F) The strange case of the “Style 3”

If you thought the previous discussion about the date of introduction of the Dyer Type 3 was difficult, just try to wrap your brain around this one….

As mentioned earlier, I came up with the “Type 3” designation only so that we might have a term for organization and discussion of the Dyer harp guitars – and we then thought (and still think) that the Type 3 design was their third model.  When the first labeled instrument turned up (quickly followed by two others) we were amazed to discover that it was labeled “Style 3”!  The surprising part was not the fact that it was the same number I had chosen – that was a complete (if unusual) coincidence.

No, it was the fact that we finally had an answer to an old nagging question.  Type 2 Dyer owners are well aware that its Style numbers corresponded only to degree of ornamentation and that they began with #4 for the most plain and went up from there.  It now seems obvious why the plain Type 2 Dyer "began" at Style 4 - there was a Style 3!  Well, it was a definitely a missing piece of the puzzle – but an answer?  Hardly!  

For one thing, the “Style” numbers 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were used for ornamentation designations on the Type 2 design, whereas for the Type 3 the Larsons (and/or Dyer) used “Style 3” for a body design.

Confusing, yes – but the real problem is the timeline.

Wouldn't logic dictate that the Style 3 would have had to have been created and assigned its number before the #4-through-8 ornamentation numbering system was established?  And yet we see “Style 4” already on the lowest numbered Type 2 Dyers.  So what gives?  We now know that the Type 2 Dyer had appeared by December, 1904, and unless it had some earlier, as-yet-undiscovered label, it apparently had ornamentation style designations from the beginning – and they started with #4.  Yet the Style 3 instrument would not be created and built until much later!  NOTE: It does not matter which date you want to use for the Style 3’s introduction – the 1912 option or the earlier 1906-1908 period – because either way, it is the switch to the 600 serial number series that is the key.  Style 3’s are (so far) only seen with low 600’s numbers, while Style 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Type 2 harp guitars have been found with lower 100’s and 200’s numbers. 

This is one that I so far simply can't answer.  And, of course, this begs the next question: What then were Style 1 and Style 2 ?!

One intriguing clue is early Type 1 Dyer specimen #127.  A nice, low number - and the only one with a remotely legible label.  Yet what is the Style number?  While the serial number is clear, the Style is not.  It looks like a "U", or possibly a "0" and something else (see photo).  Could it be "01", "02"?  This seems unlikely, as no zero was ever placed in front of any other written Style number. Whatever it is, does it refer to the Type 1 Knutsen design, or the ornamentation? (this one has very plain construction, while a fancy Type 1 with "style 7" appointments is also known)  We have no idea.

It is logical that - whatever this label states - Dyer (and the Larsons) might have eventually considered this first model their "Style 1" - but would they have originally called it Style 1 since they (presumably) could not "predict the future"?  This seems highly unlikely – so my feeling is that the written symbol is probably a designation of ornamentation.  Perhaps they later decided to “consider it a Style 1” (labeled or not) when they came up with the Type 2 design, which they knew would further be offered in various ornamentation levels needing a designation.

Nothing wrong with the logic of the previous paragraph, right?  But, again, this would only seem to demonstrate that the Style 3 came before the Type 2’s five styles, and yet all other evidence points to the opposite conclusion.

So not only can we not answer the question of whether the Type 1 equals the “Style 1, ” but the next obvious question is whether there is also an as-yet-undiscovered “Style 2” instrument.  I truly hope not!  Because if there were, we would again have to deduce that the Style 3 (the Type 3) came third, and that the Type 2 actually came fourth (in its five different trim “styles”).  I highly doubt that there is a hidden Dyer model out there to lend any credence to this “Catch-22” scenario (including Bob’s curious one-of-a-kind Knutsen-ish Larson at right).  Instead, my first thought was that the Larsons / Dyer Company considered their Type 2 1904 model as their second "style" (fitting with all of our working timelines) - with the Style 3/Type 3 coming last.   Except that they appear to have used the Style 4-8 ornamentation designations right out of the gate!  So they would have had to have “known” that a "Style 3" was coming!  The only way for this to make sense is if they started working on this third Type 3 model immediately after they designed the famous Type 2, but before they worked out the quality designation system and filled in the labels.  Yet, frustratingly, the serial numbers (603, 608 and 62X) of the surviving Type 3's with labels indicates a much later instrument.  It simply does not add up!

Now add to this unsolvable mystery this little tidbit: The owner of the Style 3 #62X (hard to read; “X” equals either 4, 8 or 9) specifically states that his grandfather purchased the instrument in Absoarke (sp?), Montana in 1904.  But as I said earlier, we simply can’t trust this kind of statement as evidence.  Anyone in the family could have easily corrupted that original date over the last hundred years, and it may have only been a carelessly remembered guess in the first place, now taken on faith.

Now before you think to yourself – “wait a minute, what if we plug that date into a Timeline to solve the dilemma of the Style number sequence?” – let me restate the statement above: It doesn’t matter which date you want to use for the Style 3’s introduction – the 1912 option or the earlier 1906-1908 period (or even a crazy, unsubstantiated 1904 date) – because either way, it is the switch to the 600 serial number series that is the key.  Style 3’s are (so far) only seen with low 600’s numbers, while all Type 2 Style numbers (4-8) have been found with lower 100’s and 200’s numbers.

Bottom line: At this time we have absolutely no way to explain the strange case of the Style 3.  Actually, there is a way, but it is such a weak argument, that I am almost embarrassed to mention it.  For this final scenario, we would assume that the Style number of that Type 1 #127 specimen is irrelevant (“U” or whatever) and that Dyer/Larsons decided to start the Type 2 ornamentation styles completely arbitrarily with #4 (rather than #1 for example).  When the Type 3 was created, it should have been a new “model,” not a “style” (of ornamentation).  But I imagine them thinking: “Why print a whole new label?  Just fill in the ‘Style ____’ portion with some new designation.”  In this scenario, they could have used anything I suppose – a number, a letter, even a word – but decided on a single-digit number that was “missing” from the original series.  Just brainstorming folks!