only 170?

[johnny]

I've just been reading Bill Monroe's biography by Richard Smith, and it says when Lloyd Loar worked at Gibson from "1921 through 1924, he approved and signed about 170 of the F-5 mandolins". No wonder they cost so much now. I wonder how many other mandolins he approved while there.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From what little i know,Lloyd Loar was also Gibson's quality control manager as well as product developer,so he probably 'approved' many instruments.The ones that he signed,where the ones that he personally regarded as being of an especially high standard compared to the rest.That doesn't mean to imply that the other instruments were any less good,simply that Lloyd Loars 'personal opinion' was that the one's he signed were 'better' sounding,
Ivan;)

[allenhopkins]

Loar also signed labels on L-5 guitars, H-5 mandolas and K-5 mandocellos. I gather he signed the single A-5 mandolin as well (?). These also were instruments he designed, as opposed to the other instruments produced during his tenure, that were models Gibson already made.

I was told he also designed the (fairly unsuccessful) tenor lute as well, so when I bought mine, I checked out the label for the fabled signature. It does have a "Master Model" label, but not signed by Loar. Poop.

[Ben Milne]

Very old thread. (http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/showthread.php?375-How-Many-Loars-Exist)

It will be interesting to hear Darryl, Dan B and Tom chime in on the current situation.
There are some 1925 F5s that are referred to as unsigned Loars... Basically they would have been built during Loar's tenure at Gibson but didn't get Lloyd's ink on the label.

[Big Joe]

Lloyd Loar was the force behind the F5 mandolin and he signed all the labels for the F5 and other 5 style instruments while he was at Gibson from 1922-1924. Any instrument finished after 1924 did not have his signature. There were a few mandolins that had been essentially finished, but not signed before he left. These would be the same as the ones he did sign, but without the label. As they migrated away from the varnish to nitro lacquer there were a few mandolins that had been assembled but not finished. They were finished in nitro and are also transitional instruments. This was a very short transition period.

Very shortly after the first of the year in 1925 the mandolins were not only finished in nitro lacquer, but had the Fern headstock. These mandolins would be the majority of production in 1925 and thereafter. Charlie Derrington had a transitional 1925 that had all the Loar treatment and was varnish. Another well known transitional instrument from that period and only a few serial numbers away was similar except was nitro rather than varnish.

These are the bulk of unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins. There are also some that are clearly instruments he did sign, but were returned to the factory for work after he was gone. It was common for them to remove the labels and relabel the instrument. It was also common for the factory to spray a coat of nitro over the mandolin to make them look new. They would also replace the hardware. The standard method of repair at most factories was to make the instrument appear to be new when returned to the customer to the standards used in the factory at that time. This does account for some of the oddities in old mandolins.

So, the "real" Loars that were worked on at the factory after Loar had gone may also be unsigned Loars. The sad thing is that the label missing or replaced makes such a difference in the price of the instrument. It does not affect the quality, or tone, or wonder of the instrument, but it does affect the value of the instrument just as altering the originality of any instrument may affect future collectors value.

[OldSausage]

Vell, Lloyd Loard, he was just zis guy, you know?

[f5loar]

He didn't sign many in 1921 ! Smith's book does have a few errors and that is one of them . The first known signed Loar F5 is June, 1922 with the next ones in Nov. 1922. No doubt that June, '22 Loar is the prototype for what was to come.
The 170 count was likely the number known at the time Smith wrote the book shortly after Monroe's death in 1996. More have been found as the gaps in serial nos. narrow. I've not counted it lately but it's over 200 F5s.