Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 94

Thread: 81489 f5

  1. #51
    Cafe Linux Mommy danb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1996
    Location
    Norfolk, England
    Posts
    5,813

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Bill- what's 3261? That runs in a series with a couple oddballs. F2 #3263 was mine.. & A4 #3264 was a friend's. Both had no inlaid pickguards (or raised ones.. far too early).
    The Mandolin Archive
    my CDs
    "The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead"

  2. #52
    Cafe Linux Mommy danb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1996
    Location
    Norfolk, England
    Posts
    5,813

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Seems to be a good thread for unusual things.. I'll just leave this here!

    No sign of color fade from green (checked inside pocket and under a couple spots where no sun damage could be). Theories.. chemical change in the dye or original lemon yellow case. Everything else is so clean and near-pristine, I'm thinking original lemon yellow case.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	69619_in_case.jpg 
Views:	177 
Size:	248.2 KB 
ID:	86010  
    The Mandolin Archive
    my CDs
    "The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead"

  3. #53
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    508

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Spann View Post
    Not exactly.

    Each and every individual mandolin/guitar/banjo part which was used to build an instrument was not marked with a FON. As far as I know, in a completed pre-war Gibson mandolin the FON appears in only one place, either on the interior sidewall, or on the interior of the back.

    When a batch of instruments was completed all the material used to build them would have been charged off to the FON in accounting at that time. However, any remaining, extra parts were simply stored. These extra parts were not marked with the FON under which they were originally built. So they clearly appear anonymously in later batches.

    Make sense?
    Joe
    This might explain the F7. A big stock pile of F4 mahogany necks and F5 type bodies laying around, then a weird marriage.
    A wrong note played timidly is a wrong note. A wrong note played with authority is an interpretation.

  4. #54
    Registered User Bill Halsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Faber, Virginia 22938
    Posts
    668

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Quote Originally Posted by danb View Post
    Bill- what's 3261? That runs in a series with a couple oddballs. F2 #3263 was mine.. & A4 #3264 was a friend's. Both had no inlaid pickguards (or raised ones.. far too early).
    I don't know the instrument, Dan -- although the label image appears on Roger's site under "Lyre Labels". This label appears to be on a walnut back.
    ~Bill~
    "Often wrong, but never in doubt."
    --Ivy Baker Priest

  5. #55
    Registered User f5loar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Salisbury,NC
    Posts
    6,468

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Odd case color? Don't assume all vintage mandolins have their original cases. We've seen many outlive the life of their original case by many decades. Some cases just crumbled after 60 years. Climate conditions play a big party in how they stood the test of time. I would explain the orange case color as either a sample sent to Gibson as a one off or it was made by Geib for another company like Bacon/Vega/LyonHealy and found it's way to a Gibson.

  6. #56
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    6,005

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Aldridge View Post
    This might explain the F7. A big stock pile of F4 mahogany necks and F5 type bodies laying around, then a weird marriage.
    Excellent train of thought. I'm with you on this one for sure
    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  7. #57

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    I would explain the orange case color as either a sample sent to Gibson as a one off or it was made by Geib for another company like Bacon/Vega/LyonHealy and found it's way to a Gibson.
    Here's a late 20's Geib & Shaefer case for a Ludwig Banjo. They clearly used gold plush for other companies. I'm not aware of any proven prewar Gibson cases with gold plush.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P1010095.jpg 
Views:	145 
Size:	148.3 KB 
ID:	86080

    Steve

  8. #58
    Cafe Linux Mommy danb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1996
    Location
    Norfolk, England
    Posts
    5,813

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Quote Originally Posted by f5loar View Post
    Odd case color? Don't assume all vintage mandolins have their original cases. We've seen many outlive the life of their original case by many decades. Some cases just crumbled after 60 years. Climate conditions play a big party in how they stood the test of time. I would explain the orange case color as either a sample sent to Gibson as a one off or it was made by Geib for another company like Bacon/Vega/LyonHealy and found it's way to a Gibson.
    I was just visiting it last weekend. Definite Geib, Gibson A case, and original Lemon Yellow.
    The Mandolin Archive
    my CDs
    "The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead"

  9. #59
    Cafe Linux Mommy danb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1996
    Location
    Norfolk, England
    Posts
    5,813

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    At first I thought it was a faded green one like this shows a bit:

    But I checked in the pocket, lifted some of the padding.. even solid yellow throughout.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	71793_front_case.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	86.8 KB 
ID:	86081  
    The Mandolin Archive
    my CDs
    "The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead"

  10. #60
    Cafe Linux Mommy danb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1996
    Location
    Norfolk, England
    Posts
    5,813

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Here's a really cool piece of paperwork that landed in my inbox just a few days ago as we were discussing unsigned Loars. Fits right in with Joe's dates!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	83660_letter.jpg 
Views:	364 
Size:	147.3 KB 
ID:	86091
    The Mandolin Archive
    my CDs
    "The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead"

  11. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,258

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    What a historical letter that is! Note the cable address GIBMANDLIN. 10 chars. The grand daddy to email, txt.

    Thanks for sharing that.

