Lloyd Loar Mandolins

[Ken Waltham]

Who would ever have known Gibson got anything right with the F-5 unless Monroe happened to find and play one? That's ground zero for the F-5 reputation (probably same with the L-5 and Lang). What if Monroe had played an F-4, or anything else? He still would have been the best in the land. Would followers not have sought out whatever instrument the master played? Isn't it because of the masters playing these instruments, and followers believing THAT'S what a good instrument sounds like, that they're revered? How can we say there is something objectively great about their sound outside that context? I have no idea, I'm just asking!

These are interesting points, but, I think they are perhaps backwards. Monroe chose that F5 in the barbershop window because it was superior to other mandolins he had access to. In turn, that sound it produced allowed him to create a different style of mandolin playing because he now had the correct tool to do it with. The sounds and styles he heard in his head could now be enunciated.
Same with Eddie Lang. When he joins the Whiteman band in 1929, playing a 1928 L5, he chose that "new" Gibson design because it allowed him to be heard in an ensemble environment, and it pretty much immediately spelled the death knell for the Tenor Banjo in that role. Now, he could make real music, supply rhythm to the band, AND be heard. Something not possible before. If he had picked up an L3 or other round hole guitar, change would not have happened, because no one would have heard him.
Now, most, of not all banjoists wanted to play guitar.
Same could be argued for Charlie Christian, when he brings an electric ES150 into the big band world. Now he could play lead lines, imitate horn lines, etc... He moved the guitar from the rhythm section into the lead instrument world. In this case, I am not arguing for the ES150, but, the Electric guitar. It is rumoured that Benny Goodman said " who the hell wants to hear an electric guitar anyway??" If he had done his lead work on an unamplified guitar, no one would have heard him.
Just my two cents.
And, once again, I will reiterate my point that Loars sound much more alike than they ever do different, and I have Never heard a bad one. If you have a real bad one, sell it to me at say, 40% of it's value... I'll take them all.

[Timbofood]

Mass hypnosis (IMHO)!!!

I think you may mean:
MAS hysteria
Excellent perspective on the "application of new design" Ken. Very true, indeed.

[JFDilmando]

I owned a disappointing Loar at one time.... I sold it... but it still was as good as 99% of the other top end mandolins I have owned. I had an older Monteleone F5 that shined above it, but like I say, it was as good as most get, just not up to some other Loars. Other Loars I have owned, can't be touched side by side of some of the best Gils or Monteleones, or Altmans that I have owned at the same time.... much of it is a matter of taste regarding what you want to hear from a mandolin.

Some of the very top end classical instruments just sound weak and shallow to my ear... but the owners LOVE them.... Katerina loves her instrument over that of hubby Mike Marshall, and Mike prefers his Loar.... to each their own...

[Ken Waltham]

One thing I don't mean to imply is that Loar signed F5's are simply the best mandolins in the world to Everyone. Sound, etc is very subjective, and we all have opinions. I do mean to say they all sound wonderful, at the very least, to me.

On addressing the pricing issue.. one way to put it very succinctly, ... there are Rembrandt's, and then there is the "school of Rembrandt". Both are very nice paintings, but the price difference will be significant. Loars are Rembrandts.

[JeffD]

Our tastes change as we gain experience, of course. And our tastes change depending what we have been listening to and what we have been playing lately.

The way I am right now, were someone to give me a signed Loar, I would sell it, (after playing it 24/7 for a week and a half) and purchase a Kerman, and a couple high end bowlbacks, and a liuto cantabile. With the remaining funds I might think about a second Kerman. And do some traveling. In a new camper. Pulled by a new Jeep. ...


But you know, check in with me in a few years.

[Steve Sorensen]

One thing that seems to be missing in these discussion is that LLoyd Loar was a player first. What he added to the mix was a player's desire to have complexity, depth, balance, and power which were on par with great violins.

Gibson started down that path, but sold out and moved on before completing the quest. Loar carried the ball to the finish line (for the time). The craftsmen who were building didn't really get the benefit of that feedback loop after Loar left because the mandolin was on a fast decline in popularity . . .

Monroe brought a player's ear back into the mix. But it sure took Gibson a long time to appreciate that perspective.

