Loar Picture of the Day

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jul-01-2005, 11:01am

Decent point, but I believe there is room. The market flattens and stays that price for periods of time. New find either go for the flat price or start a new rise in pricing. I believe you will see the market ob Loars flatten out for a while now at $130-150K depending on the instrument. It was only 2 years ago that Gruhn priced the mintish condition "shoplift" scratchy Loar at $65K

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jul-01-2005, 11:12am

Let's use serial number 70000-80000 for Loar period numbers of instruments.

10,000 total instruments

Divide by 3 for 1922, 1923, 1924= 3,333 instruments per year.

Take 300 Loar mandolins and divide by 2.5 (not fully three years of production) = 120 Loar mandos per year

120 Loar mandos vrs 3333 all instruments

That leaves 3213 for all other.

Lets assume 60% are mandolins = 1927

That (1927/120)= 1 Loar for every 16 mandolins made

Pretty decent guess above...lots of unknowns here though

**Rroyd** · Jul-01-2005, 12:37pm

The information that McCoury's Loar needed some repair work done is correct; I was told that there were some major separations with the fingerboard and neck and extension, with a couple of parts practically falling off at first examination, and that Steve Gilchrist is doing the repair work.

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jul-01-2005, 12:52pm

Good info Rroyd. Those early '23's (Feb-April)are suseptible to that. I really don't know why though.
F5Loars April '23 had it, Monroes Feb 23..and numerous others. Usually the repairs can be done virtually undetectably..a good thing.

**Charlie Derrington** · Jul-01-2005, 3:19pm

I think three batches for July 9 fits. I still think that the anomolies had something to do with Lloyd not being there. Who knows? But I do find it interesting that the largest (and most unusual) signature date batch occured while Loar was out on tour.

Makes one think that anything he didn't approve personally previously, got shipped in a hurry.

But then again, nah.

Charlie

BTW.. The early Loars are prone to the fingerboard/extension hump problem because of the pearwood underlay of the fingerboard. It tends to rot and/or swell over time. When they changed the fb binding to I/B/W or W/B/W the problem goes away.

**Glassweb** · Jul-01-2005, 3:29pm

No Loar signatures here, but a nice grouping of Gibson Gals nonetheless... 1926 H4 - 1923 F4 - 191? H2 - 1923 A4

**ronlane3** · Jul-01-2005, 3:50pm

Darryl,

Thanks so much for the information. I'm glad to see that there is still hope of my running into an estate sale one of these days and finding an undocumented Loar and getting it for a steal of a price.

**f5loar** · Jul-01-2005, 10:55pm

You got a better chance at winning the power ball lottery.
Your best bet to find an undocumented Loar would be some unknowing finder from his granddad's attic posting it on ebay at a "Buy It Now" price of $3000 because he did his research on ebay and found newer models of the F5 are bringing $5000 to $6000 so a much older worn model should bring a lot less.

**Glassweb** · Jul-02-2005, 12:18am

Wood that it were... but stranger things happen on a regular basis!

**Brian Aldridge** · Jul-04-2005, 10:35pm

I must say what a beautiful mandolin 75554, that is no longer available at Elderly's, is. I bet the new owner is a very happy person.

**kudzugypsy** · Jul-05-2005, 10:27am

as far as undocumented loars surfacing, back when i was in college, one surfaced in the small town (Wilmington, NC) right under my nose. my being in college, there was nothing i could do about it. i was working part time at a mexican restaurant, and next door was an old established seafood restaurant that had been around for decades. the owners were in possession of a mint loar that they eventually sold thru mandolin brothers.
so these things can happen. i think that most of them would still be found in cities that had mandolin orchestras, i cant see someone just buying a loar back then just to play "Golden Slippers" at church picnics.

years ago before the internet, one might be able to get a deal (if they found one), but anyone can do a simple search these days and find out everything they need to know. the "good ol days" are gone.

....funny side note - Gruhn use to put wanted ads in a lot of the "senior citizen" based magazines like Readers Digest and such. his theory was that women/widows would see these and cash in on some old instrument left by the husband. i would love to hear some of those deals!

**johnwilson** · Jul-05-2005, 11:22am

Lloyd's contract with Gibson gave him the months of July and August to tour and play music. There are a lot of comments about batches of "odd" July instruments built during these musical vacations. So who approved the instruments, signed and dated the labels if Lloyd wasn't at the factory?

