Did Lloyd Loar reject any mandolins?

[mrbook]

Loar didn't build the mandolins that bear his name, but is supposed to have checked them over and signed the labels. Is there any evidence that he rejected any during the testing process, or sent any back to be redone? Is an "unsigned Loar" one that didn't meet his approval?

[danb]

I'm not aware of any proof either way.. but it's sure fun to think about. There are a couple of F5s with all the right features and the right serial number that don't bear a signature label

[kudzugypsy]

"unsigned loar" is a term used to describe the post loar instruments that left the factory in 25-26 that have all the specs of loars with the exception of lacquer finish and gold hardware and fern inlay - what this means is that these were under construction during loars employment, but he wasnt there to sign them when completed.

it doesnt have anything to do with a "rejected" F5.

[sunburst]

"Unsigned Loar" and "indoor yard sale" are among the modern terms that I find amusing. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[mandopete]

"Unsigned Loar" and "indoor yard sale" are among the modern terms that I find amusing. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yeah, goes along with these...

Real Fool's Gold
Great Banjo Music

...and my favorite:

"Look Mom, I'm invisible!"

[SternART]

I think two of the unsigned Loars still had varnish....if I'm not mistaken.

[Mando Medic]

That really is a great question that I have been asking for some time. Were all the F-5's from the Loar era, signed? I think not, but the question is, where are they? If Lloyd only signed the ones that met with his approval, what about the ones that did not? Hmm. Kenc

[kudzugypsy]

they probably did exactly what gibson has continued to do - they sawed them in 1/2. when i worked at gibson in the early 90's, it was rare, but i do have a nice set of super 400 book ends that came from sawed up necks that didnt meet QC.

i've also heard on here (the cafe) Charlie D say that they would do so today if a mando didnt fit gibson QC.

i will say this, that when i worked at gibson, as i'm sure it is today, QC was very high - you would be surprised - at that time we were making 180+ instruments a day (that was up to 240 per day by the time i left) and we were very serious that everything that went out the door was perfect. we had to stay til whenever to make that number, sometimes near midnight if enough stuff got sent back. i think if people could spend time at the factory, they would come away with a far different view of the gibson product.

[GTison]

I was at the Nashville factory a few years ago now. It was after the workers had gone home but the store was still open. I walked up to the Master Model booth where they varnish them. It was in the middle of the store. There on the counter was the completed lower half of a mandolin body as if it had been cut apart. I being the curious cat picked it up to look inside it. IT HAD BEEN VARNISHED!! And it was stuck to my hand, talk about being caught red handed. I peeled it off and got away from there. I bet the Varnish guy came in next day and looked to see how many "flies" he had caught the previous night. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Big Joe]

Ok, now I know who grabbed that mandolin:angry: . Actually, it was just one we cut up. If they can't pass the mustard, they get cut up by the band saw. I believe that one we used for awhile to show what was inside the mandolin body.

There were certainly some Loar era instruments that did not pass inspection and had to be set back till they could be made right or whatever. That would be impossible to imagine they would make everyone without a flaw that required reworking or replacing. It is very possible many of the parts for later mandolins were from those that were rejected but not redone till later. Quite a few Ferns had very loar characteristic materials in them and they could have been the parts that were usuable from earlier ones.

They did not send them out without Loar's signature if they did not pass his inspection. If they did not pass, they could not ship. There are a few unsigned Loars. Charlie has one from Jan 4 25. It is a varnish and certainly a Loar without question. It would have to have been completed before Loar left on Dec 31 04 but not shipped or the label applied till Jan 4. I doubt Loar expected his firing and when he was let go the instruments that were ready had not had his signature but were Loar instruments in every way.

[Cetecea]

I did a search!

But I am curious... why was Loar fired?

[arbarnhart]

I did a search!

But I am curious... why was Loar fired?
Here (http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/Museum/Mandolin/Gibson/23F5/23f5.html) is one recounting that is similar to others I have read/heard. Basically, he made great instruments but the music scene took the market other places.

[Big Joe]

He was interested in getting involved in electric instruments and the then current Gibson management thought it was a waste of time and he needed to persue his interests on someone else's dime.

[Cetecea]

Thanks, sorry for the threadjack!

[Spruce]

"If they can't pass the mustard, they get cut up by the band saw."

Well, I know lf at least one topless J-200 that served as a potato chip bowl at a Gibson employee's wedding... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[jim simpson]

"Well, I know lf at least one topless J-200 that served as a potato chip bowl at a Gibson employee's wedding..."

You don't normally hear "topless" in the same sentence as "wedding", maybe with "bachelor party"!

[Mando Medic]

Joe,
If you have your facts straight, you are saying that the production list of Loars reflects all instruments made or just the ones signed? Kenc

[f5loar]

There are lots of missing numbers in the Loar serial number batchs. It stands to reason that if a Loar was assigned a starting batch number(FON)that is found under the Loar signature label and then a serial number is assigned later on in the process that some could have gone to the end and not passed the quality standards of Loar and those were trashed. Many were sent back for re-working until they were accepted. Therefore you could have missing serial numbers that will never show up today. To the knowledge of most experts of Loars no unsigned Loars have shown up during this time with Gibson. A few have surfaced without signature labels but it was apparent they just fell out over the years as has been the case in many labels from that time. I guess the glue was not that good.

[danb]

There were certainly some Loar era instruments that did not pass inspection and had to be set back till they could be made right or whatever. #That would be impossible to imagine they would make everyone without a flaw that required reworking or replacing. #It is very possible many of the parts for later mandolins were from those that were rejected but not redone till later. #

(...)

There are a few unsigned Loars. #Charlie has one from Jan 4 25. #It is a varnish and certainly a Loar without question. #It would have to have been completed before Loar left on Dec 31 04 but not shipped or the label applied till Jan 4.
What Joe is saying here is supposition, but very reasonable. I can't name an example right now of an instrument that is in the serial number range (70000-80000 roughly) that is an F/H/L/K 5 without a signature label, but there are indeed some with later nubmers that look like they were built in the Loar period. A friend in London has a mandolin with a post-loar serial number that has a finish & other features that match much more closely with Loars than dot-neck ferns.

It makes sense when you see a flowerpot peghead (the 22-24 style for the most part) cropping up "a few years too late" to theorize that perhaps that was at least partially built while Loar was about, and drilled for tuners later etc. Several other documented examples fit a similar pattern

I believe that attributing Charlie's f5 to Jan 4 1925 was based on comments from the now deceased Gibson historian Julius Bellson, but Charlie's F5 does not have a date label in it.

[danb]

There were certainly some Loar era instruments that did not pass inspection and had to be set back till they could be made right or whatever. #That would be impossible to imagine they would make everyone without a flaw that required reworking or replacing. #It is very possible many of the parts for later mandolins were from those that were rejected but not redone till later. #Quite a few Ferns had very loar characteristic materials in them and they could have been the parts that were usuable from earlier ones.
Yes, what Joe says here is very reasonable. There are several examples of mandolins that have earlier features or parts with 1925 or later serial numbers. It's not unreasonable to assume that some of these were either re-worked or completed after Lloyd left the building.

Charlie's #81250 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?1164) doesn't have a dated label in the mandolin, but was attributed to that date by a Gibson historian.

Many records were lost during a fire in Kalamazoo, though there may still be some documentation out there that survived.

[danb]

There are lots of missing numbers in the Loar serial number batchs. It stands to reason that if a Loar was assigned a starting batch number(FON)that is found under the Loar signature label and then a serial number is assigned later on in the process that some could have gone to the end and not passed the quality standards of Loar and those were trashed. Many were sent back for re-working until they were accepted. Therefore you could have missing serial numbers that will never show up today. To the knowledge of most experts of Loars no unsigned Loars have shown up during this time with Gibson. A few have surfaced without signature labels but it was apparent they just fell out over the years as has been the case in many labels from that time. I guess the glue was not that good.
I've always wondered exactly when an instrument was allocated a serial number. When the label was glued on, there would already be a pencilled in serial number below it, but so far all of those are in a position where it would have been possible to write that through the oval or f-hole.

I think the labels were probably signed outside of the mandolin then glued in over the serial number. There is an example with messier penmanship where someone must have slapped their forehgead and called Lloyd in to sign it through the f-hole!

The S/N also shows up on parts- some F5 pickguards have a serial number (sometimes not the right one!) scratched on the underside.. bridge bases often have a serial number in pencil with "T" or "B" for treble/bass (this detail showed up on 76547 and my '22 snakehead) too.

The working theory is that the batch number/FON indicates a group of similar things ordered at the same time(Frank Ford has pointed out from catalog photos that there was literally a cart of parts wheeled around the shop floor). Sometimes that number helps to tell the story on the strange ones.

Unfortunately, most Loars have unknown batch numbers.. because we can't seem to talk anyone into removing the labels to tell us the stamp numbers http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kudzugypsy]

here's a question brought up by the post about CD's appx Jan '25 F5:

doesnt it seem odd that LL left in late Dec of 24 - and by Jan of 25 gibson had done away with dating/signing the labels and had done away with the varnish finish - it would seem in this case, they told LL to just work out your contract thru the end of the year..... this doesnt sound like a donald trump "your fired" situation.

were they using new labels for the MM's as of Jan 25?

[Brian Aldridge]

Gibson continued using the same Master Model label that was in the signed Loar F5s on the 1925s and until around 1928. Of course, as always with Gibson of that period, there are exception. After the Master Model label came the Guarantee label.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Food for thought:
Monroes July 9 has a Guarantee label over the Master Model label

Fern 84684 Has a MM label
Fern 84685 has a Guarantee label, and the date 5/27 is written inside
Fern 85365 has 2 master model labels over each other
Most Ferns until 87366 had Master Model labels

[kudzugypsy]

so what do you think was the decision to NOT go ahead and date the mandos after Dec '24 if they already had the old label with the space for the date?

i'm thinking from reading a lot of old posts on this subject that its possible they had A LOT of these at the factory as of 24 that werent sold yet - its possible some of these didnt ship out for a while - maybe they thought it would be bad business to have a guy order a F5 in 1926 and get a mando that was dated 1924.

maybe...just maybe, thru detective work, some of these pieces can be put together. i got out some old FRETS mags dated 79-80 regarding loars and its amazing how the theory has changed over the last 25 years regarding this subject. as a matter of fact, they claimed then that a total of 170 were built - plus, there are a lot of *facts* thus uncovered to be errors. i guess just time will uncover most of the rest of the story.

from the readings it seems TO ME (no expert) that Loar was just the "promotional guy" and really was not all that much IN CHARGE of the process. he was, so to say, the first "artist model" in that he was probably well known in the mandolin community much the way companies today pick an endorser or artist model to boost sales. it also states, wrongly imo, that Guy Hart (who was the bean counter) had a lot to do with it - hardly mentioning Ted McHugh (who smartly held most of the patents) in the whole process.

[Brian Aldridge]

The signed Loars have two labels, one is the Master Model label, and the other is the date and signature label. The unsigned Loars and the '25 Ferns and later only have one label.

[Big Joe]

It may well have been that the labels were discontinued after Loar was canned simply because they did not replace him with an Acoustic Engineer...his title. Since that position was no longer they did not need the label and had no one to sign them. The supervisor over the mandolin department inspected them and if they passed, they were shipped out. That would seem the most likely situation to me. There were a very few mandolins that were essentially complete that had not recieved Lloyd's signature and they did not dare put it in after he was gone for corporate political reasons so those very early 25's did not get his signature, though they were complete before he left the plant. Just my theory.

[GTison]

Silly? idea....on the number under the label. Someone get an X-ray machine and see if the penciled in number would show under the label (if it is graphite would that show). Anyone have access? Take an X-ray machine to Loarfest and shoot some film! Doc?

[Brian Aldridge]

Here's something I found interesting. Loar signed F5, serial number 73752 is right in the middle of the July 9 1923 batch numberwise, but it is dated December 11,1923. 73751 and 73753 are dated July 9. It is the 19th number in a row of July 9s. There are 18 July 9 F5s with later numbers after it.

[Willie Poole]

Maybe the mando passed Loars inspection but the finish didn`t look right and went back in for re spraying or what ever they did in those days....I know a fellow that has a D-28 Martin and has the bill of sale with the serial number and the date that his father bought it and the Martin records show it to be a year later....Willie

[Brian Aldridge]

Probably so Willie. Here's another one.
http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?344
Do do happens.

[f5loar]

The FON under the Loar signed label is an inked stamped number not a penciled in number. Most Loar serial numbers on the Master Model label are in pencil but a few showed up in ink done in Loar's handwritting. Monroe got his white Guarantee label over the top of his Master Model label in 1951 when they did that botched repair job for him. Why they didn't slap him a new '51 block fingerboard is beyond me or.... did they and he made them put the old one back on? Even more reason to gouge out the Gibson name from the headstock. Ask Earl Scruggs if they didn't like to slap on whole new fingerboards vs. replaceing frets one by one in those days. Ask Joyce Adams or Mike Marshall about their Loars with block fingerboards. The repair department in the 1930's to 1960's could care less if a Loar came in for minor repairs.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Tommy, I'm not positive, but I remember Monroes Guarantee label being a 20's/30's one, not a white 50's Guarantee label.

Charlie, can you clarify?

[Charlie Derrington]

White 20s/30s (at least it used to be white, it's sort of a grey/brown now). One can see the Master label sticking out of the cracked side of the guarantee label.

Charlie

[johnwalser]

Would 1/2 a Loar be worth $60,0000?

[f5joe]

"$60,0000?"

John, is this "new math"? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Brian Aldridge]

here's another mystery. If you compare Fern 90476 to 85368, here's what you will find. Both have FON 9411. "Gibson" straight across pegheard. Block inlay, starting at third fret. "Made in USA" stamped on back of peghead. The F5 Journal doesn't say it, but I am sure it's safe to assume since 85368 has "Gibson" straight across the peghead, it also has the "short Fern", like 90476 does. See Pis of 90476 here # #
http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?3111

See 85368 at # #http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?2725
what is puzzleing is how both were assigned the 9411 Factory Order Number (1927), but only one was assigned a 1927 serial number, and then both weren't finished until around 1930 or 31. It's easy to see in the pics of 90476 that it is carved exactly like a 1927, and not like a 1930 or 31, as appointments and serial number would suggest.

[chris]

Brian, Why do you say they were not finished til '30 or '31?

[Brian Aldridge]

Because of the appointments- block inlay, straight "Gibson" and short Fern in peghead. Those weren't done until '30-'31ish. Then 90476 is a '30-'31 serial number.

[f5loar]

Then that would add more mystery to Monroe's Loar. Factory repairs before he got it in 1945. Not many of those short ferns around.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Just opinion, but my take on that (Brian) situation is this:
-up until some point of construction, the FON is the only thing identifying the parts of the instrument(s), that are destined to meet in the same place further down the line. #Usually 12 each of them.

I assume that at some point when these parts come together a serial number is assigned which indicates a one-piece semi-complete instrument. (hence a serial number which will be under the label later)

Suppose they decide to assemble only 8 of those 12 with FON 9411. #And on top of that, 2 of the 8 never get bound, finished and strung up. #4 sets of parts remain sorted and awaiting a need for another F-5, along with 2 semifinished assembled mandolins bearing FON 9411 and serial number 85368 on one of them. #

The unassembled FON 9411 parts receive the 90476 number when it goes together and he and 85368 finish their trip down the line and out the door, looking like sisters.

Both mandolins were carved in 1927, neither is shaped like 93723 (FON 1144-4) being carved in 1931, but all are finished and strung up at the same time.

You end up with three different serial numbers, all looking similar, but sounding quite different



93723 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_image.pl?4423)

Note the elongated scroll on 93723, but essentially the same parts and finish as the other two mandolins Brian mentions

[chris]

So more than likely the serial #s were put in when or before the body was complete. Then any neck could go on at anytime. Or, would they have changed the peghead overlay out on an older one setting around?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Could be either way, but I doubt they changed out anything. #I might clarify my above post to say that the FON parts "destined to come together down the line" would include a neck blank, likely rough fitted to the body with no overlay.

The serial number would go in at the very end, when the back and neck were glued to the top/rimset, completing the whole deal.

Remember, they altered the FON scheme to include the 1144-1, 1144-2 1144-3, deal. This would match neck/bodies together before serial number is assigned

[Brian Aldridge]

Here's something else a bit odd, speaking of peghead overlays. 91308 has an earlier style peghead overlay than 90476 does See 91303 at:
http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?2748
Do you have any opinion on how this could happen Darryl? That Fern and The Gibson is just like a '28 and '29 Fern would have. Also, the pickguard on 91308 is the same as used on the earlier Ferns. Would it be that they just found some they had stashed away somewhere?

[Brian Aldridge]

Darryl, does the discovery of 73485 change or influence in any way your thought expressed this thread? 90476 and 73485 have a number of visual similarities.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Yes it does Brian, and I have spent several months thinking about it. I think all of us "educated" folks are missing something with respect to the assembly order, when some sort of color/finish is put onto a part/body.. and batch push to fruition of a complete ready to ship mandolin.

I have deleted several posts where I delved into this new theory, but I am not ready to make it public because I have yet to wrap it into a neat tidy bow.

There are too many anomolies that seem and appear to be able to be explained with one ___. I no longer buy the simple "It was sent back to the factory for this or that", neck replaced, neck refinished, back refinished. There are too many examples to believe that there were that many "repairs" performed.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I will temper the above post with these thoughts, which are unproven pieces of this puzzle:

there may have been salesman samples that were eventually resold as new after being "refurbished"

I do not think Gibson radically changed their philosophy on how best to get from point A to point B from 1923 to 1935.

There are too many oddball mandolins to consider them all oddball, or "bastards". #There is something missing in the mix here that probably relates to something yet to be defined or discussed herein, and I believe it relates to the assembly /production process of which we have no proof of how it really worked.

I think 95% of the mandolins that we "experts" think were sent back to the factory left the factory the way we see them now.

I think we are missing something significant in the production process, the raw parts process and especially the finishing process that leads us to believe things that are simply not fact

[Steven Stone]

I've found this to be a facinating thread.

My personal interest comes from my own fern, 90448.

It has a "suicide fern" headstock inlay - posts through the fronds due to the tuner design, slanted "The Gibson"and other details that place it more in the '29 period than the '31 period of its serial #. It also has a ever so slightly wider neck at the nut (almost 29mm instead of 27mm).

It has an ink stamped # 803 that can be clearly seen if you look through the treble side F-hole.

I have no idea what this number or why this number is there, but it seems to be factory-applied.

[Brian Aldridge]

Darryl, would you mind expounding on "I do not think Gibson radically changed their philosophy on how best to get from point A to point B from 1923 to 1935." a bit?

[f5loar]

Steve, your 803 stamped number is the Factory Order Number or FON. It was applied before the serial number at the start of the mandolin. Usually it is followed by another number in pencil indicating the number of that batch like XXX-2 or XXXX-4. I have seen XXXX-1 so I am surprised yours does not have some number penciled after the 803(sometimes in red pencil). While there are speculated and exact years applied to FON from 1908 to 1924(Loars have the FON under the Loar label so it's covered up) and there are designated years from 1935 to 1942 using alphabet letters(A before the digit number would be 1935 and H before the digit number would be 1942) there seems to be a gap in dating by FON from 1925 to 1934 which is where yours falls in. I have a Fern with a FON of 1934 and a serial number of 1936 which means it took them a year to sit on this one in a batch of at least 4. It's possible to have a batch number of only one F5 during the 30's and 40's. In regards to F5s being sent back for repairs it's known Dave Apollon was pretty regular at sending his freebies back for repairs. I suspect he went through frets and tuners pretty quick during his peak years in the 30's and 40's. Shipping records indicate this fact. And why would not others take advantage of that lifetime warranty?
I know I would and have done so. There were no dozens of high end repair guys in the USA back then to repair one. Gibson was it. I doubt a violin guy could or would want to replace frets back then. The only mystery to me is why didn't Monroe's Loar in 1951 come back to him with a new block fingerboard and redrilled peghead. You know he needed frets and tuners then. In 1949 Gibson didn't mind jerking off Earl's fancy inlayed Granada fingerboard and replacing it with the current bowtie fingerboard. They even put him the new bulky Kluson banjo tuners on it with that awful 1:24 ratio. I really don't think totally we are talking that many redos of the F5s. And no doubt it was left up to the current guy doing the repairs which would explain why there is no method to the maddness that went on in that time frame. You didn't see that type repair done when Lloyd was around overseeing it.

[Brian T]

Is it possible that some of the differences in the Loars of the same batch/year or of the same batch/different year were at the request of a prospective buyer? Some if not most instrument manufacturers would build instruments to order during that time. So it could be that those instruments had those changes made at someone's request. I'm not an historian or mandolin expert by any stretch of the imagination. Just food for thought.

[f5loar]

For certain many of the Loars and Ferns were special order but your custom appointments were limited to what they had at the time. You couldn't order a block inlay fingerboard in '24 because in a sense it had not been designed yet. Or a Fern pattern without the "The" at the top and no top leaf in Loar's time because they had what they had. Same goes for a 1931. I don't see how you could special order one saying "oh and if you would make it one of those signed Loars cause I like they way they sounded better than these new ones you are making" Where would they get a signed Loar in 1931? Unless someone had one stuck back and said here take this one and redo it. Even back in the 30's when they changed the tuners to the ones that had the inner adjustment screw on the worm, pros like Walter K. Bauer were saying "Those new Gibsons aren't worth a ####. The tuners fall apart in 6 months. They sure don't make them like they use to." Bauer and others were switching brands going over to Vega and L&H. I think the best thing you can speculate about this unknown time from 1925 to 1942 is they were pretty good at not being consistant with the F5 not only in how they put them together regarding fit and finish and hardware but also in catalog description and photographs. The Flur-de-lay pattern never shows up in a catalog photo even though it was used 3 years.

[mandophil(e)]

Julius Bellson is mentioned earlier in this thread in relation to comments he made about a "January 4 '25" F5. Are his recollections published anywhere? Or can anyone shed some light on what he said about the small batch of "unsigned Loars"?

[Darryl Wolfe]

I personally am not aware of any Bellson info linking 81250 directly to a ship date. According to Bellson, all the ship dates he had were given to myself and Tommy I (F5LOAR). These have been published in the F5J for years. Maybe someone else has a different story, but that is my recollection of the dealing we had with Bellson many many years ago (around 1980)