Loar Picture of the Day

[markishandsome]

Maybe the far left one is but the top little scroll is funky looking.

Maybe it got broken off and put back on funky. I hear that happens sometimes http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I'd believe the one one the left was a Loar, but the other two barely look Gibson.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Does 97491 come close to noting right?....that bridge is pushed forward alot.
That's one of those late 30's where something in their work process changed. You couln't rely on the neck joining the body at any given place. That one joins at about the 16th fret which pulls the bridge forward.

Regarding the old picture, the one on the left is an early 23 Loar, the other appears to be at best a 60 F5/F12 conversion or a scratch built mando. The inlay actually looks like some of John Duffy's work

[danb]

73485.. Darryl Pics..

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/73485_face2.jpg

[danb]

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/73485_back3.jpg

[danb]

*very hard* to get the red out of it that's showing up in these jpegs..

[danb]

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/73485_peghead2.jpg

[Darryl Wolfe]

New pics of what I believe to be 75841. #The serial number is illegible, but all traits seems to indicate that the mandolin is from this batch. #"Holes" in serial numbers and Virzi number sequencing support that this likely is 75841. #The F5 Journal reflects the "maybe" aspect. #Note: there is no sequence to Virzi numbers, but: there are usually "grab bag bunches" that bound any given batch or group of mandolins. As such, a given Virzi number can be associated with a specific group/date/batch of mandolins. (but with no certainty)

[Darryl Wolfe]

back

[Darryl Wolfe]

closer view of back. #Looks Loaresque/TYP doesn't it SPRUCE. Although only very slight in appearance, rarely do you see curl going "up"/rising from the center like the bottom/treble side does.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Ye old typical "What were they thinking". #Gibson had already (according to signed Loar mandolin dates) corrected a few position and placement problems with the overlay (2/23). #They had also introduced the newer script that is associed more closely with Ferns inlay (5/23, the closed Gilson pattern) #So, yes, they build a bunch of March 31, 1924 signed instruments with 1922 overlays, but with 1924 "lets put the triple binding on the face of the peghead binding"

[f5loar]

The Dec. 1 24 I use to have had the dot Gibson. Makes you wonder if inlayed overlays were just laying around by the dozens and they just grabbed one out of a box like they did the Virzi.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I saw Sam on Saturday and he squelched the rumor that Hoss was having top troubles. #It is still fine and dandy

[Darryl Wolfe]

another

[Darryl Wolfe]

Sam is doing well too

[Darryl Wolfe]

Sam in action

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here's a new pic of 73485. #Complete with a tad of shop dust. This picture as fairly accurate with the color rendition

[Darryl Wolfe]

and another. My 23 yr ol daughter Leslie looks like she's 12 in this pic http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jeff A]

Darryl, I was sitting across from you out in the crowd. I recognized you in the beer tent from your pictures on the cafe. Came over to say hey after Sam was done but you were gone. Maybe next time. Sam's set was hot but I was really impressed with Sharon Gilchrist. Last year her playing was great, but feminine, if that makes sense. This year, more agressive with great tone. Fun little festival. Aiken seems like a great city.

[markishandsome]

My 23 yr ol daughter Leslie looks like she's 12 in this pic

I know I'd at least feel like a little kid in that candy store! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[Darryl Wolfe]

Thanks Jeff, I hope to meet you sometime. #I agree with your comments on Sharon. #A tad off subject, but here she is

[Ken Berner]

Jeff A, I recently saw Sharon at MerleFest and she was playing a Gilchrist, which sounded marvelous. To my ears, her mandolin had more tonal character than any I heard that day.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I couldn't get a fix on what she was playing in Aiken

[mandopete]

It's not a Gilchrist?

[danb]

That's Sharon's Gilchrist.. torch & wire inlay

[danb]

She's a friend of a friend.. mailed her to see if she has any pictures of her mandolin we could look at here. Nice Gilchrist, I recall Bill Bussman commenting it was one of the nicest Gils he has ever played.

I once had to follow "Mary & Mars" on stage. If you can pictures this.. there was a wildfire in Taos on the mountains right behind the stage getting the attention of the audience.. then we decided to play "Scotland" as a barn burner surprise set.

Anyway, Sharon's band was before us, and she was on absolutely top form.. amazing mandolin playing, just a perfect gig.

Indimidating http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[goose 2]

It is a Gilchrist that she plays. I have plyed it and remember it being from the 80s. Has quite a bottom end. She is a super nice girl.

[mandophil(e)]

This may have been covered somewhere prior in this thread, but I'm wondering if those folks who have been around enough Loars can educate the rest of us on the differences between quarter sawn and flat sawn backed Loars. Do they sound different, and if so, in what way? Were quarter sawn mandolins more common in '22 and '23, and the flat sawn more in '24, or are they interspersed? I've heard these two terms and seen examples of each, but don't really know what the differences translate into.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Generally speaking, Loars had quarter sawn backs through the June 23 batch and then the majority were more slabbed. #There are a number of slabbed early 22's though. #Most January 23-June 23's are perfectly on the quarter.

71634 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_image.pl?5879) is quartered

73992 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_image.pl?132) is slabbed

75317 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_image.pl?118) appears to be in between

In most cases, the straighter the curl line is, the more quartered it is. #When you get S-curves and split V curl lines it is slabbed to some degree. #Perfectly on the quarter has the growth ring grain lines running straight down through the back, like the seam in the back, which places the curl line perpendicualar to the grain line.

To my ear, the quartered ones are brighter and more metallic sounding. #There are exceptions out there though

[Brian Aldridge]

I have been wondering about something. Talking about the early Ferns- the ones with the arrow end tuners and engraved tailpiece covers, 1925-1928.... The major difference between those and the signed Loars is the lacquer finish instead of the varnish finish. Hypothetically speaking, if one of these early Ferns were refinished in varnish, would it then sound like a Loar instead of a Fern? I am thinking it would indeed. What would it in terms of dollars devalue, if any, a Fern if it were refinned in varnish? What would it increase it in value, if any, were it to sound like a Loar? With signed Loars continueing to escalate in value, it makes the Ferns sitting there at around 80K look intrigueing to think outside the box about a bit. I hope to hear some opinions on this.

[danb]

I just borrowed a friend's fern at a jam, and I think it'd be like repainting a stained glass window to change the finish.. the ferns have "Fern tone" Which is just as wonderful to my ear!

A decent modern copy could get you that loar tone without sacrificing a fern in the process!

[carleshicks]

I hav played two ferns in this time period a 26 an a 27 both had what appeared to me higher arching and a ridge down the center of the back. I didn't measure them so I am not stateing this as fact. but if indeed the arching is different then I don't know If they would sound the same or not. I know the new Distressed Master model seems to have a slightly shallower arch and it sounds remarkably like a Loar. So I would buy a late twenties Fern and a New Distressed master model and have the sound and a vintage instrument with the original finish.

Dan entered his reply while I was typing

[Darryl Wolfe]

Mr Carles is exactly right. They have a different arching and ridge down the back. Essentially they are a tad heavier

[Darryl Wolfe]

and I do not exactly mean weight..if not heavier in weight, then tighter and heavier to the pick because of the arch..causing a brighter sometimes louder sound

[danb]

Interestin, I didn't know there was a difference in the arching. Phil's Fern is a real cannon, but requires a stiffer picking hand to really draw the note out. You could probably hear it over a lawn mower

[Ken Waltham]

Brian; definately different arch. My suspicion is that the pattern carver is starting to wear at this point in history.....

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here is an interesting thought. I had last night.

We have talked and noted how the Loar finish color was very light at first. #And then later they darkened them up in a very very noticeable way.

Do you think there could be a tie to the introduction of the L5 and K5 that utilized birch in the sides and back.

Or put another way, maybe they did not think the L5 and K5 would look right finished out light like a Feb 23 mandolin. #Certainly they would want a "set of instruments" to match.

Inquiring minds might want to know? or is it just coincidence

[f5loar]

I think is they got an order for a "set" of Loars(F5,H5,K5,L5)they would let the same guy stain them all so it would match. It's like my set of Fern F5/H5. Everything matchs when put side by side even the pearl inlay. I see what you are saying about the birch but without staining the maple and birch together to see how it takes there could be some explaination of the darker cermona stains.
You got a slab of 20's birch sitting around? However remember the Loar Ferns have a slightly different color hue than other '24s. And even after Loar left there are a few post Loar F5s that are back to the lighter hues.
I can think of at least 2 custom color finished Loars.

[danb]

yeah fair point tom, there is the Eugene Claycomb "red fern loar".. some are orange/brown some are orange/black bursts.

It is quite interesting that a master model instrument of any type would get birch. relatively consistently in production in the early days you see maple on the top end stuff.. and often unbelievable quality.

I wonder why they would choose birch for something as unusual to make as a master model?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Well, the point of my previous post is centered around 73718 L5 apparently being the first L5 and it is a '23. It was made almost exactly when the colors got darker. #And if you look in the mandolinarchive, they didn't even bother to sunburst the birch back on it. #Coincidence, probably, but it is food for thought

73718 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?2795)

Kens 73682 F5 is one of the first really dark ones. #Coincidence? Only 36 numbers away?

73682 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_image.pl?3452)

[mandophil(e)]

Back to the Loar vs. Fern tone issue. It seems odd to me that Gibson would go to the trouble of changing the geometry of the mandolin body at the point Loar left. Why put time and energy into what was a marginal selling instrument at that point? I could see eliminating the time consuming process of varnishing them, but would it have made sense to put time in re-doing the templates and changing the basic configuration of the body?

As far as the idea Ken mentioned, I've had the opportunity to play two "unsigned" Loars, that sounded like great regular Loars to me. How is it that all of a sudden, after the last unsigned was done, the pattern carver wore out and that caused the change in tone to occur?

[Darryl Wolfe]

There is no real answer to that question. I agree, they would not make wholesale changes for the sake of change. One can only guess that the pattern was worn, damaged or otherwise needing to be changed or fixed. It is possible that they simply "built it up" with something and redid it resulting in something a bit different.

One could also conjecture that they wanted to change the sound by adding more arch and internal volume and eliminating the Virzi.

We also have the fact that occasionally a Fern would return to the Loar pattern. Was it a left over back?, or did they slap the old pattern on the carver that day?

None of this can be proven.

[danb]

I don't personally believe it's anything to do with patterns wearing out or something happening by mistake. It's a very successful design and produces a sound that must have been designed. Either that or it's a spectacular accident. In my somewhat limited experience of working with builders, mistakes and worn tools usually make things sound worse rather than "as good" or arguably better!

[mandophil(e)]

I guess it is all personal preference. I sure don't think the Fern "redesign" resulted in an "an arguably better" result tone wise. Different yes. But Loars have been at the top of the heap for a long time for a reason.

[danb]

I agree Phil, I said "Arguably" because it's all down to personal preference. in my opinion, Bill's loar sounds like 1925 or after fern.. much more brash and strident. Hard picking pulls the note out. most Loars I've played have spectacular tone, but take a softer touch and produce a more complex note. I think it was intentional for some reason..

[Darryl Wolfe]

This worn out pattern theory has been around for a long time and used to be the accepted thinking. #But for that to be the case, we would have to see anomolies in the late 24 Loars that were still using the first pattern. #We do not see this. #Worn out or not, It makes sence that they built new ones. #They ended up different whether intentional or not.

They also may have changed a production technique that required a new pattern. #Maybe they got a new carver, maybe they wanted to carve the top and cut the f-hole at the same time. #There are too many variables to explain it.

[mandophil(e)]

Darryl:

I understand and have seen the arching described by you in later Ferns, but to the naked eye it is hard to see a truly different profile in the back of an early Fern versus a Loar. I guess it must be pretty subtle.

[danb]

Another difference is the larger F-holes on the ferns.. I personally think they just got new blood in and some changes were made

[Darryl Wolfe]

The early Ferns were like the Loars, I do not know when it changed but 84684 and 84685 have the new back arch. I believe the 842xx ones do too.

In this picture of 84252 you can see the glare of the ridge up towards the top end

84252 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_image.pl?4488)

[danb]

Newly arrived in the mail.. these strings are listed by part # in the service manual. I love the labels, I think a couple will go in each of my old cases now just for looks!

[Rick Turner]

As a production instrument maker building in the just pre-CNC style right now...pin router patterns and such, I can say that as tooling wears, you get very slight changes from one instrument to the next. Then every now and then you'll get a bit bite into the templet, and you'll either Bondo it and re-carve or you'll smooth it out and then make it symmetrical. Look at Martin pegheads going from nearly square cornered to very rounded...and doing it gradually through the 50s and 60s and 70s. I look at that and see the tooling wearing out.

Then suddenly someone notices it, and the jigs and templets get completely redone, and bingo, you have a radically changed shape. This happened at Gibson with the Les Paul carving patterns, too. The Les Pauls lost their nice recurve and then around 1989, the guys in the custom shop noticed it, and bingo, there appeared new tooling to carve Les Paul tops and then they went CNC with it, and the recurve suddenly reappeared.

