View Full Version : Loar Picture of the Day

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8

Darryl Wolfe
May-20-2004, 10:31am
I've only known one person that wanted the Genie back http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Bobby Osborne

Brian Aldridge
May-20-2004, 1:07pm
You take a Japanese micro thin saw and saw the back off at the binding, reinstall it and glue the back back on.

May-20-2004, 2:33pm
If you take a barlow pocket knife and slightly bend the end.. it works like a charm popping those suckers out http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

May-21-2004, 7:59am
Naw, I was thinking it was more like puttin' on of those ships in a bottle http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 10:25am
72211, A new number. #Will be offered at Skinner

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 10:25am

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 10:26am

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 10:27am

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 10:28am
I lied, one more

Tom C
May-25-2004, 10:41am
Wow. That looks brand new. No wear on the back of the neck. The finish doesn't even look crazed or cracked. I could just feel that grain looking at the pics.

May-25-2004, 11:00am
Daryl, Charlie explain the history of the dot in the I on the gibson script.

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 11:07am
Loars have two patterns...that one and another that appeared around July 9, 1923..like this

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 11:09am
Then they changed to something like this around '28/'29

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 11:12am
an actual '28 F5

uncle ken
May-25-2004, 11:42am
Darryl, why would a seller consign his instrument to Skinners rather than sell through this forum or announce through someone like yourself just like several others have done recently? I would imagine Skinners' fees are rather high.

May-25-2004, 11:42am
What do you think Darryl? Judging by the pictures that has to be the most mint looking Loar I have ever seen. The varnish looks as clear and clean as a new MM. Where in the world do these undocumented ones keep popping up at and when is one going to fall into my hands?

Tom C
May-25-2004, 11:46am
"Where in the world do these undocumented ones keep popping up "
I bet there are some in the NJ area. With the NYC mandolin Orchestra and the Bloomfield mandolin Orch thats been around for a long time. It not a loar I would think there are a bunch of F4's in attics.

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 11:50am
Uncle Ken..I don't know..I imagine it's a matter of trust and just not knowing. This one was bought new and the owner died in 1928

Yes it appears to be virtually mint..I've been told there is only some slight marring of the finish on the back

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 11:52am

May-25-2004, 11:59am
I'll bet this one fetches that $150K plus mark.
Looks like somebody kept it in strings up until the

May-25-2004, 11:59am
Is the age of the 200K Loar close at hand??

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 12:00pm
I present this 71047 August 3, 1922 Loar for your viewing and comments

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 12:01pm

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 12:02pm

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 12:02pm

May-25-2004, 12:06pm
Is that an overspray #of black Darryl?

May-25-2004, 12:08pm
Whats up with the finish and color and the Tuners? looks like a new Flowerpot and Script?

May-25-2004, 12:09pm
In the words of Homer..."mmm, chocolate."

May-25-2004, 12:23pm
This is at least the third Loar Skinner's has put up for auction. They apparently have established a good record for setting the benchmark prices and therefore owner's will consign to them. I went out to see the one that had the original price tag still on it; that was an impressive instrument. That one went for $88.6K, if I remember correctly. This one will be a large percentage higher, no doubt.

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 12:46pm
Come 0n guys...I expected much better from you on the '22

May-25-2004, 12:57pm
Show me the labels inside and I'll tell you!

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 1:03pm
I expected so much more...Tommy, why do you even need to see the labels. Good work Maverick

May-25-2004, 1:20pm
is that single bound?

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 1:21pm
appears so

May-25-2004, 1:28pm
f-4 tuners?

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 1:28pm
Yep..about 1921 or '22

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 1:36pm

May-25-2004, 1:37pm
is this a conversion piece?

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 1:40pm
One has to look at the overall deal and say
Does it look right?
If not, do parts of it?
Are there any original parts to support that it could be a Loar?
What aspects are obviously not right?
What's left?

I haven't seen this in person, but I am 99.8% sure of what it is

Charlie Derrington
May-25-2004, 1:44pm
That's the early catalog Loar. Look at the tuner splay and weird binding. Also, I think I can see where the weird pickguard foot was.

Also, looks like its been re-finished. Of course, I could always be wrong.


Yeah, I'm wrong.

Some kind of conversion.

BTW.......talked to a friend of mine that saw the Skinner Loar. Says it's dead mint. Looks brand new. Skinner estimates it will go for at least 150.

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 1:52pm
Agree...I didn't see the last half of your post.

I thought the same until closer look

Fact...could possibly be orig sides and back
But, likely a 1920-22 F4 conversion

F-holes are not right
FB extension is not right
Inlay is not right
back of neck appears to have a raised volute
instrument is single bound

May-25-2004, 1:55pm
yup I think f-4 conversion

May-25-2004, 3:14pm
The reason I wanted to see labels is I suspect this is the famous "Pink" Calahan Loar that has been passed off as an original Loar for generations. Way back when Gruhn was just getting started and had to get Harry West to tell him it was a fake. Seems I recall the case is a Loar case which explains why there are a few out there missing original cases. I would think the top left curly cue would be all you need to know Loar didn't approve this one.

Ken Waltham
May-25-2004, 3:16pm
I don't think it's even an F4 conversion. It has F4 tuners, no doubt, but the neck heel is not right for an F4 from 1922 or before.
It's too blobby to be 1923 or after, unless it's from the 30's.
The look of the first point cutaway isn't right to my eye, either.
If anything, my guess is it used to be an F12.
However, the case looks real. What a shame....

May-25-2004, 6:13pm
It's an F2 conversion, IMO. binding on the small peghead scroll is way off. Back binding is off. Top is refinished or replaced. Tuners are not arrow-end.

May-25-2004, 7:38pm
Dan,the Tuners on early '22 Loars are not arrowhead.
It should have pearl buttons held on by screws and this don't!
Ken, I thought F12 conversion too because of the heel cap.
And one note on the newly found Skinner '23. If it was so dead mint the silver would still be on the tuner posts.
I see a lot of nicks on the headstock.
This thing has had a lot of wires put on it. Still it's pretty minty and $150K may be way too low for this jewel.
Collector status!

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 8:48pm
Some of you Loar owners really dissapoint me.....there are so many aspects of this mando that are obvious...how do you buy sell and own some of these things without having the requisite knowlege about the details...

