Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 109

Thread: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

  1. #26
    In The Van Ben Milne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    To the left of the Southern Cross
    Posts
    1,285

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Have any other F5s been found with matching FONs to the Baldassari and Ellis owned mandolins?


    Quote Originally Posted by G7MOF View Post
    Wouldn't unsigned Loar F5s just be Called, and known as Gibson F5s, If so wouldn't the 40s and 50s F5s be Loars as well?
    Read the thread. The finish specs were where changed to laquer from here on in. The less than handful of instruments being discussed were built being supervised by, held, tuned and breathed on by Lloyd Loar. Not so the F5s of later eras you mention.
    They have always been officially called Gibson F5s, referring to instruments as Loars lets us be more specific. Like Tom says, the only difference on these couple of instruments in question is the lack of signed label, while the differences from '25 onward increasingly differ from Loar's specifications.
    Hereby & forthwith, any instrument with an odd number of strings shall be considered broken. With regard to mix levels, usually the best approach is treating the mandolin the same as a cowbell.

  2. #27
    Registered User bootinz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    134

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Loar didn't build the mandolins. He may have designed, approved and signed them but he didn't build them. If they aren't signed they aren't a "Loar". We're paying for a signature. I could undersatnd the argument if he built them but he didn't.
    KJ

  3. #28
    Registered User G7MOF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Lancashire/UK
    Posts
    785

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    That's what I was asking, would you buy a Porche if it looked, sounded and perforemed like a Porche, but didn't have the badge?
    I never fail at anything, I just succeed at doing things that never work....


    Fylde Touchstone Single Malt Mandolin.

  4. #29
    Capt. E Capt. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    2,237

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    The few (6) unsigned F-5's that were completed during LL's tenure but were not signed by him have sold for half the price of one with a Label. Instruments that once had a LL signed label but have lost it over the years are another matter. they have serial numbers that fall within a documented batch, I doubt their value would be reduced quite as much.
    Jammin' in South Austin with:
    '70's Shiro A
    '08 Weber Bighorn
    '14 Gibson A
    LeCapitaine Accordion
    Harmonica
    Penny Whistle
    My albums: http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/album.php?u=7616

  5. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    154

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a "Loar mandolin" made by Gibson. "Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe a small subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. "Unsigned Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe an even smaller subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. If that group of owners/buyers/users says there are Loars and Unsigned Loars, why would I disagree? To argue otherwise serves no real purpose that I can see.

    This reminds me of the argument that a December 8th 1941 D-28 is not a prewar guitar....

  6. #31
    Registered User bootinz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    134

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    It may not serve a purpose to argue the point but it clearly makes a difference in the value of the instrument.....right or wrong that's a fact. BTW, the war started on DEC 7th '41 so I guess the 8th isn't pre war.
    KJ

  7. #32
    Capt. E Capt. E's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    2,237

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck View Post
    You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a "Loar mandolin" made by Gibson. "Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe a small subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. "Unsigned Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe an even smaller subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. If that group of owners/buyers/users says there are Loars and Unsigned Loars, why would I disagree? To argue otherwise serves no real purpose that I can see.

    This reminds me of the argument that a December 8th 1941 D-28 is not a prewar guitar....

    You probably just summarized the whole thread.

    Dec. 8th.?? I've heard you shouldn't buy something that came off the factory line on Monday.
    Jammin' in South Austin with:
    '70's Shiro A
    '08 Weber Bighorn
    '14 Gibson A
    LeCapitaine Accordion
    Harmonica
    Penny Whistle
    My albums: http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/album.php?u=7616

  8. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    154

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Quote Originally Posted by bootinz View Post
    It may not serve a purpose to argue the point but it clearly makes a difference in the value of the instrument.....right or wrong that's a fact. BTW, the war started on DEC 7th '41 so I guess the 8th isn't pre war.
    I never said there was no difference in value. I simply pointed out that these terms are used to describe certain groups of instruments. Even though unsigned Loars are less valuable than signed Loars, they are still more valuable than later lacquered instruments. If the folks shelling out the cash know the difference between a Loar, an unsigned Loar, and a 20's Fern, I have to believe those terms mean something.

    As far as Martin guitars are concerned, no changes were made in design or construction until early 1942. They are priced according to construction details and most buyers know the differences. Few owners would argue that an early '42 with steel neck reinforcement is not a prewar Martin. Internet forum members argue over such things all the time. The war started on December 8th when congress declared war, but again the guitars didn't change until 1942. It took a couple of months for the steel restrictions to have an effect.

    The point of all this is that collectors (not just instruments either) use various kinds of terminology as shorthand that may not mean anything to folks outside their circle of interest. These term usually to define features, some of which are related to historic events, but not necessarily in exact sync with the historical calendar.

  9. #34
    Registered User f5loar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Salisbury,NC
    Posts
    5,940

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    There is a big difference in design and construction between a 1938 and a 1941 D45. Many changes were made before 1942.

  10. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    154

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Quote Originally Posted by f5loar View Post
    There is a big difference in design and construction between a 1938 and a 1941 D45. Many changes were made before 1942.
    Yes, there were many changes, including the change from 12 fret to 14 fret, bar frets to T-frets, ebony to steel neck reinforcement, X-brace position, popsicle brace, neck block size, neck width and bridge spacing, and several different tuners were used. All of those changes affect value and desirability in some way. No war-related changes occurred until early 1942 though. My point was that collectors use terms as shorthand to describe the bigger picture. Within the bigger picture there are other subsets of the subset. Loars and unsigned Loars are broad subsets of prewar Gibson F-5's. There are similar subsets within Loars, but you know those better than I ever will, so I'll not embarrass myself trying to enumerate those.

    It's better to take time to understand those things as opposed to arguing over terminology that almost everyone else already agrees on.

  11. #36
    In The Van Ben Milne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    To the left of the Southern Cross
    Posts
    1,285

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Quote Originally Posted by Buck View Post
    You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a "Loar mandolin" made by Gibson. "Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe a small subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. "Unsigned Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe an even smaller subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins. If that group of owners/buyers/users says there are Loars and Unsigned Loars, why would I disagree? To argue otherwise serves no real purpose that I can see.
    ....
    Nicely summarised.

    Quote Originally Posted by G7MOF View Post
    That's what I was asking, would you buy a Porche if it looked, sounded and perforemed like a Porche, but didn't have the badge?
    I wouldn't buy either option, but I would think those that would should expect a discount of sorts.
    Hereby & forthwith, any instrument with an odd number of strings shall be considered broken. With regard to mix levels, usually the best approach is treating the mandolin the same as a cowbell.

  12. #37
    Registered User f5loar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Salisbury,NC
    Posts
    5,940

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Don't forget the obvious change......... snowflake inlays to hex inlays.

  13. #38
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    5,773

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Some of you guys just don't get it. Let's deal with the darn facts.

    The last batch of signed Loar mandolins was FON 11985 and they had serial numbers like 79835, 79836 and all had Flowerpot's and Virzi's.


    The Baldassari, Derrington and such "Unsigned Loars" were all flowerpot mandolins with the stamp/FON number of 11985. They all have serial numbers like 80782, 81250, 81251, 81266, 81290 range.

    The last two signed Loar mandolins are 80190 and 80191 and appear to be stragglers from the main batch. We also have an unsubstantiated note of 80416 being a signed Loar mandolin. All of these are before the "unsigned" mandolins of the same FON batch as the signed ones.

    There is a batch of Fern F5 mandolins with serial number both slightly before and after the above "unsigned" mandolins, but they all have later FON numbers, all have Ferns and all look and sound different than an "unsigned" Loar.
    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  14. #39
    In The Van Ben Milne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    To the left of the Southern Cross
    Posts
    1,285

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Quote Originally Posted by Darryl Wolfe View Post

    The last batch of signed Loar mandolins was FON 11985

    The Baldassari, Derrington and such "Unsigned Loars" were all flowerpot mandolins with the stamp/FON number of 11985.

    Fern F5 mandolins all have later FON numbers, all have Ferns and all look and sound different than an "unsigned" Loar
    This is what I was wondering about earlier. Thanks Darryl.
    Hereby & forthwith, any instrument with an odd number of strings shall be considered broken. With regard to mix levels, usually the best approach is treating the mandolin the same as a cowbell.

  15. #40
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    5,773

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Update. I have received info "substantiating" 80416, the last recorded signed Loar mandolin. It is a silver hardware, flowerpot, no Virzi mandolin. Another "unsigned" Loar has also been identified. 81176 with flowerpot, gold hardware and no Virzi.
    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  16. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    middlesboro, ky 40965
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Is 81489 too far out to be considered an unsigned Loar? Probably is.

  17. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dunnville, Ontario
    Posts
    770

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    One interesting thing I have observed.... All the unsigned Loars I have played all sounded really good. But then, so do the Dec 1924 batch of Loars that I have played. A very obvious connection.
    KB Waltham

  18. #43
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    5,773

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    "Is 81489 too far out to be considered an unsigned Loar? Probably is. "


    That specific mandolin is an enigma. I believe it to be an unsigned Fern Loar. I have never seen another mandolin remotely like it

    I also chased that mando for years, having known it existed in the Knoxville TN area.
    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  19. #44
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    middlesboro, ky 40965
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Quote Originally Posted by Darryl Wolfe View Post
    "Is 81489 too far out to be considered an unsigned Loar? Probably is. "


    That specific mandolin is an enigma. I believe it to be an unsigned Fern Loar. I have never seen another mandolin remotely like it

    I also chased that mando for years, having known it existed in the Knoxville TN area.
    Darryl, I kinda got the mandolin by accident. Most people knew who owned it and that he also had a Loar. At the time he priced the Loar at something like 55,000 and the 25 at 30- or something similar to that.
    I saved my money and it took me a few months, prices were rising. I called him back hoping I could still get the Loar for 55k,,,Nope. He had backed out on selling it and was going to leave it to his grandson, but if he sold it it would be 100k. He said he would still sell the Fern, so I wound up buying it at about what I was going to pay for the Loar.
    He approached me later wanting to sell the Loar but I thought he was too high, at least for the market at that time.
    Sometimes the chase is good. I've had a lot of people try to buy it. I'm happy to know you think it's an unsigned Loar.

  20. #45
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    5,773

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Quote Originally Posted by shylock3 View Post
    Darryl, I kinda got the mandolin by accident. Most people knew who owned it and that he also had a Loar. At the time he priced the Loar at something like 55,000 and the 25 at 30- or something similar to that.
    I saved my money and it took me a few months, prices were rising. I called him back hoping I could still get the Loar for 55k,,,Nope. He had backed out on selling it and was going to leave it to his grandson, but if he sold it it would be 100k. He said he would still sell the Fern, so I wound up buying it at about what I was going to pay for the Loar.
    He approached me later wanting to sell the Loar but I thought he was too high, at least for the market at that time.
    Sometimes the chase is good. I've had a lot of people try to buy it. I'm happy to know you think it's an unsigned Loar.
    It would be nice if you could post some pictures in Loar Pic of Day thread. All I have are a few 35mm shots my Dad took about the time he sold it

    BTW, the Loar is for sale now $175K I believe
    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  21. #46
    Moderator MikeEdgerton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    40.191N -74.2W
    Posts
    14,420

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Darryl, couldn't the FON move you a little closer to when that mandolin was actually manufactured?

  22. #47
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    5,773

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeEdgerton View Post
    Darryl, couldn't the FON move you a little closer to when that mandolin was actually manufactured?
    Yes, but that's a broad situation. The FON would indicate "parts that were manufactured at the same time for the same purpose", but not necessarily assembled, nor finished. Hence, varying finishes, serial numbers and parts on most of these.

    This is also happening at the same time that it appears Gibson changed their business model. The post Loar instruments seem to more closely fit Joe Spanns assertion that the serial number is an indicator of when it was sold and the FON relates to when it was "manufactured" Gibson seem to have changed to "built to suit/build if ordered/sold" after the Loar period
    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  23. #48
    Registered User Ivan Kelsall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Manchester - Lancashire - NW England
    Posts
    8,605

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    From what i've read (mostly on here),Lloyd Loar personally inspected all the mandolins coming off the production line. If he thought that any of them exhibited ''especially good tonal properties'',he personally signed the labels.If that is so,then if there's no label inside & unless one can prove that a particular instrument 'did' have a label at one time,then for me it's not a 'true Loar',simply a 'Loar period' instrument. If, as has been stated,Lloyd Loar signed labels in batches,ready to be applied to the instruments,then any instruments bearing such a label that were never inspected by Lloyd Loar,shouldn't correctly be regarded as 'true Loars',in the same way that famous paintings that are unsigned,that 'might be' by famous artists, can only be described as 'attributed to' & command less cash than a signed one by the same artist.
    Re.f5loar's assertion that the Mandolins on Mr Loar's desk 'would have been signed & labeled' - who says ?. For all we know,LL might have thought that they were no good (hardly likely i must admit),but we can't make assumptions like that. In order for any instruments to bear his signature,he was required to have inspected & played them - if he wasn't there he couldn't, & those instrumnents as good as they might be,are simply NOT Loars,just very fine instruments that 'might' have been signed (or not),
    Ivan
    Weber F-5 'Fern'.
    Lebeda F-5 "Special".
    Stelling Bellflower BANJO
    Tokai - 'Tele-alike'.
    Ellis DeLuxe "A" style.

  24. #49
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    5,773

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    The signed "Loar" label was an advertising gimmick. There is no such thing as one that did not pass muster. IMHO
    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  25. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Dunnville, Ontario
    Posts
    770

    Default Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

    Agreed on that point.
    KB Waltham

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •