Loar Picture of the Day

[AlanN]

In the words of Homer..."mmm, chocolate."

[evanreilly]

This is at least the third Loar Skinner's has put up for auction. They apparently have established a good record for setting the benchmark prices and therefore owner's will consign to them. I went out to see the one that had the original price tag still on it; that was an impressive instrument. That one went for $88.6K, if I remember correctly. This one will be a large percentage higher, no doubt.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Come 0n guys...I expected much better from you on the '22

[f5loar]

Show me the labels inside and I'll tell you!

[Darryl Wolfe]

I expected so much more...Tommy, why do you even need to see the labels. Good work Maverick

is that single bound?

[Darryl Wolfe]

appears so

f-4 tuners?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Yep..about 1921 or '22

[Darryl Wolfe]

more

is this a conversion piece?

[Darryl Wolfe]

One has to look at the overall deal and say
Does it look right?
If not, do parts of it?
Are there any original parts to support that it could be a Loar?
What aspects are obviously not right?
What's left?

I haven't seen this in person, but I am 99.8% sure of what it is

[Charlie Derrington]

That's the early catalog Loar. Look at the tuner splay and weird binding. Also, I think I can see where the weird pickguard foot was.

Also, looks like its been re-finished. Of course, I could always be wrong.

Charlie

Yeah, I'm wrong.

Some kind of conversion.

BTW.......talked to a friend of mine that saw the Skinner Loar. Says it's dead mint. Looks brand new. Skinner estimates it will go for at least 150.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Agree...I didn't see the last half of your post.

I thought the same until closer look

Fact...could possibly be orig sides and back
But, likely a 1920-22 F4 conversion

F-holes are not right
FB extension is not right
Inlay is not right
back of neck appears to have a raised volute
instrument is single bound

yup I think f-4 conversion

[f5loar]

The reason I wanted to see labels is I suspect this is the famous "Pink" Calahan Loar that has been passed off as an original Loar for generations. Way back when Gruhn was just getting started and had to get Harry West to tell him it was a fake. Seems I recall the case is a Loar case which explains why there are a few out there missing original cases. I would think the top left curly cue would be all you need to know Loar didn't approve this one.

[Ken Waltham]

I don't think it's even an F4 conversion. It has F4 tuners, no doubt, but the neck heel is not right for an F4 from 1922 or before.
It's too blobby to be 1923 or after, unless it's from the 30's.
The look of the first point cutaway isn't right to my eye, either.
If anything, my guess is it used to be an F12.
However, the case looks real. What a shame....

[danb]

It's an F2 conversion, IMO. binding on the small peghead scroll is way off. Back binding is off. Top is refinished or replaced. Tuners are not arrow-end.

[f5loar]

Dan,the Tuners on early '22 Loars are not arrowhead.
It should have pearl buttons held on by screws and this don't!
Ken, I thought F12 conversion too because of the heel cap.
And one note on the newly found Skinner '23. If it was so dead mint the silver would still be on the tuner posts.
I see a lot of nicks on the headstock.
This thing has had a lot of wires put on it. Still it's pretty minty and $150K may be way too low for this jewel.
Collector status!

[Darryl Wolfe]

Some of you Loar owners really dissapoint me.....there are so many aspects of this mando that are obvious...how do you buy sell and own some of these things without having the requisite knowlege about the details...

Charlie Derrington is the only one that really got it right. #He jumped on it at first ..just as I did....but quickly determined the reality of the situation.....This is how you KNOW..if it's real....you look...you compare.

Maverick..good job..you knew something wasn't right from the getgo

Ken..if it's an F4 conversion..the neck heel isn't original..the god d__m neck has been replaced...!!!!!! #F4's have mahogany short necks!!!!

The peghead scroll is off because either...1..it's totally new or ..2 #Part or portions of the overlay are original.

If you look closely you can see that the "new" binding on the peghead has filler on the big scroll...if the overlay is orig...it was installed slightly left of center which caused the need for filler and screwing up the small peghead scroll...in any case the FPot is NOT orig...the "The Gibson" script might be original..I can't be sure

The back and sides are UNQUESTIONABLY original. #The one piece back is very indicative of a 1920 F4....at this point most F2's were birch, but not always.

Again, I have not seen this instrument in person, and the remote possibility exists that the sides and back are indeed original Loar... true to the serial number and date (but I doubt it)

[Darryl Wolfe]

I posted the collage of pictures to give a clue

There seems to be a raised volute on the back point part of the rear overlay of the peghead...NOT GOOD

The F-Holes are too big and not properly shaped..too big at the center

The heel button on the back reeks F4...not flat like a Loar
The tuners are obvious as to what they are
There is no evidence of double or triple binding
The "The Gibson" script is not true to year for even a 1921 instrument.

The FPot is not real at all, but could have been replaced during removal of the overlay


The fingerboard extension has a flat/square side to it ..not seen on any Loar
The fingerbard fretted extension does not have a square corner like almost all '22 Loars have..especially the earliest ones..before they figured out what they really wanted to do....and

the binding in general seems to be white and slightly rerouted into the body

I for one don't think the script is original. The lettering is a slight to thin.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Agree for Loars..but maybe..just maybe OK for a late teens early twenties F4..check it out

[Darryl Wolfe]

It does lack the flow that the "thin" early scripts have

[Darryl Wolfe]

Maverick..email me at
I'm trying to set up my new account