This curious ad conundrum was finally put to rest in 2024 when harp guitarist Randall Sprinkle shared with me a cryptic historic photo which I tracked down to the Wisconsin Historical Society, who subsequently licensed it for our use and provided the critical high-resolution image. You can read the story here.  The reason it proved frustrating for the last dozen-plus years is discussed below (now redundant, I’m archiving all these discoveries and updates as they happened, for history’s (and my) sake:

The first ad that Dyer ran depicting a harp guitar appeared in The Cadenza in December, 1901.  It shows a frustratingly stylized woodcut of a Knutsen-style (Larson’s Dyer Type 1) Symphony harp guitar. The headstock appears to represent a clean, slotted, Larson-made headstock, though the neck itself is offset significantly to the treble side as in a Knutsen.  The depicted 10^th fret marker (rather than 9^th) was used by both Knutsen and the Larsons (though not consistently).  The neck heel could be an attempt at depicting either the traditional Larson heel or the "bulgy" butt-joint heel of early Knutsens like HGT15 and HGT1.  This same ad ran all the way through November, 1904 – with one curious five-month gap - when it was immediately replaced by a similar ad with a woodcut of the Type 2 version.  Our key questions: Was Dyer still distributing Knutsen instruments through 1904?  Or did this ad depict the first of the Larson-built, Knutsen-licensed Type 1 instruments?  Or yet another possibility – that the ad covered both Knutsen and, later, Larson instruments?

Bob and I originally agreed that the woodcut represented a Larson-built Symphony harp guitar.  The artist was presumably copying an actual instrument (or a picture of one), and the "Waverly-style" tuners on the slotted headstock seemed a dead giveaway.  Knutsen simply never did this on any known Symphony specimens.  In fact, by 1902, he would permanently switch to a solid headstock with geared tuners.  Moreover, by 1902, Knutsen had abandoned this model, experimenting with his very inconsistent “Evolving” Symphony harp guitars for the next few years.  We further interpreted the illustration as depicting a neck heel – which Knutsen never did, but was typical of Larsons.  The offset neck I attributed to shoddy draftsmanship.  Finally, we had to acknowledge that there are no known specimens of Knutsen-built instruments with a Dyer label.

And yet….not being able to fit the serial numbers into a timeline implied by all of the ads, I’ve taken a new, harder look at this particular ad.

For one thing, rather than ignore the neck placement and crude neck heel, let’s consider them.  To my eye, the heel looks a lot closer to the Knutsen bulge – rare, but seen on several early Symphony instruments (see photo) – than a Larson-style heel (photo).  If we are to take the neck at face value, then it clearly represents Knutsen’s significantly offset neck, which is like no other.  On the Larson’s similar Type 1 the neck would be barely offset to the right (ending up slightly offset to the bass side on the Type 2s).  Taking the headstock and tuners at face value, we clearly see a Larson.  The result: It does not add up.  If we take everything in the drawing literally, we end up with a chimera of an instrument that does not exist.  So how do we decipher it?  An alternative scenario that I find perfectly reasonable is that the engraver copied an image of a Knutsen harp guitar, and when they got to the difficult-to-resolve mess of Knutsen’s early headstock – with its crude individual tapered “slots” - they simply borrowed a design from a more traditional guitar (virtually any early 6-string image lying around would have sufficed).  This scenario would then negate the argumentative clue above about Knutsen switching to a solid headstock, as the ad drawing was completed before that time.  If true, the fact that Dyer didn’t then bother to change the image when the Larsons finally did produce this model could be explained by the fact that the image already “looked like” their version.  Both makers had fully bound versions of this design, by the way.  We now know that Dyer was already distributing Knutsen’s own labeled instruments around 1900, without any apparent qualms – so there is no real reason to be alarmed by the lack of Dyer-labeled Knutsens distributed for another couple of years.  The 1901 Cadenza ad advertising (Knutsen) “Symphony Harp Guitars” as being sold by Dyer would not be unusual.

Whatever you (or I) might think of the two scenarios above, let’s call this a draw for now.

