Altering mandolins

[Jim Nollman]

Reading that recent previous post, I do understand that, for collectors, it's always better want to keep the original instrument as intact as possible. But can we we all agree, that such a conclusion is impossible to cast in stone for anyone who cares more about the sound of an instrument. Sometimes on the Cafe, I detect an attitude that any kind of an alteration is somehow, an insult to the original instrument and maker. Especially with Gibsons. Isn't this attitude predicated 100% on potential value, and almost zilch regarding sound? Maybe it's just the collectors who tend to answer these kinds of postings about Ebay instruments.

My own favorite sounding personal mandolin is a mere Kay. Not worth much. But precisely because I was first drawn to it 10 years ago, snd soon understood what could be done with that original tone, I have worked on it a few times over the past ten years until it sounds pretty special to me. It still has no value. Is there anyone out there who's improved on a Gibson or any other Schklunker for the same reason of favoring sound?

I just wanted to mention this issue, because i don't think the subtley condescending attitude about alteration is either appropriate or correct.

[mandroid]

Altered A 50 Gibson was bought after an oval hole was carefully cut in the top
for a 4 pole stacked humbucking double coil pickup to be fitted.
fits nicely between the 2 tone bars
nut and bridge for 4 strings CGDA tuning . 2 pots and the jack in the lower edge.
result is an EM150 the long way around-about.
retro fit a solid body 4 string to run a guitar synth, but it wasn't a brand name so was fair game..
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

though you are just talking acoustics, right? usually F type.

[MikeEdgerton]

There is an easy answer to this. If you collect mandolins you might want to keep them original. If you play it then you should feel free to make it your own (in my book anyway). I'll note that there isn't a Stradivarius violin in the world that is original and hasn't been modified in some way.

[John Flynn]

Well, this is an internet message board and people have thier opinions. As long as those opinions are not in violation of the posting guidelines, they are just opinions and therefore whether they are "appropriate" or "correct" is irrelevant. Yes, some people here can be condescending, but that's all part of the enviornment.

Here are my thoughts:

1. I am not sure that a mandolin's sound is necessarily improved by re-finishing. It could even get worse.

2. I am not sure the argument against re-finishing is solely predicated on its effect on resale, or even some implied insult to the builder. The biggest negative for me is that refinished mandolins often don't look that good. There is also the concern that mandolins, especially old ones, are a part of history that needs to be preserved.

3. If you want to re-finish your mandolin, go ahead and re-finish it. Even if you had an old vintage Gibson, there is no reason for you to worry about anyone's attitude here. You would only even mention it here if you were interested in other's opinions, and if you ask for people's opinions, you are going to get them. You can't control what those opinions and attitudes are.

[otterly2k]

FWIW, I also think that there are people out there (a la Antiques Road Show) who make careless or pointless alterations out there and unnecessarily muck with either the sound or the value of the instrument or both.

Alterations are, imho, entirely up to the owner, but I do think it's a good idea to err on the side of caution.

[Ken Berner]

I hesitate to even mention, again, the changes I made to a "cheap" mandolin I owned. The subject was a Korean-made Kentucky 250S, which new, sounded like a tin can. Although all solid woods throughout, there was enough lacquer applied to choke Barbaro. In order, these are the gradual changes I made to this mandolin: Original Brekke bridge, D'Addario J-74 strings. pearl nut, Allen cast bronze tailpiece and a lot of playing time. The final improvement was to remove the finish with 4/0 steel wool, from the top and back, being careful not to take off much of the stain. I smoothed out those surfaces with wet & dry paper. Folks, you cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear, but this turned out to be a much "warmer" sounding mandolin than in its original state. It was a cannon from the start, but lacked any tonal character, whatsoever. I eventually sold it after acquiring far better instruments, and didn't need it any longer. At best, it turned out to be a fine "beater" and all-weather campfire mandolin, that you wouldn't hesitate to take anywhere. All of that being said, it is next to impossible to recoup the $$$ spent in the revisions, but most of the enjoyment was in the tinkering!

[12 fret]

For most people today, alteration or modification is a financial decision. If loss of potential value is not an issue for you, alter away. If the instrument is unlikely to appreciate significantly, whats to lose?

Alteration does not always negatively impact resale value of vintage intruments if there are other overriding factors. The Clarence White/Tony Rice pre war D28 is very un-original but if it ever came into the market, its provenance would drive the price to a point that it would make a Lloyd Loar look like a bargain

[MikeEdgerton]

The Clarence White/Tony Rice pre war D28 is very un-original but if it ever came into the market, its provenance would drive the price to a point that it would make a Lloyd Loar look like a bargain

As would Hoss. However the Mike Edgerton modified Gibson F5G would still be a modified F5G and that's fine. As famous as I am nothing I've ever owned went up in value because I owned it.

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

[EdSherry]

I confess that, over the years, I've become more and more of the opinion that we don't "own" good instruments so much as we have "custody" of them for a while, before ultimately passing them on.

I'm all for repairing instruments when they're broken (though I've seen horrible examples of what some misguided souls are willing to do in the way of "repairs") and of modifying instruments to make them playable (e.g., adding strap buttons, changing out old non-working tuners, fitting a better bridge).

I agree that it can be frustrating for a buyer to try to find something that he/she likes in his/her price range, and that often the easiest thing to do is to modify what you have. #

But before making irreversible changes to a nice old instrument, you might consider the possibility that someone else will like what you have just fine, and that you might be able to find one that's more to your liking. #

I recall seeing a 1920s Vega Whyte Layde 5-string b*njo (yeah, I know) that someone wanted to convert to a tenor banjo -- so they just bandsawed off the extra width of the neck, and reshaped what was left with a rasp. #Ouch!

Do I have the same degree of "sentimental attachment" to modern mass-produced factory instruments? #No. #But anything older than I am deserves respect, in my opinion.

Just my 2 cents.

[fred d]

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Modified my banjo mandolin. Took four tuners off and tell people It's a baby banjo (tenor ) and might grow up someday. Get a lot of fun smiles its every bit as loud as the other tenors and I didn't have to learn new chords and notes (irish tuning ) IF IT AN'T FUN WHY BOTHER TO DO IT My wife play with sacramento banjo and as a group donated nearly $13,000 to children charitys last year

[12 fret]

Modifications almost never have a financial benefit. On older intruments, they generally reduce value and on newer intsruments you seldom find you can recover mod costs when you sell. Put a $150 tailpiece on a $400 intstrument and you won't have a $550 piece. Bottom line is its your intsrument, do whatever makes it worthwhile to you

[NoNickel]

But can we all agree..?"

The answer is: #"No .. no we can't."

I wouldn't hesitate to modify my instrument to make it sound better, more playable,etc. #But I would know that it will likely reduce the value too. #Especially if it is an old vintage collector's piece that brings its highest value by being in original and pristine condition (in that order). #That is just the way the world works. #If you had an old 23 Loar that was busted up or lost some part or whatever, you would probably restore it and it would be a sin not to. #Contrawise, if you had an old 23 Loar in reasonable condition, but it could be improved with new tuners, a new bridge or what not, you would be nuts to make these modifications without checking out what it would do to the value. And if you took that busted Loar and souped it up with all the finest add ons and made it one wonderful playing and sounding mandolin, it would still be worth less than the orginal one in just ok condition, regardless of sound. Nuts maybe. But that's the way it goes. #Just my opinion. #(Not a collector by the way. #Never even been close to a loar.)

[racer122]

Well, I think I have access to a Gibson 1923 tenor lute, which I believe, with a mandolin neck, would make a marvelous mandolin.

It's old, not worth much now, and somebody even gave it a rattle-can yellow sunburst, complete with overspray.

I know they're relatively rare, though still not worth much either. As a mandolin, it might be still not worth much, but sound better than it does! (As you know, it's a mandola-sized top, with a 4-string banjo neck.)

[John Flynn]

Of course the irony here is the saga of the most famous and expensive mandolin of all time. It was treated about as poorly by its owner as you could imagine: beat up, finish scraped off the picking area, scroll broken off the headstock and the logo intentionally carved out with a pocket knife. Then it gets smashed to bits by a scorned woman with a fireplace poker and glued back together. Now it's worth over a million dollars and people make pilgrimages to see it.

And here we're worried about a little re-finishing? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[mythicfish]

With (very) few exceptions, mandolins are commodities.
So ... do what you like and spare yourself the agony.

Curt

[MikeEdgerton]

I guess if one wants to create a shrine using their musical instrument that it's ok. Don't get me wrong, I make every effort to keep them safe but I don't get crazy about them being pristine. I know I'm going to be in a jam or on stage and someone is going to turn and bump whatever it is I'm playing. I know I might do the same for them. I bought an old Weymann tenor banjo years ago at Mandolin Brothers. The tuners were awful. I replaced them with modern banjo tuners. Everyone acted like I was crazy. It just made sense that if you wanted to play it had to be tuned. I promise not to buy a Loar and make changes to it. When I buy something I own it. I'm not just the custodian keeping it for the next generation. If I wanted that job I'd go to work for a museum.

[Bill Snyder]

...And here we're worried about a little re-finishing? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
The original post talks of alterations not necessarily a refinish.

[Nick Triesch]

Back in the 60's it was very common to "sand for base" your Martin D28 or D18 guitar. A lot of folks do not want to talk about it but it was very common indeed . Just like mandolins today, folks then wanted the most out of their D28. Very many were sanded I think. Folks today don't even know that their Martin was messed with and those Martins are worth a ton today. I remember when I was about 17 (1967) and I got my first Martin 00021 my friend who was a great bluegrass player and he owned a vintage D28 asked me when I brought it over for him to check out if I had it sanded for bass yet. I bet you older guys remember this practice. My point is messing with those guitars did not hurt their value. Why should it hurt a mandolin if done right ? Nick

[allenhopkins]

Back in the 60's it was very common to "sand for base" your Martin D28 or D18 guitar. A lot of folks do not want to talk about it but it was very common indeed . Just like mandolins today, folks then wanted the most out of their D28. Very many were sanded I think.
I assume this is what was called "voicing," reduction of mass of the top bracing to get closer to the older, lighter bracing of the pre-war Martins. Some shops around here used to specialize in scalloping the heavier Martin top braces; only on used instruments, since it voided the Martin lifetime warranty. When the HD-28 came out in 1976 or '77, with its reversion to a lighter bracing pattern, these "voicers" felt vindicated.

So much of this discussion around "alteration" has to do with how one views one's instruments: are they heirlooms to be passed on to future generations, like a Tiffany vase, or are they tools for making music, like a hammer? Or something in between? Most people wouldn't object to repairing a broken vintage instrument, or replacing non-functional tuners (but save the old ones!). Alteration for cosmetic reasons (refinishing) is more problematical. There are completely non-functional personal alterations, like having your name inlaid in the fingerboard. Most people would be horrified, yet the "Gene Autry" Martin D-45 is more valuable, partially because it does have Autry's name inlaid on the neck.

There definitely is something to be said for preserving an antique, valuable instrument in as close to pristine condition as possible. Reminds me of the "mint in original box" dolls from decades ago, more valuable because their little girl owners didn't like them and never played with them. If you play the instrument, it's going to get worn and maybe dinged; it's also, arguably, going to "open up" and become a better instrument musically.

My attitude: play it, and accept the inevitable wear and tear. Take good care of it, don't abuse it, fix it if it breaks, but respect its original design and character (don't paint it orange). We owe some consideration for the preservation of these wonderful creations, but in the end, they were created to make music.

[Eugene]

There are so many instruments out there. Rather than modify something to be what you want, why not start with something that is built as what you want? I do cringe a little less when invasive modification is executed on new instruments. Personally, I feel the value in preserving a near-original state in old instruments has less to do with monetary value than with value inherent in preservig a state of historic knowledge. Obviously, if you own an old instrument, you can do as you please with it. However, I admit that I will consider you as just a little selfish (in spite of monetary sacrifice) in changing that state of historic knowledge on personal whim.

I'm not a museum and don't advocate that all players give up their old instruments to museums. I play them and recommend others do so as well, having work executed when necessary to maintain condition and functionality. However, modification of old things is different than maintenance. Those I seek out to play are those I want to play as they were built.

[Eugene]

Back in the 60's it was very common to "sand for base" #your Martin D28 or D18 guitar. #A lot of folks do not want to talk about it but it was very common indeed . #Just like mandolins today, folks then wanted the most out of their D28. #Very many were sanded I think.
I assume this is what was called "voicing," reduction of mass of the top bracing to get closer to the older, lighter bracing of the pre-war Martins.
What I consider even more heinous, some would still strip the innards of gut-strung Martins and rebrace with modern X-bracing to carry light steel. Shame! There are plenty of steel-strung Martins available, even old ones. Those built for gut are relatively rare and should be played and treasured as such.

[Jerry Byers]

There are players and there are collectors. Not ever instrument was meant to be a historical artifact. Just play it! If you feel the need to modify, just do it. If those in the preservation society want to keep it pristine and original, ask them to cough up the money to take it off your hands.

I doubt anybody thinks twice about changing the brand of tires on their car, tinting the windows, or even swapping out the stereo system for something better. I don't see why everybody is coming down on somebody that wants to 'improve' something. I seriously doubt that anybody has said anything to Bill, Sam, Andy, Mike,...

[JeffD]

This kind of thing comes up in many aspects of life. Are we owners and users, collectors and preservers, or dealers seeking to someday sell at a profit?? It is very difficult to be all three. And hard to decide which we want to be.

I know gun collectors who purchases two of each new acquisition - one to use and enjoy and one to keep pristine in the original packaging. I know folks who extole the virtues and obvious love of a particular model of car, and then turn around and flip it for a modest profit. I know folks who brag about the value of antique furniture they own and yet never intend to sell.

I have a friend who purchased a rare 200 year old dining room set - and was so afraid to use it he had high quality copies made of the entire set - and sold the original.

I myself am sure where I am with mandolins - I am a user / owner / player. I would modify the instrument (tastefully and with due respect) if it improved sound or playability. Every one of my aquisitions is intended to be for ever, not to eventually trade up or sell, so I do not concern myself with the present or down the road value of the instrument.

Others get a kick out of being a collector and steward of vintage instruments - and I have no arguement with them. Its just another way to enjoy.

Its all good. You just have to decide where you are.

[JeffD]

Yes, some people here can be condescending, but that's all part of the enviornment.
My experience has been that this is not all that common. Everyone here is eager to help and enjoy learning from others as well.

A very uncommon web site, a very uncommon community.

[JGWoods]

The desire to modify your instrument indicates you have the banjo gene. You might keep banjo ownership at bay for a while by making changes to your mandolin but eventually you will have to give in and get yourself a banjo- and enjoy it!

worked for me....

Banjos are like George Washington's axe- the handle has been replaced 3 times and the head twice, but it's still the original axe.

[arbarnhart]

For the most part, instruments are tools. If I buy one, I do in fact own it and can do what I please, even destroying it if I want. I do hope some examples of the geat makers survive for future generations, but I don't think all players should feel bound by a responsibility to save them unmodified. Most (all?) of the instruments mentioned in this thread were mass produced, btw, so it's hard to argue that they are art (which might be a good argument for a lot of really old instruments). Hmmm - did I just make an argument for carving up Loars and saving Tony Tsais ? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[allenhopkins]

What I consider even more heinous, some would still strip the innards of gut-strung Martins and rebrace with modern X-bracing to carry light steel. Shame! There are plenty of steel-strung Martins available, even old ones. Those built for gut are relatively rare and should be played and treasured as such.
Geez, now I do feel guilty! My main guitar is a 1940 Martin 00-28G classical, that someone re-topped and re-necked to make into a 00-42 replica.

In my defense, this was done long before I purchased it. But it is a textbook example of "modification" of a relatively rare and unique instrument.

When I purchased a Gibson Mastertone GB-3 guitar-banjo, a "ball-bearing" model from the '20's, I had Bernie Lehmann here in Rochester build a 5-string copy neck for it. But I did keep the original neck, so the next owner can decide if he/she wants to put it back "original," or keep it as a 5-string. Banjos are much more accessible to modification and "de-modification," of course, than mandolins.

Seems there are many shades of gray here...

[Jim Broyles]

Back in the 60's it was very common to "sand for base" your Martin D28 or D18 guitar. A lot of folks do not want to talk about it but it was very common indeed . Just like mandolins today, folks then wanted the most out of their D28. Very many were sanded I think.
I assume this is what was called "voicing," reduction of mass of the top bracing to get closer to the older, lighter bracing of the pre-war Martins.
What I consider even more heinous, some would still strip the innards of gut-strung Martins and rebrace with modern X-bracing to carry light steel. Shame! There are plenty of steel-strung Martins available, even old ones. Those built for gut are relatively rare and should be played and treasured as such.
Why? This kills me. Since when can a person not do what they want with their own possessions? If I had a gut guitar and I wanted to rebrace it in order to string it with steel, I'd be darned if I'd allow some silly, inexplicable romantic sentiment to stop me from doing so. THERE IS NOTHING SACROSANCT ABOUT MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. This and the utter nonsense about "custody" really makes me wonder about the collective sanity of some groups of people. Malarkey. If you own something, you own it and nothing should keep you from doing what you want to with it.

[Jim Broyles]

Allen, you need no defense, nor does whoever altered your guitar.

[JeffD]

This and the utter nonsense about "custody" really...
I agree with you, but I do understand those who want to preserve restore and protect and collect vintage intruments.

I would say that they are engaging in a different hobby than I am, but I welcome anyone who has any enthusiasm for the mandolin whatsoever. Its all good.

[NoNickel]

I think that we could agree that the discussion really is about the modification of historical and collector’s instruments. I do think that there should be some amount of discretion given when you are talking about something that is really rare. Luckily, the price/value of that rare item will usually be enough to prevent Frankenstein impulses. Modification of anything else should be a personal preference.

If I have enough money to use my Loar for firewood, is that wrong? Certainly nothing illegal about it, but I think most people would think it was wrong. Let’s say that I had enough money to buy the Mona Lisa, or the Eiffel Tower, or Monroe’s Loar. And for whatever crazy reason I decide to destroy the rare item or to modify it in some way. Assuming that I own it, is it my right to do that? Sure. Would the general public hate me for it? Yes, they probably would. It would be sort of a crime, although not illegal. (Note: that Monroe’s Loar is heavily modified and restored. It is valuable (i.e. priceless) because of who he was, not because of what it is. You can’t really compare it to the other Loars out there in the world. It is apples and oranges.)

I think that I have heard that there were something like 250-300 signed Loars produced. Obviously, there are fewer now. These are really holy grails, and to some extent aren’t really instruments any longer in the same sense that we think of regular commodity type of instruments. When they change hands, it is a big event and and it happens at enormous prices. These prices are impacted by the degree of originality and condition of the instrument. Not many people buy them to play on a daily basis as their work-axe. Because of their rarity and collectibility, they are beginning to cross the line to art and art objects. Sure there are some people still playing them, but fewer and fewer people can afford to put such a valuable thing at risk by using it on a daily basis or in a careless manner. And many people who own them have sought out substitutes/copies so they can put their valuable Loar into semi-retirement.

And then there is modification. If you had a $150,000 Loar and you liked jumbo frets rather than the small ones that were original, would you have it refretted? No, you would not. You would lose too much money in the value of the instrument by doing this. Would you put a new bridge on to help the tone? Would you refinish it? Put a nicer tailpiece on? No you wouldn’t. You would leave it alone. Me? I would sell it and get a DMM or custom build from Brentrup or Kimball or Weins that was just like a Loar only better.

There are probably also a set of other older, vintage models that don’t hit these prices, but you could make similar arguments about. Later Gibson Ferns and F-5’s, rare mandolins by other makers, etc. I don’t think that a modification in this area is as controversial, but fifty years from now, who knows?

Once you get out of historical instruments, you are into “just” valuable ones. If I had a Gilchrist or a Dude or Montelone, I would play it and not be afraid to modify it if it would improve the tone or playability (hard to believe you could). I might be more careful with it than my Eastman, but only because I would be carrying around $25 to$30K of instrument. But it is still just an instrument. To me, anything at that level or below is just an instrument, and now we are only talking about how much it cost me and/or how much I could sell it for. At this level, modifications and repairs are not really issues any longer. And of course, there are plenty of good new and used instruments for $2000 and up. Seems to me, at this level instruments are purely commodities and become players’ choice. Some of mandolins may be collectable someday, and future generations may curse me for having Joe Shelbatz autograph the back of my rare Eastman. But you can’t know that now. So just play it. I don’t think anyone will or should care, of course unless you have one of those Loar thingies.

The world gets turned on its head up at the higher levels of value and collectability. I will try to stay down here where reason is a little more .. well reasonable. Not that I have a choice.
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

[arbarnhart]

[...]makes me wonder about the collective sanity of some groups of people. [...]
We play the mandolin; what more do you need to know? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I agree with you about doing what you please. More than enough examples will survive, especially since there are collectors who are adamant about keeping them just so. Had the original builders somehow survived to the present, I have little doubt that they would be upgrading their old instruments with new parts. The "value" will keep the collectables from being modified much.

[Jim Nollman]

some of these posts seem a little over the top. I mean, let's all agree, that no one buys a Loar to alter it for playing music around a campfie or even onstage #in a bar. And no one buys one to fuel the fire.

i started this post, because, in general, the discussion on this Cafe seems to include so many contrasting ways of enjoying mandolins. #And although everyone tries to keep pleasant and courteous about it, some of those ways seem in subtle conflict with one another.

I was commenting specifically about another post that was discussing an old Gibson. Some folks were sounding condescending that a past or present owner stripped away the varnish or done some other change to it. Ironically, I went to Ebay, and looked at that instrument, and saw for myself, that the alterations were almost certainly not done by #a player or a collector. So what other kind of owner is there, who would alter an old Gibson that probably played OK, and was worth several thousand dollars? In other words, the criticisms I had objected to, #actually proved relevant after the fact.

