees were prohibited from taking an instrument out of the factory without the "stamp," or some sort of indication that the instrument was a Martin...

soupking said:

PS for what it's worth, and I could be wrong- as I'm no expert- but my understanding of Martin is that the employees were prohibited from taking an instrument out of the factory without the "stamp," or some sort of indication that the instrument was a Martin...

Click to expand...

I think that it is just the opposite. Martin let employees build their own instruments but we're not allowed to put any marks on it to indicate that it was a Martin or to resell it as such.

some discussion here and here.

Hey, Dan.

Thanks for the photos and PMs.

I don't think that's a Martin, but don't know for sure. Having owned many Martins (and bought and resold just as many) over the past few years, I've never come across one without any stamp at all, inside or out. Even the ones made for other companies have a stamp. I have three Ditsons, made by Martin, all with a Ditson stamp. Wurlitzers, a Wurlitzer stamp, etc.

The bridge is, as Duane mentioned, definitely not Martin. That is the bridge used by Regal, Stewart, and other Chicago-based ukulele makers. I have had a few, and they are great ukes just the same. I have since sold mine or else I'd take a photo to show you.

The tuners, as someone mentioned, look unfamiliar to me. You mention finding then in the Martin book, Dan, so I believe you. I still own many ukes from the 20s and don't have any with those tuners. They look similar to some of the 1950s style Martin tuners, but not exactly those either. Very interesting.

Let me turn on some of my online Martin buddies Ryan and Rick and Terry to this thread for more input. Let's see. They're a world of knowledge, also based on ownership and seeing many ukes pass through their hands and before their eyes.

Mmstan has a wealth of knowledge and may chime in, too. Great uke, Dan! Great!

I think the bridge is the correct shape and it's just a bad picture. It is identical to the bridge on my 50s martin. Macmuse agrees with me on the bridge and says hi. (She's still loving the Bruko and Martin concert we got from you!).

The tuners appear to be the Grover #92 on page 128 of the book.

I've been doing some searching on employee instruments and found this thread http://theunofficialmartinguitarfor...de-by-employees-as-their-personal-instruments

If it's not a Martin, that's fine, I'm still real happy with it, but it sure would be nice to figure out what it is.

coolkayaker1 said:

Hey, Dan.

Thanks for the photos and PMs.

I don't think that's a Martin, but don't know for sure. Having owned many Martins (and bought and resold just as many) over the past few years, I've never come across one without any stamp at all, inside or out. Even the ones made for other companies have a stamp. I have three Ditsons, made by Martin, all with a Ditson stamp. Wurlitzers, a Wurlitzer stamp, etc.

The bridge is, as Duane mentioned, definitely not Martin. That is the bridge used by Regal and other Chicago based ukulele makers. I have had a few, and they are great ukes just the same. I have since sold mine or else I'd take a photo to show you.

The tuners, as someone mentioned, look unfamiliar to me. You mention finding then in the Martin book, Dan, so I believe you. I still own many ukes from the 20s and don't have any with those tuners. They look similar to some of the 1950s style Martin tuners, but not exactly those either. Very interesting.

Let me turn on one of my online Martin buddies Ryan and Rick and Terry to this thread for more input. Let's see.

Mmstan has a wealth of knowledge and may chime in, too. Great uke, Dan! Great!

Click to expand...

Hi, MacMuse.

Hi, sister of the uke MacMuse. Glad that you're enjoying those ukes, Bruko and Martin concert. I'm so glad that you like them. (Still a hole on my wall where the concert Martin once lived, but I smile to know that you play and enjoy it!)

Dan, you sure have hit on something! I see the No. 92 tuners that you reference, and they sure do look like them (too bad there's no photos from the front of the headstock in the book); yes, they do look alike. Of all the Martins I've owned and played, I've not owned those tuners...isn't that odd?

The bridge, I don't know. Maybe. Hard to tell from the photos. My gut says no, but I want to believe. LOL Admittedly, Regal and such usually don't have a two-piece bridge, and yours does. Maybe it is the photo that makes it look square, hard to tell.

The link you have about Martin employee models is great! Interesting reading. So, Martin forbid the logo on employee ukes (for the most part--debatable, as can be seen from the thread). And you are from near-abouts the Martin factory region. You may be onto something. Wow, beguiling!

I sent out a couple of feelers, lets' see how others chime in on this thread.

PS Dan, any other photos you could take--of the whole instrument, just the back, the butt end, etc. Go wild, please!--might help...it all has to do with proportions and such.

Congratulations on your find!
scoring a style 1 Martin staff uke is one of my fantasies!!!

Some of the earlier (like very early) Martins had squarish bridges. My 1916-17 Ditson (no position markers) does as does a Style 1 (position markers at 5, 7, 9) I have. on both of these the saddle is boxwood (light colored wood, like maple). There is also some discussion about it on this page:

http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/topic/138521/Rare-Martin-Ditson-ukulele#.Vnpxy4t5_ds

jgarber is correct; employees were not allowed to use the Martin logos on instruments they made.