Charlie Derrington is the only one that really got it right. #He jumped on it at first ..just as I did....but quickly determined the reality of the situation.....This is how you KNOW..if it's real....you look...you compare.

Maverick..good job..you knew something wasn't right from the getgo

Ken..if it's an F4 conversion..the neck heel isn't original..the god d__m neck has been replaced...!!!!!! #F4's have mahogany short necks!!!!

The peghead scroll is off because either...1..it's totally new or ..2 #Part or portions of the overlay are original.

If you look closely you can see that the "new" binding on the peghead has filler on the big scroll...if the overlay is orig...it was installed slightly left of center which caused the need for filler and screwing up the small peghead scroll...in any case the FPot is NOT orig...the "The Gibson" script might be original..I can't be sure

The back and sides are UNQUESTIONABLY original. #The one piece back is very indicative of a 1920 F4....at this point most F2's were birch, but not always.

Again, I have not seen this instrument in person, and the remote possibility exists that the sides and back are indeed original Loar... true to the serial number and date (but I doubt it)

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 8:58pm
I posted the collage of pictures to give a clue

There seems to be a raised volute on the back point part of the rear overlay of the peghead...NOT GOOD

The F-Holes are too big and not properly shaped..too big at the center

The heel button on the back reeks F4...not flat like a Loar
The tuners are obvious as to what they are
There is no evidence of double or triple binding
The "The Gibson" script is not true to year for even a 1921 instrument.

The FPot is not real at all, but could have been replaced during removal of the overlay

The fingerboard extension has a flat/square side to it ..not seen on any Loar
The fingerbard fretted extension does not have a square corner like almost all '22 Loars have..especially the earliest ones..before they figured out what they really wanted to do....and

the binding in general seems to be white and slightly rerouted into the body

May-25-2004, 9:19pm
I for one don't think the script is original. The lettering is a slight to thin.

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 9:34pm
Agree for Loars..but maybe..just maybe OK for a late teens early twenties F4..check it out

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 9:36pm
It does lack the flow that the "thin" early scripts have

Darryl Wolfe
May-25-2004, 9:37pm
Maverick..email me at http://www.f5journal.com/1923_email.gif
I'm trying to set up my new account

May-26-2004, 7:16am
I just sent you a email Darryl

May-26-2004, 9:00am
Hey Darryl is someone trying to sell the odd ball in question? Or did someone just pull it out from under the bed and send you pics? Or is this some kind of test for the super slueths?

May-26-2004, 9:09am
Hey guys, here's a new way to link to the mandolin archive that reads more clearly...

Here's an example:


Darryl Wolfe
May-26-2004, 9:22am
The mando in question was presented to me as an original...by a Loar owner,,,he wants a repro pickguard for it

May-26-2004, 9:44am
Is this the only Loar he has? (or doesn't have!)

Ken Waltham
May-26-2004, 3:06pm
I still say it's not an F4.
What I meant by the neck heel part is not from the neck itself, but the button on the back, that covers the butt of the neck heel. That's not an F4 "button". More like an F12.
F4 buttons, up to, and including 1923, have what is essentially a 1921 style profile.
That is, they have a distinct point, and a ridge up the middle, to that point.
They did not get the "new" neck proflie, which, BTW, is exactly like a Loar F5, until 1924.
They were obviously using up parts.
In 1922 they are truss rodded, yes, but it is done on a 1921 style neck, and back plate profile.
Agreed, it's maple.
The flowerpot and script are fake, IMHO.
They do not look right. I've got 2 F2's and 3 F4's here right now, with 2 Ferns and a Loar, and it's nothing like any prewar Gibson I've seen.
It's a Randy Wood, perhaps, perhaps someone else, because the refin work is not up to Randy's standards, I don't believe.
Still, it's a shame about that case... it's real.

May-26-2004, 3:36pm
I know when I was trying to find information on my Loar, before I had any clue what I had, I contacted Skinner because I saw the couple Loars they had auctioned. I only found them through a google search. I quickly found that this was a mistake. After a dozen phone calls from them I had to tell them, I am sure you know who, in no uncertain terms to leave me alone and that if and when I decide to sell my mandolin it would be through and to people who appreciate the instruments. I thank God that I got in touch with Scott, Darryl and Dan.

May-26-2004, 7:40pm
Ken is right I believe on the F-4 back. I believe it was 24 when they went to that style button. Here is a good example of a back of a very nice F-4 1922 and below that a 1924 back.

So we know F-4 tuners, back is a F-4 but probably a 24 back instead of earlier. Single bound, New script and flowerpot, raised volute probably on the back of the neck. F-holes seem larger than a loar F-5. Original loar case. So what percentage of this is a real loar f-5?

May-26-2004, 7:41pm

May-26-2004, 10:45pm
If you take it out of the case none of it would be from a Loar! But then again we are talking pre production date here. Few have seen the June 1, 1922 Loar up close and picked on it but I can tell you first hand there is no mistaking this was a prototype Loar and most likely the first one. I can't believe the 2nd one found would be so far off from this first one.

May-27-2004, 3:14am
The bindinng on the headstock doesn't look like a Gibson work. It is mitered... Only triple top-bound models were mitered. The back looks like pre 1920 F4. The flow of curves as well as the shorter upper point. I bet it is a conversion.

May-27-2004, 5:02am
Dat der F-4 is my old flame! and Dawggie owned it subsequently!

May-27-2004, 7:19am
That looks like a nice F-4 der Alan

May-27-2004, 7:46am
1924, #79700. I have a nice photo of Wakefield playing it several years ago. He said he wanted to record with it, never got around to that http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

May-27-2004, 9:17am
Does this '24 have the Virzi? Nothing finer than a '24 F4 with a Virzi in there. I would consider that to be the Cadillac of the round holers.
Another interesting feature of this "early" Loar is the one piece back. Would not a one piece back be considered rare in the F4? Only about 3 Loars have been found with them so far.

May-27-2004, 9:35am
no virzi, 2-piece back

Darryl Wolfe
May-27-2004, 9:36am
One-piece back is fairly common on F4 from the pre-Loar era.

Back to the mando....it is unquestionably original F4, maybe even F5 sides and back..not F12 ect ect. Anything could have been done to the button during building a neck and rebinding. The nuances of the points and the arching are dead givaways

Tom C
May-27-2004, 11:21am
Darn, I thought a A-Jr where they plugged up the round hole, cut F holes, added a scroll and points,painted it black and added an f4 fretboard and headstock. And darn it, they didn't use the different abalone for the different parts on the flowerpot.

May-27-2004, 11:22am
"Nothing finer than a '24 F4 with a Virzi in there."

OK, we've discussed ad infinitum the effect that a Virzi may or may not have on an F5, but what about the effect that it may or may not have on an F4?

Love to hear opinions from someone who's heard an F4 before and after a Virziectomy...

Darryl Wolfe
May-27-2004, 12:21pm
I've owned Virzi F4's and A4's..in each case the resonsiveness of the instrument was considerably more like an F-hole instrument. Firmer feeling string and more edge to the tone. They all had the ability to "drive" them harder without flatlining

May-27-2004, 12:26pm
I think that part of the allure of the 20's F-4 with a Virzi is that it is clearly, maybe the clearest indication, of it being a Loar-era instrument. #My 1924 F-4,
78532 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?2800), has a Virzi and is an exceptionally good sounding specimen of the model. #I certainly wouldn't do a 'virzi-ectomy' to compare the before & after tonal variations, but it, IMNSHO, sounds a lot 'better' than similar models from the same era without the Virzi.

Ken Waltham
May-27-2004, 3:13pm
I've owned several oval holes with Virzi, and I would say they benefit greatly from them. They focus the notes more, and are, of course really cool.
They sure do have that Loar mojo going too.
Can't say the same, IMHO, about f hole mandolins with Virzi's. My prediction is that the current fashion trend of putting them in modern instruments will end when players realize it's killing the sound of their instruments.
Back to this Loar thing, one interesting observation, it has a nickel truss rod cover, which only appears in early 1922. Another red herring, I suspect. I still feel the back button is too long, although it could be a perspective issue in the photograph. One piece back would speak of F4 more than F12.
Have we talked about labels? What's in it? The bogus date of Aug, 1922?

May-28-2004, 9:49pm
I'm missing something here; If you have an original F4 that may have sometype of F5 sides and back and you know you have to put an all new neck and top on this to make it look like an F5 what's left to be original F4, the tuners,tailpiece and headstock overlay? It looks to me the back and sides is the only thing you could use from the F4. So bottom line it's not a Loar even though it appears to have been bought as one.
So when does the lucky owner find this out?
I still say this is the famous "Pink Calahan" bogus Loar.

Bob Sayers
May-28-2004, 11:43pm
I recall a handful of F-4 to F-5 conversions in the 1960s and 1970s--not unlike the numerous Mastertone tenor banjos that were converted to five-strings. #There was no intent to deceive; it was simply a response to the fact that Gibson F-5s of the period were, shall we say, a bit artless. #The practice was kind of frowned upon, though, since the only parts salvaged were the back, sides, peghead overlay, and hardware. #I believe that a well-known fiddler had one converted, though I heard that he later regretted cannibalizing a perfectly good vintage F-4.


May-29-2004, 7:52am
Bob, this is true but in the Carolinas it was more than a handful. And when they photocopied Loar labels to put in them with serial numbers in line with real ones it made it really interesting to determine the real from the fake. It was felt then that if they could convert an F4 saving only the back,sides and headstock they could also build one from scratch but you wouldn't have the same quality wood back then or the exact curl cuts, etc. The inlay would be perfect from those 20's F4s amost like a transplant. Jesse McR. had the most well known converstion back then (I forget who did his but it was dead on it). Others like Ralph Rinzler sported conversions before they real ones. These fakes are still out there today and show up from time to time just like these undiscovered Loars are showing up. But for $130K plus you best know what you are buying. The photos shown here of a converstion in a real Loar case would fool many as has been shown here. We still don't know what it really is as only the new owner has seen it in person. When Darryl gets his hands on it the facts will come out. It I was that owner I would take the next plain to Aiken, SC to find out first hand what I had.

May-29-2004, 7:57am
Saw a very obvious fake Loar yesterday at Bass Mountain, right down to the two lables inside. The owner didn't know anything about Loar when he bought it for $3,000. Good sounding box, though.

Bob Sayers
May-29-2004, 8:09am
Thanks, f5loar, for the additional information. That's very interesting. I didn't realize that folks were intentionally making fake Loars from F-4s. In any event, it's a good thing that others started to make legitimate copies from scratch or there might not be a lot of vintage F-4s around today!


Darryl Wolfe
Jun-01-2004, 11:17am
I did my good deed a while back....I sold an F4 top (at a very modest sum)to a guy who used it to replace his caved F4 top. #He managed to get it on saving the original finish and binding. #I got the top and neck from a guy who had done a conversion to a '24 F4.

The dovetail on the neck is split out, so it's practically useless, but it serves as a wonderful peghead/tuner spacing pattern.

I do hate to go into a luthier's shop and see F4 tops and necks hanging with all of his tenor banjo necks that got separated from the original banjo

Moral to the story...it's not always totally unconscionable to convert, if the leftovers can go to a good use.

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-03-2004, 10:42am
I thought I'd interrupt the Master Model deal and post some new Loars

72059, Feb 8, 1923 on left and 72204 Feb. 26, 1923 on right. The Feb 8 is the one my friend sold the nice fern to acquire.

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-03-2004, 10:43am

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-03-2004, 10:51am
Here's some better shots from my site

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-03-2004, 10:52am
back, both of these last two pics are 72059


Jun-06-2004, 11:00pm
This is what we all aspire to be; owners and players of instruments like that!!

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 8:41am
Here's some new pics of my July 9, '23 (73992)

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 8:42am

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 8:44am

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 8:46am
last one


Jun-14-2004, 8:46am
Daryl - great photography as always!

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 8:52am
One more..the mitered point deal...thanks Mandopete

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 8:55am
This one is for SPRUCE and Scottie

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 9:08am
For Jason by request

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 9:08am
One more for Jason

Jun-14-2004, 9:20am
Darryl...you rock!

