Vintage Gibson Mandolin

[Bonsai]

Hello! I recently joined this forum and am seeking the help of the members here. A friend of mine has a mandolin that needs to be authenticated. He received the mandolin from his Grandfather who has passed away. My knowledge base is in guitars so I was asked to find out what I could about it. With that said I was wondering if anyone could tell me a little about this instrument. The serial number is 4643 I tried to get a good photo but it didn't come out that well. 86580865798657886581865828658386584865858658686587

[mrmando]

Well, that's a little weird. It is from the 1970s -- undoubtedly the worst decade for Gibson mandolins in terms of quality, although it appears to be in pretty good shape. What puzzles me is that it contains a reproduction of a Gibson label circa 1908. I am not an expert on '70s Gibsons so I don't know if that label is supposed to be in there.

[Fretbear]

Interesting;
I didn't know that there was another double flowerpot F-5 before "The Victorian"; oh yeah, and mine!!

[Buck]

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure it's a Gibson. Look at the location of the truss rod cover. That's much closer to the nut than it should be - only one screw too. Also look at the back of the headstock. Did Gibson ever have such a "volute" on a mandolin? I don't follow Gibson's from that period too closely, but I don't recall seeing those features before.

[mrmando]

I wondered about the double flowerpot too.

Maybe it is a fake ... although when people make fake Gibsons, they usually choose a decade other than the 1970s to emulate.

[MikeEdgerton]

I thinks it's an imported F5 style mandolin from the 70's, from Japan that was altered with a new headstock overlay and labels, probably in the 70's. I doubt it's a Gibson. The back of the headstock looks wrong among other things.

[palosfv3]

Ive got an 70s/80s era Washburne laying in the corner that if it were not for the " Gibson " on the headstock I would say is identical to this one right down to the case its in.

[MikeEdgerton]

Now that I'm home and able to look at it on full screen it's really apparent that it's not a Gibson. Truss rod cover is wrong, coloring on the back of the headstock is wrong, shape of the heel is wrong, the scroll is wrong, the headstock scroll is wrong. It's a modified import. That's why it's sporting the wrong internal label as well. You can tell your friend it's not a Gibson.

[UsuallyPickin]

Well of the tags on the 70's Gibson F5 Master Model I had neither was a Lyre tag. The dodads on the neck look right except for the first and third frets, those two look strange. The color is a little light compared to the one I had but that is not definative. And of course the volute, full size flowerpot and truss rod cover are odd. THe case interior looks like a 70's import also. Possibly a reworked Ibanez from that period. THey made some good F5 copies before Gibson sued them. Cheers .... R/

[MikeEdgerton]

The "Lawsuit" had nothing to do with mandolins and didn't stop them from making them, they continued making F5 copies. The fabled lawsuit only covered the "open book" Gibson headstock design. No Fender models, no Martin models, only one guitar headstock shape, the open book.

[Bonsai]

Dang I hoped at least that the mandolin was authentic. My friends grandfather had a bunch of various guitars and banjos as well. But everything was a little off. There is an Epiphone that has incorrect serial numbers, a Martin resonator that isn't the alternative I or II, a very cheap violin with a Stradivarius label... And a bunch of other weird stuff.

[MikeEdgerton]

I think you've stumbled upon a trend in your friend's grandfather's life :)

[Jim Hilburn]

There's a 71 f-12 on ebay that really looks a lot like this with the pointy heel. But it's truss rod cover is more traditional.
There was a new F-5 in Boulder in the mid 70's that I saw and I didn't know much about mandolins then but it did have the fingerboard inlays and this one reminds me of it a lot. I think it's authentic because I can't imagine who else would have done it.

[MikeEdgerton]

There's a 71 f-12 on ebay that really looks a lot like this with the pointy heel. But it's truss rod cover is more traditional.
There was a new F-5 in Boulder in the mid 70's that I saw and I didn't know much about mandolins then but it did have the fingerboard inlays and this one reminds me of it a lot. I think it's authentic because I can't imagine who else would have done it.

