open and closed loar peghead inlays

[eightmoremiles]

Is there any significance to the presence of an 'open' versus a 'closed' Gibson inlay on the peghead of a Loar signed mandolin. Review of the Archives suggests a random chronology, with occasional use of both font styles on mandolins signed on the same day.
Also, is there a source for restoration peghead inlays for old Gibsons? (mindful of the concern for fake Gibson creations)
Thanks.

[sunburst]

...is there a source for restoration peghead inlays for old Gibsons?

Anyone who can use a jeweler's saw can cut pearl as well as many of the folks who cut pearl inlays for old Gibsons. It actually takes a little bit of skill to cut replica pearl, however, because it has to have the right characteristic roughness. Personally, for Gibson restoration work I tend toward cutting replica pearl to a level that I think is representative of the best examples of old Gibson inlays rather than cutting exact duplicates of originals when the originals are just too rough to suit me.

As for the Gibson script inlays on Loars, I don't know if there is a pattern of any sort, but I suspect that the inlays were stockpiled and used when the time came but someone simply grabbing the next one in the "pile". Perhaps older and newer were mixed in the "pile"... who knows(?)...

[Ken Waltham]

Yeah, I too have noticed this. I have had Loar F5's, and you look in the archive, and notice the very next one has a different logo inlay. So typically Gibson. I have never owned an early 23, or a '22, earliest was an April 1923 I think, but, my guess is that they would be more consistent with the "loopy" logo, since I don't think the other one appears until a bit later, like July or so.
Ken

[Hendrik Ahrend]

Is there any significance to the presence of an 'open' versus a 'closed' Gibson inlay on the peghead of a Loar signed mandolin. Review of the Archives suggests a random chronology, with occasional use of both font styles on mandolins signed on the same day.
Thanks.

AFAIK all early Loars have the closed style pattern, #73719 (July 9, '23) being the first open style. After that, some closed style inlays kept randomly appearing until early '25 (on "unsigned Loars" that is; F5s believed to be made before Loar left in Dec. '24, but finished in early '25). From then until '29 Gibson used the open style on F5s, but went back (for a short while) to the look prior to '22, when the "o"-opening was below the "n"-connection, possibly to use up some left-over pre-'22 inlays.

[Timbofood]

Once again I think John has the right idea. This was a production shop and the instruments had to get out the door within time constraints. Having a stock of ready to inlay pearl seems very reasonable. This accounts for some of the "casual perfection" parameters which have been discussed regarding differences between Loars as wall as many of the rest of the production through those years.

[Ken Waltham]

Also, Tim, I believe they did not inlay them on the instruments, but the peghead overlays were pre inlaid. This explains the "piercing" of the Fern inlay when they changed to the modern tuners around 1929.
Henry.. that is the way I think it goes, July being the first of the open logo. And then the really nice logo reappears around 1928/1929 for a group of F5's. They probably found a stash and used them up. Those ones are really well done, IMHO.

[MikeEdgerton]

If by chance the pearl cutting was farmed out you might be seeing the difference between shops or even different workmen at Gibson itself. Inlaid pearl wasn't just used on musical instruments.

[Timbofood]

Good points Ken and Mike, the method of construction would account for some of the variances mentioned. Differences in hand work from cutter to cutter of pearl is one more variable to throw in the pot too.
Does anyone know if they ever stacked multiple pieces for "gang" cutting?

[Ken Waltham]

They definitely used different shops to cut the pearl, at different time periods. Joe Spann's book gives names and dates of the tradesmen employed.

[Darryl Wolfe]

The open loop design was developed specifically for the fern peghead inlay pattern. And the fern peghead pattern was the inlay intended to be on ALL F5's from the start. I have copies of original drawings that confirm this.

The closed loop pattern along with the flowerpot inlay existed well before the F5 was introduced. So, what happened is that F5's received the standard F4 peghead overlay until the places that the pearl was farmed out delivered the new product.

So, what we see is use of the open loop starting in July of 1923 (even if on a flowerpot inlay) but, they the inlay seem to be whatever pile they reached into.

The open loop design also appears to roughly coincide with the development of the snake peghead shape and the need for a smaller inlay that fit the peghead better. This is conjecture...but.....With that in mind...once the open loop inlay was received.....snakeheads did not get the closed loop inlay from there on out.....they were all the smaller open loop pattern. But other instruments went back and forth.

The earlier closed loop pattern has never been seen in conjunction with the Fern inlay even though Catalog N shows the F5 with it.

The closed loop pattern was also not used after the December 1924 batch of F5's which seem to be floor sweep early overlays anyway.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

The closed loop pattern was also not used after the December 1924 batch of F5's which seem to be floor sweep early overlays anyway.

Sure seems like it. On the Dec. '24 closed style batch, the flower pot is lower on the peg head - just like on early Loars until March '23.

[Ken Waltham]

The earlier closed loop pattern has never been seen in conjunction with the Fern inlay even though Catalog N shows the F5 with it.

What about these Ferns, mostly from 1929?

[sunburst]

All this 'open' versus a 'closed' info is sure interesting, but which sounds better?!
(I would assume one sounds more open...)

[Hendrik Ahrend]

[QUOTE=Ken Waltham;1362387]The earlier closed loop pattern has never been seen in conjunction with the Fern inlay even though Catalog N shows the F5 with it.

What about these Ferns, mostly from 1929?

Those look like pre-'22 leftovers; I like the rare combination with the "narrow" tuners, such as #86104:


And John, man does not live by bread alone.

[Ken Waltham]

Yes, I bought 86104 from the family of original owner, through Skinner Auctions. She was a student, and bought the mandolin to join a mandolin club to "meet boys". She did, and put the mandolin away. It was only played for a few months.
As stated above, I too believe these are left over teens type logos they must've found somewhere at the time and decided to use them up. I love this logo.

[lenf12]

Could one of you guys post side by side photos of open vs. closed logos for a quick comparison? Thank you kindly!!

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

[Ken Waltham]

Yep. Just going to go cross country skiing for a bit, I have two examples here, and I will photograph them for you.
Ken

[Ken Waltham]

OK, here are my two F5's. On the left is a June 13, 1923 with the closed loop, and on the right is an Unsigned Loar, call it a January 1925, with the open loop. The unsigned right before this one has the closed loop. So, who knows? Typical Gibson.

[Timbofood]

I am quite fond of the "hanging dot" personally. It's such a smart way to do it!

[Darryl Wolfe]

The earlier closed loop pattern has never been seen in conjunction with the Fern inlay even though Catalog N shows the F5 with it.

What about these Ferns, mostly from 1929?

That is a third pattern Ken that yes came after the open one we were speaking to. That pattern actually is very close to the pattern from the teens that preceeded the closed pattern we were speaking to

and actually that is another version of open pattern

[Darryl Wolfe]

[QUOTE=Henry Eagle;1362550]

The earlier closed loop pattern has never been seen in conjunction with the Fern inlay even though Catalog N shows the F5 with it.

What about these Ferns, mostly from 1929?

Those look like pre-'22 leftovers; I like the rare combination with the "narrow" tuners, such as #86104:


And John, man does not live by bread alone.

Agree

[Darryl Wolfe]

OK, here are my two F5's. On the left is a June 13, 1923 with the closed loop, and on the right is an Unsigned Loar, call it a January 1925, with the open loop. The unsigned right before this one has the closed loop. So, who knows? Typical Gibson.

And...with this picture you can easily see the considerable size difference in the patterns. Again, to support the fern inlay which is infinitely larger than the fpot....and as I said with quite a bit of conjecture, the closed loop pattern looked stupid on a snakehead. They immediately went to the open pattern and never went back

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here is another thread where we discussed some of this before

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...=1#post1224973

[lenf12]

Thanks Ken for the pix and Darryl for the link to a prior discussion. Very informative...

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

[f5loar]

Which one sounds better? Bill Monroe said the open one sounds the best to him. He however didn't like the way it looked so took his out.