Are there still Loar clone builders

**jasona** · Jan-12-2006, 11:02am

Originally Posted by (thistle3585 @ Jan. 12 2006, 08:35)

Has Gibson done anything special, other than labelling, to reduce the possibility of people passing them off as Loars?

Charlie in the past said they have, but obviously never went into details.

**Charlie Derrington** · Jan-12-2006, 11:24am

Darryl makes a grand point.

I was also fooled (when I was much younger and hadn't worked on any), however, I don't think, after study, I could be fooled again. That's why I'd love to see one of these "so-called" clones. I've not seen anything in a long time that couldn't be identified as a fake. I'd also love to be proven wrong.

Ken, not to be asinine, but to me the issue is sort of like BigFoot (which also purportedly is in the Great Northwest..maybe there is a connection ).

Get me some pictures, or help me capture one, and then (maybe) I'll believe.

Charlie

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jan-12-2006, 12:32pm

Here is an even better example of a clone. #This is much easier to pull off than a Loar.

I had a client that wanted an original pre-war D-45. #I located one for sale by a trusted long time collector who was starting to liquidate. #We drove 10 hours to go look, see, verify, and buy it.
It was a fake and I do not think the owner knew it. We politely passed on it.
Now for the rest of the story. #It was however, an honest to God, real pre-war 1938 Herringbone D-28 that had been converted by a well known person. #Yes, included the "D-45" above the serial number. Too bad they didn't change the serial number away from the D-28 batch for that year.

**kudzugypsy** · Jan-12-2006, 1:26pm

all the loar guru's are right - they have seen probably 1/2 of all the known loars - and many from each batch which have their own characteristics. it would be really difficult to fool these guys. now for the average festival picker who may have seen less than a dozen (or none) under close observation (and knowing what to look for) it wouldnt be that hard to fool them.

darryl -
i was playing a festival some 4-5 years ago (this wasnt a BG fest but an "folk/songwriter" type) and saw a fella playing a mando. i went up to hear him and saw he was playing "an old gibson" - when i told him i played, he gladly handed the mando over and naturally i looked to see if it was in fact a *real* gibson - there in the f-holes was the LL signature. i played it, it was great, looked *right*, but i thought it was a fake. i asked the guy politely if it was genuine, it didnt *look 100% correct* - and he said yes, it was, he bought it from a guy in the late 70's in Tenn. well, over time i saw him again around and we would get together and jam - that mando was your old Griffin loar that now resides in durham, NC!

point being - if he had offered it to me for $10K at the time (for instance, if he didnt know what he had), i would have been suspious of the mando being a fake (as you know, its been refinished twice, etc - and it was hard to make a call on its authenticity)
...i should say the point is more - its fairly easy for a *novice* to spot a obvious forged loar - but another level entirely to authenticate a real one.

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jan-12-2006, 2:06pm

Exactly Kudzu. That is similar to what I posted about most having something wrong with them.

In this case, yes, a real Loar is hiding under the plethora of refinish and non-period parts. I did alot of work on that mando trying to bring it closer to correct. So that it was "easier" on the experts eye. I sent it to Paganoni, but he politely talked me out of refinishing it again due to the top thickness. That instrument was the reason for the start of my pickguard, repro bridge and tailpiece cover saga. For what it's worth, that mando has a solid Sterling Silver TP cover that would pass as original. My first repro guard was on it, but I believe it acquired an original later. Say Hi to Mike.

**salleyann** · Jan-12-2006, 2:48pm

THE PROBLEM I SEE WITH THE EXPERTS "CAN'T BE FOOLED" IS THIS--
IF A FAKE IS GOOD ENOUGH TO PASS, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THAT
THEY'ED BEEN FOOLED?

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jan-12-2006, 3:24pm

Well that certainly is a very good point. #And on the surface it makes perfect sense in many ways. #It would probably be best for someone else to say this, but, for that example to be possible, there would have to be someone out there with the combined knowlege of more than one expert who is capable of building and doing exactly what and anything his eye wishes his hand to do. #He does not exist in my opinion.

Now for contrast, maybe as a project, Charlie and I, along with Lynn Dudenbostel for example could jointly agree on every single piece of wood, every cut, and every scrape made by Lynn or Gibson, or whoever. #Each part or piece might have to be redone a couple of times until all were satisfied that it is as perfect as humanly possible. #There might be a whole lot of backing up, but we could likely end up with something that would fool some expert. #But then again we would know.

