Hollywood Resophonic Mandolin

[Deleted]

I recently purchased a Hollywood resophonic mandolin. Was told it is from the 1930's. It has a Florentine-type shape. The body is wood, not metal.
Says Pat Apld For on back of headstock and has Hollywood imprinted in script on the bridge plate. How can I find out more about it?

[Michael Messer]

Hi twid3,

Welcome to our forum.

Hollywood was a brand name of Schireson Brothers, but for us to tell you more (if we can) about your mandolin, we really need to see some photos.

I look forward to seeing some pics

Shine On
Michael.

[Deleted]

Hope attachment appears.

Attachments:

[Michael Messer]

Hi twid3,

Thanks for posting the photo. Your mandolin is pretty much what I expected to see, and at this time all I can tell you is that it is a Shireson Brothers Hollywood instrument.

These are well-built and quite rare instruments that due to the Schireson resonator being fitted, don't have a great sound. Does your mandolin have the Shireson resonator, and how does it sound?

There may be some more information posted later, but meanwhile here are a couple interesting pics....





These are rare, so it is good to see yours.

Shine On
Michael.

[Mark Makin]

Hello Twid3

Michael has pretty much set the scene here.
The Schireson guitars, ukes and mandolins were manufactured by the Globe company. Not much is known about Schireson. They were also responsible for 'Vol-U-Tone' electrics.
In the early 30s , they started manufacturing resonator instruments using a reversed 'bowl' type of cone (see Michaels patents above)
The guitars obviously were steering very closely to the Dopyera's ideas.

By November 1931, the National Board were beginning to discuss what their actions should be.

They wrote letters to Schireson demanding royalties in 1932 - these were ignored. By October 1932, they were considering sueing Schireson.

By Feb. 1934, National's lawyers were gathering evidence concerning the infringement of Beauchamp's single-cone patent. It was particularly the "Hollywood" brand of wooden guitars that irritated National's Directors.

On 18th Feb 1937, The courts awarded in National's favour. The judge said that the Hollywood "looked unlike a National but operated in the same way..."

All of Schireson's assets, dies and tooling were given to National who sold them for scrap. Carl Barth (National Director) kept the die for manufacturing Hollywood cones on his desk for years ..... as a trophy!!

You might think that the granting of Schireson's own patent (see above) would give them the right to make it. (Interestingly, they only applied for it as the legal letters from National started arriving!! ) Apparently, from a court's point of view, the patent really only gives you a right to fight for it legally from a position of strength. Many patents from as far back as the late nineteenth century were quoted by both sides from MacMillan's resonators of 1912 and even the Stroh Viol's patents of 1899. It was eventually decided that it was too close to the Dopyera's intellectual property.

Here is a Hollywood guitar.




They actually would never have become a problem to National even if the court case had not taken place because they just don't sound as strong or vibrant as a National does. Ironically, they were, in some cases, exceedingly well made with abalone inlay and detailed engraving. (like this guitar).

I suppose this is true of a lot of Far East instruments today. Ozarks, for instance, are beautifully detailed and finished but do not understand the basic structure that makes them worthwhile instruments.

Incidentally, in answer to part of your question, - if your mandolin has PAT APPLD FOR on it then (considering the patent printed above) it must have been made between September 1932 (when it was filed) and September 1933 (when it was granted)
Best
Mark

[Matt]

Mark,

Just a quick question, I notice that the 'Hollywood' guitar has a distinctly 'National' style tailpiece, can you tell us anything about that? Was that aspect of National's designs not protected in its patents?

[Mark Makin]

Hello Matt
Thanks for the question. I had intended to mention it and you have reminded me!!
In the original designs of early National Triplates and single cones, the only pieces visible that have nothing to do with National's design thinking are the machine heads and the tailpiece!

The tailpiece (particularly this one in question with the extra 'studs') was an "off the shelf" purchase by National - probably from Stella (Oscar Schmidt of New Jersey). It is a 6 string development of the large Leadbelly type studded 12 string tailpiece.

National found it very useful for their needs and saw no reason to change the design to suit themselves - so when they started producing their own version, all that happened was the removal of the studs.

Another reason why this would be of no consequence in the court case is because the patents concerned cover the 'operation and principle' of resonators rather than the 'design and style'.

The patents that were infringed were about the similarity of function and not decorative styling. That is not to say that you can't patent a 'style'. There are a few 'decorative' patents of Rudy Dopyera's coverplate designs (though none seem to have been used).

Michael has just sent me an email with a further picture of a Hollywood with a different type of Stella tailpiece (closer to the 12 string type) which re-inforces the point about where they might be from. I'm sure he'll post it later.

[Deleted]

Great info. Its a beaut guitar (the mandolin is too) - what a pity it don't sounds as it looks. Do the sounds holes look a bit 'restrictive' to air movements too?
TT

[Michael Messer]

Here is the photo Mark mentioned in his post.



Shine On
Michael.

Attachments:

[Michael Messer]

I have an original National/Oscar Schmidt 12 string studded tailpiece which I will photograph and add to this thread.

Shine On
Michael.

[jay86]

I know someone who recently found a Hollywood guitar and I'm wondering what it might be worth these days. I started another thread but thought I would post pics here in case anyone is paying attention. If anyone has ever bought or sold one of these or has any estimate as to the value I would love a reply. Thanks!
    

[steverino]

Personally, I think that that the Schireson Bros. were dealt an unfair blow by the courts. The Schireson designs as described in their patents were at least as different as the National and Dobro designs were to each other. There should have been room for each in the marketplace.

I had to buy three Schiresons on ebay years ago before I got a usable body and cone, but once I combined them the results were very satisfying. The sound is very robust and pleasing, perhaps a bit closer in sound to a wooden guitar though still offering the volume and punch of a resonator.