My Thoughts on Joe Spann's Great new Gibson Book

[Darryl Wolfe]

OK, so I have read almost all of Joe Spanns Guide to Gibson and would like to offer some observations and give Joe the credit he deserves.

First and foremost this book is a groundbreaking achievement. Those of us who frequent this mandolin oriented forum, and us Gibson Mandolin gurus have been treated to a perspective that broadens the entire picture. Joe is a banjo fanatic and as such, has brought things to the table with his book that were not registering to us mandolinheads like myself, Dan Beimborn, F5Loar, and even the late Charlie D. The book also provides a wealth of information outside of the normal serial number, dates and FON discussion that can also be used to better formulate some new ideas and reinforce others.

To start off a bit of critique, I will submit that like us mandoheads, Joe is probably a Banjohead. Joe might just be a little bit post Loar leaning and banjo of the ‘30’s thinking. So this gives us an opportunity to discuss a few things and see if the outcome changes any. I do not believe it will change much, but some things might turn a shade of grey and some might just take on a new meaning.

Now I will stand on my own soapbox. Nothing Joe writes in his book comes as a complete surprise to me. This is because I have been preaching some of this to a deaf choir. Here are the more significant posts in a thread I started in September of 2009. The thread died with not much interest. It is with this information that I will totally agree with most of Joe’s info and also address what I believe to be the largest oversight in Joe’s book.

Issue No. 1

Gibson did not always have the same Business Plan/Model – They changed the way they did business sometime in 1923 or 1924. With this said some of the information and implications do not backflow from the later 20’s and 30’s into the Loar ear and before. I fully believe they overbuilt up until 1923, almost went bankrupt with all their dealer samples, credit plans, ridiculously priced Master Model line and general propaganda. The business model changed via new management and necessity and this changed the way they did serial numbers and FON’s and changed their priorities. I will address the 1925 FON’s with the “A” tagged on after this dissertation from my 2009 thread.

POST NUMBER 1
Gibson History, serial numbers, FON's and such

I encourage all Loar and Gibson aficionados to fully read this book by Walter Carter (Gibson - 100 Years). I have owned the book since it came out in the early 90's, however there were numerous chapters that I had only sped read or "I'm just looking at the pictures Mom"

Of particular interest are the numerous tales of "Board Room Wars" along with excerpts from minutes of meetings and such. We on this thread have discussed many things about Gibson and the Loar era, but, we have not fully explored the meaning of some of the facts presented in this book.

I will expand on this later as I assimilate my thoughts but here are a few pointers that come to mind:

Board meetings appear to be held on Monday about once a month or there abouts - they seem to coincide with many of the dates Loars were signed on.

L. A. Williams, a Loar associate left Gibson in a furor at the end of '23. Others left before the end of '24, with Loar essentially being the last of the old regime. Loar was more involved with the company than thought, he signed paycheck and did a number of things that imply board member/stockholder

Harry Ferry entered the equation in later '23 and turned the company around to make a profit in '24

Some of his goals were to a) cut the number of models and to B) change from teacher/agent agreements to Music store/dealership agreements.

The cut in production experienced in 1925 was so great that it could not have been from a shift in interest from mandolins to guitars and banjos and the economy simply was not that up and down. Production dipped 60-70%, immediately meaning that they overbuilt and spent the next several years selling 1924 era new instruments. They were building 4-5000 instruments a year and then built about 1200-1400 for the new 3-4 years. Impossible. This is why 1925 instruments may not even be 1925's at this juncture. We note how so many things changed immediately, but this may not now be true. I believe they spent several years finishing instrument started in 1923 and early 24 on an as needed as sold basis (which was one of Harry Ferry's initiatives also)

Some of this seems to explain how Eugene Claycomb special ordered a "red" F5 in mid 1926 and received a red '24 Fern Loar.