  12. #62

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    And so... ref 83660, Gibson is saying that they built this mandolin in '28, and were specific enough to say August 27 !!! Where do we know there are records that are that specific for a date of build ??
    The implication is that there were at one time, but they have all either been destroyed or lost ??
    In any case, ref to the Archive, how does that mesh with the "traditional" date of build stated as '25 ?
    John D

  13. #63
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    6,005

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Quote Originally Posted by JFDilmando View Post
    And so... ref 83660, Gibson is saying that they built this mandolin in '28, and were specific enough to say August 27 !!! Where do we know there are records that are that specific for a date of build ??
    The implication is that there were at one time, but they have all either been destroyed or lost ??
    In any case, ref to the Archive, how does that mesh with the "traditional" date of build stated as '25 ?
    My answer to that question is that there were shipping records, and that is what they are referring to. With that in mind, the build date could be earlier. Also, Spanns research is pushing these dates out from 25 to 27 or 28.

    All things lumped together, this immediate change after Loar left is now looking more like a gradual change over the years. The actual serial number progressions came to a screaching halt compared to the 1920-1923 production numbers.
    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  14. #64
    Registered User f5loar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Salisbury,NC
    Posts
    6,468

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    I don't think they completed an F5 on one day and shipped it out the next. Shipping records would also have exact dates while FON are more general dates like the month of July in 1923. It appears they were sitting on quite a few F5s in various stages of completion waiting on orders that seldom came in. Dave Apollon was their biggest F5 customer and he got his free for the endorsement. Walter K. Bauer who played first mandolin in Loar's Gibsonions told me that after Lloyd left things went to pot at Gibson in the mandolin department. He said he got a 30's F5 and the tuners fell apart in a few months. He mentioned how they got heavier in weight and on the finish and were using cheaper woods. He switched to Vega after that.

  15. #65
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    6,005

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Quote Originally Posted by f5loar View Post
    I don't think they completed an F5 on one day and shipped it out the next. Shipping records would also have exact dates while FON are more general dates like the month of July in 1923. It appears they were sitting on quite a few F5s in various stages of completion waiting on orders that seldom came in. Dave Apollon was their biggest F5 customer and he got his free for the endorsement. Walter K. Bauer who played first mandolin in Loar's Gibsonions told me that after Lloyd left things went to pot at Gibson in the mandolin department. He said he got a 30's F5 and the tuners fell apart in a few months. He mentioned how they got heavier in weight and on the finish and were using cheaper woods. He switched to Vega after that.
    Agree...I'm just saying that if a customer asked when a mandolin was built, I think all Gibson had was shipping records
    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  16. #66
    Registered User f5loar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Salisbury,NC
    Posts
    6,468

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    I guess we can surmize that the Gibson personal in charge of customer relations/questions was no better in 1947 then they are today. I think you are right in it's all they had in 1947. While Joe has not found any proof we have long heard about the fire that destroyed a lot of the Gibson factory and records in the mid 30's. Do any build records with FON exsist from the 20's and 30's for the F5s?

  17. #67
    Registered User Joe Spann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nashville. TN
    Posts
    149

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Quote Originally Posted by Darryl Wolfe View Post
    Agree...I'm just saying that if a customer asked when a mandolin was built, I think all Gibson had was shipping records
    Strongly agree with this statement. I just don't believe Gibson had an entirely seperate set of records showing the exact date every instrument reached completion...what would be the point? Why would they waste time and money creating such a document? However, I am very pleased to see the dates given in the letter coincide precisely with my adjusted chronology.

    Joe

  18. #68
    Registered User Joe Spann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nashville. TN
    Posts
    149

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Quote Originally Posted by f5loar View Post
    While Joe has not found any proof we have long heard about the fire that destroyed a lot of the Gibson factory and records in the mid 30's.
    Repeat after me..."There was no fire, there was no fire, there was no fire." LOL

    Joe

  19. #69
    Registered User f5loar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Salisbury,NC
    Posts
    6,468

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Long time vintage dealers like Harry West and Benny Cain is where I heard about the fire. One thing for sure , the F5 and other instruments sure went through some major changes starting around late 1934. While the banjos were considered to get better in the mid to late 30's as well as some mighty fine jumbo guitars not so with the F5.

  20. #70
    Registered User ellisppi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    338

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    I had conjectured a lot of this a few years ago and posted my thoughts here a few times. What I'm seeing is that while it may have lingered on longer than I thought, I bet Loar was not the only key employee to go from the mandolin dept. The flowerpot unsigned mandolins of 11985, most surely were assembled and finished in Nov/Dec 24, my reasoning being that the last batch of F5's was signed Dec 1st. If Loar was still active there in Dec, they would have at least a small batch well under way. My thought was always that they were hanging in the drying room to cure over the holidays. The ferns with low numbers like we are discussing, finish not withstanding, I ask the question. Do these mandolins have ivoroid binding and mitered point protectors. The pictures of this mandolin do not show me that it does. I like to see it in person
    Tom H. Ellis
    Ellis Mandolins
    Austin, TX
    http://www.ellismandolins.com