And the Gibson Corporation, as it evolves over time seems to keep one thing consistent -- the inability to maintain the player's perspective in the qualities of the instruments that they produce.

We're seeing, with guys like Dave Harvey and Danny Roberts, the ebb and flow of that attention in current production. Dave and Danny are examples of excellent players who clearly love mandolins of fine voice and great playability . . . and bring that love to work regardless of the way the corporate wind is blowing!

Steve

[Ken Waltham]

One thing that seems to be missing in these discussion is that LLoyd Loar was a player first. What he added to the mix was a player's desire to have complexity, depth, balance, and power which were on par with great violins.

Gibson started down that path, but sold out and moved on before completing the quest. Loar carried the ball to the finish line (for the time). The craftsmen who were building didn't really get the benefit of that feedback loop after Loar left because the mandolin was on a fast decline in popularity . . .

Monroe brought a player's ear back into the mix. But it sure took Gibson a long time to appreciate that perspective.

And the Gibson Corporation, as it evolves over time seems to keep one thing consistent -- the inability to maintain the player's perspective in the qualities of the instruments that they produce.

We're seeing with guys like Dave Harvey and Danny Roberts the ebb and flow of that attention in current production. Dave and Danny are examples of excellent players who clearly love mandolins of fine voice and great playability . . . and bring that love to work regardless of the way the corporate wind is blowing!

Steve

Very very true. he was a player first, and, as Hendrik once said so well, he must have had an active hand in quality control, because, even though the same guys are building..theoretically, the quality drops progressively as you go onwards, and, almost immediately to some degree.

[MikeEdgerton]

The quality may have dropped more due to the fact that the best of the best were moved to the products that Gibson was actually selling and making money on. The mandolins took a back seat to the banjo very quickly. Even Loar was designing banjo's.

From Roger Siminoff's Loar page:

Lloyd’s work on banjos was equally astute. Loar developed a new banjo design with a hollow tubular tone chamber supported by spring-loaded ball bearings. This instrument was the foundation of the heralded Gibson Mastertone banjo line and the many pot-assembly hardware derivations that were to follow.

[FLATROCK HILL]

Our tastes change as we gain experience, of course. And our tastes change depending what we have been listening to and what we have been playing lately.

The way I am right now, were someone to give me a signed Loar, I would sell it, (after playing it 24/7 for a week and a half) and purchase a Kerman, and a couple high end bowlbacks, and a liuto cantabile. With the remaining funds I might think about a second Kerman. And do some traveling. In a new camper. Pulled by a new Jeep...

One small conundrum here Jeff...
If we accept (and I do) your premise that "our tastes change depending what we have been listening to and what we have been playing lately", after a week and half of playing the Loar 24/7, you just might decide to keep it!

[Ken Waltham]

One small conundrum here Jeff...
If we accept (and I do) your premise that "our tastes change depending what we have been listening to and what we have been playing lately", after a week and half of playing the Loar 24/7, you just might decide to keep it!

Ha! I'd never take that bet!

[UlsterMando]

It's not too hard to imagine,that after Lloyd Loar departed from Gibson,that the luthiers who'd been building mandolins to the ''Loar spec.'' carried on in like manner & that the mandolins produced for quite a while afterwards, were of exactly the same quality,but of course 'not signed' = had a label stuck inside 'em !. I really can't imagine a bunch of luthiers simply abandoning the way they built just because LL left Gibson. That is very probably why some Gibson mandolins built well after LL left also sound so good. The one owned by Butch Baldassari for one,the superb Gibson once played by Ralph Rinzler for another,neither of them Loars,but to my ears every bit as fine sounding.

I can't imagine that the first mandolin NOT to have a 'Loar signed label' inside it,sounded worse 'all of a sudden' than the last signed Loar - so what price the little piece of paper & all the hype (so to speak) that goes with it ?.

I can imagine a situation where the last 'signed Loar' & the next one off the line, built by the same guys,to the same specifications,but of course not signed ,being scrutinised. I'd bet a shed load of cash,that 'whoever', would find a reason to prefer the signed mandolin above the other,despite them 'maybe' sounding as identical as 2 mandolins can. As we've all been told so many times,the label makes quite a difference to the tone.

I'm sorry to sound so sceptical,but i am. Yes - 'some' Loar signed mandolins are terrific mandolins & i'd never dream of saying otherwise -but,to imagine that the ones that came after were 'inferior', is pretty hard going for me,as i've read,not ALL Loar signed mandolins sound good withing their own group,
Ivan

It is a fair subject for informed scepticism. So much Loar debate concerns the
issue of their price - the least interesting thing about them. Your question about
the last Loar compared to the first "post Loar" is right on the money . . .
if you'll excuse the metaphor.

[Ivan Kelsall]

I hope that most folk understood my scepticism re. the possible drop off in quality immediately after LL left Gibson. Personally, i think that the quality was maintained for a ''period of time''. How long that was,we'll never really know,but what we do know,is that many seriously good mandolins were made by Gibson in the years post LL. I'd maybe agree with Ken Waltham in that there could have been a gradual decline in quality over the years. Just what caused the Gibsons produced in the 1970 era to be as dire as several informed folk on here have described them ?. Who was in charge of the Gibson mandolin production line back then ?.
The name Gibson on the headstock of a mandolin still has 'kudos' to this day. It's no wonder then that eventually Gibson did at least employ folk like Charlie Derrington & those before him ( i don't know who they were), & currently Dave Harvey,to keep 'em coming 'good'. I wish that they'd done the same for their banjos,but that wasn't to be - that they usually sell their mandolins for more cash that their banjos could be one reason.

I don't know the number of banjo builders out there compared to mandolin builders,but considering the number of each,maybe we should be very thankful that Gibson are building mandolins at all - even as a non-Gibson owner,i am,as other folk desire them.
The ones being produced under the guidance of Dave Harvey seem to be as good as any they've ever produced, & the 'Goldrush' & 'Sam Bush' models are,IMO superb. I'd love to own a good example of either one,if i could find one over here at an affordable price,
Ivan

[Mandoplumb]

What happened at Gibson in the late 60's and 70's was what happens to so many companies that get the name as "the best". They start to believe that people have to have their product and will continue to buy it regardless, so why not cut corners produce it cheaper charge more and rake in the money. Thankfully Gibson seems to have turned back before it was too late, a lot of companies don't. Even so they suffered some damage, they will never be THE only mandolin to have like they once was.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Thanks for the info. mandoP - a bit of wrong thinking on the behalf of the Gibson Co. at that time. As you say,Gibson seem to have realised that their Mandolins still have a lot of potential,even in a market where there are more choices than ever. Personally,i'm no Gibson mandolin 'fanatic',but ''the name'',is for me,still the one to have if you can find a good one. Will that portion of Mr Monroe's legacy ever fade i wonder ?,
Ivan

[Jim Hilburn]

It helps to have seen some examples of post Loar mandolins and I have. I once got to play 3 Loars, one from each year they were produced and a 25 Fern in one sitting. To my ear the Fern sounded the best of all, at least more powerful, but the construction changes were quite evident.
Another time, I had 2 consecutively numbered F5's in my shop, one a 32 and one a 33. They still sounded pretty nice but the details I admire in a Loar had given way to a less ideal look.
It's important to remember the stock crash of 29 and how Gibson was hanging on by their fingernails. Also mandolin production was way off, possibly down to just custom orders. They were using some leftover parts like the Fern overlays but changed to worm over tuners which went right through the leaves of the inlay.

[JeffD]

after a week and half of playing the Loar 24/7, you just might decide to keep it!

There is that risk.

The cool thing about owning a signed Loar would be all the first rate mandolinners I would get to meet, as I let folks play on it. And first rate luthiers I would meet as I let folks take measurements. That could be some serious fun.

[T.D.Nydn]

I think pros buy expensive instruments so they can take it off their taxes. That's why Eddie van Halen owns like 400 rare guitars...

[Timbofood]

Pro's buy things because they want and can afford to.
I agree at some point the Gibson company did see that the demand had returned for a higher quality mandolin which needed special attention by people with an understanding of what they are supposed to be which not just guitars. The fact that the guitar business was able to help the mandolin return to better quality is pretty simple logic. It is lucky that the Cowles, Siminoff, Halsey triumvirate was on hand to answer the call from he company to figure out how to teach some of the guitar guys there what needed to be done.
The decline after Mr. Loar left was slow at first, then snowballed into "who cares" range thankfully the thaw came at all, now, there is pretty strong evidence that the work started to rebuild the department has borne fruit from healthy trees!

[CES]

This is a good start:

I love this video, because I can totally hear what he's describing. On my own I would hear differences, but probably couldn't explain what I was hearing that well. As much as we obsess about tone, CT takes it to savant level. Props.

[Steve Ostrander]

They all sound fabulous in his hands.

[MikeEdgerton]

Pro's buy things because they want and can afford to.

Pretty much, yeah.

[Andrew B. Carlson]

Like most of us, I frequently think about the "winning the lottery" possibility in regard to mandolins. Initially I'd be tempted to buy one of those "unsigned Loars" to save money and basically have a Loar. Then again, I could also get Gil and Gibson MM etc. (among many others). When push came to shove, I'd most likely do the latter. If I found a Loar, be it in an attic or whatever, I'd have a harder time selling it, since the story would be worth more to me. I have an old guitar like that. I found it and have a good story about finding it, so it's worth more to me right now than money could make up for (unless a very rich and bored idiot comes along).

[Willie Poole]

It may be that Gibson, like many companies, had a "Lifetime warrantee" on their instruments and along came makers of heavy gauge strings thinking that a better tone was available using those so those builders made the tops thicker in order to withstand the extra tension from using thicker gauge strings...

I was in Nashville one day and visited Gibson`s repair shop and that day there was both of Bobby Osborne`s mandolins there for some tweaking, a Loar and a `25 Fern, the differences in them was very obvious to me both in looks and sound, the Fern was more trebely than the Loar but also the Loar was not as good to my ears as some other Loars that I have played...I do not know exactly how many Loars that I have played but they all did not sound alike and some were lots better than others but that was in my younger days when myself as well as a lot of others did not know or care as much about set ups as we do now days...a friend of mine that lived in Texas owned one of the worse sounding Loars that I have ever heard, not just my opinion but shared by quite a few other pickers, but the fellow that bought it from him sent it to Gibson and they checked it out and did a great set up on it and I am told now that it is one of the better sounding Loars around...I also never cared for the ones that had a Virzi, but that is just my taste compared to other peoples...

We all like something different so there will always be a discussion on which mandolins are the best, myself, right now I own a great sounding Ratliff R-5 (F-5) that suits me to a "T" and it is all I need although I do have a back up mandolin just in case something happens to the R-5...and that is a custom made F-5 made from the Siminoff plans....

Willie

[jimmy powells]

I think some of the players who have been featured playing Loars can make almost any high end mandolin sound great. They get them PRECISELY in tune intonation wise (which makes a difference), they ahve a great plectrum technique and actual pick and when they get one which is LOUD, BALANCED and has a genuine tone I reckon they sound pretty close to each other. So it is not the actual sound that makes them worth $175,000 compared to a $10,000 high end modern F5. It's all the reasons of rareity, Bill Monroe etc as mentioned but no one can tell me that the SOUND can make one mandolin worth $175000 against a good high end $10,000 modern mandolin. Even if it was felt that the tone was "special" compared to a $10,000 modern F5 then that may make it worth $15,000 but that's all.

I've played two Loars. one was fantastic. The other was the opposite.

Jimmy

UK

[Jeff Mando]

Like most of us, I frequently think about the "winning the lottery" possibility in regard to mandolins. Initially I'd be tempted to buy one of those "unsigned Loars" to save money and basically have a Loar. Then again, I could also get Gil and Gibson MM etc. (among many others). When push came to shove, I'd most likely do the latter. If I found a Loar, be it in an attic or whatever, I'd have a harder time selling it, since the story would be worth more to me. I have an old guitar like that. I found it and have a good story about finding it, so it's worth more to me right now than money could make up for (unless a very rich and bored idiot comes along).

If I won the lottery, I'd probably remodel the bathroom and keep playing my ol' bowlback!

As far as finding a Loar in the attic goes, you are describing the difference between a "collector" and a "dealer".......that is you feel justified in keeping it, because you have nothing in it and it makes a good story......however, the "dealer" knows it is costing you $175K to keep it........unless, of course, you don't need the money! George Gruhn regarding business once said something to the effect of, "if I found a $100 bill on the sidewalk, it doesn't mean that I would sell it for $50, just because I don't have anything in it, would I?"