post-Loar F5's

[EggerRidgeBoy]

Something I was reading the other day got me thinking about the Gibson F5's made on December 2, 1924, the day after Loar signed his last mandolin. I'm assuming they would have been identical (as much as such things could be) to those made and signed on December 1, but of course they would not now have the mystique and desirability of the Loar mandolins. How much of the value (monetary and otherwise) of the Loar-signed instruments is due to the rarity that signature gives them (only about 326 made), and how much is due to their actual quality and sound? If it could be determined that a particular mandolin was indeed completed on December 2, 1924, by the same craftsmen in the same room using the same materials as one completed on December 1 and signed by Lloyd Loar, would you consider it the equal of the Loar mandolins in quality? Does the signature simply give the mandolin a "collectible" value? Or is the fact that Loar personally inspected each instrument an important enough aspect of its construction that a December 1 F5 is assumed to be of higher quality than a December 2 one?

A couple other related questions:

How soon after Loar left Gibson did the design/construction of the F5 model change?

About how much would an immediately post-Lloyd Loar F5 mandolin sell for these days?

(I realize of course that no two Lloyd Loar mandolins are exactly the same in sound, appearance, etc., and that any such questions of quality, value and so forth can't really be answered "correctly" - I was just thinking about how much difference a mere 24 hours could make in the history of an instrument. I know more about pre-war Gibson banjos than I do the mandolins, and there no such exact cut-off date with the pre-war flatheads. I also realize that maybe there were no mandolins completed on December 2 - I'm not sure how that process worked. But one could substitute "the next batch" for December 2 and it wouldn't really change my questions.)

[mrmando]

Depending on the instrument, the difference could range from negligible to $25-50K to $135K. F5's made up through 1927 remain highly, highly desirable. There are a few so-called "unsigned Loars" from 1925 (Butch Baldassari's instrument, for example) that would probably fetch near-Loar prices if offered on the market. Meanwhile a good '27 Fern can be had for $90K or thereabouts.

[300win]

Something I was reading the other day got me thinking about the Gibson F5's made on December 2, 1924, the day after Loar signed his last mandolin. I'm assuming they would have been identical (as much as such things could be) to those made and signed on December 1, but of course they would not now have the mystique and desirability of the Loar mandolins. How much of the value (monetary and otherwise) of the Loar-signed instruments is due to the rarity that signature gives them (only about 326 made), and how much is due to their actual quality and sound? If it could be determined that a particular mandolin was indeed completed on December 2, 1924, by the same craftsmen in the same room using the same materials as one completed on December 1 and signed by Lloyd Loar, would you consider it the equal of the Loar mandolins in quality? Does the signature simply give the mandolin a "collectible" value? Or is the fact that Loar personally inspected each instrument an important enough aspect of its construction that a December 1 F5 is assumed to be of higher quality than a December 2 one?




A couple other related questions:

How soon after Loar left Gibson did the design/construction of the F5 model change?

About how much would an immediately post-Lloyd Loar F5 mandolin sell for these days?

(I realize of course that no two Lloyd Loar mandolins are exactly the same in sound, appearance, etc., and that any such questions of quality, value and so forth can't really be answered "correctly" - I was just thinking about how much difference a mere 24 hours could make in the history of an instrument. I know more about pre-war Gibson banjos than I do the mandolins, and there no such exact cut-off date with the pre-war flatheads. I also realize that maybe there were no mandolins completed on December 2 - I'm not sure how that process worked. But one could substitute "the next batch" for December 2 and it wouldn't really change my questions.)

Man good luck with this one. If you ain't careful you'll have some folks on here "skeered".

[f5loar]

You ask a lot here and most can be answered by doing a search on the word "loar" which would probably produce a 100 pages or more of reading.
Generally in the past the post F5s were priced at about half the then going price of a signed Loar F5. So today if a Loar is still priced around $200K you should be able to find a nice mid 20's F5 for around $100K. The few exceptions being those few early '25s that were likely completed in '24 under Loar's supervision. He was there until after Christmas so quite a few days more after that Dec. 1 '24 batch of F5s. It was not time to sign again before he left. There were minor changes at first mostly to gold parts vs. the silver parts. Some Loars were customed ordered with gold parts in '23 and '24 so that was not that odd to see but you don't see many silver parts after '24.
The top graduations got a gradual change over the next few years. The binding was changed. And biggest change was from flowerpots to fern inlays although there was a huge batch of Ferns in '24 signed by Loar. Now the question remains does that little signed paper label make the 20's F5 worth double the price? Seems many think so.