Not a chance in my mind but let me put it this way. If that is a 70's Gibson then why would anyone put the copy of the Orville label in it, get rid of the Gibson tailpiece cover, replace the truss rod cover, and place the screw for that truss rod cover closer to the nut? I can understand someone wanting the double flower pot and going to that trouble, the rest is beyond me. The scroll is awful even for the Gibson bad years. I still think it's an import that was dolled up.

The serial number makes no sense what so ever unless that the FON. I just don't buy it.

Beyond that if I'm wrong f5loar will jump in and tell me. I don't think I am.

[f5loar]

FAKE, FAKE, FAKE! Not even a good fake at that. So much wrong here.

[Bonsai]

So if it is fake is there any value to it at all? I assume it is at least 35 years old given what the family has told me.

[MikeEdgerton]

So if it is fake is there any value to it at all? I assume it is at least 35 years old given what the family has told me.

Everything has value. The problem is going to be selling it. If you put it on eBay you're in essence selling a counterfeit item. If it was an original Japanese import with a label like Ibanez you might get something in the $300.00 plus range.

[f5loar]

yeah the Gibson fake upgrades likely did not deminsh the value any so $300 to $600 range for those top end 70's imports. Many times family members are not "in tune" to what grandpa/dad did to his musical instruments 30 years ago so they really have little to pass along when selling his "stuff". I've made sure my family has all the information they need to get maxium value for my "stuff" when I pass on.

[Fretbear]

I think the re-done peghead overlay/inlay is a pretty good bet, which would also explain the odd truss rod cover. There is no bottom screw because the rod would be in the way, pushed lower by the long flowerpot, so they covered up everything and locked the bottom of a modified cover in place along the nut.
The inlay looks pretty well done, top half in green abalone and bottom in red, and was likely "outsourced."

[Jim Hilburn]

There's a '75 F5 on Ebay that is very similar to this one. The fingerboard inlay is identical and it has a volute on the back of the neck. It has the long heel cap but isn't as pointy as this one. But there's also a 71 F-12 that has this same heel. But the peghead still isn't right. Something happened there. Don't fool yourself that Gibson didn't do bad workmanship in the mid 70's.
I tried to lift a photo of the F-5 but it was too small. But here's the F-12.

[Jim Hilburn]

By the way, that '75 F-5 is only $ 18500.

[MikeEdgerton]

There are hundreds of threads here that detail what Gibson did in the 70's and the majority wasn't pretty. Cafe member f5loar is our resident 70's (and more) Gibson expert. If he says it's a fake you can pretty much take it to the bank, really.

[Jim Hilburn]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1975-GIBSON-F-5-MASTER-MODEL-MANDOLIN-/110877828299?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19d0d564cb
I suggest you look carefully at this mandolin and compare it to the one in question here. This assumes I got the link right.

[f5loar]

There was a time when a mid to late 70's import looked more like a real Gibson than a Gibson did if that makes any sense. In other words the Japs were copying the early 70's F5 instead of the prewar 20's. The obvious sign on this example is the truss rod cover placement. It's attached against the nut. On a real 70's F5 and F12 as in the example shown above of the real 1975 F5 the truss rod cover was always (let me stress the word "always") a half to one inch above the nut from late 1970 to late 1978. While there were other things that did change (mostly the color and sunburst) they never would have cut the truss rod hole right against the nut. Next if you do a side by side comparsion of the upper half of the flowerpots you see a big difference in details. Again Gibson did not vary the flowerpot during the 70's and never would have added that stuff after it as the truss rod cover would not allow it. And it's easy to see this is not the 70's Gibson logo but more of a prewar style variation. They used the dotted "i" in the 70's. The point on the heel is way too sharp to be a Gibson F5, however it is closer to the point of the 70's F12. There is no serial no. stamped on the back of the headstock, something Gibson always did on the 70's F5. The tuners are not the heavier tuners used by Gibson in the 70's but rather the cheaper imports used in the mid to late 70's. When you add up all these little things on this one there is no way it could be a real Gibson. Why the added inlay on the flowerpot? Why the truss rod cover dead on the nut? Why the prewar style script? Why are tuners cheap imports? Why is there a fake Orville Gibson style label (it's not even close) using a serial no. that would date it back to the early 1900s? What would be the need to change out the original Gibson labels? Add to this that the seller says pretty much everything they have found has been fake and you come up with FAKE,FAKE,FAKE like I first said. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. It's a customized made in Japan mid to late 70's import made to look like a Gibson model they never made. The only thing that might be real is the Gibson fingerboard, the tailpiece and the pickguard. You could buy these parts pretty cheap from a Gibson dealer in the 70's. And let me add what I am saying has nothing to do with this being a great sounding/playing F5 style mandolin. Maybe it was regraduated out and sounds terrific. It just ain't a real Gibson made in Kalamazoo, MI in the 70's.