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jul-05-2005, 2:06pm

I've often assumed that Lloyd signed most all of the labels in advance. #This provides some sanity for why they are mostly signed on a Monday. #I suspect he signed a whole bunch of July 9 labels in adavance..accounting for the 3 batches and oddities in that group. #The September 23 instrument looks to be signed thru the f-hole...then you have December 23 instruments. #Considering there were for all purposes 2 sign dates a month for the largest part of 1923, my assumption seems to make sense. #Then you have the huge Feb and March 24 batches. followed by essentially nothing until Dec 1924. #Yes..I think he signed them in advance.

One other anomoly this supports is several custom ordered instruments delivered in 1926 with Loar signed 1924 dates..and an obvious 22 instrument with 24 appointments and 24 signed date..who knows.

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jul-05-2005, 2:18pm

Convince yourself that the A5, Sept 20th wasn't signed thru the f-hole and the July 9 was. #I think the other way around. Note slant to handwritting too.

**johnwilson** · Jul-05-2005, 2:46pm

Thanks, Darryl. That's my supposition as well, but I figured you or Charlie would KNOW. I have this vision of a cigar box full of signed labels waiting for finished instruments. Heck, some labels may still be waiting for all we know. It could also explain some of the instruments that were mysteriously unsigned. While all of these instruments are considered to be "Loars," it would certainly seem there were a good many that had a bit less of his individdual attention. Does anyone know if Lloyd personally inspected or tested the carved pieces or white instruments?

**f5loar** · Jul-06-2005, 11:20pm

Not one unsigned F5 has been found that the serial number would date it during the time Loar was there. Rumors and speculations yes, but none documented. A few have been found where the signed label feel out. The "unsigned" Loars were released after Loar was released since he was not there to approve them. Box of stickers already signed? Sure but if that is so it would be easy for anyone to glue one in there so why would you ship one without the label. The early advertisments make reference to the signed label as being an important part of the master models.
Also, the slant is due to Loar being a left handed person.
He wrote left handed and picked right handed. I would think the guy that moved in Lloyd's office threw away that box of presigned labels.

**philja** · Jul-07-2005, 3:57pm

.....fascinating ! I would be interested to know how many F5's are reckoned to have been built (if not completely finished) in the '22-'24 'Loar' period but shipped later.
I own #85370 (see p.56 of this thread)which has serial & FON nos. for '27 but is totally unlike the usual post Loar 'ferns'.
Mr. Derrington is correct in spotting that the binding on the body/fbd is white & ivoroid on the phd...confusing ??
And to give hope to the eternal optimists out there this mando surfaced in England 3 years ago.

**danb** · Jul-10-2005, 5:35am

I almost forgot this photo of Jul 9, 1923 F5 #73727. This one was on eBay once.. mistakently "discredited" here at the cafe (!!!), then eventually sold via Mike Kemnitzer (Nugget) and Sandy Munro of the Great Divide

**sgarrity** · Jul-11-2005, 10:54pm

What about the one that is listed on MWHQ? It says it is undocumented and must be in his personal collectiion.

**evanreilly** · Jul-12-2005, 9:47am

The instrument pictured on MWHQ has been posted there for quite some time; I would ask Dan B. or Darryll if it has made it into the 'Archives' at this point, and if there is any post-repair info available.

**danb** · Jul-12-2005, 10:25am

Yes, that one was undocumented when Charles located it, but it's since been added to the Journal. I believe the restoration was done by Randy Wood and it's being played now

**sgarrity** · Jul-12-2005, 10:56am

There are two listed. The first is the April 10, 1923 that had the water damage. That one has been listed for a long time. There is a second one listed that I hadn't noticed before. It is a December 1, 1924. Also undocumented. It looks to be in mighty fine condition.

Shaun

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jul-12-2005, 1:10pm

It's been documented..he posted on this thread quite a while ago

**sgarrity** · Jul-12-2005, 11:09pm

Cool. I figured it must have been but I just noticed it on his site today.

**johnwilson** · Jul-13-2005, 3:20pm

It appears the changes in the tailpiece(cover)design and engraving came before and after the Loar era with a remarkable consistency for years in between. I guess the same could be said for truss rod covers and paper labels. When did these items give way to different engraving styles and materials?