Anatomy of a fine Loar mandolin "Bench-copy/Tribute"

[Darryl Wolfe]

OK, looks like I cannot edit my original posts. Let's try this








In this photo, the excellent job on the coloring of a Feb/March '24 Loar is quite apparent. The fingerboard Florida extension has the bulge in it that this period exhibits. The dots are placed correctly and the is very little that catches your eye as a giveaway

Nothing wrong jumps out in general. A person might have to know it is not authentic, to even look further into it.

The items that start appearing upon study is the prominence of the scroll ridge and its juncture with the body, the center of the scroll and the positioning of The Gibson

[Darryl Wolfe]

In this back photo we see great attention paid to choosing a perfect example of the wood one would expect to see I 1924. All looks good.

However. If we look intently, we start seeing the slightly over done size of the center of the scroll again. And then the eye is drawn to the manner in which the recurve melds into the upper neck area and neck button. These are things that would usually only be seen by a seasoned Loar person.

I will skip any comments concerning parts other than Mr. Vessel did a nice job of selecting parts that don't jump off the photo as replaced.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I'll comment a bit on this frontal view before jumping into the crux of the issues





Here we se a nice job of distressing, and again, without close study all looks good.

But, further examination now that we are closer make the center of the scroll more apparently odd. I did a rough measurement and it is about 1/16" too large in diameter.

At this point the ridge of the scroll starts drawing the eye. It does not join the mitered binding headed South like is should, its headed Southeast. And at the far end, the juncture with the body is a bit prominent, and it does turn slightly toward the bass F-hole on the end, but has way too much height in the last inch or so.

The F-holes are reasonably correct but appear a shade high, a tiny shade big and ever slightly irregular on the ends (slightly oval)

[Darryl Wolfe]

I am probably going to stop after this post until Irma goes thru


But this is the most revealing photo. And Gary, I have to call it what it is here.

Here we see a very nice effort of duplicating the odd white black binding on the Feb/Mar '24 Loars. But the binding and fingerboard are more than 1/32" too tall. The binding looks correct on the body.

This combined with the oversized riser block, grossly incorrect/large fingerboard extension, slightly too high scroll height creates a bulky masculine look

It is too hard to describe the issues here, but the whole riser block area looks exposed instead of hiding behind the scroll sort of.

The fingerboard extension is not far enough under the fingerboard (too wide essentially), is too long, too high, not far enough off the top and such and contacts the top at least three frets too far towards the bridge.

This is the dead giveaway area on the mandolin that does not show unless you specifically photograph it

[George R. Lane]

Well, since this is a poor copy of a Loar, Mr. Vessel needs to send it to me and I will promise to keep out of the public view.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here are three quick IPhone shots of my Loar for comparison to some of my comments

[Timbofood]

I'm eating this up with a spoon! The knowledge shared here still seems to restore my faith in the innate "good" of man. I love this stuff!

[Darryl Wolfe]

Well, since this is a poor copy of a Loar, Mr. Vessel needs to send it to me and I will promise to keep out of the public view.

This is one thing I do want to stress. The is a very very excellent copy of a Loar. It is quite hard to get as many details correct as he did.

My critique seems harsh, but it far to easy to point out the flaws than to identify the wow, nailed its. I'm trying to identify those as I go

[Darryl Wolfe]

OK, now this.

Overall, this is very very good. It has the right look. The distressing is authentic, the binding is correct for the period and the inlay is quite close. In fact, the logo itself and the pearl cutting is spot on.

But, again, close don't get it in this business.

Here are the main issues. As HOGO pointed out, the drilled hole is the small scroll is too small. A minor thing.

The main issue is the location of the logo. By this time in Loar construction, there were dimensional drawings for the exact location of the inlay. There was a centerline reference point from the tip of the peghead through the truss rod screws.

The "The Gibson inlay was located centered on that centerline and at the same 37 degree angle as the slope on the peghead.

As we can see, both are slightly off. My only other real comment is that the flower crowds the pot too closely. But, the dirt is dark and the base is dark like the always are. The binding looks phenomenally correct, however, it is a tad too thick on the side view...I am talking like a 1/64" or so

But, all and all....a great job on this part.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here is the treble side of the instrument.

Nice wood selection, nice shading, correctly located pickguard attachments and dovetailed points.

Here again, we enter the masculine area. The binding width is a 1/64-1/32" too wide.

The points are of unequal dimension. One is a shade too small and the other is quite a bit too large.

Most eyes do not gravitate to this details, but mine do.

[Mark Wilson]

Darryl - were most signed Loars generally built close enough in dimensions and tolerances to enable making authenticity determinations by comparing one authentic Loar to the cloned Loar.

[barry]

Here is the treble side of the instrument.

Nice wood selection, nice shading, correctly located pickguard attachments and dovetailed points.

Here again, we enter the masculine area. The binding width is a 1/64-1/32" too wide.

The points are of unequal dimension. One is a shade too small and the other is quite a bit too large.

