Loar Photo Courtesy of JR

[Andrew B. Carlson]

John Reischman is not only a great musician, he's a great photographer. I follow him on instagram and this was his latest photo. Needless to say it's my phone's wallpaper now. I just had to share.


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a340/Hippiesmurf69/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_20160810-184517_1_zpsmrpl4w8x.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/Hippiesmurf69/media/Mobile%20Uploads/Screenshot_20160810-184517_1_zpsmrpl4w8x.jpg.html)

[Ivan Kelsall]

A great photo Andrew - but i'd have to do something about that headstock damage !!,
Ivan:(
PS - Has the headstock scroll been broken at one time ?.There seems to be a faint,straight line running from the top binding down through the scroll.

[AlanN]

And it looks like JR also lubes the nut slots with graphite. And does the minimal string wrap around posts.

[Timbofood]

The thing I appreciate is the way the string "tails" are trimmed neatly! It's like the crossed grill marks at an expensive steakhouse, it shows "you care."

[JAK]

What headstock damage? That's a Lloyd Loar!

[Ivan Kelsall]

Hi JAK - Lloyd Loar or not,that headstock looks scruffy (IMHO). It wouldn't take much to have it made good again & it wouldn't affect the mandolin's tone. I'd certainly have it re-finished. JR's Loar is widely recognised as 'possibly' the finest out there, & i'd want it to ''look as good as it sounds'',
Ivan

[Glassweb]

[QUOTE=Ivan Kelsall;1513205]Hi JAK - "Lloyd Loar or not,that headstock looks scruffy (IMHO). It wouldn't take much to have it made good again & it wouldn't affect the mandolin's tone. I'd certainly have it re-finished".

Let It Be...

[Timbofood]

"Honest wear!"
I agree Glassweb, the scroll repair might be a little less than invisible but, I look a lot worse and I'm only 59! Well, in about two weeks.
You all still have time to send Halsey the order for my mandolin! You never know, he might still feel like making one. I won't hold my breath. Thanks anyway.

[Spruce]

I'd certainly have it re-finished.

Cough cough...

(This photo is now my "go-to" guide for replicating Loar peghead antiquing, which I'll be doing one-of-these years...)

[JFDilmando]

Ivan has to be kidding guys....droll very droll

[Jeff Mando]

First rule of vintage instruments: never mess with original finish...
Second rule of vintage instruments: never mess with original finish......

[sgarrity]

That peghead is a thing of beauty!

[JAK]

That peghead reminds me of my old face....

[carleshicks]

Andrew that is a great photo. Thanks for sharing.

[Ivan Kelsall]

JD - i'm most definitely not kidding. I'd have that headstock re-finished within a week if it was mine. I believe that JR had the fingerboard replaced - something far more 'traumatic' than applying a couple of layers of varnish or lacquer.- so if that's not ''original'', then what's the problem with a tablespoon full of ''finish''.

As for Jeff Mando's assertion to ''never mess with the original finish'' why not ?. I do however,fully understand Jeff's remark & i'd go along way in agreeing with him,but sometimes an original finish can look shabby. JR's Loar headstock could be re-finished in such a way as hardly to be noticed - ''dulled down'',but at least with all the 'pits' filled in - purely my opinion,
Ivan;)

[Glassweb]

JD - i'm most definitely not kidding. I'd have that headstock re-finished within a week if it was mine. I believe that JR had the fingerboard replaced - something far more 'traumatic' than applying a couple of layers of varnish or lacquer.- so if that's not ''original'', then what's the problem with a tablespoon full of ''finish''.

As for Jeff Mando's assertion to ''never mess with the original finish'' why not ?. I do however,fully understand Jeff's remark & i'd go along way in agreeing with him,but sometimes an original finish can look shabby. JR's Loar headstock could be re-finished in such a way as hardly to be noticed - ''dulled down'',but at least with all the 'pits' filled in - purely my opinion,
Ivan;)


i understand your view on this Ivan, but then you have a really clean headstock while the rest of the mandolin is pretty "road-worn". i stand by my earlier post... just let it be what it is.