[Jim Hilburn]

Here's more food for thought, another 74 Gibson F-5.
Not trying to prove I'm right, but this is a very mysterious instrument.
You can see Gibson actually did make pointy heelcaps. The tuners aren't the same but they're both post overs. The one's on this Gibson look like gotohs to me. The volute? pretty close. The fingerboard inlays are clearly the same, at least to me. But if it was Japanese made, which dealer did they get the fingerboard from? I must admit the lack of a serial stamp is pretty convincing that they aren't the same.
While Japan copied Gibson, when did they actually use the name?
Suppose someone broke the trussrod and a luthier re-threaded it farther back and made a new overlay?
The labels, no ideas there.
There were more photo's of this Gibson and the one I didn't post is the most convincing that they are from different makers. The scroll ridge on the Gibson follows the body contour almost to the way to the f-hole while the mystery mandolin is more like a traditional scroll. And the scroll binding is also much better than on either of the Gibsons I saw.
But in the end if it's fake, who faked it and why? anyone ever seen another example anything like this?

[f5loar]

It didn't come from Japan with the Gibson logo. It could have been something like an upper end Washburn,Alverze,Ibanez,Twianez, etc. and then someone here in the states "gibson" it up with new fingerboard, TP cover, headstock inlays. But instead of trying to copy a Loar like most would have done they just went for the Gibson retro look and then added a fake label to really throw you off track which seems to have worked. I can think of many mandolin builders that would show no shame in customizing an import for a paying picker. And you have to admit it looks like pretty cheap maple if it's even maple at all. And to me the cremona sunburst looks better than any 70's Gibson.

[Bonsai]

I'm not sure if your guys expertise is beyond mandolins? here are some of the other instruments he had.

[Bonsai]

Here are some others

86646866478664886649866508665186652866538665486655

[Bonsai]

The last batch...

866568665786658866608666186662

[JeffD]

But in the end if it's fake, who faked it and why? anyone ever seen another example anything like this?

Any number of folks could have faked it. And usually for the money.

There are plenty of examples of Gibson fakes and copies.

[f5loar]

Wow~ a very impressive collection of fakes. For sure the banjo is fake. We call these Gibson "parts" banjos. Lots of parts to build a fake Gibson banjo. Hard to tell if Gibson parts or not but likely a really good sounding/playing banjo. The Martin dobro is fake too as Martin never made one especially a D45 resonator guitar. Could be made from a Martin kit and turned into a dobro style. The Dobro however does look real. Tuners not original but overall it's all there. The 50's Epiphone Zepher looks real but very customized with added pearl around the body. The pickups are added to the acoustic model Epi but overall very nice.

[Fretbear]

Yeah, Grand-Dad left you some instruments son, a Martin guitar with lots of fancy inlay, and a banjo and mandolin that both say Gibson on them....they might be worth something.....or not......

[Jim Hilburn]

I'm already in trouble here for thinking the mandolin might be based on a real Gibson so I might as well take it a step further.
Could that be a real D-45 converted to a Dobro? The top is cracked and the pearl trim is out of place from having a tailpiece at the tailblock where it was never intended to be.

[Fretbear]

Could that be a real D-45 converted to a Dobro?
Let's hope not.....