Most eyes do not gravitate to this details, but mine do.

The large riser block and tall neck set contribute to a breakover angle of the strings over the bridge that is very un-Loar-like.

[William Smith]

Yes that's a difference for sure, the riser block compared to a real Loar and the deep neck set angle looks John Duffey style, is the gap 1 inch from mandolin top to top of saddle? Real Loars are what 3/4?

[Darryl Wolfe]

Darryl - were most signed Loars generally built close enough in dimensions and tolerances to enable making authenticity determinations by comparing one authentic Loar to the cloned Loar.

Exactly. There were differences in batches, but their patterns, templates and tooling processes left telltale evidence on all.

One of my first threads on this forum in say 2003 was entitled "Perfect Imperfection"

[Darryl Wolfe]

The large riser block and tall neck set contribute to a breakover angle of the strings over the bridge that is very un-Loar-like.

Yes, I have not measured this out to establish the root cause, but it's likely a combination of angle and height of neck out of body. Neither one being far off, but an accumulated thing

[Darryl Wolfe]

Yes that's a difference for sure, the riser block compared to a real Loar and the deep neck set angle looks John Duffey style, is the gap 1 inch from mandolin top to top of saddle? Real Loars are what 3/4?

My Loar is 3/4" This is 7/8" It does not take a large dimensional change in order to
show up to the eye

[Darryl Wolfe]

This instrument also has a Virzi tone producer. I wont try to photograph it. But,it too is a bit overbuilt in thicknesses of the components

[Darryl Wolfe]

HOGO mentioned the back button. This actually is quite spot on. I know exactly what he is referring to, but it does not always apply on this.

Earlier Loars did routinely have what one may call a tapered thickness to the binding in that area

The only minor issue I see is that the transition of the back arch hits it a bit abruptly. It needs to stay flat a bit further into the back proper. That eliminates the thick (wide) looking spots at the end miters you see.

In this photo, we also see a great job of distressing of the finish on the binding. This really looks right

[Darryl Wolfe]

OK, now here is a collage of several Loar mandolins of the exact species that the builder was trying to emulate

[Darryl Wolfe]

OK, so I will close my presentation and comment section with a few more photos I took much earlier. I tried to capture the look and feel of a Loar in these photos. In general, these photos if I had told you it was a Loar would preclude much second guessing what I said

Mr. Vessel has done a magnificent job on this, and I hope my critique is not too critical.

In the big picture, it is minor minor stuff that makes the cumulative difference.

I want to also restate that there is nothing out of kilter here by more than 1/32". Those kilters just add up

[Andrew B. Carlson]

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.

Amen to that! The Halsey '23 model haunts me. He offered to build me one, but I didn't have the dough.

[Darryl Wolfe]

Surely a fine mandolin, but hardly a copy to fool any expert IMHO. The body scroll binding mitre looks 30s/40s (doesn't go far enough), the fb binding is early Loar style (although the aim is late 24). There may, indeed, be a Loar with the script and flower pot this far left and low on the peg head, but it looks odd at first sight. (Wouldn't expect the low flower pot that low, I mean. Haven't checked the archives, yet.) And isn't the plain white binding not at least rare in a non- Fern Loar?
Thanks Darryl, an interesting thread.

Henry, you are very correct. But had I not started a thread proclaiming it a tribute" to begin with, your eye would not have gone there. There is too much "right" about this.

Also, if you read my subsequent critique on the mandolin, the bindings and such are spot on for the last couple Feb. 18, '24's and most March 31 '24's

Early Loars had the inlay to the left. This one should not be to the left like that, but the inlay itself is nearly exact, a detail you hardly ever see executed this nicely. See the photos lifted from the archive I posted.... Cheers

[Hendrik Ahrend]

Thanks, Darryl, I appreciate it; fun thread. Aside from the obvious non-original tuners and the lack of the pick guard, the body scroll would have always made me suspicious (even if placed in a vintage case).

[Timbofood]

Exactly. There were differences in batches, but their patterns, templates and tooling processes left telltale evidence on all.

One of my first threads on this forum in say 2003 was entitled "Perfect Imperfection"

I have discussed that very point with Bill Halsey time and again! One very late night I referred to it as "Casual Perfection". My feeling was that much of that came from the meeting of production schedules and Parsons St. being a factory after all.

I have had an amazing privilege to have seen Bill's work for many years and I have aspired to one for forty some years, the wheels of life have not allowed it I am sad to say.
Just having the ability to see and play a few of his mandolins has been a real joy! I was lucky enough to test drive one for an extended period a number of years ago. What a guy!

[Willie Poole]

It would be nice if we could compare this "copy" with the actual Loar that Vessel had in front of him when he built this mandolin, I wonder if ALL Loars were exactly like the ones being compared here...I am just curious as I was interested in this thread and have learned a great deal about what to look for to see if they are copys and I am amazed at how many differences you guys picked up...

Great thread...Willie