[almeriastrings]

It would be a heck of an expensive re-finish....

[Glassweb]

i don't believe a refinished headstock would have much of an effect on the sound of John's Loar, if any. but i've learned the hard way over the years that unless there's some really good reason to refinish a vintage instrument... don't!

[almeriastrings]

It would certainly affect the value - though by how much is open to question. Quite a few thousand, for sure.

[Mike Snyder]

Up close and personal, it's beautiful, scars and all.

[Timbofood]

The only thing I have that is perfect is my wife!
Finish on peghead like I said is " honest wear" and I think it is just fine

[Ivan Kelsall]

By how much has the radiussed fingerboard that JR had fitted to his mandolin affected the price ?. I believe that Chris Thile also had a new fingerboard fitted to his Loar ?. Many Loars have had substantial amounts of work done on them,so i really can't see that a slick of new headstock varnish would lower the value. There's also more than one Loar in the 'Archives' that's had the top re-finished to one degree or another. If you're all so pernickety about 're-finishing' etc. what do you think of the totally re-necked F5 that used to belong to Pee Wee Lambert ?. Even before that,it had been 're-finished' at some point. It's not even a 100% Loar - but it's widely accepted as such :- "Fern, previously refinished, new neck & overlay, formerly owned by Pee Wee Lambert. Could possibly be the missing "Fern" from 1922."
Ivan;)

[Rush Burkhardt]

From my grand-daughter, at 6, "I love your face, Grampa! It tells me stories about where you've been!" And I'm a '42, not a '24!
:popcorn:

[Eric C.]

By how much has the radiussed fingerboard that JR had fitted to his mandolin affected the price ?. I believe that Chris Thile also had a new fingerboard fitted to his Loar ?. Many Loars have had substantial amounts of work done on them,so i really can't see that a slick of new headstock varnish would lower the value. There's also more than one Loar in the 'Archives' that's had the top re-finished to one degree or another. If you're all so pernickety about 're-finishing' etc. what do you think of the totally re-necked F5 that used to belong to Pee Wee Lambert ?. Even before that,it had been 're-finished' at some point. It's not even a 100% Loar - but it's widely accepted as such :- "Fern, previously refinished, new neck & overlay, formerly owned by Pee Wee Lambert. Could possibly be the missing "Fern" from 1922."
Ivan;)

You can't put the old finish back on, like you can an original fretboard....

[AlanN]

Yes, in the vintage gintage community, there is a real aversion to re-finish anything, at any cost. Over the top, imo.

[F-2 Dave]

Great picture. As far as refinishing the headstock goes, this is what the arguably best sounding loar looks like. I wouldn't change it. That said, if This was Ivan's mandolin, and he wanted to refinish the headstock, then more power to him.

[Timbofood]

"A man's entitled to his opinion" Briscoe Darling

[Spruce]

You can't put the old finish back on, like you can an original fretboard....

Folks, it ain't that bad in person...

[j. condino]

What a bunch of posers more worried about how the mandolin looks than the voice or the setup or all the years of great music by an incredible player. Every one of those scratches is a badge of honor....

[William Smith]

Yes, in the vintage gintage community, there is a real aversion to re-finish anything, at any cost. Over the top, imo.

Agree there, I don't see nothing wrong with taking the original fretboard off, just save it. I re-neck Gibson F-7's from the 30's. same body as a 5 just slap a maple neck on and bam you got a poorer mans vintage F-5 sound.Some would say nuts/crazy, full blown insane but people have been swaping banjo necks for a long time "a little easier than mando necks" also some violins from the golden age have had re-necks at some point for the newer classical of the time.

