81489 f5

**Bill Halsey** · May-16-2012, 6:44pm

Ken, does the platinum t/p cover test + with the H2O2 app?

**JFDilmando** · May-16-2012, 10:01pm

I read Ken's suggestion regarding the later inlay of the Fern of 73755 with some interest... and I must say some skepticism (or for you Brits - scepticism). I took all the pictures of Fern pergheads that I could find in the Archive, and printed them out for comparison...
this might not be the best thread to deal with this, but Ken opened the can of worms here so...
A few observations : Ken has a discerning eye... from my perspective, there is only one possible "tell" that might lead me to believe there might be something to Ken's suggestion. The lower right fern leaf of 73755 does not seem to turn up at an expected angle at the tip of the fern... comparison to other Loars, seems to suggest that this is anomalous. There is only one other Fern in the timeframe that we are considering here that looks similar, and that is Eugene (83660). Admittedly, I am dealing with pictures here, and in some cases, different angles, and scales...
For my eye, there are no other suggestions that any other similarities, or dissimilarities put it in anything other than Loar timeframe.
76780 is an obvious Loar example of blatantly post Loar inlay, but serious changes in the Fern design really were not evident to my eye until 86652 ('27) when divergence really started... significant variations became the norm after that, with experimentation of design being the norm, and each Fern seeming to be to some degree unique...

So the July 9 Fern, a torch with a Fern inlay added in '26 like Eugene... perhaps... if one upturn of a fern leaf is the smoking gun.

**JFDilmando** · May-16-2012, 10:47pm

This relationship could, of course, suggest other possibilities... if one accepts that Eugene's inlay and the July 9 Fern inlay are related, it could also work in reverse... these two seem unique to each other, in that other fern tips pre and post Eugene all display characteristics similar to Loars... only these two have that "tip drop"... it could mean that these particular inlay pieces were cut in the July 9 timeframe, and then for some reason, the similar cut leaf to 73755 was set aside for some Gibsonian reason, and later found and installed in the later Eugene, to use up "this ol piece of pearl"... Possibly just as plausible as sending back 73755 for a Fern inlay in '26.

**Andrew B. Carlson** · May-16-2012, 11:01pm

Originally Posted by JFDilmando

I read Ken's suggestion regarding the later inlay of the Fern of 73755 with some interest... and I must say some skepticism (or for you Brits - scepticism). I took all the pictures of Fern pergheads that I could find in the Archive, and printed them out for comparison...
this might not be the best thread to deal with this, but Ken opened the can of worms here so...
A few observations : Ken has a discerning eye... from my perspective, there is only one possible "tell" that might lead me to believe there might be something to Ken's suggestion. The lower right fern leaf of 73755 does not seem to turn up at an expected angle at the tip of the fern... comparison to other Loars, seems to suggest that this is anomalous. There is only one other Fern in the timeframe that we are considering here that looks similar, and that is Eugene (83660). Admittedly, I am dealing with pictures here, and in some cases, different angles, and scales...
For my eye, there are no other suggestions that any other similarities, or dissimilarities put it in anything other than Loar timeframe.
76780 is an obvious Loar example of blatantly post Loar inlay, but serious changes in the Fern design really were not evident to my eye until 86652 ('27) when divergence really started... significant variations became the norm after that, with experimentation of design being the norm, and each Fern seeming to be to some degree unique...

So the July 9 Fern, a torch with a Fern inlay added in '26 like Eugene... perhaps... if one upturn of a fern leaf is the smoking gun.

Could you put up the two best pics that you have of the 2 you're studying for us to study too?

**Glassweb** · May-16-2012, 11:08pm

With all due respect to Ken, (who has a HECK of a lot of experience with pre-war Gibson F5 mandolins) the current owner as well as George Gruhn of Gruhn Guitars, I'd have to say this mandolin's headstock should be considered "innocent until proven guilty".

**danb** · May-17-2012, 5:40am

seems there would be a fairly straightforward test for platinum. I always thought it was silver plating with an application of nail varnish on top to prevent tarnishing. Below is a photo of 76547's tailpiece.. I had thought that the different patina/layers we can see on the left side are arm wear on the varnish.. so some tarnishing showing there.. but shiny silver on the lower right.

My #9100 dates to 1909, and this has a custom tailpiece cover with monogram. This has a sterling silver hallmark on the inside, and is very shiny/varnished surface in appearance

**BradKlein** · May-17-2012, 7:37am

Originally Posted by Ken Waltham

Another unique item about Fern Loars are the tailpiece covers. They appear to be platinum. I have not seen one that was not.

I'm confused here. I assumed this was a light-hearted joke. No one has ever suggested that a tailpiece cover has ever been made of solid platinum, have they? That would be very obvious just by the weight in the hand of course, but I can't imagine that such a thing has ever been created.

Solid sterling silver is easy to imagine. But I had supposed that all prewar F-5s had silver plated engraved tailpiece covers.

Have I misunderstood?

**Darryl Wolfe** · May-17-2012, 8:51am

Originally Posted by Glassweb

With all due respect to Ken, (who has a HECK of a lot of experience with pre-war Gibson F5 mandolins) the current owner as well as George Gruhn of Gruhn Guitars, I'd have to say this mandolin's headstock should be considered "innocent until proven guilty".