But that same condescension towards alteration is not always valid. Until i joined the Cafe, I had never known anyone who looked at a mandolin primarily as an object to buy and sell. Although i can understand the nature of that business, and certainly I know that collecting, in itself, doesn't preclude any collector from playing any mandolin. In general, a collectors critique is often going to be different than a #players critique. What I don't appreciate, is a certain kind of discussion here, that implies that alteration is done by idiots who can't appreciate the value of some instrument. But certainly I was not talking about Loars or anything else that has broken over to the side where playing is a secondary to financial appreciation. Here's my own formula.

Anything under $5k can be altered without deserving condescension. But alteration and price bears relation to the level of the player. I wouldn't alter an F4. But if Chris Thile did it, I'd prefer to hear how he improved it, not how#he ruined it.

We players often alter our mandolins. We make them play louder, or develop better tone, or we sometimes cut up the opening to install a pickup, or swap out the bridge and nut to make it play easier, etc. I'm about to strip the finish from the neck of one of my instruments to make it easier to slide my hand when playing really fast.

[Jim Broyles]

And then there is modification. If you had a $150,000 Loar and you liked jumbo frets rather than the small ones that were original, would you have it refretted? No, you would not. You would lose too much money in the value of the instrument by doing this. Would you put a new bridge on to help the tone? Would you refinish it? Put a nicer tailpiece on? No you wouldn’t. You would leave it alone. Me? I would sell it and get a DMM or custom build from Brentrup or Kimball or Weins that was just like a Loar only better.

I might do all those things. Why wouldn't I? It's my darn mandolin. I want to play it. I want it to play like I want it to play, so why wouldn't I put jumbo frets on it if that's how I like my mandolins?

[Mark Sullivan]

I wouldn't wan't one of Grissman's [or Sam Bush's or John Mcgann's, or whoever's] used instruments, because he modified it. Right? Uh--no. Then again I might be temted to make it a shrine, even if he did his own modifications, maybe especially if he did. Then again jet pilots usually leave the engine work to the pro's. If you made the investment & are willing to take the chance I won't tell your mom. If you have a very expensive instrument and don't have proven craftmanship don't think that love & enthusiasm can make up for it. Just be reasonable. If you will screw up your family income 'cause you break your mando, you probably wan't atleast the advice of a good luthier.
Sully
"the difference between genius & stupidity is a matter of limits" - Smitty

[EdSherry]

I posted awhile back about seeing myself more as a "custodian" than an "owner" of old instruments. #

Some replies have suggested that my (personal) attitude is "malarkey" and/or "utter nonsense." #

I respectfully disagree. #The fact that others may disagree with my opinion does not make my opinion "nonsense" or "malarkey." #I would hope that there is room on this Board for airing of opinions without resorting to such attacks.

Others have suggested that, if you "own" something, you have the "right" to do what you want to with it. #I fully agree that, as a general matter, the law allows you to do what you want to with what you own (i.e., you have the LEGAL "right" to do what you want to). #Whether doing so is wise, or prudent, or financially sensible, or consistent with a sense of historic preservation is a different matter. #We all know that having the LEGAL "right" to do something does not necessarily make it "right" to do it.


Some other posts talk about "condescension." #I try not to "condescend" to people who do things to instruments that I personally wouldn't do. #I may deplore what they've done, and wish that they hadn't done it. #If they haven't done it yet, I may suggest that they think twice about doing it. #And I may suggest that they do some research before making an irreversible change.#

But over the years, I've seen way too many "butcher jobs" done to good instruments by people who (as near as I can tell) don't take the time or make the effort to learn what can be done, or what their alternatives are. #Check out this thread on the Cafe to see what I mean:

http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin....t=44807 (http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=44807)


I know several well-respected luthiers who have told me that they have refused to do certain things that the customer wanted them to do, because (despite the old adage) the customer is NOT "always right."

I'm not talking about buying an instrument that has already been modified. #You can't put the genie back in the bottle. #What I'm talking about is the decision to irreversibly alter an instrument that you bought. #

Again, my 2 cents.

[Jim Nollman]

Not to hijack my own post, but I am intrigued by your term: "butcher job". It's hard to imagine who does these butcher jobs.

1. The guy with too much money to care about any mere mandolin he owns, who is utterly full of himself, and who can neither play nor woodwork, but thinks he's terrific at both.

2. The teenager who found an old F2 in granmas attic and thought he'd try to fix all those old surface cracks because they didn't fit with his vision of the shiny instruments he saw in music stores. The clerk in the hardware store listened to his undetailed question about re-finishing, and sold him some paint remover.

3. The Ebay scammer with no knowledge of musical instruments who bought a broken old Gibson as one small item at an estate sale, and gave it up for repair to his employee who is half-trained in fixing old furniture, but who also has no knowledge of musical instruments. When the work "looked fixed", scammer posted it on Ebay, without realizing his instrument would be scrutinized so carefully by professional collectors.

[MikeEdgerton]

I don't think anyone's opinion is malarkey I simply choose to not have the same opinion. I choose to see the mandolin I own as an item I own and intend to use for my own purpose. Nothing wrong with opposing views and I don't feel the need to maintain my Gibson in the state it left the factory. If when I'm dead and gone someone chooses to sell my instruments and the buyers recoil in horror because of the modifications it really doesn't bother me.

[Eugene]

What I consider even more heinous, some would still strip the innards of gut-strung Martins and rebrace with modern X-bracing to carry light steel. #Shame! #There are plenty of steel-strung Martins available, even old ones. #Those built for gut are relatively rare and should be played and treasured as such.
Geez, now I do feel guilty! #My main guitar is a 1940 Martin 00-28G classical, that someone re-topped and re-necked to make into a 00-42 replica.

In my defense, this was done long before I purchased it. #But it is a textbook example of "modification" of a relatively rare and unique instrument.
You don't need defense. #You can do as you please with your things. ...And the gut-strung Martins to which I was referring were gut-strung in the 19th-c. If I were to write the above again, I would select a different word than "shame." I still don't think invasive modification is an efficient approach, especially when applied to a rare thing that would be appreciated as is by somebody else.

I don't understand radical modification of an existing instrument to arrive at essentially a different instrument when whatever you want is almost certainly already available without having to go through the modification to get to it. #The fact that I approach my own instruments that way doesn't mean you should. #I'm not trying to prescribe my views on anybody.

[NoNickel]

I didn't say that you couldn't refret your Loar with jumbos. I said, that considering the economic consequences of such an action, you would be silly to do so. Like I said, if you owned it, you could chuck it in the stove if you wanted. As someone stated earlier, just because you can legally do something don't make it right .. or smart.

[Eugene]

Why? This kills me. Since when can a person not do what they want with their own possessions? If I had a gut guitar and I wanted to rebrace it in order to string it with steel, I'd be darned if I'd allow some silly, inexplicable romantic sentiment to stop me from doing so. THERE IS NOTHING SACROSANCT ABOUT MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. This and the utter nonsense about "custody" really makes me wonder about the collective sanity of some groups of people. Malarkey. If you own something, you own it and nothing should keep you from doing what you want to with it.
I still don't understand radical modification of an existing instrument to arrive at essentially a different instrument when whatever you want is almost certainly already available without having to go through the modification to get to it. #It's inefficient and, when applied to something rare (which is more damning than valuable in my book) relatively selfish. #The fact that I approach my own instruments that way doesn't mean you should. #I'm not trying to prescribe my views on anybody.

There are still people who want to play original gut-strung guitars as they were built to be played. #I clearly stated that I am not a museum and don't intend to be one. #I play my instruments and sometimes play them relatively hard. #I have original mandolins dating to ca. 1835 and I play them.

[Jim Broyles]

I didn't say that you couldn't refret your Loar with jumbos. I said, that considering the economic consequences of such an action, you would be silly to do so. Like I said, if you owned it, you could chuck it in the stove if you wanted. As someone stated earlier, just because you can legally do something don't make it right .. or smart.
No, you didn't. You said
If you had a $150,000 Loar and you liked jumbo frets rather than the small ones that were original, would you have it refretted? No, you would not. You would lose too much money in the value of the instrument by doing this to which I still say, why not, if that's how I want MY dang mandolin?

[Jim Broyles]

Ed, I'm sorry, but it is my opinion that the opinion that a person does not own that which he/she pays for but is merely the custodian thereof especially if said item happens to be a collectible musical instrument, is utter nonsense. The term "malarkey" was in response to the equally nonsensical notion that alteration to a gut strung Martin to enable the use of steel strings was "heinous" and a "shame." I'll darn well modify an instrument I own to make it what I want in an instrument if I so choose. I also would make it look as good as possible in the process. I am not advocating hack repair jobs, or anything of that nature, but by this same logic, aren't all F4 to F5 conversions travesties then?

[NoNickel]

I said would you do it? #Which means if you cared about the loss of money that would result from you action, you would not. #If on the other hand, money meant nothing to you in this situation, then you certainly could. #But why would you want to throw money away when a refret of an original Loar would probably de-value it an enourmous amount. #You could likely buy a very nice Loar copy (maybe more than one) for the amount of money you lost by the refret. #Once again, there is a differnce between me saying that you "would not" do something and that you "could not" do something. #I was just saying that you would be silly to take that action. I didn't say it wasn't your right to be silly if you wanted. Two separate things.

[Jim Broyles]

You are telling someone that they WOULD NOT do something. You never qualified it with economic reasoning. You flatly stated "No you wouldn't", and all I am saying is that you don't know whether someone would or not, because as I've stated twice, I might, if that's how I want my mandolin. It's no more complicated than that.

[12 fret]

More interest in this than I would have imagined. One thing I noted is that a lot of the modifications discussed are fairly easily reversed. Its not like someone's going to bolt a Charlie Christian pick-up into the top of their Loar F5

[Jim Broyles]

From what I can gather, sometimes, refretting is a necessary fact of mandolin maintenance. Now, If I owned a Loar which had been played into needing a refret, why would I not put jumbo frets on it if that would be my fret of choice? Why would I even want to own a valuable instrument if I didn't like playing it?

[MikeEdgerton]

Its not like someone's going to bolt a Charlie Christian pick-up into the top of their Loar F5

That would be silly and look awful. Much better to simply cut a hole in the top and drop in a big old Humbucker. You'd have to drill the holes for the volume and tone knobs as well but then it would be easier to run the wires to hole you cut in the side for the output jack. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/blues.gif

[NoNickel]

If you read my entire post rather than just pulling out the part that suited you, you would see that the difference between what you can legally do with your own property and what you would probably do with your own property is clearly stated throughout. You certainly could throw a bunch of money in the fire, I just don't think you would. That's what I said all along.

[NoNickel]

Now you are just bringing in new facts to make your argument sound more reasonable. I have already said as much before:

If you had an old 23 Loar that was busted up or lost some part or whatever, you would probably restore it and it would be a sin not to. Contrawise, if you had an old 23 Loar in reasonable condition, but it could be improved with new tuners, a new bridge or what not, you would be nuts to make these modifications without checking out what it would do to the value. And if you took that busted Loar and souped it up with all the finest add ons and made it one wonderful playing and sounding mandolin, it would still be worth less than the orginal one in just ok condition, regardless of sound. Nuts maybe. But that's the way it goes.