[George R. Lane]

Having held and played that beautiful instrument, I say leave it like it is. When I hear or see John playing it, I close my eyes and just listen to the great music.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Isn't it strange - if this was a vintage car / motor cycle that had been bought with dent's & scratches on it,then the new owner would most likley spend $1,000's on it putting it right & restoring it to it's full glory,but because it's a musical instrument,having a 'pock marked' headstock seems to be just fine !. Would refinishing the headstock to put right the damage really be so bad ?. As i mentioned,it could be re-finshed & then 'dulled down' to suit the rest of the instrument.
I can't understand what seems to be a sort of 'double standard' way of thinking - it's fine for one thing to be put right,but not another ???,
Ivan:confused:

[Timbofood]

I get that completely Ivan, it's got similar acolytes in the jewelry world, some say do not polish, just clean, other disciples, "Refinish that watch dial! Buff off all the patina!"
I think the "original" worship fits some things better than others. Cars, motorcycles, sure I get it, restore. Furniture, instruments Chinese vintage pottery, I get that too. Limited cleaning and repair, as it suits the owner. It's certainly a double standard and to some a double edged sword!
I will take care of my property the way I see fit and, when you inherit them, you can do as you wish, until then don't tell me what I like!
See post#27(?)

Thanks Briscoe!
"More power to you." Again, Briscoe Darling (same episode, same scene)

[Phil Goodson]

A great photo Andrew - but i'd have to do something about that headstock damage !!,
Ivan:(
....

Would you ask your Mom to get a facelift? :confused:

[Hendrik Ahrend]

For a mondolin player at home such decisions may be easy. To me, matters are way more complicated. I prefer to think of those instruments as pieces of art, as monuments. They may be your own, but at the same time, you are entrusted with them. I believe it's a good idea to think in larger contexts. This mandolin will most likely be passed on to further generations. As restorer of pipe organs, one of them being as old as 1457, I deal with experts of museums and monumental offices on a daily basis. And I find it quite interesting to learn from them. May I also recommend a book written by John R. Watson, a long time contributor to Colonial Williamsburg, entitled "Artifacts in Use". Monumental preservers are interested in preserving as much information as possible. At the same time, (especially) musical instruments carry the information of sound and should be playable - which is what we mando geeks are quick to think. And indeed, there is something to it. And a church congregation with a pipe organ in for restoration needs a playable instrument. And mandolins, like most any other instrument, need some parts to be replaced at some point, e. g. strings, frets, fingerboards, tuners, tailpieces, nuts, bridges, screws. Before you now it, tonebars and necks an back plates may be replaced. At some point in many cases, there won't be much left of the original mandolin, just because one wanted to keep it playable.Thus a lot of information gets lost. You'd be surprised how many people are experts on screws. Monumental preservers are supposed to very carefully weigh off the different options, along the lines of "what is to gain, what is to lose?" And the decisions are not always the same. General attitudes do also change over time. In a museum, refinishing to make an instrument look new would be a no no and even considered forgery. However, if refinishing served the porpose of preserving a historical surface (such as in a car in order to prevent corroding), one might consider refinishing. In a museum, these things are usully handled very carefully and a lot of times after long discussion in teams. Similar approaches you find in other arts: Imagine you were to find an original Michelangelo fresco on a ceiling, which some third class baroque painter covered with a layer of gray/blue painted skies. Although baroque, you'd probably remove that baroque art in order to display the Michelangelo for public enjoyment and interest (a central aspect BTW). If that later artist however was Raphael Santi, you'd have to put up with a Michelangelo x-ray.
An original Mozart piano in a museum won't probably have its original hammers newly felt-lined these days. Instead, one generally prefers to make a new set of hammers and keep the originals behind glas. In this sense, and from a modern monumental preserver's point of view, it's not such a bad idea to remove the original finger board and tuners on John's Loar and keep them save for future generations. Refinishing the head stock to make it look new (sic; it's still old) would be more of a short term joy at the cost of valuable information. (The long MC threads about Loar varnish are worth noting.) But - if the instrument was refinished in thick lacquer with yellowish sunburst in the 1950s, the artistic statement would seem inhibited both visually and probably in sound. In that case, I'd think about an expert refinish (trusting that there would never be a public interest in Gibson's 50s finishing/refinishing secrets). Of course, this is just my humble opinion; and to each his/her own. But I find it worthwhile thinking about preserving/using art on a larger scale and with respect and responsibility for generations to come. (A bit more than 2 cents, well...)

[Timbofood]

And there we have the motto for the Patek Phillipe watch company: (and I paraphrase slightly)
"One does not own a Patek Phillipe watch, one is just keeping it for future generations"

Interesting perspective Henry, thank you.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Henry Eagle - "Refinishing the head stock to make it look new ..". That's exactly what i don't want !. I'd have it re-finished to remove the pits & pockmarks & then dull it down to suit the rest of the mandolin in such as way that it still looked 'old'. I haven't mentioned doing anything else to the mandolin,although there are a few Loars that have been re-finished.The idea isn't to make it look new,but to keep it in as good a condition as possible.

From Philphool - "Would you ask your Mom to get a facelift ?". My mother's 93 years of age,maybe the same as JR's Loar,but she's in much better condition 'facially' !.

From Timothy - "One does not own a Patek Phillipe watch, one is just keeping it for future generations". Fine - ask the 'future generation member' to whom it might be handed down,if he want's it 'distressed' or 'as new' & take it from there.
One point - i own a Rolex ''Oysterquartz Datejust'',bought in 1986. A couple of years ago,i was offered over £3,000 UK for it because it's still in excellent condition. The same watch,''knocked about a bit'' would fetch less than half of that.

It's amazing how we can get the idea that it's fine to neglect the condition of some items,but we need others to be in 'pristine' condition. If like me,you watch the Antiques Roadshow,how many times have you heard the experts say,after valuing an 'object','one like this but in better condition was sold for 'X' amount of money', usually several times more than the one they're talking about.

Renovating / restoring 'objects' isn't always about making them look like new,many times it's about preventing them looking 'worse' than they already do,
Ivan;)

[Timbofood]

Ivan, perceived value is what this is all about, honest wear, the earned dings are all fair, "pristine" is for collectors, all well and good but, I'm simpler in my needs or desires.

I see maintenance as the biggest thing to try to continue, in all things collectible. You certainly remove the battery from your Rolex when time comes to change it lest it leak and damage the movement, those are the things which tend to concern me.
Watch cases can be and are, refinished all the time, as are dials. As long as things are "good under the hood" I can personally forgive a few battle scars.
That's just me.

[barry]

Ivan, perceived value is what this is all about, honest wear, the earned dings are all fair, "pristine" is for collectors, all well and good but, I'm simpler in my needs or desires.

I see maintenance as the biggest thing to try to continue, in all things collectible. You certainly remove the battery from your Rolex when time comes to change it lest it leak and damage the movement, those are the things which tend to concern me.
Watch cases can be and are, refinished all the time, as are dials. As long as things are "good under the hood" I can personally forgive a few battle scars.
That's just me.

If your Rolex has a battery in it, you may want to reconsider it's authenticity.

[mtucker]

In the automotive world the tides have changed somewhat over the last several years. Original paint and parts unrestored (provided said subject is not beat to death and in relatively good condition) in many cases trump the restored to pristine in terms of dollar value when changing hands.

I'm no instrument expert but I would think the same could be said for a fine instrument kept in relatively good condition unrestored regardless of a few dings and dents. Collectors are buying honesty...and character seems to be equally appealing to some vs a mega or mini restoration other than making it serviceable again. Don't get me wrong, there are still those that want perfect but surprising to some, 'perfect' doesn't necessarily mean it's going to bring more money for a desirable collectible item...

[Tom C]

By how much has the radiussed fingerboard that JR had fitted to his mandolin affected the price ?. I believe that Chris Thile also had a new fingerboard fitted to his Loar ?. Many Loars have had substantial amounts of work done on them,so i really can't see that a slick of new headstock varnish would lower the value. There's also more than one Loar in the 'Archives' that's had the top re-finished to one degree or another. If you're all so pernickety about 're-finishing' etc. what do you think of the totally re-necked F5 that used to belong to Pee Wee Lambert ?. Even before that,it had been 're-finished' at some point. It's not even a 100% Loar - but it's widely accepted as such :- "Fern, previously refinished, new neck & overlay, formerly owned by Pee Wee Lambert. Could possibly be the missing "Fern" from 1922."
Ivan;)

Replacing fret board is different than restoring head stock for no other reason except for looks.
Just like frets, Fret boards affect playability. some get the indentations between frets or cracking..etc
Some parts are like clutches and brake pads. They just wear out. The mando needs to be playable.
Most folks even keep the original frets, boards and bridges.

[JFDilmando]

This whole discussion from Ivan's point of view is his personal opinion of what he would do if this thing were his.... he remains oblivious to the impact it would have on "value" in monetary terms.... and that is fine. Collectors and history buffs, cringe at the idea, and there would always be the caveat from that day forward, that the headstock has been refinished... "though you can hardly tell" is a meaningless add onto the description... it is not in original condition and therefore will lose $$ value in the collector world... Does it make a difference to the pure player out there... not a wit....

Does a fretboard repalcement mean anything to a collector... somewhat... not much if the original is still present with the instrument, but there will be some small impact to the pure $$ value... arguably minimal.

The disucssion is a bit of a silly one, as Ivan is certainly not a collector, nor making any provoking statements or arguments saying that this would not affect value... he is just stating what he would do if it were his... no issue... just really, really glad that it isn't his !

Just sayin...

[Timbofood]

If your Rolex has a battery in it, you may want to reconsider it's authenticity.

Sorry Barry, you are wrong.
Rolex started using quartz movements quite a few years ago. The mechanical movements are still their higher priority however. The "Cellini" is a thinner case, and has been available with Quartz movement since the early '70's if memory serves, possibly longer. Very elegant watch indeed!
I've spent almost thirty years in the jewelry world and I can honestly say that there are quartz Rolex movements available.
Do they rate the "Superlative Chronometer" moniker of the automatics? No. Are they fine timepieces? You bet, absolutely! Wear it with the appreciation it deserves Ivan, I wear a TAG Heuer 6000 series myself, (chronometer chronograph). Another hobby!

[sliebers]

I played that mandolin in February as well as sat about 4 feet across from John for hours during a mandolin workshop. The aged headstock finish didn't even cross my mind. To each his own, but I would not refinish that if I owned it.

It is a great photo of a great mandolin.

We tend to nitpick the silliest of points on these forums sometimes.

[barry]

Sorry Barry, you are wrong.
Rolex started using quartz movements quite a few years ago. The mechanical movements are still their higher priority however. The "Cellini" is a thinner case, and has been available with Quartz movement since the early '70's if memory serves, possibly longer. Very elegant watch indeed!
I've spent almost thirty years in the jewelry world and I can honestly say that there are quartz Rolex movements available.
Do they rate the "Superlative Chronometer" moniker of the automatics? No. Are they fine timepieces? You bet, absolutely! Wear it with the appreciation it deserves Ivan, I wear a TAG Heuer 6000 series myself, (chronometer chronograph). Another hobby!

Hi Timothy,

Yes. I am aware of the Cellini line. There were OysterQuartz models made as well. They are regarded as collectible oddities these days.
Similar to if Gibson were, hypothetically, to produce a small run of Master Models with polyurethane finishes.

[Timbofood]

Barry, if you knew of the models availability and "curiosity value", why the disparaging remark regarding authenticity?
Not being snide, merely curious. Ivan simply stated that he owned an "Oysterquartz" and you suggested it may not be authentic.

[barry]

Barry, if you knew of the models availability and "curiosity value", why the disparaging remark regarding authenticity?
Not being snide, merely curious. Ivan simply stated that he owned an "Oysterquartz" and you suggested it may not be authentic.


Yeah...I gotcha. I see how the disparity in my remark came off.

Here's what happened:

I read your post, that immediately proceeded my reply. I had not, however, read the post from Ivan, prior to that, stating that he owned an Oysterquartz. When I read your reply, "You can take the battery out of your Rolex", I just thought you were making a random statement about how to best keep collectible objects in pristine condition, and using a Rolex example as an off-the-cuff example. I assumed you thought that all Rolexes had batteries. I replied with my, in hindsight, callous comment.