Knutsen

Dyer

But another problem with this ad is that it ran for twenty-one consecutive months, then after a five-month hiatus, returned for another ten months.  That’s a full three years of production for a Dyer model of which there are only four specimens known!  One caveat about the 5-month interruption: they ran a new ad for their line of strings for four of these months, so it is possible, that it wasn't so much a "harp guitar hiatus" as a "new promotion" of a new product (Sterling Strings).  And yet - it seems more than strange that Knutsen's Symphony harp guitars from this same period outnumber the Larson Type 1 Symphony by over 20 to 1, when Knutsen did little or no advertising.  A reasonably logical answer to this dilemma might be to consider my alternative theory of the previous paragraph – that the 1901 image was in fact representing a Knutsen – and that the six-month gap (September, 1903 through February, 1904) possibly coincides with a period where Knutsen was “let go” and the Larsons were hired and gearing up to copy the Knutsen model.  Knutsen was indeed experimenting with many different features in 1902 and beyond, and his quality and aesthetics were only getting worse in general – so Dyer would have understandably become fed up by this point.  It does seem strange that Dyer would simply re-use the old Knutsen ad and not roll out a big new campaign, but there is a similar and even more inexplicable lack of any sense of excitement when they unveil the Type 2 just nine months later.  I thus don’t see any of this as a deal-breaker in the clue department.

Update, October 2011: Now that a fourth Type 1 specimen has been found – the first with a legible Style number (“5” – more on this significance below), we finally have some better clues. Specifically, that two of the four known Type 1 serial numbers are now known – 125 and 127 – which we believe equates to the 25th and 27th instrument built. With the lowest confirmed serial number of the Type 2 being 140, this would suggest that somewhere between 27 and 39 Type 1’s were produced. Update, March 2020: A fifth Type 1 specimen - the earliest so far - has the Knutsen-signed label with serial # 120. The Style may again read 5 - in this case, a small "05." It too has the simple appointments of the Type 2 Style 4.

Bottom line: When taking not only the number of surviving specimens into account, but also trying to fit the early Dyer serial numbers into these two opposing scenarios, I find myself consistently favoring a Knutsen-then-Larson scenario for the December, 1901 through November, 1904 “Type 1” Cadenza ad. (Just remember that I could be completely wrong)

Counterpoint: Bob recently pointed out the question of the Maurer Company which August Larson bought with other investors in 1900.  He wonders if this could have been a business venture specifically to be able to handle a new Dyer contract.  I also find this timing intriguing – however I’m not too inclined to weigh in on it, simply because of my stance above (the low numbers of instruments found).  Nevertheless, this newly-formed company certainly could have been a key factor in the success of the Dyer line.  Something Bob has never really explored and shared with us until recently is the fact that the new Maurer Company might very well have had an unknown quantity of additional employees to assist in production. They could easily have employed workers from Maurer’s factory, for example.  It is also not known whether August’s partners (Longworthy and Lewis) were luthiers or just businessmen.  The Larsons were a legendary “two-man shop” all right – but the key word is “legendary.”  That lore came from Bob’s family members much later, and they may have known nothing of the early Maurer years.   Here is Bob's latest write-up for us on the Maurer Company:
 

New Bottom Line: Obviously, Bob won that one! But it took him 14 years and my own article and conclusions to make it happen!

B) Type 2 Dyer harp guitars with very low serial numbers and hard-to-read numbers

It is now clear that the Larsons built the Type 1 harp guitar first, and then created the Type 2, abandoning Knutsen’s design. That’s not to say that there couldn’t have been some overlap. So, you would think that as we collected serial numbers, the Type 1s would be found with very low numbers, and the Type 2s would generally have higher numbers than the highest Type 1. If only it were that simple!

One problem that plagues us is indirect evidence. There are a lot of entries on Bob’s old list (and even some on my later list) that came from a questionable source. Even when we know the source, if we don’t see a decent photograph of the label at the very least, then we are just taking their word for it. We have long since learned that faded ink or pencil and/or sloppy handwriting can easily cause a number to be misread, and even if legible, someone’s hasty scribble and subsequent letter or email to us of their provenance can yield errors.

Here is an example of difficult to read Dyer labels:

Note the handwritten number 5 and 6 in the series, starting from the left. Personally, I cannot judge how many of these serial numbers are in the same hand or penned by different individuals. The label on the right has been in my folders for years, but never added to our serial number list. Now I remember why.  I originally couldn't tell if it was "845" or "865."  Can you?  I wasn't sure if that was a second poorly-written "4" or what. I thought the last digit must be a "6." Now that I've seen many written sixes, I realized that that must be "6," meaning the last digit can't be another six, but something else - a "5" with the loop closed (ink bleeding or penmanship).  This is just one example of problematic Dyer labels.

