23' Loar at Norman's Rare Guitars

[DataNick]

Guys on Facebook are theorizing about the condition/finish of this April 1923 Loar that is for sale at Norman's Rare Guitars in The San Fernando Valley, CA

What say the Loar cognoscenti?

Listing

[Spruce]

...that 'burst looks a little odd, but it could be the photos...?

[Glassweb]

Looks super clean and original to me... even the frets look original. Beautiful wood and tobacco finish... what's not to like? Of course without seeing it in person there's only so much critique-ing you can do but to my way of thinking this looks (and sounds) like a great example with some honest play wear at a "current-market-ish" kinda price. OK Tom, Ken, Darryl, etc... your turn...

[Bill McCall]

I love the $150k price with "$65 shipping".

[Glassweb]

...that 'burst looks a little odd, but it could be the photos...?

I have a friend who has a very clean Loar from the same date and the finish looks about right... without having it in hand it's hard to tell...

[HoGo]

Looks quite period correct but the body and neck probably received some extra cleaning and French polishing in the past... The shine on the back lacks some patina.

[Drew Streip]

Here's a question: What's the threshold for aesthetic maintenance of an instrument? Is it considered a faux pas to re-French polish a high-end instrument to keep it looking its best?

Like, is there is a difference between doing that to a '23 Loar and an '85 Gilchrist? Or an '85 Gil and a 2010 Ellis?

What if you're the original owner, vs a second owner trying to restore it to its original shine?

[Jeff Mando]

Here's a question: What's the threshold for aesthetic maintenance of an instrument? Is it considered a faux pas to re-French polish a high-end instrument to keep it looking its best?

Like, is there is a difference between doing that to a '23 Loar and an '85 Gilchrist? Or an '85 Gil and a 2010 Ellis?

What if you're the original owner, vs a second owner trying to restore it to its original shine?

I consider an '85 Gil to be a vintage instrument as well as a high-end instrument. I try not to mess with original finish, because then it wouldn't be original finish anymore. As far as vintage goes, refinishing always kills the value, except in rare cases, like if a Loar was found at a yard sale covered in purple house paint -- then refinishing would be merciful. I think it would be important to have a Loar restored by an "A List" luthier, who has a name in the Loar world. But, just to "freshen up" a dull instrument, I would say no.

And, why would a 2010 Ellis need refinished, unless it was really abused? In my experience, most boutique instruments have been well-maintained from day one and many 10-15 year old instruments are still in close to new condition. (I know it is a hypothetical question...)

[Drew Streip]

Thanks Jeff. To be clear, I don't mean "refinished" -- just a touch up. I was just thinking about pick swirls, forearm haze, etc. Like, my Eastman is only a year old but I've considered trying some Meguiar's to freshen it up. So I'm sure in 7 years I could see some wear (but I also gig with my instrument).

I understand that it's "only" a $1,000 instrument. And I also know some people like to keep things natural, while others prefer to keep things pristine.

For example, cars --- nobody balks at cleaning, waxing and buffing a BMW or Porsche with regularity. It's also a tool to get you from A to B, as an instrument is a tool. But on an instrument, at what level does "basic maintenance" (wipe off fingerprints and sweat) turn into "advanced maintenance" and is one OK or not?

[Jeff Mando]

I think a deep cleaning and polish is fine, in that case you can still claim "original finish." That is just good maintenance. On a recent instrument that makes sense. When I worked at a vintage guitar shop, my boss would caution me not to "overclean" a vintage instrument to the point where it looked "doctored." In his old hippie lingo, "you don't want to polish the man's (former owner's) vibe off of it!" In the early days of Gruhn's, they gave every vintage guitar a wet sanding and buffing on the buffing wheel as a matter of practice, unless the instrument was absolutely mint. I have a bunch of old receipts around here that list, "wet sand and buff" and the associated charge. In those days, it was the blind leading the blind and the goal was to have every instrument look as new as possible. Few would agree with this practice in today's market. There is a famous story of Gruhn calling Normal Blake about a certain Martin that Blake had been wanting and Blake responded by saying, "I'll be right down and PLEASE DON"T BUFF IT, whatever you do!" Also, did you ever notice how vintage dealers use the term "overspray?" Overspray is basically a light refinishing, but they want to avoid using that word.

[fscotte]

I've freshened up the finish on my 99 A5L a couple times using Meguiars 105.

[Tobin]

Here's a question: What's the threshold for aesthetic maintenance of an instrument? Is it considered a faux pas to re-French polish a high-end instrument to keep it looking its best?

I haven't put too much thought into this, but I'd say that it's one thing to maintain an original finish and keep it from degrading over time, and it's another thing entirely to attempt to "bring back" a finish that has already been degraded.

If, for example, I were to regularly clean my Ellis F5's finish and polish it to keep it looking new, and I did that over the course of many decades, I would hope that a future collector would see it as a very nicely maintained original instrument in excellent condition. But if I let it get pick marks, finger wear, and scratches all over it, and never cleaned it, so that the finish looked abused, it would obviously be in lesser condition. Trying to clean it up and bring back the finish at that point would possibly be a no-no, depending on how collectible it is.

[pops1]

I haven't put too much thought into this, but I'd say that it's one thing to maintain an original finish and keep it from degrading over time, and it's another thing entirely to attempt to "bring back" a finish that has already been degraded.