Often this isn't a major "acoustical" decision, it's just that the shop foreman or whoever is tired of dealing with stuff that no longer quite fits or now requires too much hand fitting or the neck angle is wrong or the arch is too low and the bridges don't work anymore or whatever. There may be no "luthier" involved in the decision to retool a particular part; it may be just a production convenience.

I worked for Gibson for several years, and I also know how production instrument works. It's all about accidents becoming vintage features. For instance, the pickup magnet charger at Fender blew up once, and the guy who rebuilt it reversed a couple of wires in the DC circuit. Well, from that day on, Fender pickups had a reversed polarity. At Gibson, one of the fretting gang saws was disassembled and the blades sharpened and then it was reassembled with two of the spacers reversed. It was hundreds of guitars before anyone noticed that two fret spaces were wrong. Also at Gibson, the first run of Les Pauls was made with too shallow a neck angle, and the only thing they could do was to have the strings come off of the underside of the trapeze tailpiece/bridge assembly. It was a mistake (Les himself told me this), and yet the first several hundred guitars went out with that weird upside down bridge. Now there's a little industry of folks resetting the necks to repair Gibson's early 1950s screwup.

So don't read too much or too little into changes from the Loar era into the Ferns. It's not like they wanted to erase every trace of Loar's work. It was probably a very practical issue of building instruments on time and under budget.

[Bob Sayers]

Wow, fantastic! I for one am looking forward to hearing what Rick Turner has to say about the various Loar "puzzles." Welcome aboard, Rick!

Bob Sayers

[Mandomusic]

How much attention was paid to tap-tuning the plates while Lloyd was around could be another potential reason why Loar's and early Fern's sound different (in addition to finish and arching differences).

Mark

[Rick Turner]

From everything I can gather, Loar was obsessive-compulsive about that kind of thing. He had very definite standards that were probably somewhat at odds with the increasingly production orientation of Gibson.

Then, of course, he took that left turn to the dark side along with fellow Gibsonite Lewis Williams. Electronic amplification was brand new, barely invented, and they saw the possibilities before anyone else did... I asked Seth Lover, inventor of record of the humbucking pickup, if he knew anything about Loar's electric work at Gibson. He remembered a box of Loar's left-over stuff under a bench at the Kalamazoo plant, and in it were electrical thingies... It seems that Loar's first approach was an electrostatic pickup with a copper plate on the inside of the top of an L-5 with another plate suspended closely from it. As the top vibrated, the distance between the plates would modulate slightly just like the diaphragm and plate in a condensor microphone. The plate or diaphragm would be electrically charged, and the varying capacitance between the plates would be translated into an electrical signal. Whoa, Lloyd! I consider Lloyd to be the inventor of the electric guitar. Sometime in the late 1920s or early '30s he switched technologies to electro-magnetic, probably to cut down on hum problems, and that's what went into the ViViTones.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Hello Rick. Thank-you for your valuable input

[bgmando]

I enjoyed Dan's pic of the old Gibson strings.

Question -- I wonder if any of you vintage experts ever discovered a big hoard of unused, unopened old Gibson mandolin strings from the 20s or 30s.

If you did, wouldn't it be tempting to string up a set on your Loar and see how in sounded with strings of that era?

Anybody done it?

[danb]

Well, I just got that hoard off ebay. No G strings in the pile though. I was just talking to Darryl about stringing up his F5 with a set if we can put a complete one together http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[glauber]

Well, I just got that hoard off ebay. No G strings in the pile though. I was just talking to Darryl about stringing up his F5 with a set if we can put a complete one together http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I bet Google could find you many online sources for G strings. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[f5loar]

I bet those strings would be way too old to string up. They would bust before getting up to pitch. You could mic them and tells us the guage and compare that to today's sets. Remember the F5 was the top of the line but not the best seller. Most classical folks who where the main buyers in the 20's and 30's and most of 40's were more into the round hole sounds. You don't find many F hole models in those old photos. And while Dave Apollon was the main endorser of the F5 in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's he had few followers that were influenced enough to go out and buy a new F5 which relates to the extrememly low production numbers during those years. Now Monroe in the 50's and on into the 90's is another story! And Dan can you contact me offlist? isenhour@vnet.net

[danb]

SO I had a quick chat with Charlie, and he actually *has* played a loar with the original strings. Much lighter apparently. I also have the copper set vs the silver set he had. Do any other folks here have some G&D strings they'd trade for some A&E ones? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Next time I visit Jack & Sharon (Supergrass 2007?) we should try this out and make a recording!

[bgmando]

Recording -- yes -- and a nice long one, maybe something like what Dawg did with Tone Poets.

However, if you located the old strings -- actual, in good shape --

would you not need to string them up on a new Gibson, non-distressed, varnish Master Model -- to know what it was like to buy one in the shop and take it home and play it in 1923?

Or do a new MM and old Loar with the old strings on the recording so we could compare?

[Rick Turner]

You could get one of the specialty string companies to make some "Loar Lore" strings. That could be very interesting for a mandolin that wasn't expected to be a Bluegrass machine gun. I bet you could get D'Addario or LaBella to do it. If there's enough interest, I could get in touch with Peter D'Addario or Richard Cocco. I know both of those guys. Might take a gross of sets to make it worth setting up the machines, but it sure would be cool.

[glauber]

wouldn't it be more a question of assembling a set using available strings with the correct materials and gauges? Or is there something radically different with these old strings?

[Rick Turner]

If we're talking copper wound strings, then I just don't know where you'd get them. A lot of classical guitar strings are silver plated copper wound, but I don't know of any US made copper-wound sets. The usual these days are brass or phosphor bronze. Bear in mind that any slight change you make to a string formula does turn out to be audible. So if you're after real vintage tone, then the string have to be exactly what you'd have bought eighty years ago.

I spent an afternoon once in Paris at the atelier of a harpsichord builder who told me that the original plain harpsichord strings had been high phosphor iron, not steel, and that some bits and pieces had been recovered from being embedded in the pin blocks of old instruments. Phosphor iron was a predecessor to modern alloyed steel, and you know what? When they reproduced the alloy, the modern reproduction harpsichords sounded different than with modern strings. I still have a roll of the stuff at about a .010 gauge that he gave me. It's different, all right!

[Rick Turner]

Here's a link to a paper on the high phosphorus iron wire strings:

http://real.uwaterloo.ca/~sbirkett/iron%20wire.pdf

[bgmando]

While hearing these on a Loar would be the apex -- I for one would purchase sets from a run of repoduction strings in order to hear what they sounded like on my grandfather's 1917 A-1 -- which he played until his early death in the 1950s.
He died before I was born, but I acquired the instrument.

I wonder what it sounded like new, and in his heyday years of playing in church bands in organized during his preaching days in the 1920s and 1930s.

Perhaps not nearly as good.

But I'd still be curious to hear it.

Of course, my mom reminded me recently, he never changed a string unless he broke one. Couldn't afford to.
Which was likely the norm in the rural Missouri countryside.

[Bill Halsey]

I wonder what it sounded like new, and in his heyday years of playing in church bands in organized during his preaching days in the 1920s and 1930s.

Perhaps not nearly as good.

But I'd still be curious to hear it.
Me too, BG... if these strings were available, I'd go for it.

[mandophil(e)]

I just got a new camera, and had to mess around a little with some of my favorite subjects.

[mandophil(e)]

One more for now....

[Givson]

That row of tailpiece covers reminds me of tombstones. Perhaps the 1920's marketing department at Gibson was trying to remind us of our mortality, and suggest that now would be the best time to purchase another mando, before it is too late.

[danb]

Thanks Phil, nice photo. That middle one was the ebay one yes?

Here're some nice new photos from Chris Stanley of the very insteresting March 31, 1924 #75812:

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/75812_front.jpg

[danb]

Face

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/75812_face.jpg

[danb]

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/75812_peghead2.jpg

[danb]

I love this kind of back figure.. it's very abstract and organic

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/75812_back2.jpg

[danb]

OK- the Loar quiz today.. in the "face" and "peghead" shots, who can spot what's unusual?

[danb]

Nice photo of the signature label too chris!

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/75812_signature.jpg

[mandophil(e)]

The middle tailpiece is currently unattached, purchased on ebay recently. The left tp is on a Feb 18th '24, the right is on a March 24th '24.

[carleshicks]

"OK- the Loar quiz today.. in the "face" and "peghead" shots, who can spot what's unusual? "

From what I see it looks like a '22 or early '23 head plate that was used before the inward canted tuners where used. It is almost identical to 70281 "the first Loar F-5" except that the '22's inlay is positioned lower. On 79835 and 79837, both 12-1-24, they have the same headstock venier as the one Chris Stanley has. That is the only thing I can put my finger on as unusual, except that the fingerboard extension looks like it is shaped somewhat abnormal but it might just be the picture.

[Philip Halcomb]

"OK- the Loar quiz today.. in the "face" and "peghead" shots, who can spot what's unusual? "

I see that the flowerpot is missing a tiny piece on one of the "vines", also the side of the right side of the flower pot is slightly flat. The other thing I noticed is that the small scroll doesn't seem to curl over as much as usual and there is a new set of tuners on it.

As for the face, I'm at a loss, I'm still not great at seeing these things but I'll take a stab anyhow. The sunburst looks a little low (but that could be my lack of seeing many, many loars. The bridge saddle looks new. And the pickguard looks like it's in amazingly good shape for an 82 yr old instrument.

Fun to give this a try but I'm probably all the way around wrong. Thanks!

[carleshicks]

is there tailpiece missing some engraving or is it just a shadow on the picture.
I see the missing pieces or blacked out pieces of the inlay now I guess I missed that.

Dan you and Daryl should post more questions like this. it is fun.

[markishandsome]

The fretboard and outer headstock binding doesn't match the rest?

[Darryl Wolfe]

The fretboard and outer headstock binding doesn't match the rest?
That is true, but not what Dan is looking for.

The minor painted over "vine" is not what he is looking for.

Actually, this will be anticlimactic. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Compare it to other mid 24 Loars

[danb]

Durr, I meant the D string bushing.. thanks DGW..

Contrast the peghead to this (new) image from 76551:

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/76551_peghead.jpg

[danb]

And the "Face" to this one, also 76551

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/76551_face.jpg

Thanks to (anon) for new images of 76551!

[djweiss]

Is the 22nd fret in a slightly different position??

[danb]

What I'm referring to is indeed on the fretboard.. contrast with this other shot..

[Philip Halcomb]

Ok, I'll take one more shot. On the headstock I now see that the gibson script is somewhat covered by the D string bushing after Dan mentioned it. As for the fingerboard, the only differences to my eyes (and I'm sure I'm missing it) is that the extension has more of a "hump" on the first posting and not so much on Dan's second set of pictures and that the pickguard doesn't have a patent stamp on it.

[chris]

Dan, In the description you mention signs of fingerboard rebind, I don't think this is possible because there is still stain spots on that binding that were never scraped.

[danb]

Here's 75812 along with "rybka" for comparison. What I was looking for with the question was to see if someone spotted the refret. The originals never seem to overhang the binding, instead you get little "trapezoids" or "nibs" where the frets but into the binding. Probably the binding was smoothed down after fretes were in place leaving those little humps.

Chris- it looks as if the refret involved regluing the extension binding, as the little "hump" is there but slightly smoothed. I reworded the archive description to be more precise!

[chris]

Thanks Dan!
One of the thing I find very interesting with this mando is, It has the lowest virzi# and the virzi does not have the ink stamp on it. Has anyone seen a virzi without the ink stamp?

[Philip Halcomb]

Dang! I was going to say something about the frets overhanging the binding, but I didn't think that was what you were looking for because I would expect most of these 80-some year-old instruments would have been refretted.

How about another puzzle?

[Darryl Wolfe]

To be honest, I thought Dan was looking for the fact that this mandolin has a somewhat unusual peghead overlay. #1922 and early 23 Loars had this "closed The Gibson" pattern located very low on the peghead. #The pattern was raised up in early 23 so as not to interfere with the tuner bushing. #It then changed to the "open The Gibson" pattern seen on the Fern example above.

Most all February and March 24 Loars with a triple bound on the face peghead have the open pattern located high on the peghead. #Like this example below.

The significance of this is that from March 24 until December of 24, Gibson apparently elected to use up older peghead overlays from 1922, but not on a consistent basis.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Charlie D's 81250 "unsigned" is the same way. This is usually only seen late in 1924 as they used up these overlays as the Fern had become the standard. One can reason "why not use them on F-4's. The overlay is cut out sizewise for triple binding (which is not present on the F-4)

[Ken Waltham]

Exactly.
I think it's pretty cool how that March '24 F5 has an earlier overlay. Very cool.

[chris]

The serial #78512 does not appear to fall into a batch either.