Jim Hilburn
Jun-14-2004, 11:04am
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to miss getting the 15th fret right on the line.
If that's the original finish, I want to know what they were using.( But probably never will)

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 12:34pm

I have noticed that many/most Loars have the 15th fret crosspiece located such that the fret is ever-slightly behind the cross piece as shown here. The earlier posts exagerated this somewhat. The finish is original. I french polished the top and back years ago to remove some bad scratches, however.....the July 9, 1923 sidebound mandolins that I have seen ALL appear to be factory french polished..and this one too had the same shine and texture before I polished it.

Scotti Adams
Jun-14-2004, 12:48pm
...simply stunning Darryl...thats a great camera you have too...

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 1:03pm
OK..here's another
yes it is a pretty good camera too

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 1:06pm
Yes, I should have dusted it off better

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-14-2004, 1:08pm

Jun-15-2004, 6:45am
Is it a real Loar? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Jun-15-2004, 8:07am
Is it a real Loar? #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
......well, they got the flowerpot correct!

As I said before Darryl, these are really wonderful pictures! #Would mind telling us what kind of camera you are using and a little bit about your photographic techniques, especially the lighting.

This kind of detail is great to really appreciate the workmanship that went into these small works of art.

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-15-2004, 9:00am
I use a Sony DSC-S85, which is a discontinued 4.0M camera. I think it was $399 when I got it about 1-1/2 yr ago.

I usually set it on the medium resolution setting which yeilds a 1600 x 1200 600kb picture. All the recent pictures where taken in the garge/workshop with the overhead door open. This gives bright indirect light. I try to take outdoor pictures on bright but cloudy/overcast days. Other than that, I've been taking 35mm instrument picture with fairly expensive Canon SLR's since the mid '70's. There kindof a knack to taking good instrument pics outside of a studio setting.

Thanks for the interest

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-15-2004, 9:02am
ps...the Sony Digital has a Carl Zeiss lens with a macro/close focus setting http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

Jim Hilburn
Jun-15-2004, 11:01am
One thing that's obvious from your shots is that you know to take pictures of the mandolin, not half of the yard or bedroom. Photo programs have a trim tool, but not everyone knows to use it.

Jun-15-2004, 11:47am
Not ony that but these pictures are large enough to show the details, but must be under the size limit to post!

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-15-2004, 11:50am
You guys don't understand that I get around the size limit by feeding them from my site..they are not on Scotts server space. Do a right click..properties and check the address.

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-15-2004, 12:01pm
Like this new one for sale at Steve Swan Guitars
75703 Feb 18, 1924

Jun-15-2004, 12:23pm
Okay Darryl, school us on this one....how exactly are you posting these? My understanding is that if yo post it as link, just the URL shows up. What is the magic?

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-15-2004, 12:38pm
"add reply"...not the quick post...then the "image" button on top right...not the http:// button or "attach a file" button...then you type or paste in the address where the picture resides.

Jun-16-2004, 3:42am
You can do it in the quick reply as well. Just scroll down and you'll see the "Image" button. I wonder, is it against users policy to post pics that you didn't take without permission. If you have your ftp account with your pics, just paste the address... You can easily paste the address of a pic you posted earlier without doubling memory usage...

Jun-17-2004, 8:01am
I wonder, is it against users policy to post pics that you didn't take without permission.
As long as you credit the source I'm sure its fine. However, some sites do not like it when you post links to images on their servers. Doing so on highly trafficed sites like this one can lead to a huge spike in bandwidth for the host site (leading to spikes in charges for them as well). This practice, called "image leaching", is frowned upon by some to the extent that they will replace the leached images with singularly nasty, unpleasant images (not PG-13). If you do do this, do like Darryl and host the images yourself--most internet accounts come with free web space that can do this. Be careful!

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-17-2004, 8:53am
Thanks Jasona.....I never link to someone else's site (e4xcept Ebay). Now the practice of lifting someone else's picture is touchy. Generally speaking, I lift pictures only for F5Journal archival purposes with respect to Loars. Also, when I do, I generally know the owner of the picture, and it is fully understood what my intent is. In the case of the Loar pic above, that was lifted from Steve Swans site. I do not know him...but, I know the owner of the Loar. By posting that picture, I have only helped in the interest of the mandolin, which in turn is somewhat of a service to Steve Swan..Additionaslly credit was given. So, each case has to be addressed individually.

Another aspect is the "for profit purposes". In one way of looking at things, anything on the web is public domain as long as you don't use someone else's material for profit/personal gain.

Jun-18-2004, 7:56am
Quick question here folks and this may not the right place to ask exactly, so forgive me but I guess it's worth a shot.

What happened to that Loar looking case in the Classifieds that was advertised as a 1940's? Any idea? Anyone ANyone? Beuler? I didn't know they made green rectangle cases in the 40's, any idea what year it actually was and if it sold...thanks.
I responded to the ad but I heard nothing back....

Scotti Adams
Jun-18-2004, 8:03am
Ethan..if its the one John Irvine had it sold the first day it was listed..

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-18-2004, 8:16am
That case appeared to be a nice repro. The neck rest wasn't exactly right. Maybe not? who knows? More pics may have tiold the story better

Jun-18-2004, 10:50pm
That was my thought on that case. I questioned him about details on it and he said he was mislead and pulled it.
I never saw it relisted. I suspected a reworked Pagonini case from the 70's.

Scotti Adams
Jun-19-2004, 5:30am
..it was probably he case that went with the butchered Sargent Loar copy....he was the individual selling it too...makes sense..I know not long after they appeared they both were on hold real quick..

Jun-21-2004, 6:50am
Anyone know about #75846, March 31 '24 listed at Mandolin Bros.? It is listed as on hold. Must have come and gone pretty quickly.

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-21-2004, 7:02am
I don't know much about that one...typical '24 Loar, and it sold quickly

Jun-21-2004, 10:35am
#75846 at Mandolin Bros. sold in a flash to the first person that called on it for $115k. Price was probably a little bit low.

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-22-2004, 8:24am
Here is something I've never seen before. An original Virzi Ribbon with Gibson plaque as it came wrapped around a '24 Fern Loar (76554). Thanks to Lynn Dudenbostel for sharing this with The F5 Journal

Scotti Adams
Jun-22-2004, 8:28am
..way cool...thanks Lynn and Darryl...great slice of history..

