'25 Fern on eBay?

[Hendrik Ahrend]

Please allow for reviving this thread.
That F5 is still available at Guitar Exchange; just emailed with the owner. Like Bill guessed, the serial number is, indeed, 81490. It looks just like #81489, which is a very early 1926 FON and batch - according to Joe Spann. In this light, it shouldn't be called an "unsigned". The owner recalls that David Grisman checked it out twice, apparently loved the sound and tried to acquire it per trade (to no avail, it seems).

[William Smith]

Its a really nice early 25 Fern based on the # but to me not 110G nice! Maybe 65 with the market now as old vintage F-5's are way down in prices not sure how the guitar market is but that may be holding strong, as there are way more guitarists/collectors, as I know some 26's-29 F-5's that have recently sold for just under 40G to 45? So that one will continue to sit unless he decides to take a ton less? Even 30's F-5's have taken a hit, while some were 60G they now are low 30's to mid 30's? Early 0's have dropped to ust a bit over 20 for really clean ones while I know a few that have had some work that are 16-17G!
Now is the time to buy your Loar or old Fern or 30's even early 40's pre war F-5's if you can get a deal as prices will go up again eventually as there are only so many 20's-40's F-5's out there-they sure are not making anymore of those years-LoL!

[sumibuilt]

That's Guitar Exchange, which was in Chicago for years. I didn't know they had moved. They have had that mandolin on the market for at least 2 or 3 years. They originally were asking quite a bit more for it-- $110k is their "reduced price." The tuners look correct to me, so does the pickguard. I have no opinion on the tailpiece or the bridge, the pictures aren't clear enough. It's hard to judge the finish for sure on any instrument from pictures alone, especially if it's unusually clean. Most of what I see on the body looks right for a 20's F-5, the neck looks almost too good; but . . .

1. An F-5 that it is not signed is not a Loar of any kind, it is simply an F-5. "Unsigned Loar" is marketing voodoo.

I have an unsigned Babe Ruth card I'm going to offer in trade

[grassrootphilosopher]

Here's another way to understand how market values are affected by one or two little details:

There are 3 differences between a '39 Martin D-28 and one made in '43. The first is that the '39 had a steel bar in the neck and the '43 had an ebony bar, due to wartime metal restrictions. The 2nd difference is the tuning machines. Otherwise, the instruments are identical to each other, except for the 3rd difference-- the date of manufacture and serial number. That 3rd difference is worth 30 or 40 thousand dollars.

Here's a place where the differences are even smaller: A 1942 Gibson J-45 is structurally identical to a '46 J-45. Same woods, same bracing. The only difference is cosmetic-- the '42 has a banner logo, and the '46 has a plain script logo. A '54 model is still structurally identical to the earlier models, except for a different bridge shape and a very minor difference in the peghead shape that most people don't even notice. But it has a block logo instead of a script logo. If all three guitars are in the same condition, the 1942 banner head will bring 25% more than the script logo '46 model, and 50% more than the block logo '54 model.

If two 1920's F-5's are identical except that one has a signed label and the other does not, the signed instrument has a much higher market value.

Whether it makes sense or not, that's how the market works.

When it comes to the question of differences between a ´39 D-28 and a ´43 D-28 i beg to differ. There´s the neck shape and size to take into consideration which can play a part in the sound. Also there is a difference between early ´39 D-28 guitars (wide neck) and later ´39 D-28 guitars (narrow neck) which makes quite a difference. Some ´43 guitars have pencil necks that to some are great to some awfull. So there´s a variety of factors that dictate a different price.

When it comes to wartime/postwar J-45 guitars, or rather banner J-45 guitars and script logo post war J-45 guitars I beg do differ also. There is a great variety of distinguishing features in those guitars. Early banners have red spruce tops, later banners have sitka tops as do script logo post war guitars. early banners have two piece tops while later guitars have three sometimes four piece tops. We are not even starting to talk about backs and sides. Let´s just assume they are mahogany. But when you look at the necks, there is a wide variety. Poplar necks, maple necks, with or without truss rod. All of this has an impact on the price.

Apart from that the taste of the collector is sweet. And the price defining point does not necessarily follow reason.

[Jeff Mando]

FWIW, about 25 years ago, I was working at a vintage guitar shop and was in the fortunate position to handle, examine, and sell hundreds of 40's J-45's during that time. In addition to the varieties mentioned, I have also seen mahogany topped J-45's during the war years. Some featured a narrow 1/8 inch wide contrasting center stripe of darker wood. Contrary to popular thinking, the mahogany topped J-45's usually sounded better than their spruce counterparts -- believe it or not. Common thinking was that Gibson, in addition to saving metal for the war effort, was also using whatever wood was available, so "so-called normal" specs changed even more. That, and keep in mind that some of the highest regarded Gibson acoustics (of all time) were made by women.

[rcc56]

A large number of women were also working at Gibson before WWII.

I was not about to start nit-picking about war-time material shortages. In J-45's, the Banners with substitutions have less market value than Banners made of "standard" materials.

The primary difference in the value of J-45's from their introduction through 1954 is in the logo differences, and the decade of manufacture. Major structural changes occur in 1955, when the bracing is re-designed.

Poplar necks? Never seen one. Poplar neck blocks? Yes.
"Pencil" neck on a wartime Martin? Never seen one of those either. Larger necks? I've seen a few.

Actually, a lot of Gibson's spruce was probably Michigan white spruce, which grew in Michigan and Wisconsin. Although it looks similar to red spruce, it is a different species. There is also another local spruce species that grows in that area, but does not grow large enough for guitar tops.