So, for Tjohnsons example to be possible, some Gilchrist/Monteleone/Dudenbostel/all of Gibson guy would have to be lurking in the shadows (with a support team) and nobody knows anything about him

**kudzugypsy** · Jan-12-2006, 4:25pm

Tony Williamson (who knows a thing or two about Loars) told me a long time ago that when he looks at a 20's F5, if it looks TOO PERFECT, ie, all the details are consistant with the known body of knowledge, that sometimes will raise a little red flag to check things a little closer. what he ment, and it can be seen by numerous posts in the Loar section, is that each one had separate characteristics (under the same general specs) and often if he sees one that shows something *odd* - it may be perfectly ok and original - its the ones where every detail has tried to be accounted for and made perfect that raise the red flags. as can be seen by the rather loose production specs during the pre-war gibson years, anything is possible - good lord, how in the world someone can claim to be a pre-war banjo expert is beyond me - i dont think a standard cataloge model was rarely sent out the door, they were just grabbing stuff from the parts bin at random.
how these guys can pay $60k+++ for a pre-war flathead is beyond me, i would really like to know how many are really 100% authentic.
OT, but the last 100% confirmed flathead RB-3 (yes, RB 5 string) came from 15 miles away from my house....OUCH!!!

**Steve Stahl** · Jan-12-2006, 5:33pm

Originally Posted by (thistle3585 @ Jan. 12 2006, 10:35)

I also believe there was discussion about how a DMM could be easily passed off as a Loar by changing the label. #Has Gibson done anything special, other than labelling, to reduce the possibility of people passing them off as Loars?

One thing that I have noticed is that the base of the flowerpot is clearly different on the DMM.

**grandmainger** · Jan-12-2006, 5:59pm

Originally Posted by (Steve Stahl @ Jan. 12 2006, 22:33)

Originally Posted by (thistle3585 @ Jan. 12 2006, 10:35)

I also believe there was discussion about how a DMM could be easily passed off as a Loar by changing the label. #Has Gibson done anything special, other than labelling, to reduce the possibility of people passing them off as Loars?

One thing that I have noticed is that the base of the flowerpot is clearly different on the DMM.

We should hope they have included more than cosmetic differences. For example, I would have thought that a very thin strip of metal in one of the blocks would make a nice X-ray visible DMM identification "label"... I think that anything exterior could probably be modified to match an original Loar...

Germain

PS: I'd just like to re-iterate how fantastic it is to have so many experts contributing to the discussions here... Charlie & Darryl in particular in this particular Loar thread... I love this place!

**salleyann** · Jan-12-2006, 6:29pm

"So, for Tjohnsons example to be possible, some Gilchrist/Monteleone/Dudenbostel/all of Gibson guy would have to be lurking in the shadows (with a support team) and nobody knows anything about him "

NOT NECESSARILY SO, I'VE HEARD ALL MY LIFE THAT THE PERFECT
CRIME IS THE ONE NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT.

**banjo1** · Jan-12-2006, 7:10pm

Some of these true Loar's are being put up in collections, matbe never seeing the light of day again and some are not.
This is why I wanted to start a thread like this.I want the education first, then if I ever get the chance at a truley great mandolin, I and we will know what to look for.
This really a great place.

**f5loar** · Jan-12-2006, 9:00pm

There have been dozens of Loar copies made since the late 60's down to the bogas but fit in there serial numbers. Some have used Gibson parts like old 20's F4's coverted to F5's. These examples are still out there and many still being played by the original guys that knew they were fake when they got them however when they die and it passes on in the family they could be sold off privately as the real deal. That's what is scary. It's so embaressing to tell someone what they have is a fake and many times they will not take it to be true. When in doubt consult an expert.

**Mando Medic** · Jan-12-2006, 9:41pm

Charlie: With all due respect. You said, <"Ken, not to be asinine, but to me the issue is sort of like BigFoot (which also purportedly is in the Great Northwest..maybe there is a connection ).">........

Well that is asinine! I was making a point that it could happen.... Where the truth is on that point was not revealed. My point is simply there are builders and I'm sure you know a few, who have built one or more copies of a Loar, complete with Gibson in the headstock and two labels inside stating that it is in fact a Gibson and in some cases, a Loar. Maybe their intent was not to defraud or maybe it was, I don't know, but the fact remains, these instruments are out there. I appreciate that you know much more than most if not all people on this list about Loars and perhaps, real Gibson mandolins, but what you don't know are where all the fau Gibsons are or who made them. As long as these instruments are out there, the temptation to believe that these instruments are the real deal are there. Because you are you, these instruments will not fool you. But they will fool others.

So a question to you. As an employee of Gibson are you honor bound to confiscate any mandolin that you come in contact with that says Gibson but is not? Or are you honor bound to tell Corporate that you know where one is and who the owner is? Will Gibson pursue acquiring that instrument to remove it from the market place?