[Jim Broyles]

Look. My final word on this subject is this: it is NOT chiseled in stone that a musical instrument, even a historical or collectible one must remain unaltered. Whether the Mandolin Cafe wants to believe it or not, a person who cared more about sound and playability (to his own specifications) than resale or intrinsic value, would perfectly reasonably make any and all modifications to it, even if it is a '23 Loar, and especially if, as you state, it is
in reasonable condition, but it could be improved with new tuners, a new bridge or what not... Why would one not want to improve an instrument he intends to play?

[Willie]

NoNickle...I knew a fellow that had a Loar and the tuners were in such bad shape he couldn`t tune it very easily and he would not put new tuners on it because they would not be original and he wasn`t in any bands very long becuase he was out of tune most of the time, some of us are anyway, but I thought that was stupid because he could have kept the original tuners in case he ever sold it....I also had a 1950 Gibson
F-12 and had it converted to a F-5 and it sold for three times what I could have gotten for it as a F-12...I have only owned one mandolin that I didn`t alter and not bragging but they all sounded and looked better when I was finished...Not everyone can say that though, I`ve seen some of the conversions....Willie

[NoNickel]

Well, I am glad that we are all in agreement then. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[NoNickel]

Willei you cad, it's NoNickel. Modify my instrument, ok. But don't mess with my name! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[12 fret]

You never know what will become "historic". The Asian economy could go into the tank and Eastmans could be the next Loar in 70 or 80 years. Then you guys will be sorry you modified them

[OregonMike]

Great thread, too bad I can't alter it...

I'm probably an extremist as I believe in making only reversible alterations to any instrument. As a recovering member of the "Can't Leave Anything Well Enough Alone Support Group" I have had to learn again and again that the urge to modify is just that - an urge - and with support can be waited out until an instrument comes along with what I want.

This attitude comes from years of restoring classic cars that others have "updated" or vintage bungalows that others have "re-muddled". I won't even get into mandolin conversions which I believe are worse than bad plastic surgery. That said I'm not in favor of any anti-alteration laws, just a big believer in moderation.

Just my altered opinion,

Mike
1916 A-0 Pumpkintop Paddlehead
1924 A-1 Blackface Snakehead
www.MusicMoose.org

[EdSherry]

JBMando -- You had previously written:

"This and the utter nonsense about 'custody' really makes me wonder about the collective sanity of some groups of people. Malarkey."

Seems to me that your use of "malarkey" WAS directed at the "custody" issue, not merely the "replacing the top" issue.

I never said that someone who paid for something does not "own" it, nor did I deny that they have the LEGAL "right" to do what they want to with it. #What I said, and believe, is that making certain types of irreversible changes to vintage instruments strikes me as problematic. #You're free to disagree. #But I don't think my position is "utter nonsense" or "malarkey." #And I surely don't think our disagreement gives you (or others) a reason to question my "sanity" ("collective" or otherwise).

By way of analogy (admittedly, not a perfect analogy), I know people who firmly believe that we do not "own" land or natural resources, but instead adhere to what I understand to be a common belief among certain Native American peoples, that the current occupiers of the land should be thought of as holding it "in trust" for future generations. #Others clearly disagree, but again I don't think such a position is "nonsense" or "malarkey" nor do I question their "sanity."

I didn't say that F-4 to F-5 conversions are "travesties." #There was a period of time (not so long ago) when there was little/no demand for F-4s, when you couldn't get a decent new F-5 (Gibson had "lost the recipe" and was resorting to farming out construction of new ones to independent luthiers), and when converting an F-4 may well have been reasonable. #Nowadays, with large numbers of makers making fine F-5-style instruments, I personally don't see any reason to take a good F-4 and convert it to an F-5, given the number of people wanting to buy an F-4.

In that regard, I fully agree with Eugene's point:

"I don't understand radical modification of an existing instrument to arrive at essentially a different instrument when whatever you want is almost certainly already available without having to go through the modification to get to it."


Beluga -- You identify three instances of "butcher jobs," whether due to arrogance (your "utterly full of himself" example), ignorance (your teenager example, refinishing his grandmother's valuable F2 on the "advice" of a hardware store employee, and with no awareness of why refinishing an old F-2 to make it look "shiny" is a bad idea both musically and financially), or both (your "EBay scammer" example). #

There are at least three other examples: #

4. #the "repairman" who holds himself out as competent, but is not, and ruins a customers' instrument by pretending to know (or be able to do) more than he does;

5. #the repairman who thinks he can "improve" your instrument; when I lived in New Orleans 20 years ago, there was a repairman who, when sober, had the magic touch, but who would all too frequently get drunk and decide to "fix" something that didn't need fixing, without getting the owner's permission;

6. #the "quick and dirty repair" approach (I've seen instances where someone used Bondo to repair guitars, or put wood screws through a bridge to prevent it from lifting); in many cases that I've seen, the diminution in the instrument's value exceeds the amount "saved" by using a quick-and-dirty approach rather than spending the time to learn how to do it right, or paying a professional to fix the problem.

[Bernie Daniel]

EdSherry: I confess that, over the years, I've become more and more of the opinion that we don't "own" good instruments so much as we have "custody" of them for a while, before ultimately passing them on.


Ed I understand your idea here and have often had similar thoughts and you could say that about many things. #Some houses can only be modified in certain ways as they are considered to be of "public historical value" -- but you know that going in and have accepted that restriction before you purchase it.

However in reality it I submit this view is unrealistic and is in fact over the top idealism in a real sense. #

We pay for these insturments with our money. #Money that we earn from our work usually. #So we are in every way owners. #In the end mandolins are property - albeit special property. #

Owners generally have the right to do as they wish with their property. The future will not suffer too much if a few vintage insturments are modified by their legal owners. They become more interesting often in fact.

A person who wants someone else to "preserve" something should pay for that preservation if it is more important to that person than it is to the owner.

My opinion.

Why buy something if it is not yours in the end?

[NoNickel]

****WARNING!!! POSSIBLE THREAD-JACK IN PROGRESS.******

Since JBmando doesn't want to argue anymore, I will mention another thing that seems to fit in here-- Distressing. #That is the goofiest thing in the world to me. #One very good maker sells his top of the line for $8000. #But Distressed its $9K. #I understand that there is labor involved and first you got to make it pretty before you knock it about, but what I don't understand is why distressing in the first place is something I would be willing to pay extra for. #I don't mean to offend any of you who have paid the extra dollars for distressing, but I don't get it. #At the risk of of appearing to agree with JBMando, it really is about the tone, volume and sound. #Unless the distressing affects the sound -- which I don't think it does -- then why? #The mando is going to get beat up anyway. And I am with you, I like the looks of a mando that has some apparent use. #But paying a premium to get it seems odd. #Just play it and it will get there.

In another life I used to play electric blues guitar. #My hero was Stevie Ray Vaughan. #In 1992 Fender issued a signature version of his guitar and I still have mine, with some play wear on it. #Two or three years ago the Fender Custom shop created a special version for $10K that was just as beat up as SRV's famous strat was. #The gouges and wear were not random, but were carefully executed to match the mammoth amount of wear and tear on Stevie's No. 1. (They are doing the same thing now with Clapton's Blackie.) #I find this funny. #I lay down that kind of money, and get a beat up guitar. #And what if I put a new scratch on it or alter it. #Have I now messed it up "Oh no, dude. #That scratch is not original. #You must deduct mucho $$$ for that."

What if Gibson put out a new model, the DMMM (Distressed Monroe Master Model) appropriately weathered in all the right places and looking just like the real one in the CMHOF? #Bet if they put $50K on it and made only 100 they would sell out in six months.

And if you bought one, I bet you would not alter or modify it. Even you JB.

****THERE, BACK ON TRACK*****

[Jim Broyles]

JBMando -- You had previously written:

"This and the utter nonsense about 'custody' really makes me wonder about the collective sanity of some groups of people. Malarkey."

Seems to me that your use of "malarkey" WAS directed at the "custody" issue, not merely the "replacing the top" issue.

I never said that someone who paid for something does not "own" it, nor did I deny that they have the LEGAL "right" to do what they want to with it. What I said, and believe, is that making certain types of irreversible changes to vintage instruments strikes me as problematic. You're free to disagree. But I don't think my position is "utter nonsense" or "malarkey." And I surely don't think our disagreement gives you (or others) a reason to question my "sanity" ("collective" or otherwise).

By way of analogy (admittedly, not a perfect analogy), I know people who firmly believe that we do not "own" land or natural resources, but instead adhere to what I understand to be a common belief among certain Native American peoples, that the current occupiers of the land should be thought of as holding it "in trust" for future generations. Others clearly disagree, but again I don't think such a position is "nonsense" or "malarkey" nor do I question their "sanity."

I didn't say that F-4 to F-5 conversions are "travesties." There was a period of time (not so long ago) when there was little/no demand for F-4s, when you couldn't get a decent new F-5 (Gibson had "lost the recipe" and was resorting to farming out construction of new ones to independent luthiers), and when converting an F-4 may well have been reasonable. Nowadays, with large numbers of makers making fine F-5-style instruments, I personally don't see any reason to take a good F-4 and convert it to an F-5, given the number of people wanting to buy an F-4.

In that regard, I fully agree with Eugene's point:

"I don't understand radical modification of an existing instrument to arrive at essentially a different instrument when whatever you want is almost certainly already available without having to go through the modification to get to it."



Well, since I wrote it I am pretty sure I know what my context was. If you look at the statement, I said "This and the utter ... then added "Malarkey." It refers to the "this, which was the rebracing."
To me the entire custody idea strikes me as Quixotic, whimsical and Maya Angelou-esque. I don't think it is rational.
I never said anyone said F4 conversions were travesties. It was entirely original with me. I was asking the question.
As to this:

In that regard, I fully agree with Eugene's point:

"I don't understand radical modification of an existing instrument to arrive at essentially a different instrument when whatever you want is almost certainly already available without having to go through the modification to get to it."


So what if you or Eugene don't understand it? It is the prerogative of the instrument's owner, not yours, and if it is feasible why is it wrong?

[Jim Broyles]

NN, I'm not going to be buying any $50,000.00 mandolin any time soon, but if there was a DMMM in my possession and it sounded like Bill's I'd leave it alone. If it was lacking in any way and I thought I could improve upon it with a cast TP I would not hesitate 10 seconds to put one on it.

[NoNickel]

JB, we finally agree. No $50,000 mandos for us.

[Jim Broyles]

We agree on something else too. I think intentional distressing of instruments is goofy, and not only goofy, but bogus. I mean, why pretend that normal-looking wear and tear has happened normally when someone in fact deliberately ruined the finish to make it look old? I'll distress my own, thank you. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[NoNickel]

Wow. Two out of 3 ain't bad.

[JeffD]

I don't want to own anything so valuable I am afraid to use it.

[EdSherry]

JB wrote: #"It is the prerogative of the instrument's owner, not yours, and if it is feasible why is it wrong?" #

Re the "prerogative" point: #I'm NOT saying that an owner doesn't have the LEGAL "right" to do anything that he/she wants to with what he/she owns. #In that sense, I fully agree that it is "the owner's prerogative, not [mine]." #I think my earlier posts are clear on that point. #But the fact that it's his/her "prerogative" doesn't mean that I have to agree that his/her decision is a good one, or that what he/she does is "right" (as opposed to being his/her "right" -- there's a difference! #I may have the legal "right" to evict widows and orphans from my property in the middle of winter with no warning; that doesn't make it "right" for me to do so).

As earlier posters have said, if you own a Loar and want to burn your Loar (or your cash!) in the fireplace, that's your legal "right." #I agree. #It just strikes me that doing so is (1) ill-advised and (2) financially foolhardy. #Cash is always replaceable, but as for the Loar, it strikes me as a shame that such a decision would deprive the world of an item that can never be replaced.

Re the "feasible/wrong" point: #JB, this sure looks to me like you're suggesting that, if it is "feasible" to do something, then it can't be "wrong" to do it. #That makes no sense to me. #There are lots of things that are "feasible" but "wrong."
#
When Pete Townsend of the Who used to smash his Gibson Les Paul guitar at the end of a show, I cringed. #It always struck me as a waste of a nice guitar. #(I recall that a lot of the "copycat" bands would smash up junk $50 fleamarket-special guitars, not their main instruments!) #But at least he was smashing a newly-bought production instrument that could be (and was) easily replaced before the next show.

But if someone smashed an irreplaceable Stradivarius violin after a concert in order to "put on a show," I'd be appalled -- and (I suspect) the music community would be outraged. #In my opinion, it would be "wrong" to do it.

Moreover, precisely what is "Quxotic" or "whimsical" about the "custody" idea? #My dictionary defines "Quixotic" (in relevant part) as "foolishly impractical especially in the pursuit of ideals." #My dictionary defines "whimsical" as "characterized by whim" or "subject to erratic behavior or unpredictable change."

There is nothing "impractical" or "erratic" or "unpredicatble" about my personal attitude toward "custody" of instruments. I've lived with it now for about 20 years, refusing to make irreversible modifications to vintage instruments I "own," seeking out other instruments that have the features that I want, rather than modifying the ones I have, and selling them if they no longer serve my needs.

My attitude is no more a "whim" than my beliefs about a lot of things.

As for Maya Angelou, you may not agree with her (I don't agree with her about a lot of things), but I know of no reason to question either her "sanity" or her sincerity.

Re JB's example of fitting a "cast tailpiece" to a new DMMM (or an old Loar, for that matter): that's a readily-reversible modification (just take off the new one and re-install the old one), so it doesn't fall within the amibit of what I've been talking about -- namely, irreversible alterations to vintage instruments.
Again, my 2 cents. #YMMV.

[MikeEdgerton]

The problem with the custody thing is that it seems so temporary. I'm planning on taking my mandolin with me when I go. I hear you can find jam sessions all over hell these days.

[Jim Broyles]

I have never been referring to one's legal right to alter his mandolin. To me, that goes without saying. I am talking about the concept that simply because something is highly prized by many others, it is somehow disgraceful to make alterations to it. The reversibility of an alteration does not factor into my thinking whatsoever. If I want to refret, refinish or otherwise make alterations reversible or otherwise to any possession of mine, I see no compelling reason, pecuniary degradation notwithstanding, to do exactly that. When I used the term feasible, what I was getting at was, if a repair is not completely ridiculous, such as trying to turn a banjo into a violin or something equally silly, and someone one wants to do it, why should he have any compunction about doing so, just because some others may have a romantic notion that his instrument is untouchable. Depriving the world of an item is not and should not be a consideration. It's a musical instrument, for crying out loud.
As far as Maya Angelou is concerned, someone who is proud of someone who "gives herself the authority to be in her own skin" is spouting psychobabble. Tell you what, I renounce my authority to be in my own skin. I want to be in Mike Compton's. Ridiculous.

[NoNickel]

A Banjolin! Whoa. JB that would be interesting.

I can't believe that anybody didn't take my DMMM idea and run with it. I bet the Gibson boys are huddling right now. Remember where the idea came from guys! I should get something free for coming up with it. Lucky if I get a set of strings. hey Gibson guys, I like the Firewires!

[Rick Cadger]

From what I can gather, sometimes, refretting is a necessary fact of mandolin maintenance. Now, If I owned a Loar which had been played into needing a refret, why would I not put jumbo frets on it if that would be my fret of choice? Why would I even want to own a valuable instrument if I didn't like playing it?

this is sense. i totally agree.

so far only one of my mandolins has cost much over £650 GB pounds, and one of my favourites was only about £150. i modify the ones i have as and when i see fit, and would do so, if necessary, to tweak a very expensive instrument to my precise taste.

would i feel compelled to maintain a classic vintage axe in pristine condition for the benefit of posterity/history/some future owner? i certainly would not. my needs as a PLAYER (i.e. someone who does what the instrument was designed for) take precedence over the pedantry of the curator/worshipper or the mercenary considerations of the speculator.

i would only love my mandolins because i play them. not because they may be worth money or because some famous guy owned one. i'll change whatever i like - even when i work my way up to vintage F5s.

nothing lasts for ever.

[MikeEdgerton]

Buying an instrument of historical significance doesn't place any moral responsibility on the owner to maintain that instrument at all as they have simply become the owner of the piece not the custodian. If that instrument is purchased by an institution that has the mandate to maintain things of historical importance then they become the custodian and have the responsibility of maintaining that instrument in it's historical state. If one chooses to put themselves in the custodial role as a collector then that is their choice and more power to them but to even imply that someone else must follow that path is well, no better than insisting that someone have the same political or religious ideology that you have, and honestly that's a bit distasteful. What we see ourselves as defines our roles in our minds only and honestly doesn’t mean that anyone else’s actions that might be contrary to ours are wrong. This isn’t a question or morals or even economics, it’s a question of personal choice and in this country people are free to make most choices.

[Jim Broyles]

Buying an instrument of historical significance doesn't place any moral responsibility on the owner to maintain that instrument at all as they have simply become the owner of the piece not the custodian. If that instrument is purchased by an institution that has the mandate to maintain things of historical importance then they become the custodian and have the responsibility of maintaining that instrument in it's historical state. If one chooses to put themselves in the custodial role as a collector then that is their choice and more power to them but to even imply that someone else must follow that path is well, no better than insisting that someone have the same political or religious ideology that you have, and honestly that's a bit distasteful. What we see ourselves as defines our roles in our minds only and honestly doesn’t mean that anyone else’s actions that might be contrary to ours are wrong. This isn’t a question or morals or even economics, it’s a question of personal choice and in this country people are free to make most choices.
See, Mike I guess that's the difference between us - you call it "a bit distasteful," I called it "utter nonsense."
FWIW, I agree with you as to when a museum or other "preservation society" owns an instrument it has a moral obligation to leave it intact, but there is no similar mandate on private owners. To carry this a little further, if the museum sells that same instrument to a private citizen, it is then out of the realm of "public trust" and back in the free-to-be-altered category.

[arbarnhart]

I think one of the ultimate oddities I have seen in distressing is the Jaco tribute bass. Don't get me wrong, as a wannabe electric bass player I recognize that Jaco was an awesome player. But he dragged a Fender Jazz bass around out of the case, moved one of the pickups without filling the screw holes or cavity and just generally abused it. I think he ripped out the frets and filled the grooves with epoxy also. Fender makes (made? I am not sure they do currently) a "tribute" reproduction. Some 3rd party shops made them using vintage Fender Jazz basses which are in high demand unmodified as players. So this is a case where they are not just being made to look old and used, but abused and poorly modified. But people want them and that's fine.

[MikeEdgerton]

See, Mike I guess that's the difference between us - you call it "a bit distasteful," I called it "utter nonsense."

I'm just more subtle than you are jb. We can chalk that up to the years I spent in charm school. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Jim Broyles]

A Banjolin! Whoa. JB that would be interesting.

I can't believe that anybody didn't take my DMMM idea and run with it. I bet the Gibson boys are huddling right now. Remember where the idea came from guys! I should get something free for coming up with it. Lucky if I get a set of strings. hey Gibson guys, I like the Firewires!
They're probably not that interested in whether you like FireWires or not, seeing as they'd have to buy them first to give them to you since they don't make them. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[cooper4205]

I could be wrong, but I think the only time I've seen the Firewire's for sale at a store was at the Gibson Showcase a few months ago.

as far as altering mandolins, if its been around unmodified for 80 something years why mess with it? If the instrument is lacking in some department, why not go and buy a new one to your liking? I can understand changing frets, but retopping or refinishing when it isn't warranted just doesn't make sense to me, even if you have the right to do it.

[MikeEdgerton]

why not go and buy a new one to your liking?

What if you really want a Loar with a polka-dotted top? What are your options? The suggestion to go out and just buy something else might not be an option.

[cooper4205]

why not go and buy a new one to your liking?

What if you really want a Loar with a polka-dotted top? What are your options? The suggestion to go out and just buy something else might not be an option.
I guess you'd be S.O.L http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jim Nollman]

so what do you guys all think of my formula (back on page 1 or 2 of this thread) for alteration versus appreciation. Or it could also be called: stewardship versus ownership.

[Jim Broyles]

Who or what determines whether something is warranted? I'd say if my guitar could only handle gut strings and I wanted to put steel strings on it, the warranted solution would be to have it re-braced to accept the strings of my preference. This is where this whole thread is driving me nuts. IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE DOES WITH THEIR POSSESSIONS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THOSE POSSESSIONS ARE. PERIOD.

[MikeEdgerton]

I guess you'd be S.O.L

Who's going to break the news to Buckles the Clown? That mandolin was going to be a big part of his act.


IT'S NOBODY'S BUSINESS WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE DOES WITH THEIR POSSESSIONS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THOSE POSSESSIONS ARE. PERIOD.

Amen.

[cooper4205]

if the finish is badly damaged, or was refinished poorly in the past then that, IMO, would warrant a refinish. If the top was sinking beyond all repair, or has some other kind of irreparable damage then that, IMO, would warrant a new top for the instrument.

Other than scenarios like those (and I'm sure there are others) then why buy an instrument to turn around and turn it into another one? if you want a steel strung Martin, but have a gut strung one, why not sell the gut strung one and then go out and buy a steel string? I'm sure someone out there would appreciate it like it is.

I do agree that once a person buys an instrument it is theirs to do what they want with, whether they want to keep it as is or change everything on it. but just because its their right, it doesn't mean others have to agree with it or like it (and that's for both sides).

[12 fret]

For all the nanny staters, preservationists, and hold-in-trusters, here's what you do. When you buy an instrument, don't remove the hang tags, leave the protective cover on the pickguard, and whatever you do, DON'T PLAY IT lest you alter the grain structure or stiffness of the wood. Future generations will thank you.

[Jim Broyles]

What if my beloved grandfather gave me the instrument and told me, "Jimmy, I always wished this had been a steel string guitar. Maybe you can have it fixed up so it will take them?" That's only one scenario, but my bigger point is why does anyone have to justify their actions because someone else has some kind of ideal that a historical instrument has to remain original? If I already have a guitar I want to keep, why should I go through the process of selling it, just because someone out there will appreciate it, just so I can turn around and purchase (none too cheaply, I'll warrant http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) another guitar of the same vintage only braced a little different? That's it. I've said enough already.

[fatt-dad]

To me it's infortunate when people that don't know any better mess up on their instruments. Education on the value of leaving an instrument alone is valuable. That said, here's a hypothetical: If your long-lost relative willed you an F5 Loar mandolin with a Virzi and you just couldn't wrap your head around that sound, would you be willing to do a virzectomy? There's a part of me that says, "sure - why not?" If I truely had it in my head to enjoy the instrument and keep it for my use and the use of my heirs - I'd certainly do it. Is it "wrong"? Only to a collector.

Here's where it gets confusing: When you see statements like, "unfortunatly the instrument's Virzi has been removed. . . . " You know the person that removed the Virzi may have really bonded with that instrument and loved it for many years. I'm not sure that's all that unfortunate.

Don't get me wrong - I'd rather have an all-original instrument. But if the machines were bad, if the fretboard had issues or if I just didn't enjoy it and felt that some judicious rework would make it more enjoyable for ME, I'd do it. At least I'd be informed in the onset.

f-d

[cooper4205]

For all the nanny staters, preservationists, and hold-in-trusters, here's what you do. When you buy an instrument, don't remove the hang tags, leave the protective cover on the pickguard, and whatever you do, DON'T PLAY IT lest you alter the grain structure or stiffness of the wood. Future generations will thank you.
wow, the new guy is funny http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[cooper4205]

What if my beloved grandfather gave me the instrument and told me, "Jimmy, I always wished this had been a steel string guitar. Maybe you can have it fixed up so it will take them?" That's only one scenario, but my bigger point is why does anyone have to justify their actions because someone else has some kind of ideal that a historical instrument has to remain original? If I already have a guitar I want to keep, why should I go through the process of selling it, just because someone out there will appreciate it, just so I can turn around and purchase (none too cheaply, I'll warrant http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) another guitar of the same vintage only braced a little different? That's it. I've said enough already.
I'm not saying you're wrong in your thinking at all, and am not saying that anyone has to justify why they modify or alter their instrument. I don't think there really is any right or wrong to this, its should be up to the individual to ultimately do what he wants with his instrument whether its modify it or keep it as is (or even not play it).

for the record, I am all for doing what you have to do to make your instrument playable, but I do appreciate a vintage instrument in its original state (I guess its the history buff in me). My flatiron is 20 years old and has non-original tuners, bridge, endpin, frets, bridge, the finish is removed from the neck and the tailpiece is missing.


I guess the music instrument world needs both types of players. If everyone always modified their instruments, then we wouldn't have as many of the great original instruments from the past that we have today. If everyone just kept them like they were and collected them, not as many would've had a chance to play them, and we probably wouldn't have many of the advances or choices in instruments like we have today.

[Bob DeVellis]

Let's face it, people can do whatever they want to their own possessions and others can think whatever they want of them for doing it.

[MikeEdgerton]

To me it's infortunate when people that don't know any better mess up on their instruments

I don't feel the need to keep people from messing up their instruments , their cars, their houses, whatever. I've seen some brand new mandolins that in my mind were destroyed by the will of the people that ordered them. Months back there was a mandolin for sale in the classifieds that was built by a friend of mine. To my mind the color was garish, the inlay was atrocious (not the quality the choice of design), and it downright looked bad in my eyes. I busted on the builder about it and he replied "Mike, the customer placed and order and I built it. Good taste never entered the equation". Someone modifying an instrument they own comes under that same heading in my book. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't do it? Who am I to tell someone that they shouldn't have a rhinestone studded mandolin? If it makes them happy they should just do it. If that means modifying it beyond what I think is tasteful that is their right and they shouldn't be chastised for it.

[NoNickel]

JB, I know Gibson doesn't make Firewires. I guess you didn't see my tongue in my cheek. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Frankly the custody argument only really makes any sense when you are taking about something that is already historic and/or rare. I don't think anybody cares about modifications made to non-historic instruments. And since we agree that we probably will never own anything like a Loar (unless there's one in my attic), modification should be non-controversial.

The property argument will only take you so far as well. Certainly there are restrictions of all sorts even on your property rights. You can keep your land as long as you pay your taxes. You can only build on it if you follow zoning regulations. Etc. Nobody regulates mandolins (except for a sales tax when you buy it) but other personal property, such as cars, guns, and animals are heavily regulated and the government often tells you what you can do with these things and even regulates how you modify them or handle them and/or treat them.

JB and Mike. Assume you found a 1923 Loar in your attic or your dead Uncle's (who left you everything). Would your first inclination be to take it a specialist and have it appraised or to a luthier and have it made playable? This is all I am saying, is that if you are going to make a modification on something like this, you would want to know how much it might de-value the instrument before you did it. And if you found out that in its present condition (which is reasonably playable, but not something that you would want to play everyday) it was worth $150,000. But you could have it worked over and make it into a great playing instrument for you (better tuners, refret, scoop that extension out, new tailpiece, bridge and nut) and now its worth about $60,000. If money meant nothing in this one because the Loar was from your family (Dad or Uncle) and you would keep it, then I suppose that you might do this. But if money is in the equation and sentiment is out, I think you would likely do something else. That's all I am saying.

The custody people might have a problem with you making these mods if you wanted to keep it. But, what's yours is yours.

[MikeEdgerton]

If I suddenly found a 1923 Loar it would be sold faster than you could shake a stick and I'd buy me a real mandolin or two. I'll be honest, it money wasn't an issue and I wanted to play it I'd modify it to meet my needs. I've already modified other lesser historic instruments, including one old Gibson product I own now. I don't buy instruments to look at or as investments, I buy them to play. I generally have 20 to 30 laying around and I play as many as I can. The rest are trading material for my next musical desire. I own Martin guitars, Gibson mandolins, and a slew of other brands. I have never hesitated to make changes to any of them. I'll take that back. I have one 1920's Martin Uke that belonged to my late step-father. He bought it as a teenager and it was the first instrument I learned to play. I wouldn't make changes to that but only because it *is* a shrine in my eyes. Beyond that, anything I have purchased is fair game. If you in turn choose to sanctify your purchases that's cool with me. I can accept that. What I can't accept is someone trying to apply a moral judgement to this process. It just isn't there. There is no disrespect to the builders and no disrespect to the future generations. The day the builder sold the mandolin and took the money he lost control of the instrument. He can deny warranty coverage, that's his or her right, but he can't take offense because someone decided change his or her instrument. As Curt said earlier, it's a commodity.

[Jim Broyles]

What Mike said. I entirely agree with his latest post. Money is always out of the equation. Like Mike, I own instruments to play them, not to sit around in cases not even being looked at. If I found that Loar and the tone was to die for, I'd make it playable then I'd play it to death. If it wasn't what I want to hear in a mandolin, I'd sell it.

[12 fret]

Lloyd Loar's name keeps coming up in this discussion. Poor geezer probably spinning in his grave like a propeller shaft. The real question concerns not the last Lloyd Loar but the next one. Nobody is going to significantly alter a Loar any more than they would start a rumor intended to drive their own stock portfolio value down.

Even Loar's were new once. Who's to say what brand you can buy today is going to be held in multi-million dollar esteem 80+ years in the future. Buy what you want, do what you want with it, let history take care of itself. Who knows, the Brekke bridge could be the next Virzi tone producer.

[MikeEdgerton]

the Brekke bridge could be the next Virzi tone producer

They already are, people remove them as well.

[fatt-dad]

the Brekke bridge could be the next Virzi tone producer

They already are, people remove them as well.
ha, ha, ha, ha.

[Jim Nollman]

As an aside. I just suggested to the Scrabble company, that they include virzi in their next dictionary edition. when you think that they already accept xu, defined as a vietnamese nurse, you have wonder why virzi isn't already there.

[12 fret]

People are modifying possible future historic instruments...Tell me it a'int so

[NoNickel]

Mike says
If I suddenly found a 1923 Loar it would be sold faster than you could shake a stick and I'd buy me a real mandolin or two.

and then JB says:[QUOTE]What Mike said. I entirely agree with his latest post. Money is always out of the equation."


I admit at this point, I am confused. Is money part of this discussion or not? I thought the original Beluga post talked about Collector's value/price vs. tone and playabilty. Mike would sell the 23 he found and use the money to buy some good mandos. JB would keep it and try to make it playable, but then sell it if it didn't meet his needs. (Presumably, he would get fewer good mandos than Mike, because Mike sold his right away and JB modified it first.)

[Jim Broyles]

No. I meant that if I liked the tone, I'd make it playable and keep it. If I didn't like the tone, I'd sell it. I never said I would alter it first then sell it. That would truly make no sense at all.
But to try to help your confusion, this discussion has altered (clever, eh?) courses a couple of times. When I answered you for the first time, it seemed to me that you were saying that no one would alter a $150,000.00 Loar, to which I said I might. I was not aware that you were saying that I wouldn't alter it if money was the consideration. I thought we were talking about the idea of custody and what we have the "right," as regards history and posterity, etc., etc. to do with our own instruments OR what would make financial sense to a collector, which I have stated I am not. To me money in the sense of worrying about what I would be doing to the "value" of an instrument I want to PLAY, has never been part of what I've been talking about.

[Jim Nollman]

I thought we were talking about the idea of custody and what we have the "right," as regards history and posterity, etc., etc. to do with our own instruments OR what would make financial sense to a collector, which I have stated I am not. [QUOTE]

Yah, that was part of what i was trying to talk about when I started this thread. i started it because i infer a certain condescension among a few collectors, against anyone who would dare to alter a proven mandolin moneymaker. To be honest about it, this thread is showing me that the condescension works for some, in both directions.

This thread appears to have evolved as a bunch of non-collectors talking about other people's mandolin investment avocation.

I am of that species. But I tend to honor the old, gorgeous instruments, although only up to a point. I will probably never have to judge a mandolin I own, solely by its market value. if I had to make those decisions, I might think differently about what i am about to say.

My own MAS has been lusting after an original L & H two point for some time. Also a 3 point Gibson. I can't afford either one, and actually, I'm content just looking at the pictures every so often. If i owned one, as a player I'd take off the pickguard and maybe alter the action by working on the nut. Then I'd play it for a year. then I'd put the pickguard back on it, and sell it to buy something made from scratch by one of west coast builders who are clearly making great player's instruments.

Come on guys, lighten up. i don't believe any of you actually feel as hard-edged as some of you are sounding, against offering words of respect and honor for time-proven mandolin jewels.

[12 fret]

If you decided to sell it because you didn't like the tone, would you tell prospective buyers that the tone was not up to your expectations and would you describe the tonal shortcomings?

Or would you say "Its got that magic Loar Tone" and collect your $150-$225 K?

