Re: Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins
Originally Posted by
Ivan Kelsall
Almeira - It's something that i've read 'somewhere' in the past. It was given that not ALL the instruments coming off the line would ALL be signed.They had to be 'better than the others' to qualify for signing. If they were all signed,it would be meaningless in terms of some 'being better' than others. It does beg the question - "what happened to any Mandolins that were regarded as NOT good' ?.Also,why was it necessary to sign them at all - was it simply to varify the fact that they had been inspected ?. Lots of things i personally don't understand,
Ivan
OK... well, as has been said before, there was mucho marketing involved in this. Not a lot different in overall concept than 'signature' instruments, or the labels Chris Martin signs to this day. These were never 'hand selected.. the best coming off the line' type of thing, they were the line. There were no Loar period F5's that were "lesser". If they were an F5, and they were not actually defective in some way, in other words, unless they failed fundamental QC and were used for firewood, or whatever they did with those (if that happened at all), they all got signed during Loar's tenure (with the exception of a small number that were built during his time there, but not released until after he left - when of course, he was no longer signing anything at all). There are not actually all that many Loar period F5's around in existence, as commercially, at the time, they were not exactly a success. It took Bill Monroe, decades later, to really 'up their profile'.
Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
Northfield Big Mon #127
Ellis F5 Special #288
'39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.
Bookmarks