More to come

POST NUMBER 3

As Dan implied in his post on the LOPD thread. We may be learning something new here. There is always new info to be digested and new theories to go with it. Here is more evidence. Below are my

1925 A4 82619 FON 8932
1925 A2 marked A 81546 FON 8510

These both have this oddball pretty "The Gibson" logo not seen on any true 1923 and 1924 instruments. Both have the new lacquer finish. Both have modern worm over tuners. The sunburst on the A4 is brighter and less hand done looking, and the FON's are miles from anything we see with a Loar label on it. These were built for need, not part of an overbuilt stock of instruments awaiting an order. With this in mind, they may not be 1925 instruments. They may have spent the next year and a half finishing up all those others and developing faster drying finishes and other things

POST NUMBER 9

FON’s - I can almost see two old thick carbon paper order books with a number in the upper right corner. The five digit one got old and ran out and they continued with the other one

POST NUMBER 24

Here is a copy of a Gibson invoice dated June 1933 showing that F5 mandolin 89516 was delivered. We universally refer to the 89xxx mandolins as 1929. This is just another shred of evidence that the thick lacquer finish on some "1929" mandolins is really 1933-34 and that 89xxx just may be 1933-34

[Darryl Wolfe]

That's a start. I have alot to expand on but not much more time today

[barrangatan]

Great points Darryl. I started the Spann book and have been really trying to wrap my head around some of the information discussed in the book. Looking forward to more of your thoughts.

Also - as the thread you referenced is new to me, I looked it up and want to share the link here in case others, like myself, want to go back and have a read:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...-such&p=721167

[bluesmandolinman]

Darryl, thanks for your time and sharing this with us all

[grassrootphilosopher]

I noticed the 2009 thread, thought it very informative yet didn´t have anything to contribute to the thread.

I very much notice the information that is passed along here. And I certainly approve of the discussion concerning the topic.

Great effort.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I have not really got to my main point yet. I will be making another post sometime today to sum a few things up. Again, this will not really change things...it will simply add some asterisk's

[Darryl Wolfe]

Now I will try to pull this together to show the two Business/Operating models. The first being from inception of the Parsons Street factory in 1917 until about 1924, the transition plan during the next year or so and the second business model starting around 1926 or 27.

Let’s look at some of the information pulled from the List of Employees and service dates

First take note of the large number of employees who where only employed during the years of 1926. There are several dozen.

Now study this trend:

Henry Reeves Chief Draftsman, Experimenter 1920-1926
Art Stout Sales Manager, Credit Manager 1915-1926
Delmont Mafit Salesman, Production Manager 1916-1926
Victor Kraske Foreman 1910-1926
Ray Wilson Foreman 1915-1926
Anthony Wilgenhof Cabinet maker, woodworker, fretter 1920-1926
Lloyd Loar Acoustic Engineer 1919-1924
Frank Campbell Advertising Manager 1925-1930
Len Shedora Stringer, tester, service 1928-1972

This does not include the huge management changes already discussed in terms of General Managers, VP’s and such

We see long time employees leaving in 1926….. AFTER the odd 1925 “A” appended FON’s

After the 1925 “A” appended FON’s we see the introduction of significantly different looking instruments.


So, what this means to me is that Gibson built in three different methodologies.

Until the 1923 train wreck they built large batches by FON and essentially completed the majority of the instruments without any particular delay in assigning the serial numbers. This is particularly evident due to the serial numbers being written in pencil under the label of all instruments produced during this period. This DOES NOT align with Joe’s basic premise of FON’s being when they were built and serial numbers assigned when the were shipped. This does not make the statement wrong, it just means that during this period there was not much delay. He is absolutely correct for the Plan B business model during and after 1925.

Now, expanding on the FON books during this period, I believe the following. They were assigned in order just as Joe eloquently describes the process. But during this period the parts bearing the FON came together and were assigned a serial number when the instrument became a glued up whole commodity. I should note at this point that the FON WAS NOT just stamped on the head block. If one takes apart a Gibson mandolin from the period you will find the FON on each separate wood assembly. Now Joe makes mention of Style 5 serial number having been reserved and being exceptions to the rule. This is where I suggest they were not as all instruments assembled with glue appear to be treated the same. This is also where we draw a distinction with banjos in that they appear to follow a different methodology. The banjo line essentially only has the rim set, resonator and neck, and these parts are not glued together, they are assembled at the same time all the other parts go on. So in the case of the banjo there is no tracking of anything but the FON wood parts until their -18 or whatever number is assigned at assembly.

Now back to the FON scheme and Business Model. I submit that the FON books and records during this and likely later periods was more than just a Factory Order. Gibson was very deft at tracking parts, labor costs and costs rolling up to the cost to build each instrument. Joe provides us proof of this in his book

So the most sound way of tracking this would be with entries in the FON ledger for how many of the say 24 FON such and such mandolins were started, and how many were completed. In some cases there might be a specific FON for 12 F5’s and they were all built quickly. Another FON for 36 A-models might show 24 completed by indicating something like sent to finishing, 12 roughed out meaning the top back and necks were “in stock”. There is your inventory control and labor costs by calculating by FON’s hours presumably on timecards for the employees and back comparing to the status of the overall FON ledger.

So what this meant is that during this period Gibson had massive back stock of instruments/parts in various stages of completion. The instruments represented a huge investment in labor and materials that was sitting there essentially eating profits.

The revised business plan was to STOP EVERYTHING, go back and pull all the FON books out and reassign the incomplete work and the back inventory to best suit the needs.

This is the reason for the 1925 “A” appended FON. If you drop the A and look up the 5 digit FON you can see where they match the FON’s of instruments built 5-7 years earlier. This is how a Tenor Lute built in 1924/1925 has a “A” appended to the original FON for a 1917 mandola. This is why a “A” appended F4 in 1925 has an identical matching non A appended sister in the earlier FON list.

I will leave open the possibility that if the FON was fully closed out, they may have reused the FON with an appended A for brand new builds.

So why are the serial numbers from 1917 or 1919 not present in these instruments. They were not assembled, they were rims sets, tops and backs. Why does my “A” appended snake head 1925/26 Ajr have a snakehead instead of a paddle head? Because it did was not assembled, and that is why it has a 1925/6 serial number.

Moving slightly away from the "A" appended FON's, this is also why we see many many instruments with earlier serial numbers and FON's but bearing 1925 1926 features and finish. Those instruments were essentially complete except for the finish and hardware.

OK More to come and that will be the Plan B "build to demand" in small batches plan

[Glassweb]

Brilliant work Darryl...

[Bill Halsey]

Terrific on all counts... This is so interesting!

[Ken Waltham]

Hello Darryl.
I have read Joe's book, and now, your posts with interest.
I think that what you have to say makes really good sense, the way it dovetails with his research, but, IMHO, correctly addresses some things I had wondered about. For instance, serial numbers written in pencil under the paper label. I believe you are both correct, and you nailed it when you claim that the "wait times" were much quicker, or almost non existent durring that time period. It also explains some of the abnormalities that come, as you correctly observe, after 1924.
I have corresponded with Joe about a few F5's that have puzzled me, and they seem to have been dealer returns, sent back in some cases several times.
Some, of course, got a new set of clothes in the process.
Very good, and I'm waiting to hear your next entry.
Ken

[JeffD]

Its fascinating looking back this way and putting the pieces together. What emerges are the mundain day to day month to month decisions of a manufacturing business. I am sure at the time there was little fascination and no romance as board members would argue out latest business plan, make their decisions, give their instructions, and employees would grumble and everyone would go home with a headache, take their BC Powders and go to bed.

Fascinating also to think about the boring decisions we make every day, of necessity, that affect serial numbers and timing in unexpected ways, and how folks 90 years from now will be trying to figure out and untangle what we did. How did that check get dated before that other check with the higher check number, how did these emails arrive at these times when they are in these other sent boxes as being sent two weeks later.

Its only after 90 years that someone will write a song about me being my own grandpa.

[Joe Spann]

This is exactly the type of discussion I want my book to create. Working together we have more ideas and get a much better idea of what went on.

Carry on Darryl.....very interesting so far.....what else ya got?

Joe

[Darryl Wolfe]

So, I have suggested that they changed their business plan to survive. It was a staged sort of thing over a period of a couple of years that actually seems to have started in late 1923 or early 1924. The first thing they did was eliminate certain models. Along with this they appear to have made use of some of the old inventory by introducing a few models. The market was changing toward the banjo era so we see introduction of things such as the tenor lute to use up excess mandola rims and backs. We also see the use of higher grade parts to fulfill demand on lower grade instruments. This can be shown by the fairly large amounts of late 1924 and 1925 straight “A” blackface mandolins that have nice rosettes and binding on top back and fingerboard. We also have the A2z which unquestionably used up excess A3 bodies or at least rough parts. The questionable part of this assertion is that the FON’s for the A2z’s post date the construction of any A3’s. So they may have only used a bunch of ready to go A3 tops in the effort. But, most A2z’s also have highly figured backs like the A3’s had. Also, A2z’s come with two different rosettes which the A3 did not. So I believe what we have is that some A2z’s were from A3’s and some were scratch built new. This would also account for why some A2z’s have the goofy looking translucent greenish binding and some do not.