[Jim Broyles]

I wouldn't talk about tone at all. I'd say it was a Loar and give a 48 hour approval, like I would any other high end mandolin.

[NoNickel]

When I answered you for the first time, it seemed to me that you were saying that no one would alter a $150,000.00 Loar, to which I said I might. I was not aware that you were saying that I wouldn't alter it if money was the consideration. I thought we were talking about the idea of custody and what we have the "right," as regards history and posterity, etc., etc. to do with our own instruments OR what would make financial sense to a collector, which I have stated I am not. To me money in the sense of worrying about what I would be doing to the "value" of an instrument I want to PLAY, has never been part of what I've been talking about.

JB, I think that we are in agreement finally. Money was always part of my equation. I agree, that if the '23 in my attic had the perfect tone that I wanted, an I couldn't find it elsewhere cheaper, I would keep it and I would make it mine. No custody argument would keep me from changing it if and only if it were the perfect instrument for me. But it is hard for me to imagine that that tone couldn't be found elsewhere for a lot less money.

[MikeEdgerton]

Custody battles always end up this way.

[fatt-dad]

Virzi is a proper noun and not likely for the Scrabble dictionary. Joe on the other hand is a kangaroo (or is it a cup of coffee).

f-d

[Eugene]

So what if you or Eugene don't understand it? It is the prerogative of the instrument's owner, not yours...
That's exactly what I said. ...And I'm not particularly concerned if somebody doesn't understand my pursuing instruments with the intent to maintain and play them as they were built because they were built by knowledgeable luthiers to be what I want as is. You may do so at whim and enjoy. I won't think any less of you as a person, however, I'm not likely to shop at your yard sale.

[Dave Greenspoon]

<<People are modifying possible future historic instruments...Tell me it a'int so>>

LOL #You mean like what I did to my Rigel A Natural? FQMS sent it w/an ebony (vs. the std. rosewood) bridge. I had the local Rigel dealer in Pittsburgh first add a Rigel pickguard, and then had him upgrade the tuners with the Schallers that Rigel sent him. #Finally I sent it home to VT where the folks at Rigel retrofitted it with their internal piezo electric pickup. #I likely have the only "A Natural+" (or if you prefer "A+ Natural") appointed like this in the world. #Except for the rosewood fretboard and matte finish it's an A+. #Call me an infidel if you will (God knows, I DO play a Rigel!!!), but given that the company is history, I consider it a "piece of history." #I feel confident that were I ever to want to sell it, it'd sell closer for a used A+ price (take a look at the Mandolin Bros webpage) than an A Nat price, and I'd likely see most if not all of my money back. #With a few lucky breaks from history yet to come who knows? #Oh, I forgot that I put a Mandolin Cafe sticker on the case...there goes my investment! #LOL

Honestly folks, and with due creds to Mr. Gruhn, how many of us actually purchase instruments for their investment potential? #My guess is that not many musicians do! #If you want to collect, good for you. #Just crack open the glass display every once in a while and let the rest of us hit a few chords. #Otherwise, we're buying our instruments to make music first and foremost.

Dave
Rigel #1774
A few other old instruments that have had string changes and necessary repairs...and where the #^(% is that orange day-glo spray paint anyway?

[MikeEdgerton]

Honestly folks, and with due creds to Mr. Gruhn, how many of us actually purchase instruments for their investment potential? My guess is that not many musicians do! If you want to collect, good for you. Just crack open the glass display every once in a while and let the rest of us hit a few chords. Otherwise, we're buying our instruments to make music first and foremost.

Yup, that just about says it all.

[Darryl Wolfe]

For your viewing pleasure?

[Darryl Wolfe]

and...

[Darryl Wolfe]

and..done on purpose to look like Sams

[Darryl Wolfe]

and...

[Darryl Wolfe]

Now that...'bout says it all

[Jim Nollman]

great post Darryl. How about a closeup of what looks to be a parrot inlay.

I'm curious what very disrespectful boy had that gorgeous work done. Did it increase or decrease the value? I can't even begin to predict the answer to that question.

[MikeEdgerton]

That's not inlay, it's a painting, as in someone painted a parrot on the back of their Loar and it wasn't a Jimmy Buffet fan.

[MikeEdgerton]

Now that...'bout says it all
I'm down with that. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[JEStanek]

Darryl, do you have a better picture of that F2(?) with the natural face and rope binding anywhere. And, is that a second bridge on it too or a big leather strip? That one looks kinda cool.

Jamie

[Jim Broyles]

I wonder why they didn't cut the fretboard off that one if they wanted it to look like Sam's. That's the kind of stuff I wouldn't do, but God bless'em if they want to.

[Darryl Wolfe]

That's the best I can do picturewise on those.
Yes there is a second bridge on the F2, and
yes I believe the fingerboard has now been cut off on the 30's F5.
I believe I heard that the Parrot has been removed, and
I know the Fern Loar has also been restored

[12 fret]

What's up with the nut on the last picture....Looks like 2 different materials and 2 different heights?

[MikeEdgerton]

What's up with the nut on the last picture....Looks like 2 different materials and 2 different heights?

I guess that's the way the owner wanted it. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[NoNickel]

To me those pictures support the "leave them alone" argument; especially the rhinestones and the parrot. #But then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. #My stong suspicion is that when those instruments changed hands (or do so in the future) the old owners suffered a significant discount on what the mando would have otherwise brought. #Which, is the way it should be. #They had the freedom to make those changes on their property. #So when they or their heirs try to reap some of the value out, they will pay for their choices. #(Frankly, however, in my opinion (and my humble opinion only), it's a shame what happened to those old instruments.)

[mandroid]

I think Frank Wakefield did some mandolin modifying in the past,
saw a layer of Goop on the edge where he has been rubbing it under his forearm ,
[when he played hereabouts],
let alone the stories of baking on some red paint.

[MikeEdgerton]

To me those pictures support the "leave them alone" argument; especially the rhinestones and the parrot.
I would expect you to feel that way but the truth is that the argument was being made that nobody would defile their historic instruments. Apparently there are those that would and did. The argument as to how much they were worth is moot. The truth is that people can and will do whatever they wish to their instruments. Those that want to treat them as shrines should simply treat their own instruments as shrines and not worry about what others might do to their own instruments. Those examples show that this has been going on for a long time. They weren't owned by misguided individuals, they were owned by people that made them into what they wanted them to be. There is no argument that can be made that what they did supports the need to preserve them historically. Personally, I think removing a parrot painting that has been there longer than I've been alive might be the bigger crime. That parrot was truly a work of art that happened to be on what was to become an expensive canvas. With that said, the current owner of that Loar has every right to remove that parrot, not because the parrot shouldn't be there but because they now own the instrument. There is a chance that that mandolin left the factory with that painting on it. In that event removing it changed what it was historically. Your argument dies there because you thought the parrot should have been removed. You can't have it both ways. If the mandolin should stay as original and the parrot was on it when it left the factory then the mandolin was altered. If by chance the rhinestones were on that mandolin when it was ordered the same thing would hold true and yet you probably would want them removed as well. Gibson was was probably well versed in inlaying rhinestones on instruments when these mandolins were built. Lacking any information in the records can you say 100% for sure that they weren't original? Should they be removed?

http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/Museum/Banjo/Gibson/FlorentinePlec/FlorentinePlecViews/florentineplec15.jpg

[MikeEdgerton]

I just found this. What do you know.

-----------------------------------------

Question: Anybody know how the famous "parrot Loar" turned out after Gilchrist restored it? Or know who owns it?

Answer from Tony Williamson - Mandolin Central:
The restoration turned out great of course. The instrument is owned by the Dawg. He had the fingerboard restored and removed the decal from the front, but left the beautifully painted parrot on the back.

-----------------------------------------

[NoNickel]

I didn't say the parrot should have been removed. #I said that it would devalue the instrument. #Which it did. #Also, from the look of the odd nut and the rhinestones, those modifications look very old. #Probably before old gibsons were worth much. #It is hard to criticize someone for modifiying what they think to be just an old beater, as old Gibsons were considered in the 50's and 60's. #When I said someone shouldn't modify their Loar without considering the economic impact, I of course meant in today's world, when those instrument are bringing astronomical prices. #When Bill Monroe gouged out the name Gibson on his, he didn't consider economics as Loars weren't that expensive then. #Further, he had no intent ever to sell, as it was the best he'd ever had. #So his choice was not an economic one. #He wasn't thinking value or aesthetics (or tone, for that matter), he was just pissed off.
#
And by the way, while I doubt the parrot or the rhinestones were original, if they were, I agree with you that the historic value would say leave them on. #Still kinda ugly to me though. #If I got a deal on either of those two instruments because I and the seller thought them despoiled, and I later found out after I had fixed them that they were original, I would feel bad for two reasons. #1) I would have screwed up a historical instrument that maybe was one of a kind from Gibson and 2) I probably just lost a lot of money, because I despoiled something really rare.

Just to be clear, so that my argument is not misunderstood, I will state it simply:

1) I personally would not make an unreversible modification to an rare and valuable instrument, but that is mainly because I don't want to lose money to make an old, valuable thing do what a modern instrument can do as well or better.
2) Any other instrument that is not rare and valuable is fair game for me.
3) Finally, I don't care what you do with your property. Any modifications could have negative consequences in the future. #Who knows what the next valuable instrument will be. #It is unlikey that any instruments that any of us have will become the Loar. #I just don't think that will happen again. #
4) I have a right to my opinion and I am not trying to impose mine on you.
5) I have had six mandolins. #I have modified them all.

[Walter Newton]

I was at an art museum earlier this evening looking at some fine, centuries old figure drawings which, apparently in the fashion of collectors of the late 19th century (according to the museum), had been cut out around the edges of the figure into a sillhoutte shape. #I suppose many here would say the owners of 100+ years ago had the right to do what they wanted to with their property...but looking at the (restored as best as could be) works it was impossible not to think it was a tragedy anyone would deface a work of art like that, which will have a life far beyond that of any owner. #I'm not saying the situation with mandolins is 100% analogous - and making necessary repairs, or replacing something like worn frets or inoperable tuners etc. is, to me, a no brainer - but I'm in the camp that frivilous alteration of historically important instruments is a shame.

[Jim Broyles]

Just to be clear, so that my argument is not misunderstood, I will state it simply:

1) I personally would not make an unreversible modification to an rare and valuable instrument, but that is mainly because I don't want to lose money to make an old, valuable thing do what a modern instrument can do as well or better.
2) Any other instrument that is not rare and valuable is fair game for me.
3) Finally, I don't care what you do with your property. Your modifications could have negative consequences in the future. Who knows what the next valuable instrument will be. It is unlikey that any instruments that any of us have will become the next Loar. I just don't think that will happen again.
4) I have a right to my opinion and I am not trying to impose mine on you.
5) I have had six mandolins. I have modified them all.
1)I would make any alteration I deemed appropriate to make the instrument how I want it.
2)Any instrument is fair game for me.
3)I am willing to live with the consequences of any alterations I may choose to make. As far as I know, I have never thrown away money on instruments by devaluing by modification. Whatever becomes the next Loar, it's a pretty good bet I will never own one.
4)Everyone has a right to their opinion, but I don't subscribe to the erroneous premise that all opinions are valid. They are not.
5) I have not modified most of my mandolins, unless an armrest qualifies as a modification. I plan to modify my only current mandolin, which is not a high end piece.

