-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Have any other F5s been found with matching FONs to the Baldassari and Ellis owned mandolins?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
G7MOF
Wouldn't unsigned Loar F5s just be Called, and known as Gibson F5s, If so wouldn't the 40s and 50s F5s be Loars as well?
Read the thread. The finish specs were where changed to laquer from here on in. The less than handful of instruments being discussed were built being supervised by, held, tuned and breathed on by Lloyd Loar. Not so the F5s of later eras you mention.
They have always been officially called Gibson F5s, referring to instruments as Loars lets us be more specific. Like Tom says, the only difference on these couple of instruments in question is the lack of signed label, while the differences from '25 onward increasingly differ from Loar's specifications.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Loar didn't build the mandolins. He may have designed, approved and signed them but he didn't build them. If they aren't signed they aren't a "Loar". We're paying for a signature. I could undersatnd the argument if he built them but he didn't.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
That's what I was asking, would you buy a Porche if it looked, sounded and perforemed like a Porche, but didn't have the badge?
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
The few (6) unsigned F-5's that were completed during LL's tenure but were not signed by him have sold for half the price of one with a Label. Instruments that once had a LL signed label but have lost it over the years are another matter. they have serial numbers that fall within a documented batch, I doubt their value would be reduced quite as much.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a "Loar mandolin" made by Gibson. "Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe a small subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. "Unsigned Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe an even smaller subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. If that group of owners/buyers/users says there are Loars and Unsigned Loars, why would I disagree? To argue otherwise serves no real purpose that I can see.
This reminds me of the argument that a December 8th 1941 D-28 is not a prewar guitar....
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
It may not serve a purpose to argue the point but it clearly makes a difference in the value of the instrument.....right or wrong that's a fact. BTW, the war started on DEC 7th '41 so I guess the 8th isn't pre war.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Buck
You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a "Loar mandolin" made by Gibson. "Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe a small subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. "Unsigned Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe an even smaller subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. If that group of owners/buyers/users says there are Loars and Unsigned Loars, why would I disagree? To argue otherwise serves no real purpose that I can see.
This reminds me of the argument that a December 8th 1941 D-28 is not a prewar guitar....
You probably just summarized the whole thread.
Dec. 8th.?? I've heard you shouldn't buy something that came off the factory line on Monday.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bootinz
It may not serve a purpose to argue the point but it clearly makes a difference in the value of the instrument.....right or wrong that's a fact. BTW, the war started on DEC 7th '41 so I guess the 8th isn't pre war.
I never said there was no difference in value. I simply pointed out that these terms are used to describe certain groups of instruments. Even though unsigned Loars are less valuable than signed Loars, they are still more valuable than later lacquered instruments. If the folks shelling out the cash know the difference between a Loar, an unsigned Loar, and a 20's Fern, I have to believe those terms mean something.
As far as Martin guitars are concerned, no changes were made in design or construction until early 1942. They are priced according to construction details and most buyers know the differences. Few owners would argue that an early '42 with steel neck reinforcement is not a prewar Martin. Internet forum members argue over such things all the time. The war started on December 8th when congress declared war, but again the guitars didn't change until 1942. It took a couple of months for the steel restrictions to have an effect.
The point of all this is that collectors (not just instruments either) use various kinds of terminology as shorthand that may not mean anything to folks outside their circle of interest. These term usually to define features, some of which are related to historic events, but not necessarily in exact sync with the historical calendar.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
There is a big difference in design and construction between a 1938 and a 1941 D45. Many changes were made before 1942.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
f5loar
There is a big difference in design and construction between a 1938 and a 1941 D45. Many changes were made before 1942.
Yes, there were many changes, including the change from 12 fret to 14 fret, bar frets to T-frets, ebony to steel neck reinforcement, X-brace position, popsicle brace, neck block size, neck width and bridge spacing, and several different tuners were used. All of those changes affect value and desirability in some way. No war-related changes occurred until early 1942 though. My point was that collectors use terms as shorthand to describe the bigger picture. Within the bigger picture there are other subsets of the subset. Loars and unsigned Loars are broad subsets of prewar Gibson F-5's. There are similar subsets within Loars, but you know those better than I ever will, so I'll not embarrass myself trying to enumerate those. :)
It's better to take time to understand those things as opposed to arguing over terminology that almost everyone else already agrees on.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Buck
You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a "Loar mandolin" made by Gibson. "Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe a small subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. "Unsigned Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe an even smaller subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. If that group of owners/buyers/users says there are Loars and Unsigned Loars, why would I disagree? To argue otherwise serves no real purpose that I can see.
....
Nicely summarised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
G7MOF
That's what I was asking, would you buy a Porche if it looked, sounded and perforemed like a Porche, but didn't have the badge?
I wouldn't buy either option, but I would think those that would should expect a discount of sorts.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Don't forget the obvious change......... snowflake inlays to hex inlays.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Some of you guys just don't get it. Let's deal with the darn facts.
The last batch of signed Loar mandolins was FON 11985 and they had serial numbers like 79835, 79836 and all had Flowerpot's and Virzi's.
The Baldassari, Derrington and such "Unsigned Loars" were all flowerpot mandolins with the stamp/FON number of 11985. They all have serial numbers like 80782, 81250, 81251, 81266, 81290 range.