[Darryl Wolfe]

The serial #78512 does not appear to fall into a batch either.
That is correct Chris. #It is only a few numbers earlier than the March batch, but too many to presume all those in between exist as Loars. (but there are no other instruments listed in the mandolinarchive that fall between either)

[danb]

Yes, I find it very interesting to think about how virzis were parcelled out. They aren't in any kind of obvious order (the serials don't line up virzi # to serial # at all), though they are often in "Groups". Here's a little mini-chart showing all 124 known virzi numbers and their corresponding serial/model:
+--------------+--------+------------+------+-------+------+
| virzi_serial | serial | model | day | month | year |
+--------------+--------+------------+------+-------+------+
| 10000 | 75812 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10002 | 75846 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10007 | 75554 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10008 | 75950 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10009 | 75844 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10010 | 75949 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10011 | 75845 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10012 | 75850 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10013 | 75947 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10016 | 75848 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10018 | 75707 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10019 | 75847 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10020 | 75940 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10022 | 75709 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10023 | 76778 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10024 | 75843 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10046 | 76642 | F2 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10055 | 76493 | H5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10056 | 76640 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10057 | 76497 | L5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10058 | 76972 | H5 | 7 | 10 | 1924 |
| 10060 | 76071 | H5 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10063 | 76481 | H5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10064 | 76486 | H5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10065 | 76494 | H5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10067 | 76967 | H5 | 7 | 10 | 1924 |
| 10090 | 76274 | H4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10093 | 70321 | (no model) | NULL | 0 | 1922 |
| 10099 | 76779 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10101 | 72541 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10103 | 76551 | F5 | 24 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10104 | 76781 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10105 | 76555 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10107 | 76549 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10108 | 76546 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10108 | 78339 | F2 | NULL | 0 | NULL |
| 10110 | 76784 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10112 | 76792 | F5 | 22 | 9 | 1924 |
| 10113 | 76545 | H5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10114 | 76547 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10115 | 79824 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10116 | 76554 | F5 | 24 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10119 | 76788 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10120 | 76787 | F5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10123 | 73726 | F5 | 9 | 7 | 1923 |
| 10124 | 73677 | F5 | 13 | 6 | 1923 |
| 10126 | 75699 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10141 | 76985 | K4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10145 | 47862 | H1 | NULL | 0 | NULL |
| 10145 | 48862 | H2 | NULL | 0 | NULL |
| 10148 | 75328 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10149 | 75693 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10150 | 75696 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10151 | 75703 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10152 | 75691 | F5 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10153 | 75694 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10154 | 76880 | F5 | 22 | 9 | 1924 |
| 10155 | 75704 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10157 | 75695 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10158 | 75690 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10160 | 75706 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10164 | 75689 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10165 | 75329 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10168 | 75687 | F5 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10169 | 75700 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10170 | 75697 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10171 | 75698 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10172 | 75692 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10173 | 76478 | L5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10174 | 76699 | L5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10179 | 76708 | L5 | 21 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10183 | 76707 | L5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10187 | 76482 | L5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10201 | 79844 | O | NULL | 0 | NULL |
| 10213 | 76979 | K5 | 13 | 10 | 1924 |
| 10218 | 76984 | K5 | 13 | 10 | 1924 |
| 1021x | 76981 | K5 | 13 | 10 | 1924 |
| 10220 | 76983 | L5 | 13 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10221 | 76712 | K5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10222 | 76698 | K5 | 31 | 3 | 1924 |
| 10225 | 78681 | A4 | NULL | 0 | NULL |
| 10231 | 78613 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10234 | 78660 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10242 | 80638 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10253 | 78604 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10255 | 80406 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10260 | 77434 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10271 | 77440 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10280 | 78304 | F2 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10286 | 78346 | F2 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10294 | 78334 | F2 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10300 | 72857 | F5 | 12 | 4 | 1923 |
| 10301 | 75315 | F5 | 18 | 2 | 1924 |
| 10305 | 77404 | L5 | 1 | 12 | 1924 |
| 10313 | 77392 | L5 | 1 | 12 | 1924 |
| 10384 | 71055 | F5 | 28 | 11 | 1922 |
| 10387 | 79640 | F5 | 1 | 12 | 1924 |
| 10393 | 79835 | F5 | 1 | 12 | 1924 |
| 10395 | 79834 | F5 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10396 | 80782 | F5 | NULL | 0 | NULL |
| 10398 | 79836 | F5 | 1 | 12 | 1924 |
| 10400 | 79833 | F5 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10432 | 79837 | F5 | 1 | 12 | 1924 |
| 10434 | 80191 | F5 | 1 | 12 | 1924 |
| 10445 | 72206 | F5 | 26 | 2 | 1923 |
| 10473 | 77513 | F4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10478 | 9265 | U | NULL | 0 | 1909 |
| 10479 | 72060 | F5 | 8 | 2 | 1923 |
| 10481 | 71839 | F5 | 5 | 1 | 1923 |
| 10498 | 78532 | F4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10500 | 77536 | F4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10507 | 65870 | A2 | NULL | 0 | 1921 |
| 10520 | 49053 | F2 | NULL | 0 | 1919 |
| 10539 | 78775 | F4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10551 | 73722 | F5 | 9 | 7 | 1923 |
| 10595 | 80267 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10611 | 76824 | H1 | NULL | 0 | NULL |
| 10636 | 81564 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1925 |
| 10641 | 80618 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1924 |
| 10645 | 82377 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1925 |
| 10647 | 81814 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1925 |
| 10654 | 81780 | A4 | NULL | 0 | 1925 |
| 10673 | 80585 | L5 | NULL | 0 | NULL |
| 10673 | 80535 | L4 | NULL | 0 | 1925 |
+--------------+--------+------------+------+-------+------+

[danb]

70321 is the 10-string mando-viola.. that's why it says "no model"... the "NULL" lines are there on the non-loars as they don't have a dated label

[danb]

See also the bottom of this page in the service manual (on it's way Tom!!).. You could have one retro-fitted

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/documents/1923_service_manual/sm44.jpg

[Darryl Wolfe]

Retrofit a Virzi? That sounds like signing up for a root canal on your only good tooth http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Just kidding, but I had to say it.

[danb]

Some new scans of Darryl's Loar brochure..

2 little labels that mean so much..

[danb]

A talk about tone

[danb]

A new standard..

[chris]

One thing nice about the F-5 journal in book form is you can see how batchs and serial#s work much easier. Nice Virzi listing Dan!!

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here's a few shots of 73005 undergoing some cleanup

[Darryl Wolfe]

back

[Darryl Wolfe]

Thanks for posting the brochure Dan. That's one of my prize items. I've only seen or heard of 3 of those

[danb]

I'll work on the middle page http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Darryl Wolfe]

Nicely defined grain. Well on the quarter. Minor seam repair

[danb]

Huge Image.. sorry if any neolithic computers out there are still on modems..