[NoNickel]

Walter: Once again: how were they to know at the time? #It looks like a shame now, but it was just pop-culture then. #If I paint a parrot on my Eastman, I'm not really doing anything but decorating it. #As long as I like the parrot and/or the Eastman, I'll be fine. #If I go to sell it, I am going to have to find someone who likes parrots, or take less money because there are a lot of parrotless mandos out there. #And to the extent that Eastman mandolins appreciate (for whatever reason) mine probably won't appreciate as much as its parrot-less brother (unless of course Gilchrist painted it on there or Dawg owned it, then we are in a different ball game; famous people mess with this argument).

[NoNickel]

1)I would make any alteration I deemed appropriate to make the instrument how I want it.

# #Fine with me. #I think that's what I said.

2)Any instrument is fair game for me.

# #Ditto. Except for a rare and valuable one, which I probably will never own, unless I find one in my attic. And since I have looked and it is not there, I agree with you 99.9%

3)I am willing to live with the consequences of any alterations I may choose to make. As far as I know, I have never thrown away money on instruments by devaluing #by modification. Whatever becomes the next Loar, it's a pretty good bet I will never own one.

# # That's what I said.

4)Everyone has a right to their opinion, but I don't subscribe to the erroneous premise that all opinions are valid. They are not.

# # Hitler, for example, had some pretty bad opinions. #I think we all agree that orange bermuda shorts are ugly.

5) I have not modified most of my mandolins, unless an armrest qualifies as a modification. I plan to modify my only current mandolin, which is not a high end piece.

# # Ironic, no? #You argue for the right to modify and have made no modifications. #I modify everything. #Is this country great or what?

[Jim Broyles]

I bet we really agree on this. You are probably slightly more idealistic than I, but I'm a pretty romantic guy. I can get in touch with my feminine side. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif I just don't think anyone should be even as much as swayed by peer pressure not to do something he has a perfect right and a compelling reason in his own mind to do. I am not in favor of, but would not outlaw, radical, hack-job mods.

[NoNickel]

Agreed.




I am emotionally spent.

[Walter Newton]

Walter: Once again: how were they to know at the time? #It looks like a shame now, but it was just pop-culture then. #If I paint a parrot on my Eastman, I'm not really doing anything but decorating it. #As long as I like the parrot and/or the Eastman, I'll be fine. #If I go to sell it, I am going to have to find someone who likes parrots, or take less money because there are a lot of parrotless mandos out there. #And to the extent that Eastman mandolins appreciate (for whatever reason) mine probably won't appreciate as much as its parrot-less brother (unless of course Gilchrist painted it on there or Dawg owned it, then we are in a different ball game; famous people mess with this argument).
Sure they didn't know at the time - but we can learn from their mistake and take a generally more conservative approach nowadays, no? #I think the discussion which the originator of this thread is referring to was not talking about something like decorating a new Eastman, but rather a Franken-job on an old Gibson, which some came out and expressed their opinion in opposition to - and we DO know, at this time, that old Gibsons are likely to be valued and cherished for many generations to come (ones that are relatively unadulterated, that is...)

(And I agree with you that mods done by famous owners don't follow the same rules, for better or worse.)

[JeffD]

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

[MikeEdgerton]

And I agree with you that mods done by famous owners don't follow the same rules, for better or worse

OK, so if say Frank Sinatra had Loar and he had rhinestones embedded all over that would be ok because he was famous, or does this just apply to famous mandolin players like Norman Blake? I'm trying to get a handle on what is and isn't allowed. If in fact were now basing this simply on the effect on the resale value then we need to go back and reexamine things. Again, you can't have it both ways. It's either ok or it's not ok to make alterations. Just because someone famous decides to alter their mandolin that doesn't change the rules. Were trying to preserve these in their pristine shape for generations to come, right?

[Walter Newton]

And I agree with you that mods done by famous owners don't follow the same rules, for better or worse

OK, so if say Frank Sinatra had Loar and he had rhinestones embedded all over that would be ok because he was famous, or does this just apply to famous mandolin players like Norman Blake? I'm trying to get a handle on what is and isn't allowed. If in fact were now basing this simply on the effect on the resale value then we need to go back and reexamine things. Again, you can't have it both ways. It's either ok or it's not ok to make alterations. Just because someone famous decides to alter their mandolin that doesn't change the rules. Were trying to preserve these in their pristine shape for generations to come, right?
I think I wasn't clear enough, all I meant was that modifications done by a famous owner wouldn't likely bring the same penalty in the collector's market at present as the same modifications done by you or I.

Even though Grisman or Skaggs or whoever could chuck their Loars in the fireplace if they wanted to, would you guys really feel A-OK about it? If Bill Gates bought the Mona Lisa and took a can of Krylon to it, you'd have no problem with that?

[Dave Greenspoon]

<<The instrument is owned by the Dawg. He had the fingerboard restored and removed the decal from the front, but left the beautifully painted parrot on the back.
>>

So Dawg's a Parrothead! #Good for him! (In other venues I'm known as "der Parrotheader Rebbe")#Maybe Buffett (that's 2 t's; one "t" means a food line while the two t's means a gravy train for HK Management!!!) will have him come on stage for "There's Something So Feminine About A Mandolin" this tour.

[MikeEdgerton]

If Bill Gates bought the Mona Lisa and took a can of Krylon to it, you'd have no problem with that?
Well, let's talk about that. Lloyd Loar didn't build these mandolins, he signed them. He may have had a hand in the design but he never built one from start to finish. You're going to put 300 plus of an item that was produced in a factory up against a one of a kind paiting that was painted by someone that took the time to do it all from mixing the paints to finding the model to painting the actual piece? Do you see any problem here? Would it be OK if Bill Gates took a can of Krylon to a Thomas Kincaid painting that was factory done but there were only 300 of them painted? Get where you can compare apples to apples. A better comparison would be the body of work by someone that was similarly created. Take it one step farther. Take all the Loars known to exist, including Bill Monroe's. What is the total monetary value? What is the monetary value of the Mona Lisa? See any difference? You can place any amount of reverence you want on these mandolins it's your choice but the truth is that someone that owns one has the right to do with it as they will. If someone buys one for an investment I would assume they would treat it as an investment. If someone buys one with the noble cause of preserving it as a historical item then I would expect them to do so. If someone buys one to play and is not worried about either of the former they really do have the right to do with it as they see fit.

[danb]

Importantly, they have value first as musical instruments. Originality, historical, and sculptural concerns are secondary to the fact that they are objects with a purpose and a use. If they were not successful at that, they would not be desirable.

One fun thing for me about the escalating prices in the vintage market are the left-behinds. Cracks, refinishes, decals etc usually do nothing to the musicality of an instrument, which you can experience in full without the price premium!

Check out the Ajr at Gruhn's. $1500 for a loar period snakehead, because someone planed a bit of the fingerboard off above the soundhole. Tell me that won't beat 90% of instruments at the $3k mark on tone?

[MikeEdgerton]

Importantly, they have value first as musical instruments. Originality, historical, and sculptural concerns are secondary to the fact that they are objects with a purpose and a use. If they were not successful at that, they would not be desirable.
I agree with that wholeheartedly.

[Jim Broyles]

Dan, that's exactly what I'm talking about. That thing is probably a player's player. I wish I had 1500 bucks.

[allenhopkins]

I think we all agree that orange bermuda shorts are ugly.
What? What did you say? I take that personally, Bubba...

We're arguing property rights vs. taste vs. custodial responsibility here. A three-way discussion unlikely to find a consensus.

Around my town (Rochester NY) there are areas called "historic districts" where homeowners are restricted from making some outside changes on their properties. Doesn't mean they can't replace the furnace or buy new living room furniture. Does mean they can't paint a parrot on the facade of their English Tudor.

My rule of thumb for my "vintage" instruments: fix it, maintain it, restore it if needed, don't grimthorpe* (http://www.answers.com/topic/grimthorpe)it.

* Vocabulary word of the day

[MikeEdgerton]

I've been looking for an AJr ever since I didn't buy the one you had for sale around Christmas time a few years back... maybe last year, I don't remember. That one looks to be in decent shape and I've got the tailpiece cover that it's missing. Hold me back, MAS is striking.

[NoNickel]

Bubba??? Did you Bubba me you orange short wearing, anti-grimthorpian, cello player! Them's fightin' words.

Other than that, I wholehardtedly agree with you.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Good conversation. #I am glad I could find those pictures easily. #This puts the whole other thread about whether to french polish the finish on your F4 or Loar to maintain it in a whole new light, eh?

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

[mandroid]

Going back and looking again , looking past the rhinestones , the split nut, which is not only different materials, but offset, so nut to first fret for plain strings, is sharper /shorter than the wound courses.
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Jimi Hendrix squirted lighter fluid on his electric guitar and lit it with a match,
bet that one, at auction, would still fetch a good sum.

[12 fret]

[QUOTE]Importantly, they have value first as musical instruments.

Not sure this is true with the Loars, Pre-war Martins, 50's Fenders. They have become some kind of Icon endowed with magic juju that drives demand to a point they can get these seemingly ridiculous prices. I'm not sure how any of the above would fare in a true double blind sound test against the best of todays builders. Obviously there's no shortage of buyers with 100K to burn.

[MikeEdgerton]

Check out the Ajr at Gruhn's. $1500 for a loar period snakehead, because someone planed a bit of the fingerboard off above the soundhole. Tell me that won't beat 90% of instruments at the $3k mark on tone?
OK, I'm looking seriously at that AJr at Gruhn's. Sorry to hijack the thread. Does anybody else think that the fretboard might have been scooped to keep the strings from buzzing on those high frets? I have a sneaking suspicion that was the case.

[Daniel1975]

Anything is possible, but you may be reading too much into it. My guess is pick click, but who knows? I'd call George. He'll give you the low down. I really like it too. We will want sound clips if you buy http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Edit: I forgot to add that I like your signature Mike - "selling out is harder than it looks"

[MikeEdgerton]

I stole the "Selling out is harder than it looks" from a message here http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Pick clicks with a big old hole just below the fretboard is what scares me. I don't get clicks on my Kalamazoo flat top but I got them on my F5G so I scooped it. I'll be in Nashville in the next few months, if it's still there I'll look at it, if not there will be another one.

[Daniel1975]

Ahhhhh yes, I think I remember reading it now. In the Dawg/YouTube thread maybe.

[Jim Broyles]

I think it was the Band Payment thread.

[MikeEdgerton]

Either way it was a great line, I only wish I'd seen it first http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[SamnSC]

Alter a mandolin? Well, I took some sandpaper and then some steel wool to the neck of mine. But its a Michael Kelly, so does that count as altering?

Sam

[MikeEdgerton]

sounds altered to me.

[Calvin]

Kentucky is my favorite kind.:D http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif