Loar Picture of the Day

**Darryl Wolfe** · Oct-17-2005, 1:28pm

73992, with flash revealing finish texture

**Darryl Wolfe** · Oct-17-2005, 1:29pm

73992

**Darryl Wolfe** · Oct-17-2005, 1:30pm

73992

**Darryl Wolfe** · Oct-17-2005, 1:31pm

73992

**Darryl Wolfe** · Oct-17-2005, 1:32pm

73992

**Darryl Wolfe** · Oct-17-2005, 2:38pm

73992

**MANDOLINMYSTER** · Oct-17-2005, 2:43pm

NICE!!! That finish looks like it just came out of the factory, is it original?

**Darryl Wolfe** · Oct-17-2005, 2:51pm

All original except bridge top. Every screw and part is orig. Light french polish around scroll area on face and portion back where perspiration/body heat hits it

**f5joe** · Oct-17-2005, 4:23pm

And to think I was there when f5journl gave birth to this monster.

I missed bopping on it dude.

**f5loar** · Oct-17-2005, 10:08pm

F5Joe, those photos inspired me to dig out my old July 9th reversed binding. Man that sure was a powerful batch.
Looks like Darryl's is holding up pretty good.

**Charlie Derrington** · Oct-17-2005, 11:34pm

Tommy,

Why in the world would you be playing anything but that July 9?

Yup, a very special batch.

Charlie

**f5loar** · Oct-18-2005, 1:27am

You have to alternate them so they don't fall asleep!
I got into a jam session with one of Big Mon's ex-banjo boys tonight and he cut into Bluegrass Breakdown and all of sudden the July 9th woke up real quick on my first break!

**Ken Waltham** · Oct-18-2005, 5:52pm

As a lot of you guys know, I had the very next July 9 from Darryl's for years.
The sides were similar, but the backs could not have been more different.
My mandolin, in a lot of ways, looked more like the next one in order, belonging to Glassweb.
I need to post some detail photos like Darryl has, of the June prototype sidebound Loar. It has some unusual traits, such as the binding being higher than regular July 9's. Charlie once told me it has the nicest "slip matched" back he had seen. Can you elaborate on slip matched Charlie?
Ken

**Darryl Wolfe** · Oct-19-2005, 2:18pm

"slip matched"

halves from same narrow board..above and below each other..then turn one around so same edge is in middle...not split and book matched

**Spruce** · Oct-19-2005, 2:50pm

...and can create a more "bookmatched" look, as you are carving away the same amount of figure from each half of the similarly-figured plates...

Slip-matched tops might be the reason a lot of Loar tops do not appear to be a traditional bookmatch.
But I'm thinking that the graining is so different from side-to-side on a lot of them that they are indeed two different boards from two different sources...

**Charlie Derrington** · Oct-19-2005, 3:25pm

Sorry it took so long.

Bruce and Darryl covered it. I think the main reason was that the stain takes evenly on slip matched spruce.

Charlie

**Darryl Wolfe** · Oct-19-2005, 3:50pm

staining...great point Charlie...I don't think that's ever been mentioned, but certainly sounds right

**Spruce** · Oct-19-2005, 4:04pm

"I think the main reason was that the stain takes evenly on slip matched spruce."

Interesting...
So if there's a tad of run-out in a board and you slip-match it, it will take stain evenly, won't it?
I'd never thought of that...

I'd kill just to see just one old photograph of their wood room circa '23-24...
It would sure answer a lot of questions...

**Ken Waltham** · Oct-19-2005, 4:12pm

Maybe I didn't understand when he told me, but, Charlie, I thought at the time you were referring to the back.
Ken

**Spruce** · Oct-19-2005, 4:19pm

Yep...

But I brought tops into the picture...

Both were probably slip-matched, and their wood room was probably chock-full of 8-10' long boards of 1x6 red spruce and hard maple.....

**Charlie Derrington** · Oct-19-2005, 5:09pm

It was the back. But they did that, too. I've also seen backs with different boards (tree ?)for each side. I'm not sure (gosh, it's so hard to tell, sometimes) but I think my back is book matched, but moved down on one side.

Staining is not as critical of an issue on the backs, particularly for the slab-cut ones.

Charlie

**danb** · Nov-07-2005, 8:21am

Here's an interesting new detail.. apparently at least one Loar fretboard has an original radius of 22". I'd be curious to hear from Charlie or other folks who've looked at several if this varies at all.. the old conventional wisdom that they are flat might need an adjustment.

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-07-2005, 12:36pm

quit teasing Dan. #How do you know and can you prove it? (to quote a good friend of mine)
Seriously, I've never seen one, how do we know there is an original radiused board.

**ronlane3** · Nov-07-2005, 1:13pm

Keep 'em coming Darryl. Those are great pictures. Darryl, I know that they are Loar's but could you possibly post some side by side pictures of a Loar and a 29 Fern?

**danb** · Nov-07-2005, 2:00pm

Originally Posted by (f5journl @ Nov. 07 2005, 18:36)

I've never seen one, how do we know there is an original radiused board.

22" radius is pretty hard to detect, that's almost flat. It was measured recently by a noted luthier who has one in his possession. Might be able to get him to weigh in here, he's wrapping up some substantial research on a particularly fine example