[danb]

If your screen isn't immense, a right-click and "view image" will stop it being resized..

[mandophil(e)]

I think we need to establish a new rule: A new post on this thread at least once every 3 days!

Following are 3 shots of a tailpiece cover from a Fern Loar. I noticed, and am curious about, the two notches on the bottom of the tp. Apparently there are a few of these floating around. Any idea about the purpose of the notches, and how many there are?

[mandophil(e)]

Another view....

[mandophil(e)]

Front of tp......

[Darryl Wolfe]

Those covers are for the K-5 mandocello. #This is the second time I have seen one on an F-5. #The mando that Dan and I have for sale has the same thing only in gold. The tailpice base is a modified F-style, the rods you see are simply silver soldered to the modified base on the top side next to the string tangs. Consequently, the cover needs the two notches.

[Givson]

Perhaps the notches were so the cover would fit over a trapeze tailpiece.

[Darryl Wolfe]

A little better perspective

[mandophil(e)]

Thanks Darryl. You are the man!!!

[Darryl Wolfe]

As an aside to the notched cover, I purchased two complete mandocello tailpieces about 18 years ago. They were "New Old Stock". Now to my knowledge, the mando cover on a trapeze only came on the K-5. The mount portion that screws onto the tail end had the requisite patent stamp on it, but the mando-like cover (with notches) had no engraving nor stamping of "The Gibson". The cover itself was unquestionably original to the 20's. But again, it was totally plain. So, this may suggest that Gibson did the engraving and stamping "in-house"

[mandophil(e)]

So, I guess we can assume that there was a small surplus of these notched tailpieces (probably demand for mand-cellos was even smaller than anticipated!), and they were used for mandolins. I know of one other notched tp-also gold-plated. This as opposed to F-5's missing their original tp and replacement tp's being found and used.

[Ken Waltham]

Yep, K5 for sure. I know a July 9 with one of those on it. Silver, of course.

[danb]

I agree that they are probably factory original on the F5s that way. I would assume that what was at hand would be used, so if they needed a cover and there were some k5 ones available, those covers would be there for the taking. Variety and deviation from the standard or spec is actually fairly common when you really look into these!

[mandophil(e)]

Great shot of some old wood.

[Darryl Wolfe]

You been to visit Brian? (and how did you get 73485 that Dan and I have for sale?..just kidding, the 30's Fern is a ringer for it.

[mandophil(e)]

Darryl: Just helping a techno-challenged friend.

[Big Joe]

As a side note, we have reprints of the Loar articles shown above available at the Gibson Showcase. They even were printed to look old. They are very very cool. They are available for $10.00 each if you are interested. You can get them by calling 1-615-514-2200 x 3. Not really trying to sell anything, but if you want something really cool it is available to you now...and from Gibson!

[carleshicks]

i ordered acouple of them today . Thanks Big Joe.

[Jonathan James]

I just got my reprint in the mail from the Gibson Showcase -- the ad for the Loar-signed Master Model. Really, really nice. Going to have it framed.

[kudzugypsy]

are these duplicated from original flyers, or are they re-typeset copies?

just curious.

[Hans]

Here's some pix of #71634 Dec 20, 1922.

[Hans]

Next.

[Hans]

Next.

[Hans]

Another.

[Hans]

Another.

[Hans]

You guessed it.

[Hans]

Next.

[Hans]

Next.

[Hans]

Last one.

[Glassweb]

Thanks Hans! Nice pix... have the tuners been replated on this Loar? Looks mighty SHINY from this angle...

[Jerry Byers]

Both the peghead (logo, flowerpot) and the scroll look questionable.

[Hans]

Tuners are a special set of Waverlys installed by Michael Lewis just before I took the pix. The eyelets are original. It's a Loar alright.

[danb]

71634 is a very special instrument. One of the ones I'd rank at the top of the Loars..

[mandopete]

Outstanding photo's Hans! The color looks fantastic.

[Michael Lewis]

Wow Hans! I had almost forgot you were there with a camera. I remember we were talking while I worked. Nice pics. You really know what to look for when it comes to the detail work.

I also think this is one of the best Loars even though it has had some water damage many years ago. It is solid and it certainly makes a good account of it's self in a jam. If I'm not mistaken this is the one that Mike Compton played in the Loar Ensamble at LoarFest. His comment was that he didn't really favor Loars in general but he really liked this one.

The new machines are the pre 1922 spacing and this was the last set that I am aware of. They differ from the standard new Waverlys in that there are only 3 mounting screw holes per plate like the original machines, and the string post spacing which is 1/16" greater than the modern machines. Oh, and the price was higher too.

[Hans]

Speaking of detail work, here's a shot of Michael at Grass Valley. He hauls half his shop to the festival and (incredibly) repairs instruments from early morning to late at night each day. Watching him install the Waverlys on the Loar was a real education, and I was surprised to learn a few things about the tuners. Took this pix with my new "spy lens"...Zuiko digital 50-200 f2.8-3.5 zoom.

[danb]

Michael set up 81564 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/81564) for me at Supergrass.. great work, and a very nice guy to chat with as well. It really hums now!

[Links]

Don't you just hate "talented" people! Michael even looks talented!

[chris]

Speaking of Loar tuner spacing, is there a distinct time that Loars changed spacing?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Speaking of Loar tuner spacing, is there a distinct time that Loars changed spacing?
It appears that generally speaking 23's are one way and 24's another. Standard Waverly's do not fit my 7/9/23

[Charlie Derrington]

And standard Waverly's did fit the 7/9/23 I used to own.

I think the change occured close to the July 9 batch.

Charlie

[ronlane3]

Charlie, great to hear from you. It's been a while. Welcome back.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Welcome back Charlie. Thanks for the input. Maybe from that we can assume that '24's, the Dec '23 batch and a few July 9's are "standard" spacing

[Jim Hilburn]

I recently had the opportunity to examine two Loars in the same place. I'm sorry, but I don't have the serial #'s.
They both had the blackline binding on the face. On one, the full thickness of the outer ivoroid was consistent all the way around the instrument but on the other it had been scraped or sanded very poorly and in many places was nearly sanded away almost to the black line.
How common is this? Why are some so much better than others?

[chris]

Interesting on the spacing. The reason I asked is,75812 #(march '24) has a lot of features of an earlier Loar and the spacing is wider than the new waverlies.75812 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?213)

[Darryl Wolfe]

I recently had the opportunity to examine two Loars in the same place. I'm sorry, but I don't have the serial #'s.
They both had the blackline binding on the face. On one, the full thickness of the outer ivoroid was consistent all the way around the instrument but on the other it had been scraped or sanded very poorly and in many places was nearly sanded away almost to the black line.
How common is this? Why are some so much better than others?
I have never seen that Jim. I suspect that something is "askew" on that. Any chance this was on the back where a Virzi may have been added or removed?

[Charlie Derrington]

Could also have been a "bad day". I've seen a couple with sub-standard binding, but it's pretty odd. Also, it's hard to say as what I might think is a little off might be different in someone else's eyes. If I could see the mando Jim saw, I could say for sure. I'd bet it's been monkeyed with.

Charlie

[ellisppi]

you mean like this?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Good picture Tom. #I have to admit that one is the roughest I have ever seen. #Actually, I have never seen one that has anomolies in the binding caused by the original notch/channel geometry. #Can you elaborate on the batch or serial on that one. #It appears to be April 23

[Jim Hilburn]

Tom, it's possible that is the instrument I'm talking about. I specifically remember that little hump in the curve coming from the neck joint to the scroll junction and the missing chunk at the junction.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Feb 8, 1923

[Darryl Wolfe]

scroll

[mandophil(e)]

Darryl--is that 72052?

[Darryl Wolfe]

I figured you would chime in--yes. I really had not noticed those blips previously. They are quite odd.

[carleshicks]

what is up with this loar 79719 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?284)it is a 12-1-1924 but it has the canted outward tuners like a 1922,triple bound peg head like a 1924, and gold 1925 tuners. I know they used what ever was laying around extra but I would think this is a loar era medeley of sort.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Yes Carles, that one is fairly odd. #Dan and I really have not come up with an explanation for it. #Those tuners are actually later than 1925, more like 1928-30, but I see no evidence of anything being changed out or altered at all. The rest of the mandolin looks period correct to the serial number

[danb]

Hello Carles,

One theory is that that is a "hold-over", that is to say made in the Loar era, but not set up with hardware until a bit later. That particular instrument is one of the odder ones with the tuners. I looked very closely and saw no evidence they were changed tuners, no scars or any evidence of changing, but they also don't "match" the period. Speaking of the oddballs..

[danb]

Here're some more photos of 73485, hot off the camera

Scroll is very pretty with that red ghosting from the overcoat..

[danb]

This shot is very carefully adjusted for color. The burst is more subtle in person (Smoother blend) but just impossible to photograph digitally and still capture all the smooth blends of oranges red yellows and dark adequately

[danb]

More of the gorgeous scroll

[danb]

Intertestingly they kept & replated the Loar tailpiece cover, as discussed earlier in this thread..

[danb]

The case has an unusual "lip"

[danb]

The case is completely mint. It's unbelievable.

[danb]

Another view of the peghead. Obviously not the original Loar overlay, but this instrument has a pretty cool Sam Bush vibe to it

[danb]

Original Pick from Gibson, as mentioned in the service manual..

[danb]

Wallpaper sized..

[danb]

Signature..

[danb]

3 Loars Front..

[danb]

And Backs

[danb]

Back to 73485.. I just wanted to point out a very interesting thing about the top. The spruce on the treble side is a very clean quarter-cut with nice silking figure, with an unbelievable 45-50 grains per inch. (that makes the tree that half of the top came from a bare minimum of 250 years old)! The bass side is slightly slab cut in contrast, similar to the look of John Reischman's Loar

[danb]

H5 on top, F5 below

[danb]

This is a detail I don't think we've had a photo of before. This shows the notches in a TP cover that was originally intended for or fitted to an L5/K5 with a trapeze tailpiece. The notches accomodate the bars of the trapeze..

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/75844_tailpiece_edge.jpg

[bluegrassplayer]

On the post with the three backs, what is that above the tuners on the one in the center?

[danb]

Newly photographed, Sidebound July 9 #74002 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?157)

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/74002_scroll_back.jpg

[danb]

Gorgeous..

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/74002_top_detail2.jpg

[danb]

It shows the slight greenish hue to the binding that indicates a light lacquer topcoat, seen on several other july 9s

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/74002_neck.jpg

[danb]

On the post with the three backs, what is that above the tuners on the one in the center?
I think it's a vintage strap anchor

[danb]

Here's Sidebound July 9 #73994 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?3227)


http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/73994_face_1.jpg

[danb]

Near-mint condition. It's amazingly clean, including large expanses of the top & back that have a glass-like finish with only the lightest varnish crazing in the recurve area and near the scroll

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/73994_scroll_back.jpg

[danb]

Near mint..

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/73994_face_oblique.jpg

[danb]

Beautiful..

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/73994_peghead_1.jpg

[danb]

Photography tips- these were with an add-on flash unit aimed at a wall to my left while shooting straight ahead. Seems the best trick is to be ~10-15 feet from a white wall and bounce the flash off it in an otherwise nearly completely darkened room. I found since I got my speedlight (I shoot a Canon EOS 20D) that the focus on macro shots is MUCH better from the focus assist grid projected by the flash. Some of these were handheld, some on a cheap tripod I bought for the occasion.

[mandopete]

Once again - Dan you are the man. Excellent (as always) photographs!

[carleshicks]

That is now my second favorite mandolin that color is beautiful. Dan is 74002 realy that dark it almost looks like a 24.

[danb]

73994 is arguably the most desirable Loar in existence after Bill's. It's a July 9, sidebound, and is just in spectacular condition with great tone. 74002 is no slouch either, both of those mandolins are absolutely top of their class.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Minor clarification to the notched tailpiece cover. This only appears on the K5. The L5 tailpiece was entirely different.

[Darryl Wolfe]

It shows the slight greenish hue to the binding that indicates a light lacquer topcoat, seen on several other july 9s
Sorry Dan, I'm not sure I fully agree on that one. I believe the side bound Loars simply have a slightly transluscent binding. Binding that Stew-Mac sold it the early 80's was an exact match and had the same hue to it.

[mandophil(e)]

Dan:

No doubt 73994 is a great Loar condition wise and I'm sure it sounds fantastic. I'm not sure about labels like "most desirable" though. I'm sure there are a few folks who might quibble with that.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I can relate to that. There are several mandos that we have not posted pictures of. 73985 is the cleanest nicest July 9 I have seen. And 74000 is certainly mint also

[danb]

Of course Phil, I'm just stating my opinion. Clarifying, I think a great-sounding mint july 9 is top of the pecking order in terms of price and want factor in the market as a whole, but I'd rather have 76547 myself http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Darryl Wolfe]

Good response Dan. This desirability thing is very subjective. I have a statement in the "Journal" about 76549 that says "Regardless of personal preferences, this is the mandolin that the F5 Journal would place in a time capsule as the most representative example of what a Gibson F5 mandolin was intended to be. "

I personally prefer July 9 23's

So "most desirable" is subjective at best and must be qualified.

[mandophil(e)]

I know there are some folks who think Feb 18 '24's are at or near the top of the pecking order. Reischman's Loar has been called the best sounding one on the planet, and I'm sure would be pretty desirable as well.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Exactly Phil. For many years most people here in the Southeast (including myself) thought Carl Garretts 75324 Feb 18 to be the best sounding Loar they had ever heard. Johns is 75327. I have not side-by-sided them, but they are at least very very close. So we have a batch of generally great sounding Feb 18's (the first batch). I personally do not like most of the second batch of Feb 18's. and I am not a fan of the general look of 24's. But they are all Loars.

The qualifier in this case is sound. July 9's sound a bit different and generally more Monroeish. It all depends on what you like

[mandophil(e)]

Darryl:

Why do you think July 9th's have a different tone?

And as far as first batch Feb 18th's, 75317 is also a great one (I'm biased).

[Darryl Wolfe]

Phil,

I truly do not know. #They do seem to have a reasonably consistent batch of non-quartered maple (unlike those prior), many have very very tight grained tops that do not appear to be red spruce (more European looking). #I can say that the top of mine is a tad thicker than most Loars..but none of this is enough for a generality, because many later Loars are too. #The finish is different, as it appears (opinion only) that they were all french polished at the factory. #One other thing I note is that they seem to have less pronounced recurve. #ie I believe them to be same depth of recurve but thinner at the edge. (meaning the binding doesn't appear to be as tall)

Several of them are extremely light weight

[danb]

Hmm. Light weight + the silking figure in the tops would agree with the different woods theory. 73485 seems to have that same super-dense grain on the treble + silking figure. Maybe we need to get Spruce and his microscope looking into wood species next time we do a loarfest http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Darryl Wolfe]

This might be a decent time to solicit opinions as to why July 9's are consistently "different" sounding Loars. Tommy, Charlie

[Darryl Wolfe]

These two shots depict the somewhat lack or recurve I mentioned above

[Darryl Wolfe]

also on the lower back

[Darryl Wolfe]

This shot depicts the peculiar irridescent tightly grained wood

[Darryl Wolfe]

Subdued recurve on 74000 and 73992. #Both instruments are very glossy

[Charlie Derrington]

Good question. I know my July 9 (top bound) had that certain something. And, the grain was much tighter on the top with a slab back. I still contend they did something different with the finish on some of this batch (side bounds most particularly). However, the top grads on mine and on Gibson's were very close to the norm, wheras Ricky's top (side bound) was a little thicker. I have no way of identifying the spruce once finish (and age) work their magic on obscuring any identifying marks. (I think I can hear a difference, but that's certainly open for debate) The July 9s (as a general rule) have that certain midrange thing happening...big time, but the Feb. 24s (usually narrow grain in the center moving out towards wide grain on the edge of the top) tend to have that "bassier" tone that a lot of modern players seem to prefer.

Anyway, I guess all of that is to say, "I don't have a clue".

Charlie

[danb]

My opinion- I think the best sounding batch is the March 31 with virzis. Very mellow D&A strings, Steinway tone on the E. 76547 has a gentle but balanced G, 75844 has a really strong punchy one. Virzi ones mellow out the strident rasp by comparison (that a lot of people want and exploit to great effect I should add), or maybe that's just the March 31 batch..

The May 29 '23 I've tried is pretty much archetypal Loar tone, that midrange, ease of play, and balance all the way up the neck. When I tried John's I couldn't get a note I really liked out of it vs Jack's 76547 which I thought was like picking through warm butter. Jamie Wiens studied 76547 and suggested it had a fairly shallow neck set compared to John's, which might contribute to that "Feel" or ease of play on the strings.

I bet the Feb 24s like a heavier pick than I use, especially if they are as Charlie says more rumbly/bassy. I can't get that sort of tone with my right arm, but I can get very nice midrange out of many others I've tried. A '26/27 fern over here in London likes very hard picking, and rewards it with some nice thumpy bassy tone vs the May 29 which takes a gentle stroke and gives midrange in spades.

I think the nicest non-virzi one I've played is 71634, a Dec 20 1922 one serial off Grisman's Crusher. Mike Compton gave it a good review at Loarfest too, saying something along the lines of "I don't normally like Loar mandolins, but I really like THIS mandolin"

They are all different, with some shared tonal traits but more differences than similarities!

[danb]

Darryl reminded me I had some photos to upload of sidebound July 9 74000 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?156), which certainly fits right up there in that "most desirable" category I was describing above. This one is about as mint as anything you'd ever see..

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/74000_face.jpg

[danb]

Yoinks

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/74000_back_detail.jpg

[danb]

I've been on a bit of an Archive updates binge (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/updates.pl) in the last couple of days. Lots of new photos and I can't believe I forgot to list the twin (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/84264) ferns (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/84265) that first emerged in January

[f5loar]

Nice photos of 74000. Make you want to own such beauty forever and ever. Seems 74000 may be the lightest of the batch of side bounds. Beside Darryl's it sure looks like the next of kin to it. Ricky's is close too.

[danb]

The lightness is very interesting. Remind me to bring a spring scale to Loarfest. I think Darryl is on to something when he suggests different wood species. 73485 at least has 2 very different trees making up the top- the treble side has absurd grain density (45-60 grains per inch) and silking figure much like Darryl's July 9 shows in this photo:

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/images/73992_front3.jpg

I sure have a lot of builders who check out the archives- I wonder if we have a "hacklinger army" out there such that we could start documenting top graduations for the Loars in the archives that occasionally come out to festivals?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Thanks for chiming in Charlie

[Brian Aldridge]

no no no, you guys have it all wrong. The best, most desired Loars are the April 25s. They're the prettiest, best sounding and most colectible batchhttp://www.f5journal.com/pic_day/73013/73013_1.JPG

[stevem]

The back on 74000 is simply stunning. It reminds me of Compton's F5 Gil.

[Darryl Wolfe]

See what you've done Dan. Back to arranging chairs on the Titanic

[carleshicks]

For me any loar signed f-5 is the most desireable. But as far as looks go 73992,74000,and 74002 are about the prettiest mando's I have ever laid my eyes on.

[Charlie Derrington]

Hey Brian (fellow FJ Cruiser and Loar owner)...

Give me a call tomorrow. I need to talk with you.

Charlie