[f5loar]

Where is the hole if it was a real D45? There is no sign of an original guitar hole being plugged up to convert to a dobro. Could it be a retopped real D45? Possible but not likely. How far do you take "stupid is as stupid does" in converting a real D45 to a dobro because it had a damaged top? And what happened to the original gold tuners? You could take off the cone and look up on the neck block to see if it has a real Martin D45 stamp and serial no. Whomever did the inlay on the F5 could have easily done a CF Martin pearl logo and pearl trim and get it darn close to a real one.

[Bonsai]

I do know that my friends grandfather built and repaired instruments so any work that has been done was most likely done by him. He also had a woodwork shop in his basement with many pieces of inlay in storage. I knew that some of the instruments had work done to them. The Martin and the Epi for certain are altered. I wasn't sure about the rest of the lot. He built a pedal steel guitar and inlayed a Gibson logo onto it so he was certainly willing to fake an instrument. He never sold any of his creations I guess he just wanted it to seem like he had a really expensive collection. I wasn't sure about the mandolin. From what the family told me they had never seen him work on it. It seems like a big project to fake it himself. I'm not sure where he would have gotten a Gibson logo to glue inside of it. He seems like an interesting man it's a pity I never got to meet him.

[Jim Hilburn]

Well the hole would have been where the resonator is now.

[Jim Hilburn]

Now we're starting to get to the real story.
Since the Epi has 45 style pearl it's concievable that it was also added to the "Martbro".

[mrmando]

Well the hole would have been where the resonator is now.
No sir, the hole on a D45 is right at the end of the fretboard. As Tom says, the only way this could be a real D45 is if it was retopped.

[Bernie Daniel]

I just want to say Gramps was a pretty smart guy --he assembled a lot of nice looking instruments (fake or not) and probably had great time playing them fake or not. You are a fortunate guy Bonsai.

Here are some pics of the 1972 F-12 I owned years ago a it was a Gibson fer sure. My "expertise" is limited to the three '70's Gibson F-models I have owned but I'm sure that Gramps mandolin is not a Gibson as well.

[Bill Snyder]

It was not Bonsai's grandpa. Bonsai never met the man. It was his friend's grandpa.

[Jim Hilburn]

Well obviously I shouldn't be posting at midnight on Saturday.
So what if all of these are pawnshop imports that Gramps took to the basement and had his way with them?
That mandolin fingerboard is still a head scratcher. Did he do that inlay himself?

[Bernie Daniel]

Well obviously I shouldn't be posting at midnight on Saturday.
So what if all of these are pawnshop imports that Gramps took to the basement and had his way with them?
That mandolin fingerboard is still a head scratcher. Did he do that inlay himself?

I have seen that fret board inlay pattern on Alverez F-style mandolins (http://elderly.com/vintage/items/90U-5936.htm) of the 1970's.

In fact now that I think of it I remember a correspondence some years ago when email was still a newish thing with a guy who had replaced the headstock overlay with a Gibson one and re-grauated it also -- this would have been like 1988 or so. Be amazing if this was that same mandolin.

[almeriastrings]

Just look at the very plain, lacklustre and 3rd grade woods used on this fake. Also the finish. Yes, Gibson were making some over-built and not-good sounding mandolins back then... but even they used vastly superior materials to this. It was almost certainly made in Japan and then a crude attempt made to 'replicate' a Gibson. A lot of folks got these imports.. but still wanted the Gibson label...very common back in those days.

Oh, yeah... NO WAY is that a real D-45. The headstock inlay is 100% wrong. Among a lot of other things.

[allenhopkins]

Looks to me like someone had the luthiery equivalent of an automotive "chop shop" going there. Parts of instruments being mated with parts of other instruments, or counterfeited with varying degrees of expertise.

The whole question on the D-45/Dobro conversion is interesting. Was a sound well installed in the Martin? Were real Dobro parts used for the resonator? The coverplate looks pretty "kosher," but what's under the hood?

