Gibson Mandolins-Is it Real /Altered/Modified?

[Darryl Wolfe]

I would like this thread to be a place to post any and all questions regarding what is real, original, messed up, fake, refinished, or any situation that supports the community in making a prospective buyer more comfortable with his impending purchace or simple "take" on any given mandolin.

[Darryl Wolfe]

So then we take up where my deleted thread left off. #After numerous discussions, we decidfed to let this situation play completely out before posting info on it.

But, one of our members of this community purchased a mandolin for high$$ and it turned out to be "not real"

The situation has rectified itself and there in no longer any lost money involved, but the whole deal serves as a lesson to us all. #That is where we will begin this delve into "What is real, How do I know" and just "How the heck do you tell"

[Steven Stone]

[That is where we will beging this delve into "What is real, How do I know" and just" How the heck do you tell" ]

While I certainly do not consider myself any sort of expert on Loars or other vintage F-5s, as a journalist I do know the value of research and multiple sources to corraborate information.

In the case of Gibson mandolins I would first look at that the Mandolin archive and the F-5 Journal to see if any record or documentation of a particular mandolin exists.

Second I would never buy a high dollar instrument without having it examined by at least one expert, and if they had any doubts about originality, a second or third.

Some mandolins have been "circulated" and have a well-documented history of past owners for provenance. Others, especially those that seem to just appear from thin air obviously require more research to prove they are genuine.

I would love to know the whole story of the F-5 that turned out to not be real. Who built it? And when was it built? And just how convincing was it?

[jim simpson]

I played a copy at the recent guitar show here in town. The owner did not know who made it. It looked pretty convincing but as soon as it was played, you knew it couldn't be. The fact that it did not have a disclaimer label makes one wonder if the intent was to decieve. This particular owner was clear about it being a copy but what about the next owner? I once owned a fake made by Chris Warner. An owner of a Gibson (his was a 60's copy) heard mine and said, "now there's a real Gibson". I had to tell if it was not. Chris clearly had the label marked "Gibson copy" with his sig. & date.

[Darryl Wolfe]

84675 The mandolin in question. The scroll button is not concentric enough, and the ridge extends too far. I have only "detail" shots, so we will not see the entire instrument

[Darryl Wolfe]

84675 The scroll flare or "rise" starts too soon. #The rise should start at the "12 O-clock" position

[Darryl Wolfe]

This is usually all it takes to fool someone

[Darryl Wolfe]

Not bad, but the work just is not quite clean enough

[Darryl Wolfe]

Pretty darn good. In this case, all parts being replaced is a dead givaway or at least a big red flag

[Russ Jordan]

how about the fingerboard inlay?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Not bad, but the script style is not what they used in the "Fern" era. You cannot see it in this shot, but the fern pieces of inlay are not positioned exactly right either

[Darryl Wolfe]

Not bad again. Original tailpiece, but no gold plating or evidence thereof

[Darryl Wolfe]

how about the fingerboard inlay?

Yes, they are incorrect. #But, the instrument was passed as being customized some by the owner. #It has diamonds, but they are inlayed into round holes

[Jonathan James]

How much was this copy being sold for, if I may ask?

[mandophil(e)]

I have heard persistent rumors about forgeries, but this is the first evidence I've seen. Is this a really isolated incidence, or the tip of the iceberg? I suppose as the numbers get bigger, the tempation gets greater.

Darryl: Have you seen a pattern of these fakes emerging?

[Darryl Wolfe]

I see no pattern and I sincerely believe this is an isolated incident. Much like a slolen Loar, it really could not be circulated in public whatsoever without being arrested in it's tracks and returned to the owner.

[Tom C]

"The scroll flare or "rise" starts too soon. #The rise should start at the "12 O-clock" position"

<span style='color:blue'>Can you explain this better? Where it should start</span>

"Not bad, but the work just is not quite clean enough "
<span style='color:orange'>I would be suspicious if it was too clean. Some of the bindings and Gibson inlays are far from perfect from that period, no?</span>

[Rich Evans]

I noticed on the tuners that the worm gear is on top of the peg instead of on the bottom. Is this correct or is this the result of using the wrong replacement tuners. I seem to remember that this was correct on some early instruments, but I really don't know. Can someone explain this to me.

[Darryl Wolfe]

The scroll flair starts directly at the top of the scroll on this original Loar

Tuner worms can be either way on a Fern era F5

[testore]

Darryl,
What a great thread. Thank you!
Gary

[Darryl Wolfe]

In the case of Gibson mandolins I would first look at that the Mandolin archive and the F-5 Journal

Second I would never buy a high dollar instrument without having it examined by at least one expert

I would love to know the whole story of the F-5 that turned out to not be real. Who built it? And when was it built? And just how convincing was it?

Steve is exactly right, and that is the lesson we are preaching here. This mandolin and serial number is one of only a very very few that was not absolutely positively verified by by photographs or in person. It was vouched for as original many years ago via a phone conversation with the highly regarded owner. The serial number WAS listed in the Journal. Obviously it is not anymore. This is why a prospective buyer needs to contact Dan or I to validate the firmness and source of the information. I have thousands of 35MM pictures that are not posted in the mandolinarchive.

This mandolin simply had a serial number listed and the word "Fern" in the Journal. 99% are backed up by photographs or by personal inspection of Myself, Frank Ford or Roger Siminoff.

This situation was an anomoly where one vague magazine black and white photograph indicated it might be an original Fern. Subsequent telephone conversation with the owner, his assertion that "yep, it's a real Fern F5 and his providing the serial number certainly seemed to be firm enough information for us.

Again, this is a very isolated case. And it supports Steve post perfectly.

[Tom C]

Darryl,
On your above photo, are the sides actually higher in this area? Usually one sees the sides as one size, and the spruce top showing where the rise occurs like in the photo on the fake one. (Meaning the rise occurs on top plate and not side rim) Or is the figure somehow blended? I hope I asked this clearly.

[Philip Halcomb]

There are several indications to me that it's not real too, especially the color, finish job, and as Darryl pointed out the scroll flare. It's relatively sloppy compared to the real ferns. Also, Darryl the early Gibsons I have seen from this era tend to have a darker face plate on the headstock. Which I thought may not actually be ebony. Was it uncommon as well to be able to see the ebony striping in the vaneer?

[lloydlore]

This mandolin and serial number is one of only a very very few that was not absolutely positively verified by by photographs or in person.

How many others are there, will they be removed from the list?

[Darryl Wolfe]

This mandolin and serial number is one of only a very very few that was not absolutely positively verified by by photographs or in person.

How many others are there, will they be removed from the list?

I am fairly certain that this is the only one where we accepted the info as gospel based on the word of someone we didn't know