I'm sure if someone bought a fau Loar and were to find out that they had been had, there is a better chance that you probably wouldn't know about it. I certainly wouldn't either. So give it up in trying to discredit me with my "Theory". I have a theory about a group of builders and I really don't care if you choose to believe it or not. I'll be glad to discuss this with you at Loar Fest or off line. Ken Cartwright

**Big Joe** · Jan-12-2006, 11:20pm

Hey Ken...I've forgotten all about the Loars. #I was getting excited about Bigfoot! #I think he would be about my size, and could be a part of my family genetic pool. #Maybe I could teach him to play my loar copy (DMM)

#. #(and no disrespect intended)

**Charlie Derrington** · Jan-12-2006, 11:50pm

Calm down, Ken...

I was serious when I said I wasn't trying to be asinine, the smiley face meant I was trying to be funny. I apologize if I've offended.

Darryl and I have always offered ourselves to validate a Loar for potential buyers, and I would hope someone spending the money on one would get an expert's opinion before they let any cash change hands. That's only common sense.

And no, I don't buy your theory as I've never seen one of these Loar clones (and yes, if I could trace it back, I'd darn sure let someone know about it as it's illegal). Again, I'd love for you to show me that I'm wrong.

It's not unusual for folks to disagree about things, it's just not worth any anger. I love to argue for the sake of argument and always assume others feel the same. To me, it's all in good fun and if I've hurt your feelings, again, I'm sorry.

I'll see you in Bakersfield and we'll have a laugh together over a Coke and a burger.

Charlie

**banjo1** · Jan-13-2006, 12:55am

This is a great place aint it?

No, tempers do not to get out of hand.Remember the reason I asked the question.More knowledge for all of us.

It would cost thousands to get all of the folks together that are here on the Cafe for a discussion like this.I am learning.

I think that if we run across something that looks far too good to be true, we can at least take some pics and show them here for a great deal of input(authentication).

**banjo1** · Jan-13-2006, 1:40am

I know that Gibson and other companies must have thier (Loar and other)inlay patterns covered by registration(copywritten, patented)but how much do you have to change a flower pot or a fern inlay pattern to be legal?

I do know that you can not call it a Gibson or any other name that is protected by law( why would you want to if you are a builder) but is the type of logo script used by these companies protected as well?

**Greenmando** · Jan-13-2006, 2:20am

Originally Posted by (Big Joe @ Jan. 12 2006, 20:20)

Hey Ken...I've forgotten all about the Loars. #I was getting excited about Bigfoot! #I think he would be about my size, and could be a part of my family genetic pool. #Maybe I could teach him to play my loar copy (DMM)

#. #(and no disrespect intended)

My wife used to joke about me streaking across the highway when we lived in Yosemite. Yeah, in a county of 5000 with 4000 active concealed weapon permits. As furry as I am, I would have been laid out on a truck hood quicker than you could buy a $150 Loar in a barber shop.

**danb** · Jan-13-2006, 3:22am

Originally Posted by (banjo1 @ Jan. 13 2006, 00:10)

Some of these true Loar's are being put up in collections, matbe never seeing the light of day again and some are not.

Mostly a myth- I only know of a handfull that aren't being played daily..

**Darryl Wolfe** · Jan-13-2006, 9:04am

I just remembered another good "clone" story. #

My first really good mandolin was a Randy Wood F-12 conversion. #This instrument had The Gibson, ect. and essentially looked like Roland White and Red Henry's R.Wood #1 and 2, and was a very very good "clone" for it's time.

I went out of my way to scarf up some original parts for it, so, it started looking "real fine" #You have to consider that I was 16-17 years old at this time. #I "acquired" some of the first repro labels for it, and of course removed the big white Guarantee label and placed within this clone "Master Model" label serial "72614" and "Signature" label "March 27, 1923" "Lloyd Loar".
Man, I was in heaven now. #On top of it, this was a true Hoss/Cannon of a mandolin, and it was getting distressed from my constant festival goings.

Well, the rest of the story is that I knew and met many Loar owners and we jammed quite a lot. #This was when I started keeping serial numbers ect (how else would I get the fake serial and date believable) #One of these Loar owners was infactuated with my mandolin. #He played it all the time, and I played his Loar quite a bit too. #He offered to trade his Loar mandolin (12/1/24) plus cash for my mandolin. #(Those who live in Cincinnati can ask him if this is true, he will probabl;y get a kick out of it). #
I politely told this Loar owner that it was not a real Loar. #He was astounded, embarrased and thankful all at the same time.

So, the moral to this story is that I reached the dark goal, I succeeded in "fooling" someone, just as planned I guess. # I erased the serial number and replaced it with the original A-1012 number and got a "Randy Wood" label to go under the other f-hole.

Hmm, who is that guy with the mandolin case standing next to Harry West #