I meant no disrespect to you or Ivan. It was merely a case of responding before reading the thread all the way through.

Best,

Barry

[danb]

That is a beautiful shot.

That's exactly how they are meant to look at their very best. The peghead is a holly/pearwood sandwich, with staining and finish on the very top. The way they wear is part of the beauty and shows the real care taken in the process.. that's not inlay, it's marquetry! The whole process gives much cleaner inlay lines with a really nice organic look to it.

Shiny black perfections actually misses out on one of the key Loar design aesthetics- nothing is symmetrical, lines are all slightly off straight, and the object itself shows the very beauty of imperfection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi) itself.

An instrument with wear has The very best story to tell- it has been played, used, loved, and the mark of it's music is borne on it's body.


Here's an older shot I took of it some years ago when John let me borrow it for a while:

149433

[danb]

I sure wouldn't touch this up either..

149434

[danb]

Yep, perfect.. exactly what I love to see!

149435

[Willie Poole]

Didn`t someone find a Loar in a trash can? He must have had it cleaned up and a lot of repairs done to it and I assume it is still worth quite a few buck...Also a fellow named Monroe had a completely new head stock installed on his Loar and it was shiny and didn`t match the rest of the wear and tear of the body of the mandolin and I guess that decreased the value of that gem....I may be in a minority but I agree with Ivan, the peg head should be refinished and then made to match the rest of the body, it`s not that hard and I can`t see where it would affect the value of the mandolin but what do I know, I never owned anything considered "Vintage"....

Willie

[Jeff Mando]

I can`t see where it would affect the value of the mandolin

Having worked in the vintage guitar world, I've seen instruments examined in a dark room with a blacklight to reveal if an instrument has been repaired or refinished or basically is what the seller is saying it is. Regardless of the quality of the refinish, it gives a potential buyer a bargaining chip toward a better price or grounds for refusal.

[sliebers]

That is a beautiful shot.

That's exactly how they are meant to look at their very best. The peghead is a holly/pearwood sandwich, with staining and finish on the very top. The way they wear is part of the beauty and shows the real care taken in the process.. that's not inlay, it's marquetry! The whole process gives much cleaner inlay lines with a really nice organic look to it.

Shiny black perfections actually misses out on one of the key Loar design aesthetics- nothing is symmetrical, lines are all slightly off straight, and the object itself shows the very beauty of imperfection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi) itself.

An instrument with wear has The very best story to tell- it has been played, used, loved, and the mark of it's music is borne on it's body.


Here's an older shot I took of it some years ago when John let me borrow it for a while:

149433


Exactly. Leave it as is. People might be forgetting that these are pear wood veneers dyed black. So, are you going to risk sanding through the dye in order to refinish the peg head? You might end up with a shiny new gloss finish that will not match the rest of the instrument.

[mtucker]

couldn't agree more. repairs to cracks or to make it playable are one thing, addressing strictly cosmetics (unless something horrific happened) are another altogether. i would never consider the latter on my Gilchrist and I seriously doubt the maker would either. play on and enjoy the ride guilt-free!

[Ivan Kelsall]

From DanB - "That's exactly how they are meant to look at their very best". So,would less wear be worse or maybe more wear be better ??. As for 'wear',while i understand the point,to me it looks more like damage caused by string ends,& IMHO, 'damage' should be repaired,
Ivan;)

[doc holiday]

One thing that hasn't been addressed is the photo style. The photo is a closeup taken in glaring sun at near 8000.' No one would publish a closeup portrait of a movie star like that. In normal context you just don't see that Loar that way. I've also had the privilege of having John's Loar in my hands and playing a few notes, albeit upside down. The wear, as has been mentioned is consistent with the rest of the magnificent instrument & doesn't stand out at all. I wouldn't retouch Mike Marshall's Loar or Sam's Hoss either. Ivan....IMHO....I'm glad John is the owner.
149469