The last two signed Loar mandolins are 80190 and 80191 and appear to be stragglers from the main batch. We also have an unsubstantiated note of 80416 being a signed Loar mandolin. All of these are before the "unsigned" mandolins of the same FON batch as the signed ones.
There is a batch of Fern F5 mandolins with serial number both slightly before and after the above "unsigned" mandolins, but they all have later FON numbers, all have Ferns and all look and sound different than an "unsigned" Loar.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darryl Wolfe
The last batch of signed Loar mandolins was FON 11985
The Baldassari, Derrington and such "Unsigned Loars" were all flowerpot mandolins with the stamp/FON number of 11985.
Fern F5 mandolins all have later FON numbers, all have Ferns and all look and sound different than an "unsigned" Loar
This is what I was wondering about earlier. Thanks Darryl.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Update. I have received info "substantiating" 80416, the last recorded signed Loar mandolin. It is a silver hardware, flowerpot, no Virzi mandolin. Another "unsigned" Loar has also been identified. 81176 with flowerpot, gold hardware and no Virzi.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Is 81489 too far out to be considered an unsigned Loar? Probably is.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
One interesting thing I have observed.... All the unsigned Loars I have played all sounded really good. But then, so do the Dec 1924 batch of Loars that I have played. A very obvious connection.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
"Is 81489 too far out to be considered an unsigned Loar? Probably is. "
That specific mandolin is an enigma. I believe it to be an unsigned Fern Loar. I have never seen another mandolin remotely like it
I also chased that mando for years, having known it existed in the Knoxville TN area.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Darryl Wolfe
"Is 81489 too far out to be considered an unsigned Loar? Probably is. "
That specific mandolin is an enigma. I believe it to be an unsigned Fern Loar. I have never seen another mandolin remotely like it
I also chased that mando for years, having known it existed in the Knoxville TN area.
Darryl, I kinda got the mandolin by accident. Most people knew who owned it and that he also had a Loar. At the time he priced the Loar at something like 55,000 and the 25 at 30- or something similar to that.
I saved my money and it took me a few months, prices were rising. I called him back hoping I could still get the Loar for 55k,,,Nope. He had backed out on selling it and was going to leave it to his grandson, but if he sold it it would be 100k. He said he would still sell the Fern, so I wound up buying it at about what I was going to pay for the Loar.
He approached me later wanting to sell the Loar but I thought he was too high, at least for the market at that time.
Sometimes the chase is good. I've had a lot of people try to buy it. I'm happy to know you think it's an unsigned Loar.
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shylock3
Darryl, I kinda got the mandolin by accident. Most people knew who owned it and that he also had a Loar. At the time he priced the Loar at something like 55,000 and the 25 at 30- or something similar to that.
I saved my money and it took me a few months, prices were rising. I called him back hoping I could still get the Loar for 55k,,,Nope. He had backed out on selling it and was going to leave it to his grandson, but if he sold it it would be 100k. He said he would still sell the Fern, so I wound up buying it at about what I was going to pay for the Loar.
He approached me later wanting to sell the Loar but I thought he was too high, at least for the market at that time.
Sometimes the chase is good. I've had a lot of people try to buy it. I'm happy to know you think it's an unsigned Loar.
It would be nice if you could post some pictures in Loar Pic of Day thread. All I have are a few 35mm shots my Dad took about the time he sold it
BTW, the Loar is for sale now $175K I believe
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Darryl, couldn't the FON move you a little closer to when that mandolin was actually manufactured?
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MikeEdgerton
Darryl, couldn't the FON move you a little closer to when that mandolin was actually manufactured?
Yes, but that's a broad situation. The FON would indicate "parts that were manufactured at the same time for the same purpose", but not necessarily assembled, nor finished. Hence, varying finishes, serial numbers and parts on most of these.
This is also happening at the same time that it appears Gibson changed their business model. The post Loar instruments seem to more closely fit Joe Spanns assertion that the serial number is an indicator of when it was sold and the FON relates to when it was "manufactured" Gibson seem to have changed to "built to suit/build if ordered/sold" after the Loar period
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
From what i've read (mostly on here),Lloyd Loar personally inspected all the mandolins coming off the production line. If he thought that any of them exhibited ''especially good tonal properties'',he personally signed the labels.If that is so,then if there's no label inside & unless one can prove that a particular instrument 'did' have a label at one time,then for me it's not a 'true Loar',simply a 'Loar period' instrument. If, as has been stated,Lloyd Loar signed labels in batches,ready to be applied to the instruments,then any instruments bearing such a label that were never inspected by Lloyd Loar,shouldn't correctly be regarded as 'true Loars',in the same way that famous paintings that are unsigned,that 'might be' by famous artists, can only be described as 'attributed to' & command less cash than a signed one by the same artist.
Re.f5loar's assertion that the Mandolins on Mr Loar's desk 'would have been signed & labeled' - who says ?. For all we know,LL might have thought that they were no good (hardly likely i must admit),but we can't make assumptions like that. In order for any instruments to bear his signature,he was required to have inspected & played them - if he wasn't there he couldn't, & those instrumnents as good as they might be,are simply NOT Loars,just very fine instruments that 'might' have been signed (or not),
Ivan;)
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
The signed "Loar" label was an advertising gimmick. There is no such thing as one that did not pass muster. IMHO
-
Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins