Loar Picture of the Day

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-15-2006, 9:11am

Here are some interesting attributes to note. #On the left is Loar 73992, on the right is fern 85370. #Notice how Gibson utilzed the same overlay pattern shape (before the binding is applied) #This makes the peghead essentially larger for the triple bound on the face fern. #The triple binding tightens up the small scroll. #This also proves that it is likely profiled after the binding because the small scroll "drilled hole" is smaller. #The same applies to the large scroll cut. #Notice how it is narrower and shorter. #I measured the peghead width and it is wider by the difference in binding widths.

Now, from this fact one could possibly reason that this is why the necks on earlier Loars are so narrow. The neck width at the nut may have simply been fitted to the overlay instead of the other way around

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-15-2006, 9:15am

The same is not true of the body scroll. Notice how the button is smaller on the fern, but retains the overall outside the binding dimension

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-15-2006, 9:17am

They make a nice pair. #Notice how light the finish is on this particular fern

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-15-2006, 9:25am

I did not take a photo specifically to depict this, but I also noted that the round "drilled hole" part of the ferns' f-holes are significantly larger than the Loar, but the part in between is actually smaller/tighter than on the Loar

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-15-2006, 9:37am

The nice fern above is "available". PM Dan or myself for info.

**carleshicks** · Nov-15-2006, 12:37pm

What is the difference in the measurement at the nut between the Loar and the Fern?

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-15-2006, 2:43pm

about 3/32's...will double check tonight

**Will Kimble** · Nov-15-2006, 6:51pm

The Fern I measured was 1 3/32", most Loars I have measured are 1 1/16". #Not quite as much difference as 2 pieces of .040" b/w binding. #It would be a lot easier to taper that part of the headstock overlay to match the fingerboard than it would be to reduce the entire overlay by the width of the extra binding, so maybe they just tweaked the bottom section and moved on. #

I never noticed the overlays being so similar before, that is fascinating. #Thanks for the insightful post and picture Darryl!

Will Kimble

**Will Kimble** · Nov-15-2006, 6:54pm

As I look at them some more I think I disagree, the overlay part of the small scroll on the Fern headstock is narrower than overlay part of the the small scroll on the Loar. Not enough so it all works out to give the exact same outline, but different enough to think they were made from different overlays.

Same with the big headstock scroll, they look different to me, too.

Will

**Will Kimble** · Nov-16-2006, 1:41am

Put a scrap of paper on your computer screen and mark the width of the overlay on the small scroll of the Loar at about 10 o'clock. #Then slide that over and compare with the Fern in the same spot. #You can do the same with the big scroll measuring horizontally across its widest spot. #

But this does bring up a really interesting question - why did they make the fingerboards wider and the necks a little chunkier on the Ferns? #Maybe Loar himself preferred narrower fingerboards as a player, that would explain the move to narrower fingerboards across the board on all of the Loar-era mandolins. #And it would then make sense that they might change it once he had left the building. #

Will Kimble

**danb** · Nov-16-2006, 1:48am

We're pretty sure they came this way (picture from Jamie Wiens's website) minus the pocket and + inlay already in place:

They were prepared by the inlay "outsource" or supplier. A few unused ones have appeared on ebay in this same format of a large square with the inlay already in place. This also fits with instruments with the inlay in unusual positions, or truss rod pockets/tuner holes cut through the inlay.. a slight mis-fit would cause that.

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-16-2006, 7:31am

Originally Posted by (Will Kimble @ Nov. 15 2006, 19:54)

As I look at them some more I think I disagree.....

Good catch Will, you are right that they are somewhere in between. We know for sure that they had a brass template for the overlay. It appears that they may have constructed another one for the Ferns. I would think it too much work to slightly modify each overlay. Here is the brass template.

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-16-2006, 7:35am

I have posted this one before, but you can never have too much July 9 scroll

**f5loar** · Nov-16-2006, 11:12am

Hey is that monosteel strings on there? When did you switch or is that just an old photo?

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-16-2006, 11:21am

good catch Tommy. I assumed that was a pic of my mando too. I think I swiped that one from Elderly. The July 9 with the written over F41515 number

**Glassweb** · Nov-16-2006, 2:24pm

Darryl and Tommy... give the GHS Silk and Bronze strings a try on your Loars - a match made in heaven!

**f5loar** · Nov-16-2006, 3:33pm

I've not tried those but didn't like the Silk&Steel they had many years ago. I did like the Gibson SamBush(with a .16 in place of the whimmpy .14) and they were really fine until I broke a D string premature.

**Glassweb** · Nov-16-2006, 5:08pm

The Silk and Bronze are quite a bit different in tone and feel from the silk and steel... give 'em a try and you'll see what I mean. Much warmer and much more complex tone. I tried them, was very impressed, then gave the J74's another spin just to make sure I wasn't dreaming. I came running back to the silk and bronze!

**JimRichter** · Nov-16-2006, 8:46pm

Of course, I don't play a Loar, but Will Kimble turned me onto the GHS silk and bronze and they are all I use now. The do have a complex tone and sound even better when broken in. Lower string tension--which I need and like--while still getting some of the bronze tone (unlike the monel wounds or silk and steels which I used to use quite a bit before).

Jim

**danb** · Nov-17-2006, 4:59am

New Photos of F5 #72206 (recently sold at Skinner) from Anonymous

**danb** · Nov-17-2006, 4:59am

**danb** · Nov-17-2006, 4:59am

**Jim Hilburn** · Nov-17-2006, 7:42am

Is that a re-fin?

**Jim Hilburn** · Nov-17-2006, 7:50am

Back to the pegheads, I started looking at the binding seam in the big scroll on the top-bound one. Were the blk/whi. inner lines done separate from the outer ivoroid? I've noticed separations between them on several examples on the body that leads me to believe they did them separately.

**Darryl Wolfe** · Nov-17-2006, 7:59am

Originally Posted by (Jim Hilburn @ Nov. 17 2006, 08:50)

Back to the pegheads, I started looking at the binding seam in the big scroll on the top-bound one. Were the blk/whi. inner lines done separate from the outer ivoroid? I've noticed separations between them on several examples on the body that leads me to believe they did them separately.

agree, done separately on many or mosr. I think there is one very white type that was done in one pass though.