Is it the real thing?

[Steve Ostrander]

I'm looking at this mandolin for sale by owner. It's listed as a 1971 Gibson F5 Master Model serial no. #67XXXX. It has a scroll repair that he claims was done by a pro. I know this is far from the golden age for Gibson but the price seems very reasonable, almost too good. Anybody see anything that looks wrong here?

[MattS]

I saw this mandolin when the ad first appeared and I seriously considered pulling the trigger. I am not an expert on 70s Gibsons, but my due diligence turned up:

-The headstock inlay appears wrong for the period. 70s F-5s had "The Gibson" inlayed, but with a slightly different script than the 20s and earlier version used on this instrument. The give away is the position of the dot on the i in "Gibson". The early version the dot was affixed to the bottom of the T in "The", in the 70s script the dot is a separate inlay. Also the flowerpot in 1970s Gibsons had three inscribed lines in the body of the pot, which are absent here.

-The 70s F-5s I've seen have white-black-white back binding vs the single white binding here. (It has the correct binding on the front and headstock though.)

-The sunburst seems off. Especially on the back of the neck and headstock 70s Gibsons tend to be darker. Though this could just be the images.

For the price listed it could be a great instrument, but I'm not convinced it came out of Kalamazoo.

[Henry Eagle]

From what can be seen on the pictures, there is the shaved neck all the way to the head stock, which is a matter of taste. (At least there one got rid of the supposedly heavy lacquer.) Worst of all, it doesn't look like a Gibson at all, telling from the script inlay and untypical flower pot, the body croll (is there a ridge?) and also from the upper body point, which looks too sharp and straight out (not pointing a bit upwards, as I would expect from Gibsons). Don't know about the sunburst. Some of the 70s were really yellow, others more brownish. The single binding is not Gibson. The hard ware, tuners and tailpiece, looks like Aria from Japan. Finally, one can not really see what the action is like, but I would check that, as it looks as if the bridge is already fairly low, and the neck joint area is not as stable as on other F5s. The whole fish looks way too Japanese for my taste.
Henry

[f5loar]

FAKE with a capital "F". You got the wrong truss rod cover and TP cover is your first signs. Single bound on back another strong sign. Wrong Gibson logo and flowerpot for a 70s' , a real heavy sign. The labels appear to be the fake ones you buy off ebay (I know the seller says they came from the factory in Kalamazoo but I'm telling you they came from a Quick Copy down the street from the factory in Kalamazoo. Wrong color and wrong typeset). It's the wrong bridge for a 70's. Looks rosewood with a solid top, no holes for screw post going through it. No serial no. stamped on back of headstock would be another sign. Sunburst does look more late 70's/early 80's Japan than what Gibson was doing at the time. Add all the signs up and you come up with a fake 70's Gibson. Sad but true. Not sure why anyone would fake a 70's F5 but they did. On the upside, it could be better than a real Gibson from the 70's. What's it worth? About $600 if it's got a really good case with it. If it sounds like crap at least you didn't pay too much for a really nice wall hanger.

[Steve Ostrander]

Thanks, everybody. I guess I'll pass on that one.

[houseworker]

The fake labels are easy to spot, because they're missing three lines of text beneath the model designation (which should be closer to the top of the label as a consequence) - it's the one stuck in on the bass side.

The tuners (and buttons) are also wrong, as is the end pin.

[f5loar]

Right you are. The serial no. / model no. label ain't even close yet the seller swears he got them in the 70's from the Gibson factory. Ebay is just a breading ground for fake stuff and this is a perfect example. The end pin had been replaced with an electric end pin so it must have had a pickup installed at one time.

[mandroid]

Asian, I don't think the big G went in for those elaborate inlays on the fingerboard.

[houseworker]

Asian, I don't think the big G went in for those elaborate inlays on the fingerboard.

Actually they did in the 1970s.

[f5loar]

Gibson had the exact same fretboard ornate inlays on the F5 from late 1970 to early 1978. They were taken from old Gibson patterns never used in the teens.

[David Lewis]

Could it be a modified Gibson? Say, the original owner got it from the factory, modified it, sold it, and told the current owner ' got it from the factory.' the current owner modifies it and either forgets he bought it second hand, or cuts out the middle man. The electric pin seems to bea mod. This may affect the price...

[David Lewis]

Could it be a modified Gibson? Say, the original owner got it from the factory, modified it, sold it, and told the current owner ' got it from the factory.' the current owner modifies it and either forgets he bought it second hand, or cuts out the middle man. The electric pin seems to bea mod. This may affect the price...

Of course the owner may have a genuine one he got from Kalamazoo and mixed the two up. That sems unlikely

[houseworker]

Of course the owner may have a genuine one he got from Kalamazoo and mixed the two up. That seems unlikely

But considerably more likely than your earlier suggestion that it might be a modded Gibson.

[David Lewis]

But considerably more likely than your earlier suggestion that it might be a modded Gibson.

True, though I'd imagine if you went to the factory, you'd be somewhat interested and know your brands. I should of course have added the modifier 'too' to the end of my second post.

[f5loar]

Could it be a modified Gibson? The only thing that could be Gibson about this mandolin is if the current owner put Gibson strings on it. It's a fake Gibson. You can't modify a fake Gibson into a real Gibson and then modify it back again.

[almeriastrings]

To me, this looks like a 70's/80's Japanese copy that has had "fakery" added.