Stradivarius, del Gesu and Loar

[Stephen Perry]

There was little concept of builder v. designer. Several sets of hands clear in the works of the Cremonese masters. Stradivari had two of his sons working. May have done very little on the later violins himself. So I would expect some instruments are entirely theirs, not his. Just a standard production shop.

[HoGo]

Lloyd Loar wasn't a luthier and didn't build mandolins himself, unlike Stradivari and Guaneri, so comparisons with him are not logical.

Dave H

Loar was likely not involved in design at Gibson. More like supervision, endorsee and QC.

[Stephen Perry]

Exactly what the key innovations of the master Cremonese luthiers were is up to debate a bit. Arching is clearly part of it. While much is written on mathematics, other industries used nicely fractal or whole ratio systems not requiring mathematical knowledge per se, and one can certainly make some wonderfully Cremonese arches with these approaches. But there's more to it, I'm sure, just exactly what depends on who you talk to.

With the mandolin, the key innovation appears to have been taking hybrid middle east / Europe violin concept and applying it to the instrument. There's really so little chat about finishing systems, arching approaches, and the like. Not sure why that is. I should draw up a mandolin arch as I would a violin arch. That would be fun!

[billkilpatrick]

I suspect anyone forking out millions for a Stradivarius violin would enthuse about it endlessly and on every occasion ... until, that is, the agent who sold him/her the violin was found to be a crook and the instrument a modern copy. What happens to all the verbage spent on the instrument then? Would it sound in some way different ... become less unique? I suspect it would.

The F-5 is a relatively modern instrument - the acoustic characteristics attributed to 300/400 year old instruments (woodworm, aging, mold. etc.) wouldn't have had time to work their "magic." And I imagine documentation for Loar's production is pretty definitive.

So maybe our Grandkids and Great-Grand kids and Great-Great-Grandkids can look forward to miraculous discoveries in attics and basements of the future and the resurrection of genuine, authentic, pre-WWIII Epiphone MM-50s ...

I've got one!

[Beanzy]

Kind of like a reverse of this painting that just sold by the Huntington Library in San Marino.

It went to auction as as a copy “after Stubbs” with an estimate of $3,000-$5,000. At auction it got bid up to $175,000 ($215,000 with commission) by buyers who recognised it as possibly the real thing. A risk, but an educated one; the buyer is now selling his Stubbs for £750,000 and he reckons it would be more if noone knew how much he had paid for it.
There have been several artworks downgraded over the years losing a huge chunk of their value.
That's why people get very protective of provenance and sales histories, spending a chunk of money for valuations too.

[HoGo]

I suspect anyone forking out millions for a Stradivarius violin would enthuse about it endlessly and on every occasion ... until, that is, the agent who sold him/her the violin was found to be a crook and the instrument a modern copy. What happens to all the verbage spent on the instrument then? Would it sound in some way different ... become less unique? I suspect it would.

Look for Machold in violin business.
Dealer who went over the roof with his appraisals. Smetimes fraudulently mislabelling old violins (which is easy) to earn more or not mentioning repairs or replaced parts of instruments in his certificates to meke them more valuable.
Since the best appraisers are typically also dealers there's easy step in the wrong direction...

[billkilpatrick]

... So maybe our Grandkids and Great-Grand kids and Great-Great-Grandkids can look forward to miraculous discoveries in attics and basements of the future and the resurrection of genuine, authentic, pre-WWIII Epiphone MM-50s ... I've got one!

"The Kilpatrick" has a nice, solid, pecuniary ring to it, don't you think?

[Tobin]

Loar was likely not involved in design at Gibson. More like supervision, endorsee and QC.

Where on earth did you get that idea? Lloyd Loar was an "acoustic engineer", and was the one who personally designed the F5. Everything you see that made the F5 different from F4 models was due to his design work.

On top of that, where do you people get the idea that Lloyd Loar was not a builder? Just because he wasn't an active hands-on part of the day-to-day floor production in the factory doesn't mean he didn't build, or had no lutherie skills. There are photos of him at a workbench actually building instruments. I would presume these were prototypes, or part of his test batches. He was involved in a lot of musical innovations, and not just with mandolins. I would imagine that the bulk of his time was spent designing and testing out his new prototypes at his own bench. To suggest that he was only a designer on paper, or just a glorified QC inspector, is unfounded.

[billkilpatrick]

... To suggest that he was only a designer on paper, or just a glorified QC inspector, is unfounded.

http://siminoff.net/loar-workbench/