'42 F5 on ebay..Thoughts?

[Barry Platnick]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/171867100270...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

[Danny Clark]

Ive owned those period mandolins ,nice collector pieces but usually have a lot of E string and no G string ,tops were carved a little thinner than the 20;s and over tone barred

[Hendrik Ahrend]

Made in '41, sold in '42. Top (around the sound holes at least) doesn't look thin to me. The neck buttons seem somewhat cross-eyed.

[Barry Platnick]

Any concern a absolute authenticity or originality?

[MikeEdgerton]

Not that I can see, it looks right to me.

[MikeEdgerton]

Joe Spann's book puts the FON in 41 as well.

[Bernie Daniel]

Probably on of the last "pre-WWII" F-5's -- the war was already raging in 1941, the US entered at the end of that year. Gibson did not get back to making them like that until 1978! I like the 30's style fret board.

[Jeff Mando]

Currently $9300 with 4 hours to go.

[Jeff Mando]

Update: $14,500 with 24 minutes to go.

[allenhopkins]

Update: $14,500 with 24 minutes to go.

Holy cow! Went for $16.6K!

Seems high to me...

[lenf12]

Seems high to me...

Me too, but not by a heck of a lot compared to some of Gibson's current offerings...and they aren't making anymore '41 - '42 F-5s. Does it sound any good??

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

[Ken Waltham]

I thought it was a total steal. Contrary to postings, they are not too thin at all, they are too heavy. A trip to Randy Wood and you have an absolutely superb mandolin, that is a genuine prewar F5.
It did have a top crack.. while not great for resale, this is a simple fix for a skilled luthier, especially when the back is off. You have to decide whether you keep this F5, or want to resell it at some point. The crack is problematic for resale, but no problem on a keeper.
No case. I feel an OHSC is a huge selling point, but, I have a couple here.
If I did not have this 1959 F5, I would have been all over that one.

[Bernie Daniel]

I thought it was a total steal. Contrary to postings, they are not too thin at all, they are too heavy. A trip to Randy Wood and you have an absolutely superb mandolin, that is a genuine prewar F5.
It did have a top crack.. while not great for resale, this is a simple fix for a skilled luthier, especially when the back is off. You have to decide whether you keep this F5, or want to resell it at some point. The crack is problematic for resale, but no problem on a keeper.
No case. I feel an OHSC is a huge selling point, but, I have a couple here.
If I did not have this 1959 F5, I would have been all over that one.

What would a Randy Wood re-grad do to its value for resale though? Certainly it would make it a better sounding mandolin but no question you've altered it right.

Like you say none of those things are a problem if it is a keep mandolin.

[Ken Waltham]

What would a Randy Wood re-grad do to its value for resale though? Certainly it would make it a better sounding mandolin but no question you've altered it right.

Like you say none of those things are a problem if it is a keep mandolin.

Like you say none of those things are a problem if it is a keep mandolin.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's a tough one. I think that normally a R Wood regrad would be risky as far as value goes.. unless, as stated, you're keeping it. Then, I think it's a no brainer. But.. at 16K, I think most of the risk is already mitigated.
I think that mandolin in an OHSC is worth considerably more.

[allenhopkins]

Depends: collectors' value or musicians' value?

[Bernie Daniel]

Like you say none of those things are a problem if it is a keep mandolin.
Yes, it's a tough one. I think that normally a R Wood regrad would be risky as far as value goes.. unless, as stated, you're keeping it. Then, I think it's a no brainer. But.. at 16K, I think most of the risk is already mitigated.
I think that mandolin in an OHSC is worth considerably more.

Randy did a re-graduation on a 1952 F-12 for me and it turned out pretty well. Made a big improvement in the tone and projection for sure. Also very neat job you'd be hard pressed to prove the back had ever been off.

I eventually moved that mandolin along but I really liked the neck and the wide fret board on it. I was not a big fan of the fat head stock design that started in 1951 and continued I guess until 1970 when they re-designed the F-models.

[lenf12]

Depends: collectors' value or musicians' value?

I don't know, is David Grisman a collector or a musician? There are a few successful musicians who might find this to be worthy of their collections. And I agree with Ken, this one is definitely a keeper so a Randy Wood re-voicing (if needed) wouldn't be out of the question if it were mine. After all, what good is a mandolin if it's from a collectible era but sounds like doo doo so you never play it?
Just my 2 cents.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

[allenhopkins]

I don't know, is David Grisman a collector or a musician?

Both, and I don't know what takes priority. I bought a Tom Morgan Autoharp from Bernunzio's that he said Grisman had expressed interest in. As far as I know Grisman's not an Autoharp player (correct me if I'm wrong, those who know), so I'd guess it was for a collection rather than for performance -- but he might just want to strum it in the parlor.

After all, what good is a mandolin if it's from a collectible era but sounds like doo doo so you never play it? Just my 2 cents.

I'd hazard a guess that most collectors are also musicians, some just a little bit and some well-known professionals, but the acoustic qualities of instruments they collect, probably come in second to the instruments' "collectability." You hear of collectors with hundreds and hundreds of instruments, so it would be impossible for each one of those instruments to get played with any frequency.

A collector might want an example of a 1940's Gibson mandolin, without any firm intention of playing it much. What if one wanted, say, a Gibson F-5 from every decade, 1920's to now? Not many '40's models were made, they seldom come on the market, and even a mediocre example would be attractive.

Collectors like Scott Chinery (900 guitars) and Akira Tsumura (over 1K banjos) -- or, closer to home, Rochester's Bill Destler -- acquire instruments for a variety of reasons, and not "sounding like doo doo" is only one of them (and may not be the most relevant). I've visited Bill a couple times (he's president of Rochester Institute of Technology), and some of his instruments are unplayable; they represent uniqueness, or beauty of ornamentation, or representation of a particular style, era, or manufacturer.

I have a lotta instruments, and some are there mainly because they're "cool" and I could afford them (my Honduran guitarron would exemplify that). May well "sound like doo doo" but I'm not enough of a guitarron-ist to tell.