Are there still Loar clone builders

[banjo1]

IF so .................how can we identify thier work?

If they build with thier own labels inside and not a copy of a signed Loar lable, seems ok to me.

Not fraud if the proper information is on the inside.

Just a question that has been on my mind since joining the Cafe.Not and I repeat not trying to give anyone a bad wrap, just info. that I want

Have a great year.

[Greenmando]

I think the best Loar clones are being made by Gibson right now.

[banjo1]

Great answer Tom, though that is a little different that I expected. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Michael Lewis]

It will be interesting to see what Darryl Wolfe comes out with. He has been so focused on the details of the original F5s that I think his stuff should be pretty close.

It is true that Gibson is on top of making Loar copies. There are also several individual makers that try to duplicate the Loar F5. Cliff Sargent was very focused on the Loars and was remarkably sucessful at replicating the sound and look. Both Gilchrist and Nugget mandolins come pretty close to replicating the Loar but they also have some distinct differences.

I have used information that I measured from some Loars, but I don't really make a copy, unless you consider the basic shape of the F5 to be a copy. There are some very interesting aspects of the Loars that continue to intrigue me and I will continue to learn from them, but in the long run I want to make something a bit different.

[banjo1]

Thanks Michael
The looks are what I am after in this question.The sound is as important and I love em, but an exact copy.Down to the logo, inlay(flower pot or fern),color of a certain serial number, binding, same number piece in a neck, pick guard.
You guys know..................a true copy. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif,
but with thier own label inside.

This may be a little touchie for some, I dont know.

[banjo1]

I had a chance to buy Monteleone #2 which was a clone which John added his own label inside, some years ago and passed.
OUCH ..............I let my bride talk me out of it.

KICK KICK KICK http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[grandmainger]

Adam, do you mean a non-Gibson Loar copy with a "The Gibson" inlay on the peg head? If so, no reputable builder would do that, because that's downright illegal, with or without a 'disclaimer' label inside the mandolin... There has been extensive discussion here about the trademark status of the flowerpot inlay itself (run a search, you'll find pages and pages), but there is no question that only Gibson has the copyright/trademark over the "The Gibson" inlay...

Germain

[Antlurz]

I *think* one is within the law if they make one for themselves, but at the same time, would be in a heapa trouble if they tried to sell it.

Ron

[Mando Medic]

Adam, If your question leans in the direction of, "Builders making near exact copies or forgeries of Loar F5's," then the answer is yes. It has been going on for at least 35 years and is still going on. Kenc

[Tom C]

"If so, no reputable builder would do that, because that's downright illegal"
Maybe so but, I would think there's nothing wrong with doing that. If I built one and kept it for myself with no intent of selling it or making a profit, what is Gibson suing me for? Especially if my last name happened to be Gibson.

[grandmainger]

"If so, no reputable builder would do that, because that's downright illegal"
Maybe so but, I would think there's nothing wrong with doing that. If I built one and kept it for myself with no intent of selling it or making a profit, what is Gibson suing me for? Especially if my last name happened to be Gibson.
Agreed of course. However, I think Adam's question was referring to copies for sale... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Big Joe]

Even if your last name is Gibson, the name is a trademark of a corporation and is not allowed to be used by any other mandolin builder. If you build one for any reason you risk being in danger of trademark infringement and potential lawsuits. Gibson takes that very seriously these days!

[Michael Lewis]

Adam Hardcastle, my advice is that you should not butt heads with the gibson legal department, you most probably would regret the process and outcome.

The problem of "making one just for me" is that eventually the instrument will go to other hands. No body lives forever and the stuff that is left gets inherited by someone. So you can't really say that it will never be for sale because it goes out of your realm of control.

[glauber]

Now, if you would make one and call it "The Gobson", for example, it might qualify as protected speech, as a parody! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif (IANAL)

[Big Joe]

As long as it cannot be mistaken as a Gibson at a distance of 20 feet you might...might get away with it http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[glauber]

Are you kidding? Nothing could ever be mistaken for the legendary quality of the Real Thing!

[banjo1]

I am not wanting to but heads with anybody.
It is a big problem if you do this infringment on any bodys copyright.i was just asking a question and still want to know (how do we recognise thier work)
I am not asking anybody to do anything against the law.
I had a question and I know how wrong it is to do this.

[banjo1]

Let me ask this another way.
Are there things that Lloyd Loar did building F5's that knowone, including Gibson has done since.

Most serial numbered, Loar signed, instruments are know about (most), so I want to be able to tell a real Loar from a fake Loar.

Are there any tell tail signs of a fake?

I am sure that I am not the only one with a desire to know that answer to this question.

[Charlie Derrington]

Adam,

I'm not being flip, but it's taken a few of us years and years to be able to distinguish the nuances between a good fake and an original. I'd be glad to tell you how to do it, but I can't put into words how we know. It's the very small and subtle things that are the "tell".

For instance, how does Loar period varnish crack differently from lacquer of the same period, or of shellac of the same period? Where does the 15th fret cross piece lay in relation to the 15th fret? What material are the points made of and how are they cut in? Are the tonebars in the correct spot in relation to the center line or f-holes. Where are the f-holes placed? Are there any signs on the inside of the instrument (or in the scroll) of the finishing materials or techniques? Are there any chips or worn areas in the finish that let's one see under the top coat? How about the areas changed by perspiration..how did they react? What shade is the stain and can you see through it? How does the finish appear under a black-light? What about the bridge, the case, the tuners, the finger-rest, the fret slots, the look of 20's ebony, the pickguard frog composition, binding, miter joints, inlay, glue, scroll carving (front and back), maple look, spruce look, fret edge angle, apex of the carve on the top and back, neck position and angle, heel carve, smell, etc., etc., etc.

I could go on and on and still not be able to explain how we know what we know. It just takes time and working on a few dozen of the things to learn what you need to know.

Sorry I couldn't be more help.

Charlie

[banjo1]

Wow Charlie
Thats enough to keep the whole country busy for some time to come.
Thanks for the time you spent on your little( HA HA ) response.

I have studied rare US coins for the past ten years or so and still dont know all that I need to know to become a dealer of rare us coins.

Great place to visit and to talk and most of all learn.

[danb]

A few more:
correctness of locating pin hole markers in the peghead, filler around inlay, shape of fingerboard extention & position of frets, binding around peghead scrolls, engraving style/quality on tailpiece cover, tuner plates stamping & plating, number of screws holding plates to peghead, drill position of tuner holes, correctness of the buttons to the tuner plates, mitering of the point protectors, materials used & layers visible inside truss rod pocket, wood types, smell inside the box, labels, handwriting on labels, aging of the paper comprising the labels, color of case material, color/thickness of binding, trapezoidal ridges of binding against fret ends, "hidden serial numbers" on PG or bridge base, wood used on fingerboard extension, wood used on bridge & finishing/treatment of the ebony and feaux ebony surfaces..

[Tim Saxton]

As long as it cannot be mistaken as a Gibson at a distance of 20 feet you might...might get away with it http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .
Sure Joe!!! Right!!

And what trademark infringement law is that under???

[banjo1]

The info. on real Loars are what I was looking for from the start, I just asked it the wrong way. Sorry.

There will always be folks trying to fool the public and we need to arm ourselves to keep it in check.

I can see by the responses that we are all very, very serious about our passion and business.

I have studied some on rare stringed instruments most of my life. I have learned in two months on the Cafe, than in my whole life before.45 Years.

If I were to build anything, I would not want anyone to copy it.

Thanks folks.

[Bill Snyder]

As long as it cannot be mistaken as a Gibson at a distance of 20 feet you might...might get away with it http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .
Sure Joe!!! Right!!

And what trademark infringement law is that under???


If I am not mistaken that is the criteria that a court used in one or more previous lawsuit(s) in which Gibson prevailed.

[banjo1]

I am always looking for information concerning the topic that I plan to get into.I have ammased a great deal of information in a year and a half of searching.I have bought the best wood that I can get my hands on but the research continues.

We all should learn from the years of building, that some of our fellow Cafe'ers have gone through and its been free .............so far.THANKS TO ALL BUILDERS & REPAIR PERSONS

Good advice is hard to come by and the tried and true info. on the Cafe's chats is a life time of learning, all rolled up in one neat place.

If I ruffeled some feathers and got someone upset, I am sorry for that.It was not my intention.

I am not going to build Loar clones, never thought about it.I am just going to build the best mandolins that I can and research helps us all in that area.

[Chris Baird]

If I am not mistaken that is the criteria that a court used in one or more previous lawsuit(s) in which Gibson prevailed.
That case was appealed and overturned.

[banjo1]

Where do you guys get all of this neat information? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Stephanie Reiser]

There will always be folks trying to fool the public and we need to arm ourselves to keep it in check.
I cannot IMAGINE anyone trying to build a Loar-lookalike, and then trying to pass it off as a real, honest-to-goodness, Loar-signed mandolin. I have learned that some folks built loar-lookalikes back in the 70's, or whenever it was, but the intent was not to deceive; it was to build an instrument that 'looked' like the real thing. I did not understand it, but our friends here explained that phenomenom to me. But, I don't think anyone would build an instrument specifically to fool anyone in this manner.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I appreciate Michael Lewis's kind words. #IF I ever get finished with some mandolins, I intend for them to be very close, but for all practical purposes, they cannot be cloned. #A person can include all the nuances he is able to do and gather, but there are always boo-boos. Mine is not done because I keep redoing the boo-boos. #I could have made 10 mandolins by now.

Here I am in the process of darkening it up a bit because it "UV light faded", but in this pic, Charlie can already pick out at least two nuances that are not quite there

[glauber]

Where do you guys get all of this neat information? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
On the Internet.

[banjo1]

Great looking Darryl.
Do you have a web page for your own mandolins?
As to Amanda's comment:
People have copied evrything that was worthey of copying in the past.
I have seen mandolin with Gibbson, Gilbon, The Gilbon and a hand full of mandos in north Texas That were F5 copies but clearly not Gibsons work.even for the 1970's
I have seen guitars with CFMountain&Co.on the headstock.Granted these are not tru cpoies they were made to dupe the un-edjucated.
People have copied coins almost as soon as they was ready for the public by the US Mint.Funnie money has been here almost from the start of real money.
Our country did this when it was very young. When the thirteen colonies were still under English control, we made our own money.It was against the British law to mint the money that was done here.All money had to be minted at the Tower Mint in London.
For over 40 years our early coinage had the date of 1652.If the date of the coins changed every year then England new that we were breaking the law, so the date stayed the same.
So you see this copying thing has bee done before and will be done again to decieve other people.

[Stephanie Reiser]

So you see this copying thing has bee done before and will be done again to decieve other people.
it is one thing to 'copy' something, like a style of instrument. It is another matter entirely to 'forge' an instrument. I dont think that is occurring in America by American builders, intent upon passing a fake off as a $130,000 instrument for capital gain.

[Windflite]

I had a chance to buy Monteleone #2 which was a clone which John added his own label inside, some years ago and passed.


In the spirit of curiousity, Adam, what did you think of #2, what part of the country was it in when you saw it and (if you don't mind responding to this part) how much was it going for? #I know that one his later early mandolins (with HIS name on the peghead) is currently for sale at Mando Bros.

thx. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/coffee.gif

[banjo1]

I have not seen a Loar clone, copy, forgerie or what ever you want to call it since the 1970's personaly. Growing up in Oklahoma, that state was home to some of the biggest bluegrass festivals in the world, with some 20,000 to 35,000 folks attending.You saw copies of everything there, some made in the states some not.I will say that it might happen in other contries today.
That was the original question ,does it happen in the US this day and time?
I dont know and thought someone on the Cafe has news that we all need.

[Windflite]

I was just curious, Adam. #I played Monteleone #2 at a jam a couple of weeks ago! #I met the current owner last year and have seen him a few times since and have light heartily tried to persuade him to part with the instrument for a friendly trade/price! # (To no avail I should add!) #He does frequent the cafe every once in a while and maybe he will post some pics. # It is a wonderful instrument! # Hey Paul..are you reading this? #

Cheers. #
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Tim]

it is one thing to 'copy' something, like a style of instrument. It is another matter entirely to 'forge' an instrument. I dont think that is occurring in America by American builders, intent upon passing a fake off as a $130,000 instrument for capital gain.
You have a much higher opinion of our fellow human beings than I do. #As evidence I'd just submit the occasional "yard sale Loar" threads that go around here occasionally. #All you have to do is build a good copy, put it out in an estate/yard sale (we found that under grandpa's bed when he died) and someone will buy it thinking they are getting a $100K+ insrument for a few thousand.

[Big Joe]

I see forgeries on a regular basis. Both banjo and mandolins. Some are pretty pathetic and some are pretty darn good. A few years ago at IBMA a man brought a mandolin to me and it looked pretty darn good. He was proud of his Gibson he built. It was not the first or the only. If you did not know what to look for it could have fooled many. It was replicated right down to the signature labels and the aging of the paper. While this does not represent a bulk of the instruments being made today, they do exist and I see them from time to time. It is a sad tale for those who buy the fakes and spend good money on them expecting to get the real thing. Once they find they got cheated (whether intentionally or by accident) it does not feel good.

[arbarnhart]

Now, if you would make one and call it "The Gobson", for example, it might qualify as protected speech, as a parody! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif #(IANAL)
Even parodies get shut down. Jordache successfully sued "Lardash" jeans. McDonalds regularly wins court battles against McAnybody.

[banjo1]

Hello Andy.
Monteleone mandolin #2 was for a short time owned by a friend osf mine in Fayettville, Arkansas. He has had some mighty nice amndolins come through his shop.
Famous owned F and A models.I think that the price was $9,000.00 at that time.
It is a great mandolin and am sick that I passed on #2.Total lac of funds and thats the story of my life.
As to what BigJoe said, the clones that I have seen in the past were some just goo and some very good and the builders were very proud of thier work in building a close, close copy

[Mando Medic]

A couple of things:
1. I worked on #7 Montelone Loar copy and a fellow I know quite well owned and still owns it. He bought it new in 76 from Mandolin Brothers from his winnings in a banjo contest at Beanblossom. One of the greatest sounding mandolins I have ever heard. Wish I could borrow it for a Mandolin Tasting.

2. Let me respond to this post. "it is one thing to 'copy' something, like a style of instrument. It is another matter entirely to 'forge' an instrument. I dont think that is occurring in America by American builders, intent upon passing a fake off as a $130,000 instrument for capital gain."

Hmm. Short of suggesting that you haven't been around good copies much, just let me say that I have seen plenty of these. Now I'm not a Loar expert, but I do know something about them and I'm hear to shout that they are still being made today to try and fool anyone willing to think they are getting a good deal.

The scam works like this. There is a group that has some pretty good F-5 builders working for them. The goal is to build a Loar copy and take it to a festival and show it around. Now everybody is looking for a Loar from the attic or from under the bed and they want to basically buy it for 20 cents on the dollar. Now we all know that some people are greedy and are also, know it alls. If they are shown a good fake and don't have all the facts and are given the choice of buy it now for, let's say 40 thousand dollars or it gets away, what are they to do? No time to get an appraisal but they do have a nice 37 D-28 bone that would cover half of it and $20 in cash or trades or both. So this new owner "Expert" now has his hands on a "Real Loar" and starts showing it around, ready to triple his money. When the person finds out he has been scammed, well, it's too late and he's too embarrased to admit that he should have waited for an appraisal, but he just knew it was real. Embarrased to admit that he screwed up and now is stuck with this copy and no way to find the seller. Trades and cash are hard to trace. If you can crank out 10 of these copies a year and pop them for $40K each, that bankrolls a lot of living or extra curricular activities..... don't ya think?
This is the way the scam works and believe me brother, I've seen it with my own eyes and know a few folks who bought them.

This doesn't factor in the ones that were built as projects by well meaning luthiers who had no intentions of fraud. Just wanted to build a copy of the grail. Honest intentions, nothing more..... right down to the label. Now the luthier has either had reason to sell the instrument or died and the family sold it. The next person(s) in line may not be so honorable or informed. This is how is happens and is still happening. Ken Cartwright

"Just my opinon, but I'm Cartwright."

[Bill Halsey]

In the sphere of violins & bows, claims of never having been deceived by a counterfeit are usually met with skepticism. Even Dario D'Atilli was known to change his mind now and then about the provenance of some particular fiddle. Of course Loar F-5s are another matter, having been built relatively recently, and with unique hardware, etc. Few have the skills and the time to pull it off, but the possibility of the perfect forgery will always exist. Caveat emptor (or something like that).

[RichieK]

Ken,
Your post makes a lot of sense.
BTW, I own Monteleone #16 and #21 which have 'Monteleone' on the headstock.John told me that he stopped putting 'Gibson' after #8. I bought #16 from John in 1977.They are both killers, but they both have Fern headstocks and dots on the third fret. Does that make them copies of a late 20's Fern? IIRC, that's when the 3rd fret dot was introduced.
I also have a CE Ward copy of the one and only A-5 Loar, but it has a flowerpot and not the Fluer de lis...I guess copying the A-5 is not as in demand as the F-5!(If you'd like a picture, send me a PM.)
Richie

[Michael Lewis]

Nova on PBS did a program several years ago on the subject of forgeries. They covered several types, currency, oil paintings, jewels, etc., and some of the science of discerning the difference. The program also covered the reasoning behind the forgeries, and most were done with intent to defraud for monetary gain, but many were done just for the test of discipline to do it. Sort of a personal grand accomplishment. It was also pointed out that this activity is absolutely illegal and there are severe consequences for engaging in it.

One time at a gathering of luthiers in the SF bay area a fellow showed up with a "vintage" D'Angelico New Yorker that I had to look at for a minute or so before I knew it was a fake. I have handled and seriously examined several original D'angelico guitars, and I have been making authorized replicas for about 12 years, so I know the details pretty well. This guitar had the look, until you looked at the headstock inlays and the tailpiece. These things are not easy to correctly duplicate as they contain several subtle elements, and that was the give away. The point is that most folks would NOT know the difference between the original and the fake, and that is the dangerous aspect.

If a person can make an accurate and compelling copy of a Loar F5 they should put their own name on it and THAT will make their name and reputation which will bring very good returns for the years to come without risking getting shot by an angry customer or devoured by the Gibson legal dept. If you get it right with all the subtleties and nuances you can put your name up there with Gilchrist, Nugget, Gibson, Dudenbostel, and Monteleone. Could you make a living on prices like those bring?

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[arbarnhart]

I have read that Rolex gets some fakes in for repairs and they only realize it when parts don't quite fit.

I was thinking of opening a mando shop called McGibsons 'R Us. Anybody want to invest? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Darryl Wolfe]

OK...Ken makes a point with the scam situation. #However, this has nothing to do with the quality of the mandolin in hand. #I have seen this situation, but it certainly is not the norm, nor does it mean that there is a "clone" out there. #I've seen that happen with a Jap Aria with a new peghead. #I've seen it happen with a few fairly good clones, but only in the very distant past when there were no real experts

The plain facts are: #
There are only a few mandolins in existance that would momentarily fool an expert. #
There are none that would fool an expert entirely.
Every mandolin that might make an expert have to think or look hard has something wrong with it. (example: "this is a refinished Loar with new hardware")

Now, the rest of the story: #I have been fooled twice. #Once when I was 16 years old, by a Givens clone. It would not even come close to fooling me, Charlie or anyone else intimately familiar with Loars now.
The other is a Randy Wood intentional, not too long ago clone. #It fooled me for a few minutes, but only because I had no reason to question it. #Again, he said he had to refinish this one, "pretty good job eh?" #All parts and case were original. #The best he could humanly do, It would not fool an expert when placed under scrutiny.

Case closed. #Only a fool will be fooled by a clone. This is not to say that a person is a fool if they cannot tell a clone, but they are if they act on it.

