Loar Picture of the Day

If I know the order right (Darryl standing by to rip stripes off my uniform)

Bill sent it back for some light maintenance, it returned refinished. He scratched the extra finish off with something because it made it sound very dull.. Bill then scratched the logo off the peghead out of anger. Later when it was damaged by vandals, the peghead overlay was replaced as well. I think a little finish went on it because you can see a more even top with slight gloss than there was before.. It's final state is basically as it was after the Derrington repair

Pre-vandalism

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/image..._vandalism.jpg

Post restoration

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/image...ter_repair.jpg

The mottled color is most likely a result of the refinish, scratch off, playing wear and then a light topcoat when Charlie repaired it? Hope I got this right.. Darryl...

But I'm pretty sure there was a time before the vandalism when they kissed and made up. At least the inlay was restored at that time.

Actually, I'm starting to think I have these events mixed up and that I'm thinking of when he had it returned to him after the damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by (Jim Hilburn @ Aug. 12 2006, 09:34)

On Bill's, at the time the inlay was restored and before it was attacked, was there any re-finish work done?

---

Not to the body

Dan, (no stripe removal) #That is the suggested and generally accepted story, however, I have examined the mando many times and do not find any evidence of extra finish and that finish in the center of the top appears fully original. #That certainly does not explain how it went from mint to worn out in a year or so.

Charlie certainly applied some stain and some finish to the top during the repair.

The peghead repair was done in the early 80's right after the F5L was introduced

So My memory isn't totally gone after all.
They fixed the peghead in the 80's, but didn't do any re-fin.
I know that pic of Barnwell presenting Bill the mandolin at that time is around somewhere, but I can't find it.

Darryl- didn't bill scratch off the extra finish applied on top at some point? To me that explains the super-worn look, you would normally get some clean stuff under the strings where no pick/arm wear would normally occur

By the way- the lower of the two pictures above.. seems to show a different tailpiece cover (no extra engraving below the "Ears") to the ones from the CMHF..

In the pre-restoration photo are there initials/letters scratched in the top between the tailpiece and bridge (under the E course). If so, what's the story, if not... I'm not drinking but maybe need an optomitrist.

Jamie

Maybe even visible post repair (image flipped from above)?

Jamie

I think if you looked back possibly in the old Loar thread, seemingly C. Derrington said that and provided pics of those letters pretty clearly. " B M + B M " what that stands for is a guess (Bill Monroe + Bessie Maulden)
The Repair dates escape me know but several months separated the headstock repair and the vandalism. There are old 'Frets' Magazine articles about each. But there were 2 distinct separate times that it went in during the 80's. The kiss and make up when they gave him an F5L to play and the vandalism Repair later.

[QUOTE]That certainly does not explain how it went from mint to worn out in a year or so.

MINT! ? Was it? I thought it looked beat in all those LP album photos in the 60's binding, finish etc.
And It does look several shades darker in the middle after the Vandalism repair.

I thought it said "Bill Monroe" under the strings between tailpiece & bridge..

Thanks guys. Now I can have that drink! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/...ns/biggrin.gif I can kinda see BM BM twice. Otherwise, it just looks like my mother.... oh.. scratch that.

Jamie

Okay you guys are all over with these Monroe repair dates.
Let's get it right if you are going to discuss it. To start the date bought for $150 in the Barbershop in FL has been misprinted many times mainly due to Monroe's memory when he was first asked the question in the mid 60's. Tom Ewing got to the facts and with his excellent research could prove Monroe was indeed only in a winter in Florida in Jan. 1945 which also coinsides with the first recording with the Loar on Feb. 13, 1945. In late 1951 he dropped it breaking the neck at the heel. The scroll had also been off by this point many times. It should be noted that Monroe housed the Loar in a Gibson shape case not a Loar case which may have been the case it came with. In 1951 I suspect the only way to get a neck back on a Loar F5 was to send it back to the factory. He did that and also asked for a few other things be done like a refinish. He also expected them to give him top priority in get it back quickly. It came back in the summer of 1952. I would suspect he was presented a heafty bill at the time too as he was not the original owner. How do we know this? Sonny Osborne has long told the story that when he was a BGBoy he was there when Monroe pulled his pocket knife out to scrape the finish off. Sonny was with Monroe the summer of 1952. Why he did it we don't know other than Monroe says Gibson only put the neck back on and did not do the other things he wanted done like frets, refinish, new tuners. It is possible that they did overspray it with lacquer. A practice common back then. Maybe or IMO he didn't see evidence of a total refinish and in anger/protest of being charged, keeping too long he removed the "Gibson" name and the overcoat finish. Add to that the fact that Gibson did not endorse Monroe as a Gibson user while they did endorse Scruggs by this time. Do we need to go down the Monroe/Scruggs feud? I suspect Monroe knew by 1951 he was selling F5s for bluegrass use not classical although they only produced 44 F5s by 1952 since Monroe got his in 1945. That would explain going from near mint to very worn quickly leaving traces of the original Loar varnish. After all it only had 6 years of wear at this time since we do know by the photos like Darryl says it was near mint when he first got it in 1945. Gibson gives Monroe the new F5L when it comes out in late 1978(Monroe got No. 1 dated June 1,1978).
Later he accepts their free offer for repairs and in Sept. 1980 Dick Doan headed up the team to replace the scroll with a totally new veneer headstock, new tuners and a new fretboard. Nothing was done to the finish at this time. The vandal does her thing to both Loars on Nov. 13, 1985 while Monroe is out in town for lunch. CD returns the repaired July Loar on Feb. 25, 1986. The other Loar much later. I welcome any disputes of these dates.

Didn't Greg Rich have the original peghead veneer/overlay from #73987?
I think he did hands-on repair work at Gibson when the restoration was done to the mandolin.
The above chronology of repair work comports with my knowledge of Monroe's mandolin as well.

Dick got the credit for it. Wasn't Greg more into the banjos then? Seems I recall CD got the overlay in his posession.

thanks Tommy.

Greg was not at Gibson at the time Mr. Monroe's mandolins were fixed if I recall. Also, knowing Charlie, I am sure he did whatever staining was needed but the only finish he would have done is french polish. He certainly would not have sprayed lacquer on any of it. Not even that many years ago. We talked about that job from time to time and I'm pretty sure he just did a french polish to the mandolin before returning it.

Thanks Big Joe. That is my take on it too (Charlie's work). I do believe they did some minor satin lacquer touch up during the peghead deal (peghead only). Agree?

Quote:In 1951 I suspect the only way to get a neck back on a Loar F5 was to send it back to the factory. He did that and also asked for a few other things be done like a refinish. He also expected them to give him top priority in get it back quickly. #It came back in the summer of 1952.

I thought he sent it in to be fixed and Gibson thought they would do him a favor by refinishing it. And this is what he got mad at and scraped the finish off and Gibson logo.

That's part of what I heard too.

Me to.

OK..OK. #There is alot of conjecture and information being passed on as fact here just because so and so (Sonny) said it, or BM was heard to say it. #The fact of the matter is that at most only the top was oversprayed. There is no possibility that the top was sanded down and refinished, and there is no evidence that the side and back were ever touched at all. And this is very unlike Gibson in the 50's. At very best, the overspray on the top did not stick well to the varnish and Bill scraped it off. #Photos of the instrument (from album covers) taken just after the "scrape job" clearly and unquestionably show most of the original July 9 color and shading to be intact and there is no shine of "lacquer" under the strings. #I'm still not convinced it was oversprayed but I can accept the fact that it may have been. #I suggest that he just as likely scraped it all up a "lapse". #If you want conjecture, Maybe he picked it up at the factory and they had not done anything at all yet. #I have never been able to detect any 50's work being done to it.

But an "overspray" in the early 50's would have meant about a 1/16" of lacquer. I'm sure everyones seen Gibson's from that era with stress cracks in them. You can see that the instrument is entombed in thick lacquer.