  21. The following members say thank you to ellisppi for this post:

    bdjbdj 

  22. #71
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    6,005

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Quote Originally Posted by ellisppi View Post
    I had conjectured a lot of this a few years ago and posted my thoughts here a few times. What I'm seeing is that while it may have lingered on longer than I thought, I bet Loar was not the only key employee to go from the mandolin dept. The flowerpot unsigned mandolins of 11985, most surely were assembled and finished in Nov/Dec 24, my reasoning being that the last batch of F5's was signed Dec 1st. If Loar was still active there in Dec, they would have at least a small batch well under way. My thought was always that they were hanging in the drying room to cure over the holidays. The ferns with low numbers like we are discussing, finish not withstanding, I ask the question. Do these mandolins have ivoroid binding and mitered point protectors. The pictures of this mandolin do not show me that it does. I like to see it in person
    Part of the enigma with this question is that some of the signed Fern Loars do not

    Curiously, white celluloid (or whatever one chooses to call it) first showed up late in the Feb 18, 1924 batch on front bount pegheads and the fingerboards with the hump in the florida.


    79824 Bill Camp Signed March 31, 1924, Fern Loar, but has a Nov/early Dec serial number

    75945 depicting earlier perhead with white

    73670 "unsigned" with white celluloid, not-humped florida but white binding and gold parts. Also has the flat spotted scroll contour seen on well post Loar "Ferns"
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	79824_1.jpg 
Views:	198 
Size:	33.9 KB 
ID:	86351   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	004.jpg 
Views:	159 
Size:	152.3 KB 
ID:	86352   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	73670_2.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	53.6 KB 
ID:	86353  

    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  23. #72

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    I am not sure I understand the previous question... but, I have never seen a Fern Loar that did not have white body binding. That also holds true for this F5 we are discussing. All Fern Loars, and this Fern have the white binding under varnish that has yellowed, so they do not appear the stark white of post Loar Ferns.
    The white will show through on the common wear spots, where the varnish has been removed.

  24. #73
    Registered User Bill Halsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Faber, Virginia 22938
    Posts
    668

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Excellent examples, Darryl -- thank you!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Waltham View Post
    I am not sure I understand the previous question... but, I have never seen a Fern Loar that did not have white body binding. That also holds true for this F5 we are discussing. All Fern Loars, and this Fern have the white binding under varnish that has yellowed, so they do not appear the stark white of post Loar Ferns.
    The white will show through on the common wear spots, where the varnish has been removed.
    Ken, I think Tom Ellis may have restated my question in #7 of this thread: i.e., is the binding on 81489 white or ivoroid? Often difficult to tell from photos, but it appears white to me, esp. compared to the ivory points. However, the headstock bindings look a bit more like ivoroid color, with black & white offsets.

    Can't tell from these photos if the ivory points are dovetailed into the bindings, as that feature is usually only visible from the tail side of each point. They always appear flush on the neck side.
    ~Bill~
    "Often wrong, but never in doubt."
    --Ivy Baker Priest

  25. #74
    Formerly F5JOURNL Darryl Wolfe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    aiken, sc
    Posts
    6,005

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Ken is 100% correct about the FernsLoar body binding being white. I left the case slightly open because as he says, some of them appear to be ivoroid but likely are not.

    Another fine detail is that white started appearing as the inner white line on the body binding with the outer being ivoroid in ealy 1924 at about the same time as the peghead white appeared.

    As alluded to about the peghead binding on Fern Loars, yes, some (maybe not all) do have ivoroid binding. This generally sets them apart from the prototypical fern of the 83xxx 84xxx genre

    I present some related details from 73755, the July 9 1923 Fern Loar as examples of why I believe it does NOT belong to the March 31, 1924 batch, after those are some typical fern Loar shots (those actually came from Mr. Ken) Edit: The top row is 76779 and the bottom is 73755
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	peghead full on.jpg 
Views:	152 
Size:	170.1 KB 
ID:	86468   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	treble side.jpg 
Views:	172 
Size:	205.1 KB 
ID:	86467   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	signature label.jpg 
Views:	180 
Size:	128.6 KB 
ID:	86466  

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Picture 008.jpg 
Views:	158 
Size:	85.8 KB 
ID:	86465   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8.jpg 
Views:	146 
Size:	168.9 KB 
ID:	86464   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	210.8 KB 
ID:	86463  

    Darryl G. Wolfe, The F5 Journal
    www.f5journal.com

  26. #75

    Default Re: 81489 f5

    Another unique item about Fern Loars are the tailpiece covers. They appear to be platinum. I have not seen one that was not.
    I think the peghead binding is the same as the body binding, but is yellowed under the varnish. I did a close examination of mine a minute ago, and I believe this to be the case. The protector points are dovetailed, just as Bill says, visible from the underside only.
    The body binding of the Fern in this thread, is white. I played it several times, and recall it clearly. I loved it!
    This may really rock the boat, but, I believe the Fern Loar at Gruhn's inherited that Fern some time after it was made. I think that's a circa 1926 overlay added for whatever reason, be it damage or whatever. I do not think it left the factory that way.
    Any opinions on that?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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