Does anyone know how many of the Loar mandolins were not signed? And why
did that happen, vs. signed ones by Lloyd Loar?
Also, has a book about Loar been written?
Thanks for the feedback,
Nick
Does anyone know how many of the Loar mandolins were not signed? And why
did that happen, vs. signed ones by Lloyd Loar?
Also, has a book about Loar been written?
Thanks for the feedback,
Nick
Since you have been a cafe member since 2002 you really missed the boat on these topics. It's been discussed many times before on here. So to save you doing a search on the subjects, there were a few Loars that were completed but not signed when Loar left the building in late December, 1924. The reason no one else signed them is speculated because Loar was the only Acoustic Engineer employed by Gibson at the time leaving that label useless when he left. Or you can specultate when cleaning out his desk he took the remaining box of 1000 with him. They only lacked a few more hours to completion and missed the last batch he signed. When they shipped later in 1925 they were exact in all respects to what a late '24 signed Loar was like, a couple with flowerpots and a couple with ferns. About 6 total. Because they are missing the signed Loar label they tend to be priced slightly more than an unsigned mid 20's Fern. You can search the F5Journal at the mandolincafe archives (found on home page) and go to the last of the Dec. 1924 signed Loars and there you will see the transition to the Ferns. A few weeks ago during the LoarFest thread it was brought up that no Loar book has been published yet but it has been considered. Finding a sponsor to help defray the cost has not been found yet. To find out about the man Loar Roger Sminoff has right much about him on his website.
I don't think there's enough information available about what Loar did or didn't do while at Gibson to write a book. There's an awful lot of speculation on the subject, but there's simply more information about what Loar did after Gibson during the Vivi-Tone years and don't know if that would make an interesting enough book.
Visit www.fox-guitars.com - cool Gibson & Epiphone history and more. Vintage replacement mandolin pickguards
Jammin' south of the river
'20 Gibson A-2
Stromberg-Voisinet Tenor Guitar
Penny Whistle
My albums: http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/album.php?u=7616
f5loar-
Kickstarter would be a great way to defray the cost of publishing such a book. Just putting that out there, in case anyone is interested.
PJ Doland
1923 Gibson Snakehead A
The transition was very short. There are two unsigned Loar's I am very familiar with. The earlier one (by I believe 2 numbers apart in SN) has varnish and the other lacquer. I don't know of any produced after that that were varnish.
One other issue with unsigned Loars. Some were returned to the factory for warranty or other work during the later 20's or 30's and the original labels removed and new labels applied with the original serial number. These were usually also given a lacquer top spray to make them look new again and often new hardware at the same time. That was standard repair method by the factory in those days.
Have a Great Day!
Joe Vest
Which serials are we talking about here? the only one I know is 81268 (Butch B), of which I only have a couple of repair photos showing the neck join..
Presumably the definition is "varnish, serials soon after last signed loar" ?
Vince Gill is reported to have a varnished unsigned Loar. I have not seen it in person.
Capt E If it's the same one I've seen, the label says Jan 1925, but has no signature.... it does have a flowerpot & is great sounding mandolin
Jammin' south of the river
'20 Gibson A-2
Stromberg-Voisinet Tenor Guitar
Penny Whistle
My albums: http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/album.php?u=7616
Yes, that's the one.
I have a photo of it somewhere
I bet the last name starts with an "E"...If I'm right, it's been mentioned recently by the owner himself.
I bet if there was a book on Loar they could sell at least 4000 copies just from this site. But I do not think many more after that. That is the problem.
ntriesch
Good "guess".
OK I guess it is no secret I am talking about Tom Ellis. Here is a post about this instrument:
"Re: What is the best mandolin somebody handed you to play:
I was in Tom Ellis' booth at IBMA and after having me test drive one of his ovals, he handed me another instrument without comment. I looked down. Gibson on the headstock. Looked old, very old. "Is this what I think it is?" Tom just smiled. I was so afraid that I would drop it. I played a few tunes. Truthfully, the instrument had spent recent time in a safe and needed some waking up. Tom's smile when he handed it to me was worth the experience alone."
And another post in the same thread from Tom himself:
"I met Monroe in about 85 at Austin City Limits to show him a mandolin (actually Buck's). When I introduced myself, he looked at me and said "boy, din't you useta play banjo with me?" Wayne Lewis said "no Bill, that was Tony" He handed me his, took mine and took off on Kentucky Mandolin. All I remember was trying to keep up (though I won Hugo in 78 with that tune) and BOY was his action HIGH"
Jammin' south of the river
'20 Gibson A-2
Stromberg-Voisinet Tenor Guitar
Penny Whistle
My albums: http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/album.php?u=7616
If Francois Charle can sell multiple printings of his Selmer book, then somebody could definitely do OK with a Loar book.
Assuming 4000 copies total, you could put a $50 Kickstarter base price on it and you would have a ~$200,000 production and printing budget. No exposure unless it hit the fundraising threshold.
PJ Doland
1923 Gibson Snakehead A
There are no unsigned Loar's. They're all signed!
KJ
Yes, there are unsigned Loars. They may have been signed at one time, but there are a number who have lost the label either from time or from the factory removing it during repair. And, there are a few true Loar's that never were signed because he left the factory before they were shipped. I appreciate the sentiment of no unsigned Loars, but it just doesn't fit the truth of the situation. There may be a decreased value if the signature is missing, but that does not alter the mandolin itself.
Have a Great Day!
Joe Vest
Wouldn't unsigned Loar F5s just be Called, and known as Gibson F5s, If so wouldn't the 40s and 50s F5s be Loars as well?
I never fail at anything, I just succeed at doing things that never work....
Fylde Touchstone Walnut Mandolin.
Gibson Alrite Model D.
I believe the "unsigned" Loars were built on his watch and due to be signed had he not been let go.
Bill Snyder
For that matter a signed Loar is really just a Gibson F5 model. It does seem a bit confusing or at least you guys are trying to make it confusing. These few "unsigned" Loars from the next batch of F5s/L5s were sitting on Loar's desk awaiting his signature when the janitor cleaning out Loar's office told the luthier bringing them in that "Mr. Loars was let go last week and he ain'ts heres no more". So the luthier assumed they were not getting the Loar signature label after verifying that indeed Mr. Loar no longer worked for Gibson Co., so he just ran them on down to the shipping department as is without that final signed inspection approval. Had Mr. Loar been there in early Jan. of 1925 he would have signed and attached the final approval label through the lower F hole and over the Factory Order Number (FON) and those too would have been known as signed Loars. But they weren't so they ain't.
Have any other F5s been found with matching FONs to the Baldassari and Ellis owned mandolins?
Read the thread. The finish specs were where changed to laquer from here on in. The less than handful of instruments being discussed were built being supervised by, held, tuned and breathed on by Lloyd Loar. Not so the F5s of later eras you mention.
They have always been officially called Gibson F5s, referring to instruments as Loars lets us be more specific. Like Tom says, the only difference on these couple of instruments in question is the lack of signed label, while the differences from '25 onward increasingly differ from Loar's specifications.
Hereby & forthwith, any instrument with an odd number of strings shall be considered broken. With regard to mix levels, usually the best approach is treating the mandolin the same as a cowbell.
Bookmarks