[Tim]

Case closed. #Only a fool will be fooled by a clone.
All of the discussion in the message had to do with how hard it was to fool an expert and then you jump to the conclusion that anyone who doesn't recognize a clone is a fool. #Don't you think there might be some middle ground there?

Edit: #after "This is not to say that a person is a fool if they cannot tell a clone, but they are if they act on it." was added to the post I'll try to avoid being a fool by living by "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

[danb]

There's a lot of middle ground- most everyone here would spot a plywood lump-scroll with fake Loar labels, for example! Some of the stuff is subtle, and sometimes there are some original parts, or a converted F4 in the mix.. Many of the bits are hard to copy, and then there's the tone. In today's market, a copy that good is probably worth $25k!

[Darryl Wolfe]

See modified post. #This is what I really meant. #Sorry for the momentary bad play on words. ps, It was modified before I read Tim and Dan posts

[thistle3585]

Darryl,
Wasn't it you that posted a photo of a DMM and a Loar side by side awhile back? If I recall correctly, many people admitted to not knowing which was the Loar. I also believe there was discussion about how a DMM could be easily passed off as a Loar by changing the label. Has Gibson done anything special, other than labelling, to reduce the possibility of people passing them off as Loars?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Good point Thistle. A DMM is certainly the closest "clone" I have ever seen. Let's not discuss that other aspect too much.

[jasona]

Has Gibson done anything special, other than labelling, to reduce the possibility of people passing them off as Loars?
Charlie in the past said they have, but obviously never went into details.

[Charlie Derrington]

Darryl makes a grand point.

I was also fooled (when I was much younger and hadn't worked on any), however, I don't think, after study, I could be fooled again. That's why I'd love to see one of these "so-called" clones. I've not seen anything in a long time that couldn't be identified as a fake. I'd also love to be proven wrong.

Ken, not to be asinine, but to me the issue is sort of like BigFoot (which also purportedly is in the Great Northwest..maybe there is a connection ).

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Get me some pictures, or help me capture one, and then (maybe) I'll believe.

Charlie

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here is an even better example of a clone. #This is much easier to pull off than a Loar.

I had a client that wanted an original pre-war D-45. #I located one for sale by a trusted long time collector who was starting to liquidate. #We drove 10 hours to go look, see, verify, and buy it.
It was a fake and I do not think the owner knew it. We politely passed on it.
Now for the rest of the story. #It was however, an honest to God, real pre-war 1938 Herringbone D-28 that had been converted by a well known person. #Yes, included the "D-45" above the serial number. Too bad they didn't change the serial number away from the D-28 batch for that year.

[kudzugypsy]

all the loar guru's are right - they have seen probably 1/2 of all the known loars - and many from each batch which have their own characteristics. it would be really difficult to fool these guys. now for the average festival picker who may have seen less than a dozen (or none) under close observation (and knowing what to look for) it wouldnt be that hard to fool them.

darryl -
i was playing a festival some 4-5 years ago (this wasnt a BG fest but an "folk/songwriter" type) and saw a fella playing a mando. i went up to hear him and saw he was playing "an old gibson" - when i told him i played, he gladly handed the mando over and naturally i looked to see if it was in fact a *real* gibson - there in the f-holes was the LL signature. i played it, it was great, looked *right*, but i thought it was a fake. i asked the guy politely if it was genuine, it didnt *look 100% correct* - and he said yes, it was, he bought it from a guy in the late 70's in Tenn. well, over time i saw him again around and we would get together and jam - that mando was your old Griffin loar that now resides in durham, NC!

point being - if he had offered it to me for $10K at the time (for instance, if he didnt know what he had), i would have been suspious of the mando being a fake (as you know, its been refinished twice, etc - and it was hard to make a call on its authenticity)
...i should say the point is more - its fairly easy for a *novice* to spot a obvious forged loar - but another level entirely to authenticate a real one.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Exactly Kudzu. That is similar to what I posted about most having something wrong with them.

In this case, yes, a real Loar is hiding under the plethora of refinish and non-period parts. I did alot of work on that mando trying to bring it closer to correct. So that it was "easier" on the experts eye. I sent it to Paganoni, but he politely talked me out of refinishing it again due to the top thickness. That instrument was the reason for the start of my pickguard, repro bridge and tailpiece cover saga. For what it's worth, that mando has a solid Sterling Silver TP cover that would pass as original. My first repro guard was on it, but I believe it acquired an original later. Say Hi to Mike.

[salleyann]

THE PROBLEM I SEE WITH THE EXPERTS "CAN'T BE FOOLED" IS THIS--
IF A FAKE IS GOOD ENOUGH TO PASS, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THAT
THEY'ED BEEN FOOLED?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Well that certainly is a very good point. #And on the surface it makes perfect sense in many ways. #It would probably be best for someone else to say this, but, for that example to be possible, there would have to be someone out there with the combined knowlege of more than one expert who is capable of building and doing exactly what and anything his eye wishes his hand to do. #He does not exist in my opinion.

Now for contrast, maybe as a project, Charlie and I, along with Lynn Dudenbostel for example could jointly agree on every single piece of wood, every cut, and every scrape made by Lynn or Gibson, or whoever. #Each part or piece might have to be redone a couple of times until all were satisfied that it is as perfect as humanly possible. #There might be a whole lot of backing up, but we could likely end up with something that would fool some expert. #But then again we would know.

So, for Tjohnsons example to be possible, some Gilchrist/Monteleone/Dudenbostel/all of Gibson guy would have to be lurking in the shadows (with a support team) and nobody knows anything about him

[kudzugypsy]

Tony Williamson (who knows a thing or two about Loars) told me a long time ago that when he looks at a 20's F5, if it looks TOO PERFECT, ie, all the details are consistant with the known body of knowledge, that sometimes will raise a little red flag to check things a little closer. what he ment, and it can be seen by numerous posts in the Loar section, is that each one had separate characteristics (under the same general specs) and often if he sees one that shows something *odd* - it may be perfectly ok and original - its the ones where every detail has tried to be accounted for and made perfect that raise the red flags. as can be seen by the rather loose production specs during the pre-war gibson years, anything is possible - good lord, how in the world someone can claim to be a pre-war banjo expert is beyond me - i dont think a standard cataloge model was rarely sent out the door, they were just grabbing stuff from the parts bin at random.
how these guys can pay $60k+++ for a pre-war flathead is beyond me, i would really like to know how many are really 100% authentic.
OT, but the last 100% confirmed flathead RB-3 (yes, RB 5 string) came from 15 miles away from my house....OUCH!!!

[Steve Stahl]

I also believe there was discussion about how a DMM could be easily passed off as a Loar by changing the label. #Has Gibson done anything special, other than labelling, to reduce the possibility of people passing them off as Loars?
One thing that I have noticed is that the base of the flowerpot is clearly different on the DMM.

[grandmainger]

I also believe there was discussion about how a DMM could be easily passed off as a Loar by changing the label. #Has Gibson done anything special, other than labelling, to reduce the possibility of people passing them off as Loars?
One thing that I have noticed is that the base of the flowerpot is clearly different on the DMM.
We should hope they have included more than cosmetic differences. For example, I would have thought that a very thin strip of metal in one of the blocks would make a nice X-ray visible DMM identification "label"... I think that anything exterior could probably be modified to match an original Loar...

Germain

PS: I'd just like to re-iterate how fantastic it is to have so many experts contributing to the discussions here... Charlie & Darryl in particular in this particular Loar thread... I love this place!

[salleyann]

"So, for Tjohnsons example to be possible, some Gilchrist/Monteleone/Dudenbostel/all of Gibson guy would have to be lurking in the shadows (with a support team) and nobody knows anything about him "

NOT NECESSARILY SO, I'VE HEARD ALL MY LIFE THAT THE PERFECT
CRIME IS THE ONE NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT.

[banjo1]

Some of these true Loar's are being put up in collections, matbe never seeing the light of day again and some are not.
This is why I wanted to start a thread like this.I want the education first, then if I ever get the chance at a truley great mandolin, I and we will know what to look for.
This really a great place.

[f5loar]

There have been dozens of Loar copies made since the late 60's down to the bogas but fit in there serial numbers. Some have used Gibson parts like old 20's F4's coverted to F5's. These examples are still out there and many still being played by the original guys that knew they were fake when they got them however when they die and it passes on in the family they could be sold off privately as the real deal. That's what is scary. It's so embaressing to tell someone what they have is a fake and many times they will not take it to be true. When in doubt consult an expert.

[Mando Medic]

Charlie: With all due respect. You said, <"Ken, not to be asinine, but to me the issue is sort of like BigFoot (which also purportedly is in the Great Northwest..maybe there is a connection ).">........

Well that is asinine! I was making a point that it could happen.... Where the truth is on that point was not revealed. My point is simply there are builders and I'm sure you know a few, who have built one or more copies of a Loar, complete with Gibson in the headstock and two labels inside stating that it is in fact a Gibson and in some cases, a Loar. Maybe their intent was not to defraud or maybe it was, I don't know, but the fact remains, these instruments are out there. I appreciate that you know much more than most if not all people on this list about Loars and perhaps, real Gibson mandolins, but what you don't know are where all the fau Gibsons are or who made them. As long as these instruments are out there, the temptation to believe that these instruments are the real deal are there. Because you are you, these instruments will not fool you. But they will fool others.

So a question to you. As an employee of Gibson are you honor bound to confiscate any mandolin that you come in contact with that says Gibson but is not? Or are you honor bound to tell Corporate that you know where one is and who the owner is? Will Gibson pursue acquiring that instrument to remove it from the market place?

I'm sure if someone bought a fau Loar and were to find out that they had been had, there is a better chance that you probably wouldn't know about it. I certainly wouldn't either. So give it up in trying to discredit me with my "Theory". I have a theory about a group of builders and I really don't care if you choose to believe it or not. I'll be glad to discuss this with you at Loar Fest or off line. Ken Cartwright

[Big Joe]

Hey Ken...I've forgotten all about the Loars. #I was getting excited about Bigfoot! #I think he would be about my size, and could be a part of my family genetic pool. #Maybe I could teach him to play my loar copy (DMM) http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #. #(and no disrespect intended)

[Charlie Derrington]

Calm down, Ken...

I was serious when I said I wasn't trying to be asinine, the smiley face meant I was trying to be funny. I apologize if I've offended.

Darryl and I have always offered ourselves to validate a Loar for potential buyers, and I would hope someone spending the money on one would get an expert's opinion before they let any cash change hands. That's only common sense.

And no, I don't buy your theory as I've never seen one of these Loar clones (and yes, if I could trace it back, I'd darn sure let someone know about it as it's illegal). Again, I'd love for you to show me that I'm wrong.

It's not unusual for folks to disagree about things, it's just not worth any anger. I love to argue for the sake of argument and always assume others feel the same. To me, it's all in good fun and if I've hurt your feelings, again, I'm sorry.

I'll see you in Bakersfield and we'll have a laugh together over a Coke and a burger.

Charlie

[banjo1]

This is a great place aint it?

No, tempers do not to get out of hand.Remember the reason I asked the question.More knowledge for all of us.

It would cost thousands to get all of the folks together that are here on the Cafe for a discussion like this.I am learning.

I think that if we run across something that looks far too good to be true, we can at least take some pics and show them here for a great deal of input(authentication).

[banjo1]

I know that Gibson and other companies must have thier (Loar and other)inlay patterns covered by registration(copywritten, patented)but how much do you have to change a flower pot or a fern inlay pattern to be legal?

I do know that you can not call it a Gibson or any other name that is protected by law( why would you want to if you are a builder) but is the type of logo script used by these companies protected as well?

[Greenmando]

Hey Ken...I've forgotten all about the Loars. #I was getting excited about Bigfoot! #I think he would be about my size, and could be a part of my family genetic pool. #Maybe I could teach him to play my loar copy (DMM) http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif #. #(and no disrespect intended)
My wife used to joke about me streaking across the highway when we lived in Yosemite. Yeah, in a county of 5000 with 4000 active concealed weapon permits. As furry as I am, I would have been laid out on a truck hood quicker than you could buy a $150 Loar in a barber shop. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[danb]

Some of these true Loar's are being put up in collections, matbe never seeing the light of day again and some are not.
Mostly a myth- I only know of a handfull that aren't being played daily..

[Darryl Wolfe]

I just remembered another good "clone" story. #

My first really good mandolin was a Randy Wood F-12 conversion. #This instrument had The Gibson, ect. and essentially looked like Roland White and Red Henry's R.Wood #1 and 2, and was a very very good "clone" for it's time.

I went out of my way to scarf up some original parts for it, so, it started looking "real fine" #You have to consider that I was 16-17 years old at this time. #I "acquired" some of the first repro labels for it, and of course removed the big white Guarantee label and placed within this clone "Master Model" label serial "72614" and "Signature" label "March 27, 1923" "Lloyd Loar".
Man, I was in heaven now. #On top of it, this was a true Hoss/Cannon of a mandolin, and it was getting distressed from my constant festival goings.

Well, the rest of the story is that I knew and met many Loar owners and we jammed quite a lot. #This was when I started keeping serial numbers ect (how else would I get the fake serial and date believable) #One of these Loar owners was infactuated with my mandolin. #He played it all the time, and I played his Loar quite a bit too. #He offered to trade his Loar mandolin (12/1/24) plus cash for my mandolin. #(Those who live in Cincinnati can ask him if this is true, he will probabl;y get a kick out of it). #
I politely told this Loar owner that it was not a real Loar. #He was astounded, embarrased and thankful all at the same time.