Thus, a serial number that we take in good faith - but that may actually be a gross error - is extremely detrimental to our research. For example, #108 is credited to a Type 2 Dyer that appeared on eBay in the distant past. We do not have photos from the ad, nor know if any were even included. We certainly can’t take an eBay seller’s word for it – from what we now know, the number was almost certainly 608 or 708. As this suspect number might otherwise make or break our entire timeline and serial number theories, it becomes extremely problematic – dangerous even. While acknowledging that there is a real, if very slim, chance that it is correct, we should certainly make note of it but not use it as evidence (I long ago removed it from the list for this reason). Similarly, other Type 2 numbers may or may not be accurate.

Bottom line: Help us by submitting clear photographs of your labels.  Try illuminating with a black light in the dark if they are hard to read.

C) The November, 1906 ad that declares “1906 model” of the Type 2 design introduced in 1904

Then, in November, 1906 – nearly two years later – Dyer announces the “better than ever” “1906 model.” Yet it features just a poor resolution copy of the exact same woodcut from 1904 (along with a total of five testimonials). Again, this could just be advertising hyperbole (“let’s pretend it’s a new, updated instrument!”), or it could have some critical, as-yet-unknown significance to our research. The sixth sub-bass string wouldn’t show up for another couple years, and we’ve seen no significant Larson design features from the early to the later instruments. I honestly can’t think of anything other than maybe some new construction feature (laminated bracing experiments, etc.?). Perhaps that is where we should be looking – a switch in bracing patterns or quality. Multiple-specimen Dyer repairmen like Kerry Char have long noticed differences in braces: specifically, Kerry has seen the X braces in maple rather than spruce, and several have seen the spruce/rosewood/spruce laminated braces – but we think that that latter feature coincides with the more expensive Style 7 and 8 and not necessarily dependent on year built. Certainly, more data is needed.

Curiously, in January, 1907, a Dyer ad appeared in the American Music Journal, stating "1907 Symphony Harp Guitars" (Noonan, 2009). I have yet to examine the image, but I suspect there will be nothing surprising. This new finding makes me think that they were just updating the "model" with the new year when the first ads of that year are placed.

Bottom line: I originally thought this was a tantalizing and unanswerable clue. Now, with the "1907 model" example on top of the original "1906 model" example, I would wager that it actually has no significance.  For now, we can ignore it.

We get a lot of “provenance” from unverifiable sources. Often it is a relative who swears that a handed-down instrument was purchased in some specific year – which usually turns out to be unlikely or impossible. Other times there are written notes from a previous owner – either a scrap of paper inside the case or something added to the label. A simple rule is to consider this type of information as a possible clue, weighing both its feasibility and integrity, but to never accept any of it as “evidence.” Such is the case here. On Dyer harp guitar #669 – once circa dated 1914 in Bob’s system – there is a handwritten “1909” on the label. As I discuss in an article on this instrument, it may or may not have been purchased new, but with all things considered, has a good 50/50 chance or more of being true. While it is not verifiable “proof,” I have always thought it was worth considering, and now take it “on faith.”

For it to be true, of course, we would have to A) discard Bob’s old timeline and, B) come up with a completely new dating and serial number system that reasonably placed #669 in 1909, while fitting what facts we have. So, to point “A” - we would first need to determine if there was logically a way to abandon the current system, which places the theoretical #601 after February, 1912, when Knutsen’s 14-year 1898 design patent expired. This logically deduced scenario had been a “fact” during the entire duration of our decades of research into Knutsen and the Larsons – adhered to by Bob Hartman, Noe and Most, and myself.  But we never had all the evidence, just the reasonable logic of the theory. We do have the findings of Knutsen co-author Tom Noe from his exhaustive search at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which may (or may not) have specific bearing on the case – they “prove” some things but not others. Regardless, I was increasingly frustrated by all the Knutsen and Dyer provenance that didn’t seem to fit the existing 1912 theory.

So, playing “devil’s advocate,” I first asked myself if there was a way Dyer could have obtained the rights to, or ownership of, Knutsen’s 1898 design patent before it expired in 1912.  Unfortunately, the bottom line is, yes, this could have occurred, but according to Tom Noe, did not occur – all of which I will explain next (with good news at the end!).

I posed specific questions to both Tom Noe and Dyer owner and law professor John Thomas.  Their answers were very illuminating.