Tom C
Jun-22-2004, 9:15am
It say "Made in Italy". So Gibson did not make the Virzi? Did they buy them stock?
or specifically for F-5s

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-22-2004, 9:28am
Correct...Virzi made violins and used those contraptions in them too. The Virzi deal was a patented and licensed sort of thing...and some of us theorize that there may have been a sort of conflict of interest or falling out of sorts between Lloyd and management over it. Remember that Lloyds 10-string mando viola and his F5 both had one in them

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-23-2004, 2:05pm
Here's a nice '30ish Fern--90476

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-23-2004, 2:06pm

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-23-2004, 2:07pm

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-23-2004, 2:07pm

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-23-2004, 2:10pm

Darryl Wolfe
Jun-23-2004, 2:10pm

Brian Aldridge
Jun-23-2004, 2:41pm
Some interesting things about 90476 are, it is from batch 9411, which dates it to 1927, verified by the way the back is carved at the heel cap. The heel cap is not pointed, and does not have the typical ridge. It is exactly like 85368, also from batch 9411. Both are maked Made in USA on the back of the peghead, but 90476 has a Guaranteed label where 85368 has the Master Model label.

Jun-23-2004, 7:04pm
Also interesting that the tuners stick out over the edge on the right side on the picture of the peghead. An anomoly in the jig? That fingerboard looks wide at the 12th fret and up too. Cool lookin mando though! Got a unique vibe to it.

Jun-30-2004, 5:27pm
L-R: 70946 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/70946) (F4), 76547 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/76547) (F5), 85370 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/85370) (F5)

Jun-30-2004, 5:27pm

Jun-30-2004, 5:40pm
85370 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?2914) is a previously undocumented Fern that came to visit tonight.



Jun-30-2004, 5:40pm


Jun-30-2004, 5:47pm

Jun-30-2004, 5:50pm
Not a new picture of 76547, but heck I love it..


Scotti Adams
Jun-30-2004, 5:51pm
mighty fine, mighty fine...thanks Dan!

Jun-30-2004, 6:04pm
t'was a fun night. Not pictured was a 2003 Gibson Sam Bush, an early (80's??) Vanden F5, and my Lebeda F5.. or for that matter.. the 1930 National Supro and 1931 National tenor guitar!

Scotti Adams
Jun-30-2004, 6:06pm
..there should be a law and I should be a lawyer http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Jun-30-2004, 6:30pm
"Hi, my name is Dan, and I like to see rooms full of vintage mandolins"

"Hi Dan"

Interesting to note on that fern is yet another new tuner plate design (roses around the top screw holes). I've seen enough variation in the waverly tuner plates to want to classify them into batches. I bet we'd find some interesting information out about the Loars & ferns from that. The little tiny details on the plates (stamped leaves, flowers, etc) seem to vary quite a bit between Loar batches etc. Very few close-up pictures of those around though, I only have a few sets I've taken myself really to go on.

Darryl Wolfe
Jul-06-2004, 12:49pm
Nice Fern 86652

Darryl Wolfe
Jul-06-2004, 12:52pm
Another shot

Darryl Wolfe
Jul-06-2004, 12:53pm

Darryl Wolfe
Jul-07-2004, 6:58am
Nice "gaggle" of mandolins
L to R
Feb 18 1924 # #75700 w/virzi
April 25 1923 ##73013
Fern # # # # # # ##86652
unsigned Loar #82369
Fern # # # # # # ##90476


Tom C
Jul-07-2004, 7:03am
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>Boing!</span></span>

Tim Saxton
Jul-07-2004, 1:18pm
I am sprung!!


Jul-10-2004, 5:59am
Can't get enough of these. I hope nobody minds so many pictures of the same mandolin..

#76547 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/76547) is Jack & Sharon Shultz's March 31, 1924 Fern.


Jul-10-2004, 6:01am
Here's a huge photo of the gibson logo (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/76547_pictures/peghead_logo_macro.jpg)

Here's a small one of the signature label:

Check out this little dude with a harp sitting on top of the world, form the Virzi Label


Jul-10-2004, 6:04am
This macro shot of the fern inlay (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/76547_pictures/fern_inlay.jpg) is also a little big to include on the page..

but this one of the serial number looks just about right..


Jul-10-2004, 6:07am
And I know it's huge, but I just have to share it here.. The scroll & side..


Jul-10-2004, 6:16am
This is the virzi stamp on the virzi itself, viewed through the lower bass f-hole:


Jul-11-2004, 2:31am
Another of the scroll


Jul-11-2004, 2:32am

Jul-11-2004, 4:39am
One more huge one...


Jul-11-2004, 4:43am
Last one...


Jul-12-2004, 10:28am
That one of the scroll is album-cover fodder http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Jul-12-2004, 11:22am
Great shots, Dan....!

Any chance of a shot of the same point (the last shot you posted) coming at it from the other side of the point?

I have a tracing of that point from 76547, but a visual from both angles would be invaluable...

The dovetailed bone is a very interesting signiture on those mandos, and a Loar is about the only place you are gonna see it.

Very few makers duplicate this feature...

Jul-12-2004, 5:45pm
for you Bruce, I'll make sure I get it http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Jul-12-2004, 5:46pm
Beautiful photos! #I can't help but think of all the flies I could tie with that chenille under the F-5 though. #Wooley Buggers out the wazzoo! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Jul-12-2004, 5:56pm
10 points to gryffindor for fabric identification sjennings.

Oh to be that piece of fabric 1 month from now, for it shall remember the touch of the Loar, while the memory shall fade in my mind.

or words to that effect.

Jul-12-2004, 9:49pm
Nothing like seeing the real nitty gritty of the world's finest up close and personal. You are seeing details the luthiers who made it didn't see with their naked eye.
When you see the beauty this close up you can almost feel the mystic in each one.

Jul-13-2004, 5:57am
I'll need three towels to get this drool off my Desk Top !!

Great Pictures

Tom C
Jul-13-2004, 7:53am
<span style='color:purple'>Which should be my wall paper for today? Darn, you can wall paper a whole room with all these pics.</span>

Jul-13-2004, 8:04am
I'm lucky, Dan tells me that my MAC keyboard and "no button mouse" has "Drool Protection" built in....

Hmm Imagine if I were to actually play that thing...


Jul-13-2004, 1:34pm
Spruce, Jack here. Hey, 76547 will be back in town after the 1st of August if you want to have a look. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

Jul-14-2004, 4:20pm
Here you go Bruce..

Jul-15-2004, 2:48am
Very Happy Pickers:

Jul-15-2004, 2:49am
Your jaw gets tired from all the smiling..

Jul-15-2004, 2:56am
First time I've really been explicit about it here of course, but I figure most everyone has figured it out by now from the pictures. Jack & Sharon have loaned me 76547 to work on some recording, the first major bout of which I'll be doing with Craig (pictured above with silly grin) this weekend. Looking forward to meeting Jack in the states in 2 weeks, but now's a good time for me to start saying THANK YOU to the Schultzes in public!

Jul-15-2004, 2:59am
who's the bald guy? Least ya coulda done is Photo-shop some hair in there for him!

Jul-15-2004, 10:36am
Only so much you can do in photoshop Craig

Darryl Wolfe
Jul-15-2004, 10:44am
Actually, I thought it was a before and after of you...after an "extreme makeover" http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Jul-15-2004, 11:11am
Here's my favorite shot of 76547....

Jul-15-2004, 3:41pm
Outstanding example. And the Loar looks good too.

Jul-15-2004, 4:15pm
Only so much you can do in photoshop Craig

Like this: http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



Sorry.... couldn't resist http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Jul-15-2004, 6:00pm
Hey this is craig here.... I don't really see a difference... Looks normal to me!!!

(visiting the loar..NOT dan...)

...and ladies he's single...

Jul-19-2004, 3:31pm
I have a couple of photos that were taken of a couple of 1923 Loars at Weiser this year that were forwarded to me that I would like to post, but they exceed the file size limit. The computer and I are basically strangers, so I was hoping someone would have some input about ways that I could post these photos. They are in jpg files, but each are around 600,000 bytes, so I can't post them according to the site instructions. Thanks!

Ken Sager
Jul-19-2004, 5:16pm

Motel 6: $39.99
'23 Loar: $125,000
Lovely brunette holding a Loar at a Motel 6: Priceless!


Jul-20-2004, 3:00am
Ken- it's a '24 ! And besides, they aren't always sipping Cristal Champagne and munching on caviar, most of them are "working mandolins" http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Rroyd- if it's ok to post them on the web site (http://www.mandolinarchive.com then you can email them to me (there's a link here at the Mandolin Archive (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/contact.shtml)). Ignore the bit where it says not to email stuff that's too big.) I can really only add them to the archives if you know the corresponding serial numbers, though sometimes we can figure them out from who the owners are http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Jul-20-2004, 2:44pm
For some reason I can't send them via the link you listed; my computer refuses to function when attempting to connect. I will try to contact the person who sent me the photos and see if he can reduce file size or figure out some way to post them. The mandolins were the featured performers in a 5 hour or so long jam, and were put through their paces by a musician featured in "A Mighty Wind." One of the mandolins has appeared here before, while the other is new to this site, although it has made guest appearances for many years with noted Bluegrass performers.

Jul-21-2004, 6:45am
Hmm, mighty strange if you can't reach the mandolin archive but you can reach the cafe.. they are both on the same server (which I maintain!). Well heck, give it another try I suppose and send me a cafe private message if it fails?

Jul-21-2004, 2:32pm
I can reach the archives site, but it refuses to cooperate when I try to post to the site via the link you listed. My operating system is old enough that I can't use the link listed elsewhere on the cafe the last couple of days that was shareware for modifying photo file size. Anyway, I'll keep looking for some way to get them on. Thanks

Jul-22-2004, 9:17am
Here's Bill Monroe playing The Apollon Loar, #73009 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/73009) circa 1989. His comment at the time was "Notes good" http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Darryl Wolfe
Jul-22-2004, 2:22pm
Nice "unsigned Loar" 81290...looks like a a Loar to me

Darryl Wolfe
Jul-22-2004, 2:23pm

Darryl Wolfe
Jul-22-2004, 2:24pm

Charlie Derrington
Jul-22-2004, 2:26pm
Looks a whole lot like mine........81250


Jul-22-2004, 6:56pm
81290 is from batch 11985, which I believe dates it to December 1924. A great sounding instrument, previously owned by Aubrey Haney (among others).

Jul-22-2004, 10:32pm
Well Charlie the old saying goes, you seen one Loar you seen them all! If you look at the missing numbers between those two numbers that leaves almost 38* more "unsigned" Loars unaccounted for to date. *not counting 81266 or 81268. These unsigned also seem to bounce between Ferns and Flowerpots.

Jul-23-2004, 3:36am
Here's a nice close up of 76547's scroll


Jul-23-2004, 6:14am
a few more pictures of 76547 that you might not have seen yet are here (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/76547_pictures).

Any last photo requests? I'm hading it back to Jack next Friday!

I've got about 500Mb of images of this spectacular instrument, most of the good ones are here already. I'll probably post the outrageously huge ones somewhere on the mandolin archives. Would there be any interest in my burning a CDRom of these images for any builders or just plain enthusiasts?


Jul-23-2004, 4:34pm
Getting that binding right inside the scroll must not be much fun! Here's a nice "Maker's Marks" shot..


If you want to see a huge version of this same shot, here it is (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/76547_pictures/makers_marks.jpg)

Jul-23-2004, 5:05pm
Wow Dan - I'm still a little dizzy from, looking at the big one. It's almost enough to give me scroll envy. Perhaps those makers' marks are a little like the Japanese concept of Shibui or Sabi; an intentional imperfection, natural to the materials employed.


Jul-23-2004, 5:37pm
Ok, one more post from me tonight.. I've posted a fairly long-winded diary of my experience with the Loar so far on the home page of The Mandolin Archive (http://www.mandolinarchive.com). My take on the whole Loar pheonomena, after having had such a wonderful opportunity to explore it personally.

Brian Aldridge
Jul-24-2004, 5:11am
81290 is a gorgeous instrument. Thanks for the pics. Could we see the back of the neck and peghead/tuners?

Jul-24-2004, 12:37pm
Interesting to see this view of the point protector dovetails.. neck is up, this is the upper point..

Jul-24-2004, 1:26pm
OK, folks...

How would you go about duplicating this point feature??

Bind the instrument, and then cut the flat for the point, including the inset into the binding??

Jul-27-2004, 9:05am
Do the new Master Models have this feature to them (dovetail corner pieces)?

Darryl Wolfe
Jul-27-2004, 9:21am
Here's the best I have Brian

Jul-27-2004, 10:44am
mandoryan.. No the Masters do not have this dovetail corner.

Jul-27-2004, 11:06am
Thanks Mav. Interesting..

Aug-01-2004, 4:23pm
Mandoryan, I think the *distressed* masters do have that detail. Charlie showed me his personal distressed master model Gibson, and if I'm not mixing it up with his Loar (easy to do!) I believe I saw that detail on his distressed.

Incidentally, a lot of you guys probably already know this.. but having played about 6 2002-2004 Gibson F5s next to two different Loars a few days ago, my hat is off to Charlie and crew. I am a complete believer. The stuff they are making now sounds spectacular! We did some blind tests against Charlie's Loar (no virzi) and Jack's (virzi) and it was *very* hard to pick the new ones out against the originals.

If Charlie doesn't mind, I got a video clip of him wailing on a bluegrass piece that I could post somewhere soon!

It was wonderful to not only meet Charlie, but then to hear him rip into a pair of Loars and 3 new F5s in his office.. Gibson mandolins are in very good hands http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I got some nice pictures of Charlie's Loar, and a couple new ones of the ones at Gruhn's that I'll post soon as well

Charlie Derrington
Aug-01-2004, 5:18pm
I don't know, Dan....

I wasn't playing very well that day.

Of course, my Loar isn't a Loar. Just very soon after he left. Enjoyed you and Jack coming by and I've just got to say, "Wow !", that Virzi Fern is terrific.


Aug-01-2004, 5:36pm
Well Charlie, I'd hate to catch you on a good day then!

Glad I came to see you after we recorded, I'd have felt too down on my chops to have the right attitude in the studio after hearing you.

You were smokin' http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Aug-03-2004, 1:21pm
Hey all, Jack here.
Dan, thanks for our days in Nashville, they were great. #By the way 76547 says he misses you already http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #How is the three point? #Watching 76547 and his partner, the March 31, 1924 Loar guitar, being played at Gruhn was an experience also.
Being the rookie I am to all of this I was truly blown away listening to the mandolin playing of Dan, Charlie D., Chipper Thompson, Big Joe, Tim O'Brien & Brent Pruitt.
Charlie and Big Joe, thanks for all the insight into 76547's history. #It really educated me and makes me appreciate what it truly is. #
As Dan said, you folks at Gibson are putting out some great mandolins and if there is anything I can do to assist you let me know. #And, if that day was a bad day for your playing I would love to hear you on a good day. #
Thanks again to everyone that I met in Nashville and I hope to see you all again some time.

Aug-03-2004, 6:36pm
C'mon, Charlie, let Dan post the video! We'd love to hear ya pick!

Aug-10-2004, 7:26am
Here's a very interesting instrument, F5 #81250 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/81250).


Aug-10-2004, 9:55am
That one is Charlie's personal F5 http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif A fine sounding instrument!

Aug-10-2004, 10:00am
A pic' of Charlie, Dan and I when we were visiting the folks at Gibson with 76547.http://www.mandolinarchive.com/76547_pictures/charlie.d.jack_dan.gibson.2004..JPG

Aug-10-2004, 11:32am
I feel like "Danny No-Loar" in that picture http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Darryl Wolfe
Aug-10-2004, 11:39am
we'll just call you "Pokey no Loar No More"

Aug-10-2004, 11:53am
Ah, the good old days..


Aug-10-2004, 12:37pm
Charlie had a try on 76547 as well that day, sure sounded good

Aug-10-2004, 12:53pm
Here're Charlie and Dan R playing in Charlie's office. The number of super-fine F5s on hand that day boggles the imagination.. even though we only added one to the multitudes when we walked in http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I bet people will be talking about "Derrington's" in 50 years just like we talk about Loars.

Aug-10-2004, 1:48pm
I feel like "Danny No-Loar" in that picture http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Not only that, but they mispelled your name too dude!

Aug-10-2004, 8:29pm
Charlie or Dan:

Tell us about 81250, please. Beautiful back, looks sweet (in the Archive photos). Is it an "unsigned Loar"? It looks awful similar to 81290, posted recently. I guess they're cousins.

Aug-11-2004, 5:54am
I believe Charlie's out of town at the moment, but I'll chime in with the little I know.. Charlie's F5 is slightly post-Loar.. so call it unsigned or "post-loar" if you will, it's basically near-identical spec to an original Loar, just missing the label, and by inference, Lloyd's stamp of approval. It's a super-fine instrument, spectacular bluegrass chop & tone. Very clear notes, easy to get tone out of it, easy on the eyes.

The "unsigned loar" label often is used to mean that it's pretty much identical to a Loar spec, and either post loar in terms of serial range or sometimes from the 22-24 range but with no signature. Personally, i think that "a Loar" is only "a Loar" if it has the signature.. so that "unsigned Loar" terminology is a little misleading perhaps.

I'd be interested to hear what Darryl & Charlie and other Loar experts think about how the signature process worked.. is it known that Lloyd rejected anything? Were there "seconds" back then? At what point were the labels affixed.. were they signed through the F-hole or outside and then glued in?

Brian Aldridge
Aug-11-2004, 7:30am
I don't believe that Loar "rejected" anything, as there really was no need in it. Or if he ever did it was a very rare occasion. The mandolins they were building were all quite good, abeit, some better than others (read subjective). The unsigned phenom was simply mandos in process, built to the exact same specs. Sans the signature due to the fact Loar was no longer there. Is it a Loar? Same animal. No signature. Would it have been signed had Loar still been there? I believe it no doubt would have. BUT he wasn't and it ain't. That is exactly why the term "unsigned Loar" is so fitting to these 13(?) mandolins that fall into that category. This term is not suitable to the true 1925 and later Ferns with the white binding and lacquer. They are a different animal. This is just my humble opinion.

