I don't want to be the bad one, but without need to enlarge it was clear it's not real thing after seeing the second tumbnail.
Mandolin that was closest to Loar in construction details IMO, was built by Bill Halsey, had he added aging (and some sloppines to his otherwise perfect workmanship) and Gibson logo that would be hard to tell from original.
DOn't take this as critique of your work (Gary), the mandolin looks mighty fine and may sond better that any Loar, I'm just comparing tiny details I leared to see on real Loars during my work on F-5drawings.
I didn't comment in the previous thread about this mandolin but Darryl outright asked for it now and this is my heart topic...
I'll try to write few things but will elaborate later tomorrow it time permits.
First of all the body shape is not authentic, I don't know why but the scroll is bit bulky and the flow of curves is not correct, there were variations among Loars but this one has specific flavor to curves... perhaps made on inside form? Carving of the scroll doesn't have the style and the fingerboard extension is too wide (could be optical illusion, but I noticed it on several pics so possibly not). The fingerboard has modern scale length which would indicate replacement on Loar, not incommon but in such cases replacement is usually noticeable at the joint as well, this one wants to look like original board.
The recurve on top is carried too far towards neck, I don't remember seeing loar with such reflection of light, but again this could be optical illusion from photography. On the rear view the headstock underlay veneer goes too far into neck, on Loars it typically terminates right under nut. On the same picture the small hole in the small scroll of headstock is way too small, typically almost 3/16" diameter round hole in this case barely 1/8", the larger scroll ends too soon and well rounded while Loars typically had this more or less square as left from bandsaw blade. I think I've never seen GA tuners on Loars, they prefer Wavs or ALessi. The back of headstock looks too clean, these veneers tyically show network of tiny cracks in finish, perhaps reaction from the blackening process. The curve of body at the heel button doesn't look right and button is tad wider as well as the scroll carving and shape of scroll button is not spot on.
The binding joints on headstock are not done like on Loars. Shape of headstock would be closer to later period Fern, not Loar, especially teh small scroll. he Parl nut is done in modern fashion - of course could be repplaced easily.
The binding looks bit high and the dovetails of protectors are typically only on the side of the protector facing tailpiece.
The fingerboard support is too bulky and rounded and the black color doeasn't look natural, should be BR or ME wood, with 45 degrees chamfers and very little smoohing with sandpaper. The contact surface with top looks longer and gap too tight.
The step between binding finish and wood finish is mostly nonexistent or too small.
The HHG sqeeze out on back visible through f hole... all Gibsons of the era had the back glued first and pretty nicely cleaned (but the top joint shows glue runs)
Neck heel button is not shaped with angled edge like on originals (one of the hardest parts of copying IMO)
The straight shape of the joint between body and neck suggest mortised neck? Carving of rise of scrolls is way too abrupt (much better visible on pics in the old thread)
https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/s...-replica/page2
On the next pics looks like unusually thick fingerboard (is it mismatched white binding? Is there another '24 with that?) and very high bridge - unusual for Loar.
There's no wear at the hole for pickguard holding bracket - normally the finish would be at least slightly compressed.
I may be wrong in any of above writing just from memory and posted computer pics
All for now
Anatomy of a fine Loar mandolin "Bench-copy/Tribute"
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by allenhopkins
Bookmarks