Q: Could a 14-year design patent be “renewed” or extended?

TN: Patent terms are not extendible or renewable.  35 USC 154.  Trademarks and copyrights can be renewed, but patents cannot be. When a design patent application is filed, the patentee selects a term of 3-1/2, 7, or 14 years, and pays an application fee appropriate to the term selected.  Note on the two Knutsen patents that they state "Term of patent 14 years." 

Q: Could two individuals or businesses share this patent?

JT: Yes. The patent holder can license others to use it.  (so “share” only in the sense that both are allowed to market an item under the contract – but one is a patentee, the other only a licensee – GM)

TN: (Since) a licensee does rely on the patent owner to enforce the patent if an infringement occurs, it would be reasonable for Dyer to claim that the guitar was protected by a patent. 

Q:  Would there be a record of the Dyer license?

TN: There is no requirement to record licenses.  They are basically contracts.

Q: Would a patent holder continue to use old labels on instruments to imply the old patent is still valid well past the legal period?

JT: Yes. Beyond the Knutsen and Dyer examples, there have been others.

TN: There is no legal requirement to remove "patented" or patent numbers once the patent expires (this is why we see "C. Knutsen's Patents" on the New Hawaiian Family label long after the expiration of the only patents he had).  (This) raises the question of why isn't a patent owner committing fraud by not taking "Patented" or a patent number off the product.  The answer to that is: #1) saying the product is patented is true (falsity is an element of fraud), and #2) it would place an undue burden on a patent owner to recall every product with a patent number on it. 

Q: What about the licensee (Dyer)?

TN: A licensee merely has a right to use (infringe) a patent.  When the patent expires, anyone can use the patent subject matter.  I suppose that Dyer could still say that the design was patented, but couldn't rely on Knutsen for enforcement purposes. 

Q: What does “sole factors” mean on the new September, 1908 Dyer ad?

JT: In this context, I'm confident that "factor" means agent. 
From www.dictionary.com:

5. a person who acts or transacts business for another; an agent.
6. an agent entrusted with the possession of goods to be sold in the agent's.

It's not a use that one hears these days, but it crops up in old business law cases.  Dyer & Bro. were advertising that they were the exclusive agents for selling (this) harp guitar.  They used the plural because the company was "W.J. Dyer & Bro."

TN: Yes, “sole factors” means they were the only agents selling Dyer guitars.

And the $1,000 question…..

Q: Could a (design) patent be transferred back in 1906?

JT: Yes. From the enactment of the first patent act in 1790, patents have been considered intellectual property that can be transferred, licensed, etc.

TN: (Yes, but) the law requires that any transfer of patent rights be recorded in the PTO, both in ownership records and on the file jacket.  The transfer of ownership records don't exist.  So, Dyer was a (only a) licensee until 1912…since Knutsen's patents expired by 1912 (14 years from 1898 on the second Knutsen design patent), there were no longer any rights to own. 

I pressed Tom on how certain he was, as my whole “theory” may well have rested on this.  He provided further details of his search and his qualifications for same, and indeed, the case seems to be closed.

TN: A transfer of ownership of patent rights is known as an "assignment."  The PTO maintains assignment records - drawers and drawers of them because most patents were assigned to companies by employee-inventors who had to as a condition of employment.  Even a sale of a patent from one company to another is an assignment.  If a company acquires another company, all the patents in the acquired company's portfolio have to be assigned because failure to assign with a period of time results in an unenforceable patent.   If you have a patent number, you can go to the assignment records and find out who the owner is.  I did that, so I know. 

In the last five years of my corporate practice, I was Intellectual Property Counsel for Danaher Corporation.  Among other duties, I was a member of Danaher's acquisition due diligence team evaluating patent and trademark portfolios of target companies to ensure that rights hadn't expired and that there were no defective assignments.  I only mention this because I spent hours going through assignment records and was quite proficient at it. 

Without an assignment, it is fraud for another, including a licensee, to claim ownership rights in a patent because it is a false claim with intent to deceive the public. 

So there you have it.  It appears that Dyer did not take over the Knutsen patent prior to its expiration in 1912.

Tom has blown my entire theory…or has he…?