[EggerRidgeBoy]

I know mine was a rather long post with lots of questions - thanks to you both for answering them. I had done some research but hadn't quite found what I was looking for.

Your information about those 1925 "unsigned Loars" (a phrase I didn't think to search) pretty much answers my question(s). If they can fetch near-Loar prices, it seems that the fact an instrument was built under his supervision is the most important point. I did not know that is what Butch Baldassari played.

As for the other mid-20s F5s, half of $200,000 is still just a tad outside of my price range. :)

Anyway, thanks again for your replies.

[man dough nollij]

Here's one from Mandolin Central (http://www.mandolincentral.com/Unsign.html), January '25.

http://www.mandolincentral.com/Unsign.jpg

I saw another nice one for $90,000 some time today, but I don't remember where.

[Ivan Kelsall]

What determines a Mandolin's status as an 'unsigned Loar' ?. It's a term i've seen often & never really understood. I'm wondering if it's like an un-signed Rembrandt or an un-signed Picasso ie it's something 'attributed to' that may or indeed may NOT be, that which it purports to be, & is purely the opinion of a valuer /expert. If Lloyd Loar didn't sign it,then can it actually 'be a Loar proper',a Loar era,certainly, but a Loar ??. I'm not trying to be controversial here,i just want to read the opinions, as i'm sure there are others who wonder about the same things as myself,
Ivan:confused:

[Mandoist]

A feller would have to be fairly poor-minded to not invest in a true Loar for anything in the $90k range...even if the "investment" is merely for re-sale.

So...where are these $90k Loars?
Contact info, please...

[Darryl Wolfe]

The mandolin pictured is probably one of the best examples of an "un-signed Loar" we have. This mandolin exhibits features generally found in February 18 and March 31, 1924 Loars. It does not look anything like the majority of December 1, 1924 Loars (the last signed batch) and it does not look like the post Loar first run of "Ferns". This is why they are referred to as un-signed Loars. They look like, feel like, but just are not signed. The serial number places them post Loar though

[Capt. E]

A friend of mine in Austin owns a Dec 2 '24 F5. It is exquisite instrument that seems to be identical to the signed Loars released just before. I have played it briefly and can attest that the sound it produces is wonderful indeed. Just holding it gave me a thrill. You know it was a completed, fully built instrument when Lloyd Loar last walked the halls. I would expect LL had already inspected it...just had not signed the label.

[allenhopkins]

Since we have the heavy hitters of mandolin historical expertise posting on this thread, can I ask a question? When in the Gibson manufacturing process, were labels put on the mandolins? Was it just before they went out the door?

Seems like a mandolin like the one in question could have been hanging around the G factory for several months, for whatever reason, and being built under Loar's supervision. When it finally came time to ship it, Loar was out the doar (ain't I clever?), so didn't sign the label.

Not easy to slip a label through the f-hole of a completed mandolin, and glue it to the back, but I have to believe that's how it was done. Hope someone with real knowledge can weigh in...

[f5loar]

A Dec. 2 '24? No such sign date has appeared to date.
Are you sure it was the 2nd and not the 1st?
Maybe a fake?

[Ivan Kelsall]

I've always been under the impression that the label was added after inspection by Lloyd Loar himself.Then if the instrument was of a 'superior' quality,the label was then signed by LL,the serial # added,& the label pasted into the Mandolin. Now,given that the Mandolins were all straight off the line & not played in,then none of would have sounded their best. Are we then to suppose that LL with his musicians ear,could tell which were 'going to be' exceptionally fine instruments ?. We could then suppose that one or two instruments or more,may have been 'sleepers'.ie instruments that weren't thought good enough at the time to warrant signing,but have since developed 'superior' tonal qualities that equal the 'signed' Loars ?,
Ivan;)

[Darryl Wolfe]

There is no evidence of Loar actually playing and approving the instruments. This appears to have been a marketing gimmick. He surely had some oversight though. All evidence points to signing a bunch of labels on a Monday morning approximately once a month and the labels (both) being installed into the instruments at some point very close to completion

[Ivan Kelsall]

