Looks wrong to me.
2010 Heiden A5, 2020 Pomeroy oval A, 2013 Kentucky KM1000 F5, 2012 Girouard A Mandola w ff holes, 2001 Old Wave A oval octave
http://HillbillyChamberMusic.bandcamp.com
Videos: https://www.youtube.com/@hillbillychambermusic
Do they have any pictures of the label or if the rest of the mandolin?
“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”
My Mandos:
1981 Lloyd LaPlant F5 #6
2001 Lloyd LaPlant F5 #57
2006 Lloyd LaPlant F5 #106
2017 Boeh F5 #27
2020 Boeh 2-point #31
2012 Grey Eagle 2-point #57V
Something is “off” to be sure!
Bad repair? Maybe.
Bogus? Possible.
Timothy F. Lewis
"If brains was lard, that boy couldn't grease a very big skillet" J.D. Clampett
Slimt, that head stock (overall shape, binding, inlays) looks just like a '93 Montana Gibson, except for the scroll towards the mitre. On yours pics I can see no crack in the lacquer front or back. The head stock shape seems okay, if it weren't for the scroll binding. The back picture does show a little notch at the top edge right where the scroll usually cracks. A close-up picture of the end grain might reveal a repair.
Other than that, this may be a unique Monday morning scroll binding.
Thanks Guys.. No picture of the label... Phil Brug would of been the label signer..
Ill pass on this one.. that headstock Scroll ruins it for me.. it looks not well thought out on a fairly big money mandolin..
Comparing "The Gibson" to others, It looks crooked, too big, and the hooks and curls aren't quite right. The fern looks "fat" too.
========================
2012 Gibson F5 Master Model
2019 Northfield F5 Artist 5 Bar
2019 Northfield Arched Octave Maple
2020 Northfield F5 4.0
Dan Scullin
Louisville, KY
NOT a Gibson peghead scroll... that is all one can say
John D
I checked other pics of the offering. I have no doubt it is an original Gibson '93 F5. Here are two other Montana F5 pics for comparison:
1995
1988
Here the OP's '93 again:
It's still possible that everything is original, as claimed in the offering - albeit not very nicely executed in the case of the scroll.
I disagree. Henry’s pictures of known examples only increases my doubts. And it’s not just the shape of the scroll. Notice in the known examples how clean and precise the binding looks in that area. Now compare that to the binding job on the OP’s example. The black and white layers look poorly laminated, with the black bleeding into the white. Also, there is a lot of variability in the thickness of the binding. Reminds me of binding I’ve seen in poor quality Pac Rim instruments. That said, the inlays look good and right. I’m wondering if it’s a botched up repair of some kind?
Don
2016 Weber Custom Bitterroot F
2011 Weber Bitterroot A
1974 Martin Style A
You may be right, Don. It's obvious that the scroll isn't right. But it remains a head scratcher, as both sides of the head stock surfaces are in such good condition (either factory mint or very well repaired), whereas the binding appears to be a "botched up repair", as you suggest.
Looks like a poor repair job to me.
You could just snap the scroll off at the repair point and leave it that way to add some Monroe authenticity.
Original Gibson or not (and I think not), I'd let that one "pass by" ...
But how does it sound? or is looks your prime concern ?
writing about music
is like dancing,
about architecture
Seeing the rest of the instrument might be enlightening as well.
"It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
--M. Stillion
"Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
--J. Garber
Maybe that happened when the replacement FB was done (no frets in Florida)
Timothy F. Lewis
"If brains was lard, that boy couldn't grease a very big skillet" J.D. Clampett
I think it was just a less than optimal repair. I agree with Adrian, it looks like a Gibson.
"It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
--M. Stillion
"Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
--J. Garber
Bookmarks