Not at all.  I realized that I was exploring a “patent transfer theory” not just in hopes of moving up the 600-series labels (and all Dyer dates) but at the same time to explain why the “Patented in U.S. & Canada” remained on Dyer instrument labels so far beyond the 1912 expiration date.  (My “patent extension” question was for this same reason).  Since it felt like a related clue I was focused (and stuck) on this theory.  In any event, based on Tom’s answers above, the latter question remains unanswerable with specifics, but perhaps simple overall – Dyer was in a gray area and chose to just continue using pre-1912 labels that included “Patented.”  The law allows the patentee to do so, a licensee might very well gamble on the same “scare tactics.”  As there is no other rational or legal explanation, and this did take place, what other answer is there?

But wait a minute, you’re saying – Dyer didn’t continue a label in 1912, they switched! (from the Knutsen-signed label to the standard Dyer label)

Ah hah!  Wrong.  They had already switched labels much earlier.  Assuming this is true, wouldn’t it better fit with Tom’s explanation of patent law above for Dyer to have continued with a pre-existing label (burden of recalling labeled products, etc.)?  As opposed to fraudulently creating a brand new label in 1912 after the Knutsen patent expired…which again claimed “patented.”…?  Both options involve a gray area of patent law and marketing, but with the “1912 new label” option appearing so much less tenable, it (to me) bolsters the idea that Dyer had to have switched labels earlier.

But how?

I can think of many reasons why Dyer would have done this, and how most of the clues better fit this timeline, and even how it all jibes with what we know of Knutsen.  As to how, I simply assumed “Why not? What do we imagine might have prevented such a simple and obvious event?”  I just needed to make sure that it could have happened.

So, a final email to Tom Noe, patent expert, Knutsen expert…

Q: Tom, the final $10,000 question: Is there any reason to think, or insist, (or have legal basis for) that Knutsen had to continue to sign the Dyer labels for the full ten or so years of the license?

I also included for Tom a re-cap of some pertinent facts:

1.    Knutsen’s applicable patent was in effect from 1898 to Feb 15, 1912.

2.    Dyer licensed this patent from Knutsen starting sometime between 1901 and 1904 (we now know this was 1901)

3.    Dyer printed up labels, which were sent to Knutsen, who signed them and returned them. These were sent to the Larsons, who entered serial numbers and installed them in the Dyer instruments.

4.    All of these labels have serial numbers only in the 100 or 200s.

5.     When Dyer switched to a NEW label - one without Knutsen's signature - the numbers jumped to 600.

6.    There is no record of Knutsen transferring his patent to Dyer.

Could not the licensing contract simply have been revised so that Knutsen's signature was not necessary? 

TN: There is no legal requirement that Knutsen had to sign labels, except by contract.  Of course, we have no written contract so we don't know exactly what the arrangement was.  But the fact that the first few labels were notarized tells me that Knutsen didn't trust Dyer initially, and relaxed a bit as time went by and subsequent labels were signed but not notarized.  It is really unusual for a licensor to sign labels or products.  I think this was Knutsen's way of keeping track of royalties, at least at first. 

One possibility is that Dyer negotiated a paid-up license so that the parties didn't have to deal with labels/instruments on a piece-meal basis.  (Regarding the gap between Dyer serial number series) it could be that Knutsen initially signed 500 labels, 300 of which were returned when some new arrangement was reached. So Dyer designed a new label, and started with serial number 601.  That’s one scenario.

Bottom line: your theory holds water.  By the way, paid-up patent licenses are quite common.  What that means is that for some agreed-upon royalty figure, the license is paid up for the term of the patent.  It eliminates all the reporting, paying ongoing royalties, and having the licensor looking over your shoulder.

And so, once again, there you have it.  Understand that we don’t have proof that such a thing occurred.  But also understand that, similarly, we don’t have any proof (and little reason to continue to believe) that the Knutsen-signed label continued all the way up to the expiration of his patent in 1912.

I don’t know how simple this seems to you, or how long it has taken you to read, absorb and ponder.  It has taken me years, months, weeks, and now many dozens of hours to rewrite for the hundredth time – so I know it’s complicated and convoluted, but I hope the reader considers that I’m on to something.

Regarding Tom’s interesting speculation above about the labels jumping in sequence, it might make sense if these “500 labels” were all serialized, but they weren’t – they were left blank for the Larsons to fill in. (Update, Sept, 2011: though now I’m wondering that – since the red pencil/ink of Knutsen’s signature and the Style and Serial numbers seem to match up, that Knutsen didn’t possibly do all that himself…?)  In any event, I’ve studied American fretted instrument history long enough to conclude that maker’s serial numbering systems are often convoluted and arbitrary.