I posted the peghead picture of 737555 so that you could see that it is clearly bound in transluscent ivoroid

As to the fern leaf anomoly, it is under the black paint, a very common situation where a small portion of the inly does not show

**Ken Waltham** · May-17-2012, 4:37pm

I don't know about solid platinum, but, they are different. They seem to be smoother, and less tarnish, or, more accurately, none.
Brad, I have always known that to be true, about silver, but, my experience with these is that they are different. A different plating process?? I am not sure, but, they look like like platinum to me. I am no jeweler, but, have bought my wife several vintage platinum pieces...
Have a look of my photo of 76779. You can see a little chip out of the plating on the cover. Does that give any clues? It is really a gleaming, shiny material. Different from other Loars I have owned. Does anyone have any ideas?
Tom, yours is so clean when I first saw it, I thought it was a new repro.
76547 was dirty, it doesn't look like that now, Dan.

**JFDilmando** · May-17-2012, 8:30pm

Ah, Darryl, that certainly answers the comparison that I made regarding inlay, and Eugene. That is always an issue with photo's and it's greawt to have real eyes on the issue. If that is true that the Fern tip is hidden, I am sorry but from my hard look, I can't see what Ken is seeing when he suggests that 73755 was inlaid in '26... Ken has forgotten more about Loars than I have ever known, but ref this observation, I am now just interested, rather than intrigued, as I spent the time testing the hypothesis to my satisfaction.
Interesting and as Ken said, a provocative suggestion.... I'd love to know the "whys" ...

**f5loar** · May-17-2012, 8:38pm

both of my Fern Loars have that real shinny look on the TP. Never seem to tarnish and are so smooth looking compared to other Loars. I know what you mean about being a possible plat. plating. Different but why? Lots of things different about those Fern Loars. And I've noticed they seem to get better oysters for the Fern Loars then those later Ferns.

**Bill Halsey** · May-18-2012, 12:18am

Originally Posted by danb

seems there would be a fairly straightforward test for platinum.

Platinum immersed in hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) should produce oxygen bubbles. Make sure your peroxide is fresh and the platinum surface is clean.

**Darryl Wolfe** · May-18-2012, 8:37am

I'm not really buying into one small run of platinum plated TP's. But I admit, there is something a little different looking.

But as far as 76779...I'm not convinced that's the original tailpiece it came with. Bennie did some pretty weird stuff in the day

On a side note, 76779 is the first Loar I ever held in my hands. At that time, we referred to a Fern inlaid F5 as "deluxe". An F5 was an F5 and the details of signatures and stuff didn't matter

**BradKlein** · May-18-2012, 8:43am

Ken - I don't have any real knowledge about precious metals. But 76779 is sporting a gleaming tailpiece cover!

I'd never done the old 'platinum in H2O2' trick although as I understand it, it shouldn't hurt platinum at all since it's serving as a catalyst and not reacting directly with the peroxide. So for fun, I dropped my wedding ring into a glass of H2O2 and watched it slowly become covered with bubbles of Oxygen. Then I placed a 1930s kidney shaped TP cover from an old Harmony in the glass. No bubbles. So I think that I can state with some certainty that a tailpiece cover that probably wholesaled for a quarter in the 1930s, contains no platinum. (!)

Anyway, a bath in H2O2 might harm a lacquer finished silver tailpiece, and I wouldn't dunk one it if it were mine. But solid platinum would have been very expensive, and noticeably heavier than you would expect in the hand. It's about twice as heavy as silver and three times as heavy as iron or tin, I think.

**Bill Halsey** · May-18-2012, 2:07pm

Originally Posted by Darryl Wolfe

On a side note, 76779 is the first Loar I ever held in my hands. At that time, we referred to a Fern inlaid F5 as "deluxe". An F5 was an F5 and the details of signatures and stuff didn't matter

Darryl, this is quite a coincidence, as I think that was the first one I ever got my mitts on, as well. I was at B'ville in '68, and Bennie & Vallie had just performed. He was standing near the parking lot talking to friends, and his mandolin case was lying open on the ground. I timidly asked if he might hold it for a photo, and he grabbed it and put it right into my hand, telling me to go ahead and play it. I recall seeing the Virzi thru the f-hole, and thinking that was a pretty curious device.

So my pal shot this photo (that's Bennie in coveralls on the right):

Click image for larger version.

Name: 76779 full front (Bvl. 1968)e.jpg
Views: 119
Size: 322.4 KB
ID: 86577

**Ken Waltham** · May-18-2012, 5:14pm

Same tailpiece cover....... and I have zero doubt it is an original Loar cover.

**Ken Waltham** · May-18-2012, 5:21pm

I should also acknowledge that, yes, Bennie did some really weird stuff. Very true. I mean, growing up on a dairy farm... can you believe that pickguard!!!
The tailpiece cover was definately real, though.
You should see what he did to the bridge... crazy stuff.

**f5loar** · May-18-2012, 11:02pm

Benny really knew how to "customize" his prized instruments. Did you notice the hexagon bushings on that Loar? Later on in the early 80's he had a different truss rod cover on that Fern Loar. I guess the bridge "redo" was to lighten it up a bit for a brighter more cuttin' sound and make the virzi vibrate more for maxium power. At least that's what he told me. The pickguard is minor compared to what he did to Valle's prewar D45 pickguard.