So, we move on through this period of recouping previously spent labor costs which help the company yield higher profit for the short-term. All the while we are using up existing stocks of tuners, bridges, tailpieces and such.

Now let’s move on toward the Plan B business model in the post Loar years. This is where Joe’s research really shines. As I alluded to earlier, I have not read every word of Joe’s book. I especially need to read the employee biographies that I notice include some of the employees I mentioned earlier. There may be some more to uncover there.

So after the 1924, 1925 and likely part of 1926 things I have discussed, we see the massive reduction in force. This is where the real change in methodology takes place. From this point on, we never see huge batches of instruments bearing the same FON. We also see a bit of variation in instruments from the same FON that indicates as Joe has stated that they did the final set up and parts and serial numbers as they were shipped to meet demand.

The operative word for the Plan B new business model was “demand”. From this point on they never overbuilt except by maybe small amounts of economy of scale. This might be exemplified by some F5’s such as FON 9334 and 9411 where they appear to have built 8-12 at a time. The serial numbers were assigned to these 3-4 at a time and then we see some serial numbers that appear to be 4-6 months or so later. This fits perfectly with Joe’s research. During this period we also see some non-uniformity of instruments much like we see in the banjo lines. This implies to me that they saved work and labor hours whenever it was possible by pilfering old overlays, tuners and such to the extent possible.

Gone now is the era where 36 identical instrument with identical FON, parts and consecutive serial numbers will ever be made again. We are now into the era of maybe 5 or 6 five string, flathead RB-Granada’s with FON 9584 and we will build some more in a few years. I thought I would throw that in for Joe.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I will have a few more things to add but they are not real important to the discussion. That will address some of the returned to the factory and refurbished instrument subjects. The anomolies that confuse us all and how those may fit into the equation.

So, in a general summary. What a wealth of information Joe has assembled. I only take issue with a few statements made that may or may not apply universally to the entire 1902 to 1941 period by virtue of the information I have presented. That's it, no argument....ha

[Joe Spann]

Darryl said, "From this point on, we never see huge batches of instruments bearing the same FON."

I would add one caveat to this statement. In the period 1925-1929 Gibson sometimes built beginner banjos and entry-level Mastertones in batches as large as 100 at a time. It took several years after the October 1929 Stock Market crash for production to completely slow down, but by January 1932 things were seriously bad at Gibson. Those of you who have read the book will remember that they laid-off 20% of the workforce right at Christmas 1931. We don't see huge batches again until Gibson began building "off-brand" instruments in 1934. There were no more huge batches of Gibson brand instruments until after World War II.

By the way, I find all this stuff fascinating too....wait a minute....I guess you already knew that. Great work Darryl.

Joe

[Joe Spann]

Oh...one more idea.

As more and more data is compiled it appears that Gibson built their batches in multiples of five. Never less than five (possibly the smallest number that was economically feasible), and usually in some multiple thereof (10, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc., etc.)

Of course, the exception would be "custom" or "one-off" instruments.

Joe

[Darryl Wolfe]

OK Joe...point taken....we don't care about b*nj*'s here

Seriously, like I said, I (we) gravitate towards the mando thing and you the Banjo...that's why this is so cool to meld together

Batches and multiple. Agree. I never could figure out whether it was the 6, 12, 18, 24 thing or what. But I bet it had to do with those rolling cart/bins

[Joe Spann]

Darryl, I agree. I think the number of instruments in a batch may have more to do with the number of bins/slots on those rolling racks than any financial factor.

Here's how crazy I am....

When I first located the photograph on page 9 of my book, I took a magnifier and counted the number of guitars on the rolling rack.

It's exactly 40.

Joe

[Big Joe]

I have not had a chance to get Joe's book yet, but Darryl's comments are spot on with what I've seen over the years. The era of transitioning from a smaller operation to a large operation occurred in that period and the means and patterns of business and tracking were changing rapidly. Gibson was not the first company to look to better control of assets by any means, but they finally realized they could only bleed cash for so long before changing some things. There is always a contrast from the "old school" to the "modern" methodology in business as well as instruments and playing styles. Gibson would never be free from these contrasts either.

While at Gibson there were books that were to have been thrown away that contained records of sales, builds, shipments, etc. and we salvaged those. It was extremely fascinating to see these ledgers and read them. They were all written in pencil and indicated some of the instruments and where they were sent and who got them and who used them, etc. This was still during the period when they were using the teaching studios to sell product before dealers were essentially being used. I can't recall much specifically, but the prices and the people were fascinating and the amounts paid to certain people and the amounts billed to certain people were all quite fascinating. The ledgers were very basic and simple and contained a real cross section of information. It would not be kept in that manner today. We always thought it would be great to have the time to go through these books and glean the relevant information and put them in a reference manual for future history.

When I left they were still in the office at OAI. I don't know if they survived the flood or not. I would doubt it and they are most likely gone forever. That is a real shame. They were salvaged from another flooded area several years before to only succumb to a flood at their end. I would like to think someone salvaged them, but they were certainly not a high priority compared to other things they would have wanted to save that was of greater concern to modern Gibson.

The story of Gibson from its inception to this very day is certainly a story that goes down many paths. It has been beaten down, nearly destroyed, nearly bankrupt, loved, hated, disregarded, and all of this in about 117 years. Gibson has always had some very brilliant men and women working for it and when they have been allowed to do what they do best the company sparkles and seems to become even greater. The problem is that all too often the talent that is there is not allowed to do what they are capable of doing and it loses its luster. I think all of us have a great admiration for the name "Gibson" and for some of the wonderful instruments they have built. Their place in the history of modern musical instruments will certainly hold and only the future will tell what the current model will bring to the market that will last. There has not been many new and exciting products to grab the fancy of the market in a long time but that is always subject to change.

Changing markets, changing economies, changing interests in music, changing styles in fashion all cause the business plan to have to be altered from time to time. Hopefully these changes will reflect in a positive manner with not only Gibson, but other operations as well. Gibson, like so many companies, seems to move forward at times and backwards at others. The comments Darryl makes certainly reflect these changes in operations at Gibson. That era would have been quite interesting to be in the company and see how those changes came to be. Most of those stories seem to become myth and legend with part fact and part fiction. It can be fun speculation though. Watching the changes a company makes from within gives one somewhat of an idea how to seperate those myths from the facts, but the one thing I know for sure is that anything is and was possible at Gibson all during its history.

[Backlineman]

"This was still during the period when they were using the teaching studios to sell product before dealers were essentially being used. "

What years you estimate this was the primary sales channel? Or what year or years would you estimate the teacher/agent sale model was abandoned?

[Mike Romkey]

Fascinating stuff!

[Gary Hedrick]

Great Stuff!!!!!!

Sure helps me understand some of the oddities I've seen over the years that didn't jive with Gruhn's Book and the tribal knowledge that has passed from person to person. The business model approach to understanding what happened makes total sense. It was a business that had to make money and it wasn't during certain periods. Industrial engineering concepts were in play with the economy of scale issues.

My brother the banjo head has certainly loved Joe's work. But I've always said to him that banjos are like Chicken Nuggets ...parts is parts. Mandolins are entire pieces of art.

[Joe Spann]

My brother the banjo head has certainly loved Joe's work. But I've always said to him that banjos are like Chicken Nuggets ...parts is parts. Mandolins are entire pieces of art.

But to paraphrase George Orwell...."Some banjo parts (pre-war Gibson) are more equal than others..."

Glad to hear that brother Dave is enjoying the book.

Joe

[kymandolin29]

great info and great fun to read....i have a couple of questions

1)daryl was talking about penciled serial #s under the labels...my fern is 89133 and its penciled under the label ..wood this be normal?

2) my fon is 314 just three #s....

thanx mr

[Joe Spann]

1)Darryl was talking about penciled serial #s under the labels...my fern is 89133 and its penciled under the label ..wood this be normal?

2) My fon is 314 just three #s....
thanx mr

Yes, as I understand it the pencilled copy of the serial number underneath the label is normal. Also, your Factory Order Number (FON) 314 is correct for the production year. Your FON indicates a build-date of mid-year 1932 and your serial number indicates a similar shipping date.

Joe