Now, using the above premise, I’ll re-examine the Knutsen/Dyer timeline.

We know that Knutsen signed the earliest Larson-built Dyer harp guitars, and that the U.S. and Canada patent referred to on the label was his (Knutsen’s c.1899 labels also listed “England”).  We can thus safely say that there was a licensing agreement between Dyer and Knutsen in this period, which presumably started when Dyer stopped distributing Knutsen instruments and instead commissioned the Larsons to build a better version.  This must have been in either mid-to-late1901, as evidenced by the Emory Bennett photo discovery.

At this point, with the Larsons building substantially more professional instruments, what if Dyer wanted to completely distance himself from Knutsen, whose name was still on the labels?  Might not Dyer’s customer get the impression that Knutsen built their instrument since he signed it?  Dyer would never subsequently credit the deserving Larsons for their work – wouldn’t he have been even more reluctant to have Knutsen’s name on the label?!  Remember that this would have been going on for a full ten-plus years during the height of Dyer’s Cadenza ad campaign.

As stated above, I find it much more likely that Dyer convinced Knutsen (with financial incentive or otherwise) to re-negotiate their licensing contract.  If such an event occurred, it would not take effect until mid or late 1906 at the earliest, and mid-1908 at the latest (Note: I’ve now placed the specific Dyer events at mid-1908), and here is what would have theoretically happened:

Knutsen would stop signing Dyer labels and the new Dyer labels would be issued.

The “600” series of serial numbers for harp guitars would begin (this almost certainly coincided with the label change).

Knutsen would stop using “Symphony” on his labels, while Dyer continued using it (this is a known fact, with an approximate date of this very period. Specifically, circa 1906 he went from “Sole Patentee of the Symphony Harp Guitar with 11 Strings” to “Sole Patentee of the Harp Guitar with 11 Strings.  The theoretical reason being that Knutsen has now licensed the exclusive use of the “Symphony” name to Dyer.

Knutsen would still claim “Sole Patentee” on his labels and Dyer would claim “Patented in the U.S. & Canada” (these are both facts: for Knutsen, the approximate dates of 1906/1907 through 1913/1914 for this label feature are fairly accurate, while the Dyer date is the unknown.

Knutsen would begin making only his “lower bass point” (a pointed flare on the lower bass bout) and “double point” harp guitars (this is a fact, with an approximate date of this very period).  Many of these would be shorter ¾ scale instruments.

The Larsons would also build a “lower bass point” harp guitar with a short scale.  I had dubbed this a “Type 3” Dyer, and by complete coincidence it was also labeled a “Style 3.”  It was built right at the start of the label change, as every specimen found with a label has a serial number in the very low 600’s (this is a fact, though the date of this label change is unknown, though I have now moved it to mid-1908).  It is not known who copied who on this design (presumably the Larsons copied Knutsen), but it is clear that Knutsen built them from circa 1906/7 to 1913/1914, but not beyond, and that the Dyer version appears to have been only made for a very short time coinciding with the low 600 serial numbers.

Dyer would state “Sole Factors” on their ads beginning in September, 1908 (this is a known fact. However, I no longer think it relates to the new license or new exclusivity of the “Symphony” term [though it may].  It more likely means that Dyer was merely the “sole agent” for selling Dyer harp guitars.

Dyer would also introduce a harp mandolin (this is a fact – once believed to have occurred in the fall of 1908, but now known to have occurred in late 1907).

OK, so are there any logistical problems with any of these eight theoretical events?

No.  Bullet #4 is fully covered by Tom Noe’s answers above.  I was always stumped by this issue: How could both Knutsen and Dyer claim that their harp guitar was protected by the patent at the same time – with Knutsen even claiming “sole patentee”?  As Tom explained, Knutsen was still the "sole patentee" – he never transferred it, so remained the sole owner of the patent for its fourteen-year duration - and Dyer was still a licensee, allowed to claim patent protection for their licensed product – with or without a signature from the licensor.   As far as public perception, Dyer’s customers would now no longer be aware of this "Knutsen person" from the label – in fact, the new label “implies” that Dyer owns the patent.  Nor would the public find any other maker’s harp guitar labeled “Symphony” from here on out.  I can certainly see Dyer pushing for such a deal, and Knutsen might have stopped worrying or caring after a while - especially if they sweetened the licensing fee.