If, for example, I were to regularly clean my Ellis F5's finish and polish it to keep it looking new, and I did that over the course of many decades, I would hope that a future collector would see it as a very nicely maintained original instrument in excellent condition. But if I let it get pick marks, finger wear, and scratches all over it, and never cleaned it, so that the finish looked abused, it would obviously be in lesser condition. Trying to clean it up and bring back the finish at that point would possibly be a no-no, depending on how collectible it is.

You mean I don't have to clean my mandolin anymore. Varnish is so easily damaged that I only wipe off the dust. It has much mojo at this point as it is a gigging instrument.

[Drew Streip]

Thanks Tobin! You touched on the point I was really trying to grasp -- collectibility. A Loar is a finite resource, as are all mandolins to some extent, but now we have the benefit of hindsight. We know with reasonable certainty that, in the year 2100, my Eastman won't be as collectible as your Ellis.

All things equal, mandolins also have this weird dichotomy: We want them to be played, to reveal their full potential, but we also are enamored of mint examples of vintage instruments. I recall a recent thread about the "heavily distressed" Nugget for sale.... We collectively agreed to disagree on whether it would have been more valuable in better condition, or if the mojo gave it some irreplaceable value.

As always, it's a sliding scale. Thank for your input!

[Tobin]

Yeah, if only we had a crystal ball that we could look into, and know what would be highly collectible in the next 50 or 100 years! I'm sure we'd all be buying things differently, and taking care of things differently.

Best way to play it safe is to just take care of what you have (duh!). Maintain it well and treat it like it will be collectible one day. I know that some players feel like it gives them more "street cred" to play a beat-up road-weary instrument, but the only way this sort of mojo would add any appreciable value is if they become famous with that instrument.

[fscotte]

Closer view:

[jefflester]

23 foot Loar? That's going to be tough to get out the door!

[CES]

Looks too shiny to me, but I'm far from an expert. I've been fortunate to play two, and have seen CT's live twice...none of them were that clean looking. Played one at Carter's and one at Lowe Vintage...both in excellent condition, but not that new looking...

[V70416]

My 2004(newest mando) looks more beat up than that 94 year old Loar.

I have been fortunate enough to play a Loar;it belonged to Bob Knysz of The Atlanta Mandolin Orchestra.
Honestly,I was in such complete awe (not only of the instrument but also the owner's great talent)
that I only strummed a few chords and nearly drooled on it. Same thing
with Mike Compton's Gilchrist. At least I said,"Thank you." I think. Or something stupid like,"Nice mando."

[Drew Egerton]

The guy just called bluegrass an illegitimate music in a mandolin review......

[Doug Freeman]

Case looks equally clean. I should drive the 12 miles and kick the tires.

[Jeff Mando]

Case looks equally clean. I should drive the 12 miles and kick the tires.

I would drive 12 miles to look at a Loar. In fact, you could make a game out of it, and bring a couple buddies, one dressed as your chauffeur and another as your personal assistant with a notebook and a headset, constantly interrupting to remind you of your next four appointments, dropping names like Warner Brothers, "your broker", Beyonce, etc., might be a nice touch if he called you "Number One" as in, "You got it, Number One" or "Consider it done, Number One." The assistant could carry one of those huge "business checkbooks"-- I'm sure that would get Norm's attention-- in fact, he says ya gotta bring your checkbook!......fun afternoon!

[JeffD]

Thanks Tobin! You touched on the point I was really trying to grasp -- collectibility. A Loar is a finite resource, as are all mandolins to some extent, but now we have the benefit of hindsight. We know with reasonable certainty that, in the year 2100, my Eastman won't be as collectible as your Ellis. !

I think you have to know what you are in it for. Are you a collector, a dealer, a curator, an investor, and/or a player.

Were I to have any mandolin that I had the slightest hesitation about modifying or incurring play wear, I would likely sell it and get something I could own and enjoy and play the potatoes out of. Because I know I am a player, and that is what I am in it for.

I have always been impressed with Alison Stephens, who, as I understand it, put aside her 1764 Vinaccia, and had Martin Bowers make a copy of it for her to play regularly.

[dhergert]

To me after playing some modest but relatively collectable instruments for a number of decades, this is just common sense.

Most serious collectors would be willing to pay more for a signed Loar if it was all factory original and had never had any wear and tear from playing. That means original un-worn frets, original fingerboard with no ruts, original nut, completely intact finish, no buckle or button scratches on the back, no finish wearing on the back of the neck, no string scratches on the peghead finish, no worn tuners or buttons or screws, no metal plating wear, original bridge, original pickguard, original tailpiece and cover, etc., etc.

On the other hand, most people who buy these instruments want to play them, not put them in a museum.

So, people need to realize that routine playing -- and playing induced wear and tear of a collectable musical instrument -- has a financial cost.

If that's a serious problem for someone who wants to own a signed Loar to routinely play it, then maybe they shouldn't buy it, or maybe they shouldn't buy it for playing, in the first place.

I'll never have that kind of disposable money to worry about this, but I really think people who are in this market need to be realistic about the difference between "collectable value" and "playing value".

Don't get me wrong, I love to hear and read about people who have and totally enjoy playing these instruments, I think their experience and their perspective enriches us all. But the normal wear and tear of playing comes at a cost.

It's like they used to say about owning a Rolls Royce. If you can't afford lousy gas mileage, you shouldn't buy the car.

[Timbofood]

I'd heard the "gas" bit about owning a Chevy Suburban. However, once you have owned one you always think about how convenient that big horse was! Well, at least I do. I had plenty of safe space for instruments, gear, camping equipment, band members in one happy warm package!