Did Mr.Loar ever disapproved a F-5?

[Hubert Angaiak]

Does anyone know how many he did not sign? Was there ever one he did not approve? If he did not sign it, what happened to it??

[Ivan Kelsall]

How would we ever know ?. I suppose that he could have issued a certificate stating that 'i didn't sign this one because it's c**p",but he didn't. I'm not being fascetious here,it's just that you raised a point that i find very amusing in the nicest way. :))
Getting back to seriosity - would Lloyd Loar have rejected a Mandolin that was tonally excellent,but maybe not structurally 'perfect' ie. a finish blemish,off kilter inlay etc., or was it all about tone ?.What were his criteria ?. I would imagine that tone & playability had to be the 2 main areas of excellence that he looked for,with maybe 'finish' not counting for quite as much.
A good thread Hubert - thanks for the smile you put on my face this morning,
Saska :grin:

[testore]

Most Loars do have "imperfections". I think the question is a good one. Maybe it should have been asked, how many early 20's F5's are there without a Loar signature. Maybe their B stock. Do these exist?

[TonyP]

The one that comes to mind is Butch's "unsigned Loar", and I seen/heard of others. Don't know how many, or it they are just a fraud.

[Big Joe]

Butch's and one Charlie had for a long time (the one he lent Monroe) were both unsigned, but that is because they were not shipped until after the first of January 25. Charlie's was varnish, Butch's was lacquer, but undoubtedly both were Loars. They were very early 25's that were ready to go but not shipped until after Loar was gone the last of December 24. I'm sure there may have been a few more. Not many though. He would not have signed those because the labels are the last thing done after the instruments are completed and inspected. Loar would not have been there to sign the labels.

There are other Loars built during his reign that do not have his signature labels in them. They are in one of two categories. A couple may have lost their labels as they have dried out and fallen loose. Most are because they were returned to the factory and the labels replaced when they were ready to ship back to the customer. It was standard practice to respray the instrument with fresh finish and replace the labels and often hardware. They wanted to make the instrument as like new to current standards as they could. That philosophy lasted in most factory repair departments until the last decade or so. It was standard practice to redo the instrument. Other than those instances the likely hood of Loar not signing an F5 mandolin are near non existant. If he did not approve of the instrument for whatever reason it would have been redone until he did sign off or it would have been destroyed.

[f5loar]

About five or so years ago there was a member here at the cafe that had documented dozens of unsigned '22,'23 and '24 F5s. He had their serial nos. and photos.
We've asked for furture proof of such examples but TMK no proof in photos has come forth to date. Still only hearsay from one person. When you consider how many were signed in those years and figure out a production schedule for the special order F5 models you would think there was not room for rejects. I know in the 60's Gibson would stamp a "2" on their seconds but I've not seen any prewar seconds marked as such. Certainly some things could be redone if not up to snuff for the signature label
and it went back for corrections and then signed. As far as all signed Loars being perfect no such thing. Many had imprefections within a certain tolereance. Like the inlays. Must not have been an exact templete on where to put the logo and flowerpot and truss rod cover. Some have more pronouced scroll carvings. Slightly different top thickness but for the most part still an F5 by specs.
You would think by reading the advertisements for the F5 that if it didn't pass his inspection even after corrections it went in the garbage bin not out to be sold as an F5.
I've not seen a signed Loar that was not worthy of it's iconic legendary status. I know of many not as good as others and others better than the rest. But you can say the same for post Loar Ferns too.

[woodwizard]

If he did not approve of the instrument for whatever reason it would have been redone until he did sign off or it would have been destroyed.


That's what I thought would happen.

[Hubert Angaiak]

Yes, it would make sense to work on them until they pass and destroy the ones that cannot pass. I find it interesting that each F-5 was different and it must be the tone than exact workmanship. I think I would be very afraid to touch one. I remember reading somewhere a luthier saying that "he had been lucky so far since he hasn't made a dud yet!" Thanks for all the bid of info.