Gibson F-2 1924 without a truss rod

[Seppo]

Hi everyone,

there's a Gibson F2 1924 for sale in Northern Europe.
The seller says it is from 1924 but it does not have a truss rod.
I thought all Loar era F2s had one by then.

Am I wrong?

thanks

[danb]

It's most likely not a 1924 mandolin. They all had truss rods from about serial 71000 onwards, so anything from late '22 on got it by default. I've not actually seen an example that has the correct serial/FON combination to date to that period that doesn't have a truss rod..

So probably it's being mis-attributed to 1924. Serial should be approx 75000-80000 to be a 1924. Other features/factors would help date it as well (for example, if it has inlaid tuners.. they are either replacements or date to 1918 or earlier). Post some pictures and we can help you verify it

[f5loar]

I've learned long ago never trust the date a seller gives you on a vintage Gibson instrument. Especially since Joe Spann's book came out. Many rely on Gibson Co. to give them a date based on a serial no they give. Owners sometimes confuse serial nos. with FON. And add to it Gibson had many overlaps in serial nos. and used the same number twice. There is no pattern like when you date a Martin instrument. So I'm with Dan in that the seller likely don't know for sure and you need to get the number(s) from the seller and determine the date yourself and if you don't know how to do it ask us here.

[Big Joe]

The lack of a truss rod automatically dates it prior to 1922. It is not unusual for many vintage instrument to be dated incorrectly by the seller. They are not trying to deceive in most cases, they just have wrong information. People come into our shop all the time firmly believing the instrument is a ---- and when shown why it could not they get a bit confused. We try to handle that very carefully. Often the date question is answered by them by saying their dad (uncle, brother, mother, grandparents, etc) told them they remembered buying it in ----. Most of the time the instrument is not as old as imagined rather than being older, but it goes both ways. I have found few people are trying to lie, but they just don't have the right information.

[Willie Poole]

I know a fellow that owns a `56 Martin D-28 guitar and his father bought it for him as a graduation present and they have the bill of sale from the dealer where they bought it and when looking at Martins info about serial numbers they say it is a `57 guitar so I don`t put any stock in Martins listings either....And this not a number that is listed as one being near the end of a year, it is smack in the middle so that is confusing to me and my friend....I know some of you will say that the dealer might have wrote down the wrong date on the bill of sale but this fellow knows what year he graduated in....I would hope so anyway....

Willie

[f5loar]

Willie if this is true then they should take it up with Martin Co. They would be interested in knowing they screwed up a serial no.
It would be first and likely land a spot in a showcase in their museum. Millions of Martin owners trust their serial no. system. Not withstanding their serial nos. I have seen Martin numbers that are hard to read. One number off could change it one year.

[Chip Booth]

edited, never mind...

[Willie Poole]

Tom, I thought also at the time that maybe the numbers weren`t clear but they were clear as a bell....That fellow has moved up to W.Va. now and I have lost contact with him, I would sure like to say that Martin didn`t make a boo-boo but in this case I feel that they did....One year shouldn`t make any difference in the value but he has always said he would never get rid of the guitar since it was a gift from his late father....The numbers are burned into the wood on the inside of the neck joint and are clear as can be, the same numbers are on the sales reciept/bill of sale....

If I can I will try and look him up but don`t think I will have much luck doing it, a lot of people have asked me if I knew how to contact him, he was the guitar player my original band and I guess people think I know where he is located now days....

[Willie Poole]

F-5 Loar....I just talked to the banjo player from my original band and he said he remembered us talking about that Martin guitar and when we looked up the serial number and year we were using a hand printed list of numbers and it`s a good bet that who ever wrote down the starting and ending numbers of each year probably had them all messed up....We didn`t have a computer print out in those days so it is probably just someones stupidity that led us to believe that Martin made the mistake....Thanks for your input, I always take your comments as gospel when it comes to serial numbers and types of mandolins....

Willie

[f5loar]

I was serious in that if it was true Martin Co. needs to be notified. But long ago it was hard to get a hold of the Martin serial nos. and now they are on the back of business cards. And some don't understand "last serial no." to "first serial no." And even well known long time dealers make mistakes dating a martin. I got bit on a purchase from Gruhn. Bought a '53 D28 and it turned out I had to tell them it was a '54. Never hurst to get a 2nd opinion in having major surgery or getting a Gibson or Martin dated.

[allenhopkins]

Usually use Longworth's book and the later supplement as the authority on Martin serial numbers... Anyone can make a mistake, though, and I'm gradually trying to get less "sure of myself" about info I look up on the internet. Just 'cause someone put it on line, don't make it so.

[Seppo]

Hi again,
the seller 'misread the number' it did not start with 7 after all.
the serial is 49683 which takes it back to 1919?

Seppo