Aug-11-2004, 8:04am
And humble it is http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Aug-11-2004, 8:40am
Amazing how much value that little piece of paper adds to the price. To me the most interesting thing about the Loars is the sound.. and that's not unique to signed instruments (though it sure does occur in high frequency on the signed ones.. I haven't met a "dog loar" yet, though I've heard the occasional rumor).

Loar signed instruments span from serials 70281-80416.. and there are quite a few "leakers" after that period that have some or all of the hallmarks of the Loars. 85370 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?2914) is an interesting fern with ivoroid binding (the overspray makes it look a little funny in the pictures)... There are many other examples.

The fact that the Loar instruments were at the time a commercial flop goes a way toward explaining some of the "post-Loar Loars" in my view.. extra production could easily have been shipped later. There are many examples of "obsolete" designs coming out later, such as F4 #11051 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?679), which is a teens style F4 with an 'aughts style (orville label/3 pointer) peghead inlay.

In my mind, the source of the market value of the Loars come from the fact that they have extremely detailed provenance and a long history of being considered the very best.. coupled with the fact that there are so few of them.

As far as value in tone/beauty for the dollars, the ferns & unsigned Loars have had a great big bump lately, and there are great ones being made at the fraction of the price new under Charlie's chisel these days http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Aug-11-2004, 8:55am
What about the sound? In my very limited experience with vintage F5's, I've had a chance to play an "unsigned Loar", signed Loars and a couple of Ferns. The "unsigned" is completely Loar-like in sound, and totally different than the Ferns. It shares the darker, more complex tones that the Loars have (no offense intended to Fern owners/lovers).

Darryl Wolfe
Aug-11-2004, 9:00am
Brian has summed it up. The terminology is informally assigned to those instrument that look and feel and sound like a Loar.

One other thing to mention is that this group of instruments usually has the flowerpot inlay. Generally speaking anything post Loar is a fern, so the presence of the flowerpot says Loar Loar Loar. There are however a few post Loar instruments with a Fern that could qualify as "unsigned Loars", but the verbal label or moniker is not usually assigned to them.

Aug-16-2004, 2:09pm
And then there is that extermely rare batch of Fern Loars.
Almost in a league unto their own. More Loar than Ferns these babies seemed to have been Loar's vision of what the F5 should become.

Darryl Wolfe
Aug-17-2004, 6:34am
Spoken as only the owner of a Fern Loar could say http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif

Aug-17-2004, 9:48am
f5loar & f5journal,
I am glad you cleared all of this up for me. #I still get confused when people discuss Loars, Ferns, unsigned, signed, f5's etc.

Thanks http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

uncle ken
Aug-17-2004, 12:06pm
I wish some of you Loar owners would participate in the Mandolin Project. I would love to hear the sound of some of these instruments to go along with the nice pictures.

Brian Aldridge
Aug-17-2004, 4:58pm
Aren't the "unsigned" Loars more rare that the Fern Loars?

Aug-17-2004, 9:11pm
I've heard there's 13 of them. Don't know if that's true or not. I also heard they're all pretty good sounding instruments, even compared with their signed brothers.

Darryl Wolfe
Aug-19-2004, 9:09am
I have 18 Fern Loars and 7 "unsigned Loars" accounted for. #There are numerous "in between numbers" that would put the unsigned potential mandolins in the range of about 18-20. #The main key to the unsigned Loars is the Factory Order Number. #They possess the 11985 and 11896 FON's. #December 1, 1924 signed Loars are FON 11985, and obviously 11896 FON mandolins were built before December 1 1924. #The true Ferns that display post Loars attributes begin with FON 8231, a whole new FON system.

mitch simpson
Aug-19-2004, 10:31am
Actually, the unsigned 81290 F-5 is incorrectly listed as having the factory batch number 11986. I owned that mandolin for a couple of years and it was stamped 11985 also. It must have been misread early and has assumed to be ever since then. I have owned 3 of of the known unsigned Loars and have found them to be completely equal to all of the signed ones that I have had.

Charlie Derrington
Aug-19-2004, 11:01am
You're right, Mitch...

It's 11985. And they are all equal in every respect except one....... that signature label.


Darryl Wolfe
Aug-19-2004, 11:37am
I corrected that...so I guess this means that the unsigned are all presumably FON 11985

Aug-19-2004, 7:18pm
It's not the meat you use but the sauce.

Brian Aldridge
Aug-23-2004, 12:07pm
unsigned 82369 has a FON of 11985

Darryl Wolfe
Aug-23-2004, 2:56pm
Thanks Brian. #This is an excellent example of unsigned mandos. #82369 is a flowerpot with the "unsigned Loar" FON/stamp number and 82348 and 82427 are both Ferns with stamp 8231

Brian Aldridge
Aug-23-2004, 4:09pm
82427 was my first old F5. What a nice mandolin it is. A totally different animal than 82369 though.

Darryl Wolfe
Aug-24-2004, 7:02am
The entire situation above proves that serial numbers are assigned late in the construction process,....and that batches can get mixed up in their relative stage of completion prior to assigning the serial number. Hence, "unsigned Loars" and occasionally a "28 serial number that looks, feels and sounds like a '25

Sep-02-2004, 6:14am
Here's #73682, June 1923 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?125). No day on the signature label. Very nice instrument, the first with the July 9 batch features.


Sep-02-2004, 10:04am


Sep-02-2004, 1:02pm
I just looked at those pics at the Archives and that is one pretty mandolin! Beautiful specimen... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Sep-02-2004, 2:39pm
What are the features of this group other than the triple side binding?


Sep-04-2004, 10:49am
Fantastic, mind blowing,bone crushing,mastertone bashing, incrediable sound with power. As Big Mon said of this batch "She's never let me down"

Sep-04-2004, 12:53pm
I know this is an ignornant question, but what is the deal with Virzi labled mandolins? Whatever they are, are they still used today? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Brian Aldridge
Sep-05-2004, 9:09am
scroll down to virzi

# http://www.mandolincafe.com/archives/faq.html

Sep-05-2004, 4:55pm
1,000th. post of this thread

Sep-05-2004, 7:52pm
Thanks, Brian.