In the end, of course, the question is "how do they sound and play?" There are a lot of "conversions" and such out there. My main guitar is a 1940 Martin 00-28G classical, that's been re-topped and re-necked to resemble a 00-42. I have a GB-3 Mastertone arch-top ball-bearing guitar-banjo, that's been re-necked as an RB-3. My Regal taropatch sports a Martin tiple bridge -- at least I guess so, since why would an 8-string taropatch have a bridge pierced for ten strings?

These "sleuthing expeditions" are a lot of fun, and as long as the instruments aren't misrepresented, they still can be useful and even valuable by their own standards.

[Jim Hilburn]

Thanks, Bernie, that Alvarez goes a long way toward the answer. I was trying to find something like that but didn't know where to look. Identical board to the Gibson and the pointy heel. However the trussrod is still forward. Are we sure Gibson didn't just outsource production in those days? They just were so different from anything Kalamazoo ever produced before.
The most plausable explanation now is that none of these are what they appear. They were cheapies that were re-worked.
I now know more than I ever wanted to know about 70's Gibsons.

[MikeEdgerton]

The stories of how the Japanese companies copied the American instruments in the 70's is pretty well known. The gist is this, they would go to an industry show and have one of their guys stand next to or even hold up an American instrument and they would take a photograph. The guy holding the guitar would have a tie tack or some other part of his clothing that was a known size and they would go back and reproduce the instrument based on the known size of the tie tack. That's why they could build a Les Paul that looked close but the parts weren't quite exact. If they wanted a mandolin to copy they would be copying a 1970's Gibson. They didn't know the difference. That's why they look so close. Later in the decade with the open book headstock lawsuit (that one really happened) they apparently started making some minor changes to avoid the complications.

[Jim Hilburn]

Here's the mystery mandolin and the Alvarez. The pickguard is different.

[Buck]

Mostly faked instruments, as already noted, but the Martin resonator is interesting. I can see quite a bit of filler around the "C F Martin" in the headstock, and I'm not sure the fretboard inlays look right either. It's definitely a guitar neck though. The profile looks perfect for a guitar, but not likely something intended for a resonator. The back of the neck near the dart looks funny, sort of has a stippled look as if someone was trying to hide a crack. Could be a kit part with added inlay, which is what I suspect for the whole guitar. I'd like better photos of the back and side wood.

If it is a Martin, or a Martin kit, the top has been replaced. I believe even the kits come with the sound hole already cut out. Look at the crack near the tail piece running toward the resonator. The binding and pearl is cracked and shifted forward about where I would expect the edge of the tail block to be. That makes me think there may be no sound well and the top is carrying the whole load, which is of course completely inappropriate, but indicative of the other oddball modifications.

[JeffD]

I now know more than I ever wanted to know about 70's Gibsons.

Isn't that the truth. The combined knowledge and experience available here is staggering. I love this place.

[f5loar]

The pickguard as shown on that Alvarze does not look original. Looks more like a Gibson guard. Taking an already near copy of the 70's Gibson F5 and redoing the headstock would be pretty easy for this guy. And again, getting parts from Gibson in the 70's was no big deal. If you knew a dealer he could order any part you needed and if you knew him really good it would be half the list price which made getting parts like fingerboards, tuners, pickguards, cases, etc. really cheap.

[Jim Hilburn]

Since the fingerboards on the Alvarez and the Gibson are nearly identical I doubt anyone bought any aftermarket parts for this. Looks like the same supplier was used for both.

[MikeEdgerton]

f5loar mentioned the ease of buying Gibson parts. I hung around a music store in Portland, Oregon in the late 60's and early 70's and you could just dig into the L.D. Heater catalog and pretty much order anything off a Gibson instrument. Heater was owned by Norlin who also owned Gibson. The other day I found a box with an 60's-70's Gibson bridge in it for an archedtop guitar that I've had since then.

[Willie]

Now that all of these things have come up, didn`t a true D-45 have abalone running along beside the fretboard extension where it overlaps the top? I seems to me that maybe, just maybe, some gentleman wanted to just try his hand at doing some customizing to see if he could good at it....I thought the banjo looked good myself but I am not a banjo player...

Willie