Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

[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

[almeriastrings]

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'.

[f5loar]

In June it will be 90 years since the first signed Loar F5 was introduced to the world. While nobody knows for sure it has been estimated about 280 F5s were made until Loar left in late 1924 or about 10 per month over a 30 month period. To this date of the year 2012 about 220 have been documented by the F5Journal and posted here on the cafe. (my count is estimate not exact, so if somebody wants to take the time to count them and post the actual to date count of the F5s be my guest. Darryl has the total but I couldn't find it on the cafe.) That leaves about 60 unaccounted for. My guess is about half of those or about 30 are known by others to exsist but not accounted for in the F5Journal. Now if you are one of those 30 reading this and wish to submit your Loar information to the F5Journal there is no better time than now to do so. And by doing so you will not only help further the research of the Loar mandolins but also have postive proof that your Loar is registared and with photos on file should it be stolen there is a much better chance of recovery since your flame pattern is like a fingerprint that cannot be erased by a thief. Owners names are withheld from public knowledge. Now you are down to 30 truly unaccounted for by anyone. You would think with only 30 left to find that in the other 250 already found if a 2nd unworthy of Loar's signature label was out there it would have popped up in 90 years. TMK (and others) it has not. So you can assume by this speculation that no seconds were made and sold to the public. So if only 30 are left to be discovered how many of those were destroyed by acts of God, man or woman? Fire, flood,demolition,divorce.....etc? I'm guessing half of those leaving only about 15 to find in someone's attic or closet. The original owners are now dead and those left to family that have not come forth may do so most anytime in the near to distant future.

[Buck]

Ben - I was responding to Tim Noble's's presumption that Loar signed ALL the F5's that were made while he WAS there,which he didn't do,only the ones he thought were 'exceptionally good'.

There is just no credible evidence anywhere that what you're saying is true. Everything we know historically is that Loar signed labels in batches and these labels were applied to the finished instruments. There is no evidence of "Loar rejected" F-5's. If they were built, they were "approved".

These Loar-era F-5's are different than later F-5's because they were built and finished differently. That is also why collectors/players of these instruments use the term "Unsigned Loar" for instruments built near the end of Loar's tenure at Gibson that were built and finished exactly like the previous instruments, but had no Loar signed label because Gibson's marketing plan changed.

[Darryl Wolfe]

There is just no credible evidence anywhere that what you're saying is true. Everything we know historically is that Loar signed labels in batches and these labels were applied to the finished instruments. There is no evidence of "Loar rejected" F-5's. If they were built, they were "approved".

These Loar-era F-5's are different than later F-5's because they were built and finished differently. That is also why collectors/players of these instruments use the term "Unsigned Loar" for instruments built near the end of Loar's tenure at Gibson that were built and finished exactly like the previous instruments, but had no Loar signed label because Gibson's market plan changed.

Agree. I'm also beginning to wonder if Loar was even in the same room with an F5 when he signed 36 July 9 dated labels

[Joe Spann]

Agree. I'm also beginning to wonder if Loar was even in the same room with an F5 when he signed 36 July 9 dated labels

Agreed Darryl, it does stretch the bounds of credulity.....36 mandolins at one sitting, in one day?

I estimate there were a total of 289 Loar-signed F-5 mandolins produced between June 1922 and December 1924.

My best guess is that 47 of these are as yet unlocated and undocumented.

Joe

[Darryl Wolfe]

I estimate there were a total of 289 Loar-signed F-5 mandolins produced between June 1922 and December 1924.

My best guess is that 47 of these are as yet unlocated and undocumented.

Joe

That's reasonably close to my figures. I have 230 documented, and my highly scientific method of filling in the blanks projects 329 made with virtual certainty. My then SWAG assuming that in several lifetimes 10% more are documented (outside the bounds) leads to that statement at the very bottom, which may be high.

Here is my Explanation from my spreadsheet

* The above "estimates" are based on a mathematical formula that takes into account the first and last
verified number within an established "batch" of instruments. The estimates should be considered
minimums since no assumptions have been made concerning the actual size of individual batches.
In recent years several new small batches and dates have appeared, however, it is reasonable to
assume that all batches are accounted for at this time. Therefore the estimated numbers will increase
only when instruments are added between batches, changing the established batch size. It is this
author's opinion, after careful analysis of the batch data, that the present F5 Journal estimate is well
within 10 percent of the actual numbers of instruments produced. Consequently, The F5 Journal estimates
total Loar signed instrument production to be around 430, with mandolins accounting for about 360.

Here is a screenshot that shows how I am doing this. The first two columns allow me to calculate numbers

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Buck - "There is just no credible evidence anywhere that what you're saying is true.". I understand your doubt,but i didn't conjour what i said out of thin air,why would i do that ?. As i said, it's something that i read in the past,
Ivan

[danb]

I've added a checkbox for "unsigned loar" on my mandolin archive database..

Darryl/Joe, how does this look as a concise definition of "unsigned Loar" ?

"an F5 mandolin lacking a loar signature that falls inside the serial range of known signed examples"

or

"an F5 mandolin with a serial number after the last known signed Loar that is finished in varnish and otherwise identical to a signed one".

[Joe Spann]

"an F5 mandolin with a serial number after the last known signed Loar that is finished in varnish and otherwise identical to a signed one".

I prefer this definition Dan.

[danb]

I prefer this definition Dan.

I do too.. trying to accommodate some other details with the first one.

Stamp number sure does seem to track nicely to the creation date. This is of importance, of course- instruments made closer to the same time share characteristics. Sometimes cosmetic, sometimes tonal. This is most clearly correlated with the FON stamp.

Serials- I agree that in general these are more likely to vary than FON stamps, matching up with your theories of "serial = warranty event = shipping date indicator".

It seems some instruments got special handling- Loars so often progress in straight sequential serials that they must have had special handling. It's fairly rare but worth looking to see if there are many examples of, say F4s or A2zs in the middle of a run of Loar serials.

It's now very rare to find a new Loar serial that doesn't fill a gap in a long run of sequential serials from the same date. In fact- it's been a while for a new Loar to pop up.. the Fern July 9 of course being another exception to the long-thought rules.

[Joe Spann]

Stamp number sure does seem to track nicely to the creation date. This is of importance, of course- instruments made closer to the same time share characteristics. Sometimes cosmetic, sometimes tonal. This is most clearly correlated with the FON stamp.

Yes, and with guitars and banjos too.

Serials- I agree that in general these are more likely to vary than FON stamps, matching up with your theories of "serial = warranty event = shipping date indicator".

Thanks!

It seems some instruments got special handling- Loars so often progress in straight sequential serials that they must have had special handling.

I strongly agree with this statement.

Joe

[mtucker]

So if only 30 are left to be discovered how many of those were destroyed by acts of God, man or woman? Fire, flood,demolition,divorce.....etc? I'm guessing half of those leaving only about 15 to find in someone's attic or closet.

You just never know where they're going to turn up either. My buddy had been chasing a rare early model car for 2-3 years and finally was able to acquire it ... after a long trip to southern Oregon he'd just pulled up to his place in SoCal with his newly acquired gem in need of total restoration. The car wasn't off the trailer yet when his next door neighbor, a little old lady, spots the car in his driveway...she sprints over to him and proceeds to declare that 'she has one just like it' beneath plastic and leaves on the side of her shed on the backside of her property. My friend who rarely sees and speaks with her, is caught completely off guard and doesn't believe ... he immediately says; 'let's go see it'. Sure enough, not more than 20 yards from his shop is the same car but in much better shape than his.... my friend was floored!

[Buck]

From Buck - "There is just no credible evidence anywhere that what you're saying is true.". I understand your doubt,but i didn't conjour what i said out of thin air,why would i do that ?. As i said, it's something that i read in the past,

I didn't say you conjured it up. I said there's no credible evidence. You keep saying it's something you've read in the past. That is hardly definitive.

Meanwhile, we have some of THE prewar Gibson experts right here saying it didn't happen. I've grown up around Bluegrass music where prewar Martin guitars and Gibson mandolins and banjo are are primary focus. I know many other Loar/prewar F-5 owners who do not participate in online forums who all say the same thing, which is contrary to what your saying. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but you keep putting this idea out there without with one shred of documentation to back it up. I just fail to see why you do that.

[MikeEdgerton]

In fact- it's been a while for a new Loar to pop up.. the Fern July 9 of course being another exception to the long-thought rules.

Is that the one on the Antiques Road Show last year where the serial number had been used in a case of insurance fraud? That was a 24 Fern if I recall.

[Darryl Wolfe]

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

I do not want to get in the middle, but what Ivan is saying is somewhat correct, but only if you are nearly or more than my 60 yr age. At one point in time this was the belief, but it was way before 50 or 60 Loars had been documented and NONE showing up unsigned

Hogwash was called on that implied advertising deal by Gibson 35 or more years ago. Even if you read the label, it does not say Loar performed the said deeds listed on the label. He just signed it. How do you do those things all at one time????

Let's not forget that Wm Place also signed Bacon Artist models



Darryl

[Brian Aldridge]

There is a very tangible difference between Loars and early Ferns, from a playing perspective. The unsigned Loars are Loars. When you say Loar, it's means a lot more than just the signature.

[almeriastrings]

One question (three actually) I have on the early ferns relates to the finish. It is said that some had a lacquer overspray over the varnish. Any more detail on that? Also, what is the earliest documented date that sitka was used? Finally, what is known about the way the top wood was prepared and used? Sawn? Split? Bookmatched, or not always so?

[Brian Aldridge]

One thought on the finish question- You see a fair number of the mid 20s Ferns with lacquer spayed on the labels. This may have been due to the policy Gibson had of letting someone try an instrument out and sending it back if you didn't want it after all. They may have had to shoot some lacquer on it to make it look new again. There is one July 9 that was in Florida that looked as if it had maybe a lacquer over spay. An unsigned I once owned looked that way. It was an amazing mandolin. I think there may be some other folks on here that know of other mandolins that fit this description. I don't know of any early Ferns that had a varnish finish, as just after the unsigned Loars, they started using lacquer. I wouldn't be surprised if there were exceptions.

[mrmando]

Is that the one on the Antiques Road Show last year where the serial number had been used in a case of insurance fraud? That was a 24 Fern if I recall.

The Antiques Roadshow Loar and the July 9 Fern are different instruments. The July 9 Fern is for sale at Gruhn's; the owner of the Antiques Roadshow instrument said she was going to lock it in a safe.

But if I have the sequence of events right, the Antiques Roadshow Loar was the most recent one to surface.

[MikeEdgerton]

The Antiques Roadshow Loar and the July 9 Fern are different instruments. The July 9 Fern is for sale at Gruhn's; the owner of the Antiques Roadshow instrument said she was going to lock it in a safe.

But if I have the sequence of events right, the Antiques Roadshow Loar was the most recent one to surface.

That show was aired in January of 2012. The last before that was the one in Kansas near Scott if recall. That was about three years ago or so.

That's assuming they all end up being reported here.

[Will Kimble]

I have a couple thoughts to add...

I am pretty sure Butch's unsigned is lacquer.

I can think of two Loar-signed instruments (H5 & F5, both from '24) which appear to be lacquer but don't show any sign of being oversprayed or refinished. Maybe some stragglers left the factory with Fern-era finishes?

I have spent some time with one of the cremona F4s, I think it is from 1921. It is my opinion that it is an oil varnish finish similar to an F5, whereas the other F4s I have seen appear to be spirit varnish. I think these F4s sound unique.

Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Buck - "That is hardly definitive.". Very true. However,in the (nearly)50 years that i've been playing Bluegrass music,i've read many things,having subscribed to the early editions of 'Bluegrass Unlimited',the now defunct 'Frets' magazine. I've also read many other articles on Bluegrass & it's associated instruments. So many in fact, that it's hardly likely that i'd remember exactly where i read what i read,especially as i've only been playing & ('really' interested in) Mandolin for the past 6 1/2 years.
Regarding the absolute truth in 'what i read',well we all read things that we believe to be true at any one point in time,only to maybe find out that they were somewhat 'un-true', should we say.
Darryl - i'm 67,going on 20 !!,
Ivan

[danb]

I have a couple thoughts to add...
I can think of two Loar-signed instruments (H5 & F5, both from '24) which appear to be lacquer but don't show any sign of being oversprayed or refinished. Maybe some stragglers left the factory with Fern-era finishes?

Sure thing Will, there are f5s in the July 9 batch with a very light and apparently original lacquer topcoat. Some examples appear to get slightly green binding as a possible result of this?

Didn't know the finish detail on the cremona F4s- very interesting

[danb]

Also, here's an archive search showing the F5s Darryl forwarded me to be tagged as "Unsigned Loars"

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/...ns.pl?unsigned

This also now appears under "advanced searches" in the archive, in case you lose it