So, the moral to this story is that I reached the dark goal, I succeeded in "fooling" someone, just as planned I guess. # I erased the serial number and replaced it with the original A-1012 number and got a "Randy Wood" label to go under the other f-hole.

Hmm, who is that guy with the mandolin case standing next to Harry West #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[banjo1]

Great story Darryl.
Who are the folks in the pic?

[Darryl Wolfe]

The late Cliff Sargent built a number of "clones". There was really no intent to "deceive", his works were generally a "tribute" to the Loar

[Darryl Wolfe]

nearly flawless peghead

[Darryl Wolfe]

a nice package when combined with a Paganoni case

[Larry Simonson]

Very interesting discussion even for someone who has a 1 in 100 million chance (ie., hitting the lottery) of ever owning a Loar. Now there are a whole bunch of other pricey labels that may inspire forgery, so has anyone seen a fake Gil or Nugget etc?

What would the mandolin business be like if tone was the only criteria of price?

[f5loar]

No disrespect for the bluegrass picker but a lot of them are still just plain ole downhome country folks(we call them rednecks around here)and the stories that Darryl and I have heard over the past decades about so and so has a Loar are many. You go find this guy only to find it's not even close other than the name at the top. One reason I don't mind playing a Loar out in public is who would be a rednecker like me would actually have one. Too many CE Ward,Dean Clawson,Bob Shure,Dean Span,Garland Shuping and Squirrel Loar copies running around in this area to make a believer out of anyone. I've often wondered if the Carolinas was a hot bed for fake Loars and if other parts of the USA had as many as we got.

[Charlie Derrington]

I think you're right, Tommy. I believe this area (Nashville and parts East) would have the most. No proof, just a guess. Thank goodness they're so easily identified.

Charlie

[Rob Grant]

Just curious, but with all this fascination with Loar and Gibson, what are the legal ramifications of just putting "Loar" on the headstock. I realize this doesn't #push the price up, but it does make a historically relevent statement. Has this ever been done, or would this be a violation#under Gibson's copyright?

[f5loar]

I know someone has already done a "The Loar" at the top inlay. In fact just saw an ad today in VG magazine "The Loar"F5 Weber/Rich Loar $1,999. If that is Bruce Weber and Greg Rich building a Loar copy sounds like a bargin to me!

[johnwilson]

If you saw the one in Carlsbad, CA, you've seen a cheap copy that niether Greg or Bruce ever laid a hand on...the equivalent of a Korean Vega banjo...

I hard heard that Greg Rich was assisting a Chinese/Japanese maker these days.

[Tim Saxton]

Greg Rich is the design consultant behind the "Johnson Carolina" series of guitars. He also was involved with Saga and Blueridge. As I understand he pulled out when they wanted to start using inferior materials etc... both built in China

Tim

[chuck.naill]

He is at Saga doing inlays for the Morgan/Monroe group, I heard

[banjo1]

It seems that Weber did a mandolin called "The Loar" as special order only but I think that it is now called a Weber Fern, but I could be wrong.
The mandolin that I have came from the same region but in N.Georgia , a very good Loar type of mandolin but not a copy.
There must have been a lot of builders in the Smokie Mountains.

[f5loar]

Wow, sounds like Greg Rich the master inlayer/designer is getting around. From the highs of Gibson,Inc. to the lows
of Johnson/Morgan Monroe. Sounds like a fall from grace.

[Big Joe]

Greg is no longer with Saga....he has moved on to Johnson. He is talking about reintroducing the "Loar" mandolin. Don't know if he will, but he told me he was going to. I'll have to ask him when I talk to him again...oh, it has little to do with the original except the name "The Loar".

[Michael Lewis]

Within the last week I saw an advertisement in one of the trade magazines for "The Loar" mandolin. I think it was in Music Trades but haven't been able to find the ad right now. I will look more thouroughly, later maybe.

[Rob Grant]

Michael wrote:"Within the last week I saw an advertisement in one of the trade magazines for 'The Loar' mandolin."

I take it then that Gibson, or anyone else, doesn't have copyright on the phrase "The Loar?"

[Stephanie Reiser]

I dont know why, but for some reason the thought of a mandolin with THE LOAR on the headstock seems 'cheesey' to me; makes me laugh. I would not be caught dead with such an instrument.

[Antlurz]

I dont know why, but for some reason the thought of a mandolin with THE LOAR on the headstock seems 'cheesey' to me; makes me laugh. I would not be caught dead with such an instrument.
How about if the logo said "Folk Loar" http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Ron

[f5loar]

Cheesey you say? Reminds me of those Volkswagon Beetles with the Rolls Royce grill on the front. Now that's cheesey!

[Michael Lewis]

I found the ad in Music Trades. It is from The Music Link Co. and will be at the NAMM show next week at booth 5476.

The use of a well known name can elevate a product if used correctly but usually the use of a great name is for the promotion of a lesser quality item and really cheapens the whole name. Look what happened to the Vega name over the years, and the old Gibson company outsourced Epiphone in the 60s and that brand is now diminished from it's original stature. Even names of the lower quality are being used this way, I saw a Harmony guitar in the Goodwill that was made in China recently.

There are lots of twists and turns in the business world so just be as educated and well prepared as you can. If it is too good to be true . . . . . http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[banjo1]

Great advice Michael and that id the law that I have tried to obey all of my adult life.
Thanks

[Tim]

Wow, sounds like Greg Rich the master inlayer/designer is getting around. From the highs of Gibson,Inc. to the lows
of Johnson/Morgan Monroe. #Sounds like a fall from grace.
Doesn't that depend on how much these company pay him versus what he made at Gibson?

[banjo1]

I cant remember how Greg got started in this thread, oh yea Loars.
I like some people, will never get the chance to own a real Loar mandolin but the information that I have learned on this thread alone, will get me ready, should that time ever come.
Thanks

[mandomurph]

I'm new to this thread. Sounds like there only are two categories of mandolins, the Loars and the Lowers.

[banjo1]

Considering the price of late, Loars are for sure in the upper dollar figure.
These days there are mandolin in most price ranges though.You do get what you pay for in all aspects.
There are dozens of builders that haing out on the Cafe that will build in all price ranges, from about $1000.oo and up.Most (not all)mandolins under that price are imported and you do have to play a ton of em to get a good one.The American builders in that price range are very underrated, but you do have to start off low price wise till you get a name built up for yourself.Then the price goes up hopefully.
As for Loars and lowers.................the will always be that distinction in all fields.

[Darryl Wolfe]

'ya know, there are not many people that can tell this "ain't the real thing". The is best looking one I've seen. Great job folks


DMM@Elderly (http://www.elderly.com/new_instruments/items/DF5M.htm)

[banjo1]

I am well out of the investing game but looking for Loars will always be a thing that I will do.If I fine one , it would have to be sold for the sake of the family.
Great thread though and I never dreamed that we would get all this great Lloyd Loar information.

[banjo1]

F5loar I am a redneck also and it seems that there are some miss conception about our knowledge.I have spent my adult life in the study of stringed instruments ans rare us coins.An unedjucated redneck like me, having a burning desire to learn more about the subjects that we love,is something that alot of do.I see that you said that you are one also(a redneck).
We may not have the money to buy the thing that we love, but we still desire them and hope that we will run across these items, one day.
This thread did what I wanted it to do.
Reveal information for all of us to learn from.
Thanks

[diamond ace]

"Too many CE Ward,Dean Clawson,Bob Shure,Dean Span,Garland Shuping and Squirrel Loar copies running around in this area to make a believer out of anyone. I've often wondered if the Carolinas was a hot bed for fake Loars and if other parts of the USA had as many as we got."

F5 Loar,

Could you have ment Carl Spann when you said Dean Spann. I know Carl who builds some great mandolins here in North carolina.

Just wondering.

[f5loar]

I did. Was thinking of Dean Clawson as I typed. Both have done mandolins with "The Gibson" in the top however they no longer do that. Early models they did would still be out there that could be passed off as real Gibsons. By the way Carl Spann is a really fine gentleman and great mandolin picker. Dean Clawson died a few years ago but his Loar copies still live on. Garland Shuping only made about 3 or 4 but he went for the full copy Loar look, mostly in Fern patterns. He died in 2000.

[diamond ace]

I know of two Spann mandolins that he got back from the original owners and changed the headstock inlays on and they now read "The Spann". Carl is a good guy but he is also by no means a fan of Gibson. I don't know how many mandolins he has out there but the las time I talked with him I think he said he had built about 30 or so. I takes his time, is a perfectionist, and only works on building one when he feels like it. I would love to have one one day If I could talk him into making another one.

[Jim Rowland]

West cost picker Bruce Shaw had a Weber Loar for sale in the classifieds a year or so ago.
Jim

[shawverscrossing]

First off, thanks to all of you for the great information. I can't imagine another situation wherein I could sit at my desk, having a drink, and have all of this knowledge of mandos at my fingertips.

I must say however, that I think most festival pickers could be fooled. We know just enough to get ourselves in trouble. The illustration of the copy traded for an old 'bone and cash at a festival could happen here.

And I think this can be shown by something that happens to our band at every festival. Our banjer picker plays an extremely rare banjo, and no one ever notices. People have no idea what they are standing next to.

The knowledge that many on this forum have is rare anywhere else. If you asked anyone but the mando picker in your band what years Loars were made, would they know? But yet they do know the name, so if someone came up and offered a fake for 20k, might they be fooled? I think it could and occasionally does happen.

[sunburst]

I can relate. I play a rare banjo too. A model that has been re-issued. The fact that there are new ones around, that look pretty much like mine, keeps most people from noticing it. Sometimes someone looks close, and says "Hey, is that...?...?" I'm sure the same happens if you get a Loar out in public. There are enough around that look sort of like it, that it probably doesn't get noticed sometimes.

On the other hand, Butch Robins heard the sound of it from the next room at IBMA, and came over to ask what I was playing.

[banjo1]

I have the same thing happen to me and my banjo John.It is a Earl Scruggs model from 1995 but most people mistake it for a renecked pre war.It is maybe 1 out of a 1000 in sound.Gibson just got it right in my banjo.
I do have to agree with shawverscrossing in the information gained by me in this one thread alone.IT IS AMAZING
Thanks everybody. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[BobLeeSwagger]

Very interesting thread! A few years back I read thread on this site that mentioned a certain group (perhaps supremecists?) that was making "very close" Loar copies that were very close to the real thing and selling them off to finance their own nefarious deeds. Several of the experts had commented in this thread that they "couldn't really comment due to ongoing investigation/litigation - but that they were very close". If I'm wrong, I apologize as it has been several years since I read it, but I was curious to know what happened with this story and anyone is willing to discuss how those mandos stand up to the originals and DMM's?

Thanks!

[HoGo]

If I'm wrong, I apologize as it has been several years since I read it, but I was curious to know what happened with this story and anyone is willing to discuss how those mandos stand up to the originals and DMM's?
Bob don't put DMM or MM into same bag with Loars. They are closer to Loar now than they were in 2002-3 but, IMO, they are still too far from Loar look to fool any expert or even well-educated amateur. I can tell Loar from MM just by looking at picture of its back. Headstock inlays and especially binding are another thing that is not as close.
There are some makers who are capable of doing very close or even exact copy (like Jamie Wiens (http://wiensmandolins.com)) but they prefer putting their own name on the headstock.

[Big Joe]

HoGO...You may be wrong about experts not being fooled by the DMM. I have seen several experts fooled by them and unless we told them they could not tell the difference by appearance, handling, or playing. It was cool to see them so shocked. One expert actually had a real Loar and a DMM and we asked him to look over each and decide which was real and which was fake. He picked the DMM and said it was the real deal. He was more than a little shocked when we informed him he was wrong.

There are some "tells" placed so one can never be really fooled with a simple xray. Some have the more modern headstock flowerpot and they should never be fooled. There are a couple other things that can give it away, but a well done DMM is hard to tell. It certainly fooled this expert who all would agree should know the difference (and no...I am not at liberty to divulge his identity publicly or privately). Thank you.

[danb]

So the guy must have been blindfolded, or at least told "no peeking at the label" ? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[danb]

or maybe you'd have to add some other details like "and assume that all the hardware was replaced", "and it's been refinished", "and the peghead overlay was redone", "and assume it's been rebound", "and it's been refretted" etc.

It would get a bit more challenging if you start to peel away the various test details like that, say comparing it to a refinished loar etc etc, but there is a pretty long list of things any expert should look at before making any pronouncements.

[Darryl Wolfe]

QUOTE
"It certainly fooled this expert who all would agree should know the difference (and no...I am not at liberty to divulge his identity publicly or privately). #Thank you."

Obviously, he is no longer an expert, at least on Loars that is.

[Spruce]

"So the guy must have been blindfolded, or at least told "no peeking at the label" ?"

....or had absolutely no knowledge of what a Loar really looks like in areas like the points, buttons, alignment of the frets with respect to the curves of the fingerboard extension, the f-holes, etc. etc...

There's no "expert" alive (and I ain't no "expert") who would ever confuse the two....
Now, or 100 years from now....

Just my .002...

