View Full Version : Earliest virzi?
Mandorlando
Dec-24-2007, 12:58pm
What is the earliest known Virzi Loar? Does anyone know the serial #?
MikeEdgerton
Dec-24-2007, 1:21pm
Take a look at this (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/list_mandolins.pl?virzi) link. There is also a search for Gibson instruments with Virzi's, not signed by Loar and some of those have much earlier dates.
Darryl Wolfe
Dec-25-2007, 12:37pm
1922 (Loar Period)
Mando-viola, Style (no model)
Serial Number 70321
Factory Order number: 11729
Virzi Serial Number 10093
Darryl Wolfe
Dec-25-2007, 12:37pm
Signed and dated by Lloyd Loar January 12, 1923
Mandolin, Style F5
Serial Number 71900
Factory order number unknown
The instrument has a Virzi tone producer, but the serial number is unknown
Gary S
Dec-25-2007, 6:55pm
I own a 1919 h-1 mandola #48862 with a virzi #10145. It had been suggested to me that it had been a retrofit. Maybe the back had been removed and a virzi installed. Though I had not had a professional luthier examine it, there are no obvious signs of back removal. The virzi # is not the earliest # posted. Great sounding dola...Gary
f5loar
Dec-25-2007, 7:14pm
If Gibson took the back off and put it back on with a refinish at the time it's likely you won't be able to tell it. Factory redos by the same guys that did the original are usually near perfect.
Darryl Wolfe
Dec-26-2007, 9:47am
Gary raises a good point with his not being the earliest Virzi number. One thing we know is that they were not installed consecutively. There is some sembelance of order with the higher numbers being later. Now, time for another Darryl theory: it appears that all of the Gibson installed Virzi were serialized starting with 10000. With that in mind, 10001 should have been the first one. We know the highest number is in the 10650 range or thereabouts. (I do not have my spreadsheet available it this moment)
We also know that as Tommy said, they did retrofit them. This was offered in their catalogs in clear print. We know that they would do this nearly indetectably. I would suggest that most any 23 or earlier instrument was retrofitted. We see no real Virzi trend until 1924 with the 756xx serial numbers
chris
Dec-26-2007, 10:03am
My Loar,75812 is the one with 10000 virzi # #A couple of things with this one that differ from most is, There is no virzi ink stamp on the virzi itself and The one foot of the virzi goes over the tone bar instead of right up to it. #This among other traits of the mando lead me to believe it is a holdover.
MikeEdgerton
Dec-26-2007, 10:08am
So this (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?162) December of 1923 Loar was probably a retrofit then? That might make sense. Somebody that purchased it might have wanted his or her last year's model brought up to the latest specs. Then again, might this be the prototype that preceded the production models?
Ken Waltham
Dec-26-2007, 11:21am
Charlie always felt that the LL F2 that I own was the earliest Virzi mandolin. He felt that even the hide glue was different, and that it may have been installed by the Virzi Bros.
#76642.
f5loar
Dec-26-2007, 11:41am
Ken, what is the Virzi No.? Remember the Virzi was an option in the '23 catalog on the Master Models but became a standard on the '24 Master Models according to the '24 catalog. That's the reason you see more '24s with one originally then '23s. Also noted the Fern Loars all had them. You had to order the MMs without one in '24 and if you had a '23 you wanted it added to it cost you extra before or after the fact.
Michael Gowell
Dec-26-2007, 7:35pm
Ken, does your reference to "LL F-2" mean the one he owned? #I've got a photocopy of a page from some promotional material for the Fisher-Shipp group and the 20-something Loar is holding a 3-point F-2 (no fancy headstock inlay or binding.)
cooper4205
Dec-27-2007, 7:59am
Ken, does your reference to "LL F-2" mean the one he owned? I've got a photocopy of a page from some promotional material for the Fisher-Shipp group and the 20-something Loar is holding a 3-point F-2 (no fancy headstock inlay or binding.)
it's this beautiful F2 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?3286)
Ken, does your reference to "LL F-2" mean the one he owned? I've got a photocopy of a page from some promotional material for the Fisher-Shipp group and the 20-something Loar is holding a 3-point F-2 (no fancy headstock inlay or binding.)
I'm not sure which one the 3pt is. The extension is removed, and there are some interesting pickguards around the soundhole.. Also unaccounted for is Lloyd's "other" 10-string, which appears to be based on an H2 body and made approx 1917
Some of the early ones on this list (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/list_mandolins.pl?virzi_noloar) are certainly retrofits (the harp guitar, for example!). Others are from the Loar range but not a style 5.
One of the catlogs (N I think) has an advertisement for the virzi retrofit. I'll look for that..
rimspoke
Dec-27-2007, 12:42pm
ALL OF THIS VIRZI IS MAKING ME DIZZY .
It seems to make more of a difference if your pick of choice is of the lighter variety btw, heavy picks are already somewhat "Reducing overtones". My weapon of choice is 72 clayton which you can hear the virzi difference with
Glassweb
Dec-27-2007, 8:51pm
"heavy picks are already somewhat "reducing overtones"...
Ah... it seems I'm not the only one who feels that these new, ultra-heavy picks cause a reduction in overtones and other "resonance frequencies".
f5loar
Dec-27-2007, 11:22pm
Those thick picks produce such a different tone I won't use more than a 1.0mm.
uncle ken
Dec-28-2007, 12:57am
I think the material has a bigger affect on the tone. I have a collection of different materials, all around 1mm thick. The softer materials like Delrin seem to kill the overtones more as opposed to nitro or ultex.
I thought the purpose of the virzi was to enhance overtones, not dampen them. The F5s with virzi that I've played seemed quieter than the non virzis but I didn't notice any loss of overtone. I would like to play an old F4 with virzi someday.
markishandsome
Dec-28-2007, 5:54pm
I use 3.0 mm precisely to kill nasal, wimpy sounding overtones.
Eugene
Dec-28-2007, 6:26pm
Not Gibson and perhaps too off-topic to be welcome on this thread, but the Virzi concept was nothing new when the Gibson Co. laid hands to it. It was applied to "double-top" mandolins by Ceccherini of Naples in the 1890s.
sunburst
Dec-28-2007, 6:52pm
We know that they would do this nearly indetectably.
Have you seen examples?
I've only worked on two old Gibsons with retrofitted Virzis, and in both cases I could tell the back had been off even though one of them had been refinished. Mind you I've had a few instruments apart and I know what to look for, it wasn't obvious on either one, and a casual observer probably would never guess, but were some of them undetectable to a luthier?
Hmm, well assume a factory refinish done in the 1922-1924 range. Could you spot it? They had original materials, etc.
You lose a little thickness to get everything just so again, but imagine you had a Loar, a time machine, and a chance to have it refinished in Kalamazoo in 1923.. Could anyone tell for sure?
Glassweb
Dec-28-2007, 7:22pm
a Loar, a time machine, and a chance...
Consider the possibilities!
sunburst
Dec-28-2007, 9:31pm
Hmm, well assume a factory refinish done in the 1922-1924 range. Could you spot it? They had original materials, etc.
The one refinished Loar (1922) that I've had in the shop with a retro-Virzi no longer had the dovetails into the back binding on the corner protectors. Apparently, they flattened the back of the rim to glue the back back on and took off the dovetail angle on the corner protectors in the process. Even with a perfectly executed period refinish, that would give it away. (The dovetails were still there in the top binding.)
Of coarse the earlier date of the mandolin and the later date of the Virzi were a little suspicious too. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
One more tonal comment- I have a friend visiting with wiens #21 (no virzi). We have a very hard time telling them apart with eyes closed. Out front, they are near identical (slight differences in the high register). When you're playing them, the virzi one sounds like they both do out front, the non-virzi one sounds a bit different to the player than the listener.. so they also seem to work like a monitor http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Darryl Wolfe
Jan-02-2008, 4:00pm
So this (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?162) December of 1923 Loar was probably a retrofit then?
Mike and Sunburst
Nearly undetectible to the casual observer, not necessarily us.
I believe the Dec 23 Loar in Mikes link had the back off. Notice that the binding is not as tall and there is some finish missing along the edges.
F5Loar had a Dec 24 that had been retrofitted also. The entire rimset was thinner (not as tall). That mandolin also was killed by the Virzi. The thing sort of whined. I took it out.