I've had the back off a Banner, and spent hours up to my elbows [literally] in at least 2 or 3 early '50's J-45's. Except for the poplar neck and tail blocks in the Banner, the instruments were structurally identical. I don't think anyone is going to pay a premium for a poplar neck block.

I've owned three J-45's: A circa '44 Banner, a '52, and a '54. Out of those three, the '54 was the strongest sounding instrument. The '44 had a white or red spruce top. I don't remember what the '54 had.

As far as the "Unsigned Loar" at Guitar Exchange, it has been over there for at least 2 or 3 years now. Apparently the market is not willing to pay over $100K for an unsigned F-5.

I fully agree that the market does not necessarily make sense. If it did, the most valuable instruments would be the ones that sounded the best, no matter what the size or shape, or who the maker was; and the pieces that could be considered the "highest works of art," whatever that means.

[Glassweb]

My friend Larry Wexer first played this mandolin many years ago and had very high praise for it... feeling that it was one of the best he'd ever played with great upside potential once set up properly. Larry knows very well what proper mandolin set up can achieve... believe me!
Another interesting point he made was that this particular Fern had Loar appointments such as ivoroid (rather than plastic) binding on the headstock and most likely a true varnish finish. He really wanted to acquire this mandolin but told me that the owner/dealer was pretty much impossible to reason with when it came to price. Given that someone painted the inside of the f holes white I think this instrument would be lucky to fetch $60K in today's market. A moot point given the current owner/seller's relationship to reality...

The Loar/Fern market has left the building... most likely never to return. Too many great instruments to choose from these days...

[grassrootphilosopher]

My friend Larry Wexer first played this mandolin many years ago and had very high praise for it... feeling that it was one of the best he'd ever played with great upside potential once set up properly. Larry knows very well what proper mandolin set up can achieve... believe me!
Another interesting point he made was that this particular Fern had Loar appointments such as ivoroid (rather than plastic) binding on the headstock and most likely a true varnish finish. He really wanted to acquire this mandolin but told me that the owner/dealer was pretty much impossible to reason with when it came to price. Given that someone painted the inside of the f holes white I think this instrument would be lucky to fetch $60K in today's market. A moot point given the current owner/seller's relationship to reality...

The Loar/Fern market has left the building... most likely never to return. Too many great instruments to choose from these days...

I wish I could play the Pee Wee Lambert/Ricky Skaggs Loar...

A large number of women were also working at Gibson before WWII.

I was not about to start nit-picking about war-time material shortages. In J-45's, the Banners with substitutions have less market value than Banners made of "standard" materials.

The primary difference in the value of J-45's from their introduction through 1954 is in the logo differences, and the decade of manufacture. Major structural changes occur in 1955, when the bracing is re-designed.

Poplar necks? Never seen one. Poplar neck blocks? Yes.
"Pencil" neck on a wartime Martin? Never seen one of those either. Larger necks? I've seen a few.

...

I've had the back off a Banner, and spent hours up to my elbows [literally] in at least 2 or 3 early '50's J-45's. Except for the poplar neck and tail blocks in the Banner, the instruments were structurally identical. I don't think anyone is going to pay a premium for a poplar neck block.

I've owned three J-45's: A circa '44 Banner, a '52, and a '54. Out of those three, the '54 was the strongest sounding instrument. The '44 had a white or red spruce top. I don't remember what the '54 had.

Just a friendly derailer...

I had the poplar neck/neck block mixed up. As to banner features, I lifted this information off the banner registry http://www.bannergibsons.com/registry.html:

Tops:
2p A / 4p A: 2 piece/4 piece Adirondack
2p S: Sitka
2p M / mhg: mahogany
Neck blocks:
m/bev: mahogany bevelled
m/sq: mahogany square
p/sq: poplar square
No FON
Tuners:
3 pl *1: Klusons 3-on-a-plate screwed cog wheels, string posts 7/32"
3 pl *2: Klusons 3-on-a-plate riveted and thin cog wheels 1/4"
sgl *2: Klusons single units riveted and thin cog wheels 1/4"
3 pl *3: Klusons 3-on-a-plate riveted and medium thick cog wheels 1/4"
sgl *3: Klusons single units riveted and medium thick cog wheels 1/4 "
Necks:
mhg: mahogany
mpl: maple 3 ply/5 ply
tr: adjustable truss rod
V: maple V-bar
Pick guards:
striped celluloid
mocking type tortoise celluloid
Bridges:
n/angled: narrow type with angled edges to the wings
n/straight: narrow type with straight edges to the wings
n/round: narrow type with rounded edges to the wings
belly: lower belly type
belly: late banner lower belly type with flat surface and thick wings

So I was wrong about three-piece tops also. I played about 15 banner Gibson guitars, mostly at Willi Henkes´ and Rudi Blazer´s shop (Antique Acoustics in Tübingen; world class people and luthiers). The sound varies, some banner Gibsons sound magical.

By 1945 the tops were Sitka, the banner was gone, the braces were still scalloped. By the late 40ies the block logo replaced the script logo. By the early-mid 50ies the braces were not scalloped anymore and the bridge was the upside down bridge. After that the bracing pattern changed etc (double x-bracing in the 60ies etc.).

I played a 1943 D-18 that had a tiny (!!), thin (!!) pencil neck. Never before or after did I play such a neck on a Martin. The sound was great though. That was one November day at Willi Henkes´ and Rudie Blazer´s shop in 1999.

[Jeff Mando]

A large number of women were also working at Gibson before WWII.

Well, now that you mention it, a J-35 ain't a bad sounding guitar, either!, IMHO