[Glassweb]

Expert texpert... there's no way you'll ever fool me with a DMM being a Loar. Big Joe, if you can fool me on this one I'll BUY the DMM!

[Darryl Wolfe]

Time for this picture again http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jonathan Peck]

That's easy. The one on the right is the Loar http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jonathan Peck]

Hmmm...yeah, I was just trying to smoke you out. The one on the left is the Loar. The fingerboard on the one on the right looks ebonised

[Jonathan Peck]

Ouch!!! That has just got to be the ugliest chair I've ever seen in my entire life...

Point taken, I really can't tell them apart. Then again, I've never considered myself to be an expert.

[BobLeeSwagger]

Thanks for all the responses! But what about the other part of my post, re: the group that was making Loar clones that were extremely close many people were fooled. I can't find the original thread as I think it was purged because it happened so long ago, but really, BigJoe, Charlie D (RIP) had and f5journal had all participated. If memory serves (which is certainly debatable these days http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) one of the posts read: "They got everything, the look, the feel, the sound, the smell and even the dust on the inside!" - does that trigger anyones memory?

[danb]

....one more. ...there is really no red in it in person.
non-loar

scroll (front view)
frets don't line-up to binding
fretwire is thicker than originals
shape of extension (flatness, slope from top left to bottom right)
flatness of binding on lower point & angle of lower point
angle of top point
apparent sharp edges on PG, lack of blending/ripple where binding meets guard
tailpiece looks wrong
"arm wear" in unusual spot
"scroll ridge wear" looks unlike it normally appears from case

[Jim Hilburn]

I'm far from an expert but I've seen quite a few Loars up close in the last several years as well as studying the Loar threads here.
One thing that I think is really hard to duplicate is the binding shrinkage issues. I had the opinion for a long time that they just didn't do a good job in the scroll joints but it may well be that shrinkage has created the gaps you commonly see. And I have the old Fern peghead poster up in my shop and you can see the fingerboard binding is a good 1/16 inch from the nut. Those are the kind of things that would be hard to duplicate.
One thing that I see in the modern Gibsons, and I have to say this is mostly in photo's here is a quick bend in the scroll binding to get the joint to align. Loars always had a continuously reducing curve that never made any quick bends. They also went through the period with the CNC pegheads where the big scroll stopped too soon but I think they fixed that.

[Hans]

Yup, Jim's right. Can't figure out how to shrink the binding. Here's my take...

[Darryl Wolfe]

But what about the other part of my post, re: the group that was making Loar clones that were extremely close many people were fooled. I can't find the original thread "They got everything, the look, the feel, the sound, the smell and even the dust on the inside!" - does that trigger anyones memory?
BobLee. #I think I remember that, but here is my take on it. #Back then us so-called experts were not quite as good as our collective experience puts us now. #So, yes, people (and very knowlegeable people) were fooled then by mandolins made by Randy Wood, Bob Givens, Bob White and a few others. #This was mainly because if it looked like a duck then, it WAS a duck. #Those guys threw a few ducks on the scene so they were ducks. #Those mandolins were good, but actually they were not as close as a good DMM is now.

I have only seen 2 or 3 mandolins that truly fall in between a DMM and a real Loar, and they would not fool anyone now for more than 5 minutes

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here is an example of a Randy Wood that I owned. It fooled many (then)

[Rroyd]

BobLeeSwagger
I recall the posts you were referring to; MandoMedic had posted about the fake Loars that were apparently being used
to finance white supremacist activities, and Charlie D. had questioned their existence. It was not long before one of the Supergrass-Loarfests in Bakersfield, as Charlie had suggested they discuss it over a burger while attending the festival. Hope that helps.

[danb]

Well, that's an interesting story. Sounds like Loar tabloid stuff http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I haven't heard of that one, but it could obviously be looked into if one of these alleged ### Loars could be photographed for us to comment on or seen in person.

As Darryl says, most copies that go to the effort of putting "the gibson" on the peghead were made some time ago. There haven't been any modern forgeries that we are aware of that have tried very hard to pass off a fake as a Loar, but it's always worth a look.

The real issue is mostly that it would extrememly expensive to use vintage hardware that looks right, or indeed extremely expensive to make all the hardware look right vs the perceived payoff. The skill that is requried to imitate some of the oddities is also considerable, a good copy requires intense research and skill levels that would probably limit the pool of potential forgers to folks who have already been very successful as legitimate builders.

There are so many places that it could get tripped up, that it would be nearly impossible to put one on the open market without being caught in the act.

[Spruce]

"There are so many places that it could get tripped up, that it would be nearly impossible to put one on the open market without being caught in the act. "

Which points out just how difficult it is to copy that instrument with it's quirks and tells galore....

Hell, Blackguard Telecasters and Esquires are fetching 150K these days....
It's a lot easier to copy one of those..... (http://www.ephotospace.com/bharvie/ViewPhotos.aspx?cid=3041&pid=1)

[HoGo]

One thing that I think is really hard to duplicate is the binding shrinkage issues.
One thing that I see in the modern Gibsons, and I have to say this is mostly in photo's here is a quick bend in the scroll binding to get the joint to align.
Jim,
you are very exact. The binding is pehaps the most difficult thing to replicate.
The carving and cutting of the scroll is another thing that none of the MM's or DMM's had right. The scroll on them is usually not cut around the button like on originals and the "quick bend" is necessary to join the bindings' ends.
Other thing is that I rarely seen correct size/shape of the neck button area.
And thirdly and most important is wrong shape of body. This is least visible thing, but after spending several years re-drawing plans of Loars and trying to catch every typical curvature I can clearly see some wrong curves on the MMs. Especially between the points and shape of upper the point is usually wrong. It's not necessarily result of wrong patterns used at Gibson, but the technology. Use of inside moulds (MMs) causes different distortions of the rim during assembly than use of outside mould (like on Loars).

[Links]

Quote:

"The real issue is mostly that it would extrememly expensive to use vintage hardware that looks right, or indeed extremely expensive to make all the hardware look right vs the perceived payoff. The skill that is requried to imitate some of the oddities is also considerable, a good copy requires intense research and skill levels that would probably limit the pool of potential forgers to folks who have already been very successful as legitimate builders.

There are so many places that it could get tripped up, that it would be nearly impossible to put one on the open market without being caught in the act."

Dan has it exactly right. It is really not a question wheteher it can be done on not - certainly it could be done where I don't think the experts could tell. There is enough variation in the Loars where there could be some differences, but you would have to know where those "tolerances" were. Therefore it would first take a builder with the skill of the best builders of today (don't think you could find one willing to do it) working with someone like Darryl or Dan to point out the details that most people don't notice, and access to original hardware or the capability to duplicate it (very difficult). I am sure the binding shrinkage could be figured out to duplicate an original.