That's an eye opener for sure Darryl !. Then why didn't he sign enough labels for them all ?. What you've just said,seems to maybe lend more weight to my argument that many of the un-labeled ones,could be just as fine an instrument as the labeled & signed ones,if no selection based on tone' was employed. It seems as though a purely arbitrary method was used to select the ones that were going to have a signed label - very curious in that so many 'signed label' ones became 'superior' instruments. I'm begining to understand the 'unsigned Loar' a bit moar ( LOL ! -that's ghastly !!!) :)),
Ivan~:>

[Nolan]

Then why didn't he sign enough labels for them all ?.
Ivan~:>


I believe LL spilled out all the varnish on the floor of the factory and took all the labels with him when he left one night in Dec. I read here on the cafe that the next day they tried to scoop up as much varnish as they could to finish the remaining F-5's but the signed labels were obviously gone so they couldn't add them to the mandolins. I guess all this means that if you have a post dec 1, 1924 varnished f-5 that it may have a little more grit in the finish.... these may have been the very first "Distressed Master Models"!

[Capt. E]

Correction, not Dec 2, I meant post Dec 2. It was in the first batch released by Gibson without LL's signature.

My friend's F5 is NOT a fake in any way.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Look at it this way. Did Lloyd really one by one look at, play and approve and then sign his name and date on a label that went in over 50 consecutively numbered (in three batches) Loar signed instruments on Monday February 18, 1924. No he signed 50 labels and they went in instruments as the batches came across somebody's workbench. When he left they threw the labels away with hand fulls of hand fulls of F5 mandolins still coming down the line.

It was the small but important changes that happened a bit later that differentiate Ferns from the signed and unsigned "Loaresque" mandolins. Most importantly were changes in the finish type and density, slight neck angle changes and the templates for carving were either replaced or possibly repaired to account for wear which resulted in moderate changes in the arching (most particularly the back) Something also changed that resulted in the tops and back being carved consistently one notch thicker

[Darryl Wolfe]

So in summary, the "unsigned Loars" are just that. Mandolins that for all intents and purposes are Loars, they simply preceed the moderate changes and details that distinguish Ferns from Loars. In the unsigned case, the missing label is the only missing detail and the serial number always places it between the last signed Loar and the consistently slightly different Fern era mandolins. Loar had left the building, but he did not take all the mandolins with him :-)

[Ken Olmstead]

Cool thread. Seems we think of Gibson's golden era as the "Loar" instruments, I certainly do. However, one only has to stop and think about it for a moment to remember that Gibson was an organization made up of many talented folks at that time. All organizations ebb and flow in terms of Human resources. The management can guide a lot of what is happening but excellent work is ultimately executed by talented unknowns. The Derrington era would have to be viewed similarly, and Mr Harvey probably has his hands full with many of the human resources issues that Lloyd and Charlie did. Just got to get it firing on all cylinders for a period of time to get the exceptional results necessary to be noticed. I have just read the classic "The Time Traveler" and I sure wish I had that machine to tour that factory during that period!

[ellisppi]

I had posted a while back about this and a few other things
Bringing Loar in and trying to resurrect the dying mandolin was a last gasp effort and it was unsuccessful, however, the production dept. had lots of capacity and building 150 F-5's/yr, they wouldn't even break a sweat. My opinion is that an F-5 doesn't take much longer to build than an F-4, the big difference is the finish which takes longer, and that is why as soon as Loar was fired Christmas eve 24, Gibson immediately went to a sprayed sunburst color, white binding and lacquer finish which was much faster to apply and every manufacturer was switching to. Because an oil varnish/french polish finish takes about 3 weeks to do, there was one last batch of Loars hanging in the drying room over the Christmas holidays and this is what Jullius Bellson referred to as the Jan 4th 1925 batch, these are the unsigned. There are about 9 of them known. I've seen Butch's mandolin and it has white binding and a lacquer finish and is from the next batch, I think. The one Tony has for sale is the last one, I think. I've seen 4 of them and I wonder if Grisman's famous 25 has ivoroid binding (it had been refinished), also I think the switch to gold hardware had already been decided by Loar. Silver doesn't wear so well and Loar's personal mandolin had gold hardware. The signed label was put in last thru the F-hole. the master model label w/ serial#, I'm not so sure. I think you would find the batch # under the signed label as that's where it is on 81251, the mandolin Capt. E mentioned