None of this quite explains the “patent” inclusion on the Dyer label after 1912.  In fact, Dyer never removed the patent notice from their labels.  It is still there on the highest serial number we have a photographed label from.  This instrument is circa dated at 1922 in the old system, and in any of my new timelines, still approaches 1920.  How did they get away with it?  Well, as Tom explained, a patent holder was allowed by law to leave a patent notice on a product even after its patent had expired – and Knutsen himself did so, stating “Knutsen’s Patents” on the post-1912 “New Hawaiian Family” labels (which included a photo of an older harp guitar).  Dyer must have followed suit, although they were in a much shakier gray area.  A final frustrating fact is that Dyer included the “Patented in U.S. & Canada” on the labels of the very first to very last harp mandolins, even using them even on the later (brand new) mandolas and mandocellos.  Tom Noe has no answer for this one, it seems to be a completely fraudulent claim.

Bottom line: We have two very different options here, one of which requires a paradigm shift.  Neither is yet 100% provable. Either the new 600 series Dyer label appeared in February, 1912 (as originally published by Bob Hartman), or it appeared in the 1906 to 1908 timeframe.  I favor the earlier timeline, and, after my latest serial number statistical number crunching, have decided on mid-1908.

E) The “lower bass point” harp guitars built by both Knutsen and the Larsons

Bottom line: I still have no proof, only a strong “gut feeling” that Knutsen created this model, then the double-point sometime in 1906, and that the Larsons briefly “copied” his “lower bass point” design around the middle of 1908.

F) The strange case of the “Style 3”

The answer may be simply this: The specimen #125 (refer to my Gregg’s Blogg article) finally showed us that the label’s Style number did not include a “U” or a “0” which we thought we were seeing on the identical specimen 127. Instead, both turn out to be a Style 5. Curiously, the plain appointments match the later Type 2’s Style 4, not its Style 5 with top binding. But so what? Obviously, Dyer/Larsons made a switch – a new ornamentation designation system – when they brought out the Type 2.

My guess? Simply that when the first Type 1’s were built for Dyer (beginning with the theoretical serial #101), someone chose a simple numbering system that arbitrarily assigned “5” as the lowest style number. Maybe it seemed like a nice round number, who knows? Remember that they were just getting started and probably hadn’t yet come up with the specifics on how many “models” (of ornamentation) they might do. As two of the four known Type 1 instruments match the later Style 7 ornamentation, we know that there were at least two “models/styles” (again, just using the original Knutsen Symphony form).

A couple years, later, by the time the Type 2 was designed, they had probably come up with the idea of their four (then five) different “Styles.” For whatever reason, “4 was the new 5” (to use a modern expression). Style 4 was now the plain model, and there was nothing below it. And they were off and running.

When they later decided to do the new “Seattle Knutsen”-like, short scale instrument, they had a dilemma. This was not a new “style” of ornamentation on the same instrument; it was a whole new body style “model.”  But, for whatever reason (ability to just use the same labels?), they simply assigned this new shape (which itself occurred in a couple levels of ornamentation) its own “Style” number. They could have picked anything – “3,””1,” even a word like “Terz,” whatever. But they chose “3” which happened to be adjacent to their existing lowest number.   

Update, January, 2012: The latest (sixth) Style 3 found (#610) is in the family of the original owner, and family lore says it was purchased "about 1909." Accurate or not, that is certainly close to my new proposed date of mid-1908!

Update, January, 2013: A seventh Style 3 has long been hiding right under our noses, owned by the late Bob Brozman.  Curiously, it has a somewhat later serial number: 673 (not a hard to read "613" but definitely a "7" according to Bob. Without being able to see it, I suggest that it is in fact "613".)

Bottom line: This is my current theory.  As far as why they chose “3,” who knows (or cares)?  The dating, the timeline – none of it matters for this discussion.  We just have to accept that we were fooled by an apparent “sequence” – Bob and I were looking at “3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8” and stuck thinking “consecutively,” wondering where Styles 1 and 2 were!  Problem solved…(?)

G) Duplicate serial numbers

We now know that harp mandolins duplicated the same sequence as harp guitars, but several years later. Just a couple of these duplications are known. We also have long had many reports of duplicate numbers; however, the majority of these are still unverified (see bullet B above). However, we now know that mistakes do happen and that there are Type 2 Dyer harp guitars with the same serial number, with two distinct legible handwritten labels. Three examples appear in my serial list above (denoted with “(2)”).