** missing July 9, 1923 Loar F5 ** NOT!

[BradKlein]

Here on the auction site, is a bewildering listing, for what can only be called a Loar forgery. The seller is playing it straight, and states clearly that this is NOT a Gibson, so I don't mean any offense there.

It's impossible to judge the quality of the instrument, although it's clearly not junk. I imagine that some of the Cafe folks may recognize it, and may know the maker. The (faked) label lists the serial number right after Big Mon's, (a number that does not appear in the mandolin archive), seems like it was designed to fool a buyer - who knows when, or if someone was taken in?

(BTW) I've had the chance to play the July 9 just BEFORE Monroe's, and that's a nice mandolin, although re-topped by Randy Wood in the 1970s.

[Charlieshafer]

Sure, who knows what it actually is, but if it goes cheap enough, it can't help but be a good beater. As you say, at least he's not trying to fool anyone with the description and the opening price. How funny would it be if it actually was something special, if not a Gibson.

[jim simpson]

I suspect that this still violates Ebay's rules as it states "Gibson" in the listing but then states that it is not.

[Gary Hedrick]

hmm they look like Waverlys....and thus the tuners are worth $500.......and the case another $80......and the wood in the back looks pretty nice.....the tailpiece ain't junk.....the bridge ain't junk....so it tain't a Loar.....it's worth more than $350....

[Cheryl Watson]

No returns. "Picked up at a festival"--could this mean "stolen?" Seller has 100% positive feedback. OK, this IS weird to say the least.

[Charlieshafer]

Wait! Look at that label! It IS a Loar Aunty Em, it says so!

[barney 59]

hmm they look like Waverlys....and thus the tuners are worth $500.......and the case another $80......and the wood in the back looks pretty nice.....the tailpiece ain't junk.....the bridge ain't junk....so it tain't a Loar.....it's worth more than $350....

This looks like it could be a really nice mandolin all in all. Can anyone make a guess when it could have been made? Some of the best builders made Loar reproductions back in the day. I don't think they were really trying to fool anyone it was just a thing that was done without really thinking it through. Kind of like the doping period of baseball----

[Charlieshafer]

Hmmm, 30 bids and climbing fast. A few people out there know something. Barney's right, though. Monteleone, Hutto and many others made Gibson copies. There are two labels in the F holes facing in opposite directions. Is this the builder's clue to let it be known that it's a copy? It would also be fun to see the date on the label. That could be a give-away as to who the mystery builder might be.

[mrmando]

Er, ah, the date on the label is July 9, 1923.

There might be some more useful information hidden inside, if you could throw a dental mirror in there and have a look ... didn't some of the copy-makers put their own names on the underside of the top?

I would dispute the idea that these copies were made "without thinking it through." Today there are plenty of small-shop builders whose own names have enough cachet to sell their instruments. Several can even sell a mandolin for more than a comparable Gibson. Thirty-five years ago, this was not the case. You could build an instrument with your own name on it and show it all summer at festivals before you maybe got someone to buy it, whereas making a Gibson copy would result in a guaranteed sale.

[Gary Hedrick]

Spot on Martin.....spot on.... Making a mandolin and putting Gibson on the peghead was not thought of as a copyright infringement but rather a necessity......and a sort of homage......Gibson was it and that's what you thought of...

[BradKlein]

Faking the Loar signature, and choosing a serial number next to Mon's, and that didn't match a known Loar. That seems like more that an "homage". At best, the maker was having fun trying to get folks' pulse racing. At worst, hoping to gull the gullible...

[Charlieshafer]

[QUOTE=mrmando;853088]Er, ah, the date on the label is July 9, 1923.

Guess I ought to put my glasses on when I look at pictures next time....

[f5loar]

this is just one of 100's out there with fake serial nos. and signed Loar labels. Usually those 70's luthiers didn't put anything in there if they used the gibson logo. This one looks fairly new and vintage 70's. It could be a recent refinish to varnish as most of those older fakes were lacquer.

[Bernie Daniel]

Its kind of interesting. If it sounded good it could make a nice back-up/travel mandolin. Under the shipping arrangements page is the comment that it will ship from Knoxville, TN. If I lived in that area I might be inclined to see if I could arrange a come by and try session!

[RichieK]

Did someone on mandolincafe win this auction? If so, and if you might not want to hold onto it, I have a friend who is looking for a Loar copy and would probably be interested in buying it from you. Please sent me a note if interested. Thanks.
Richie

[mrmando]

Wow, $2250. Somebody knows something about who built this, I'll wager.

[MikeEdgerton]

I'm guessing that was a Cliff Seargant or something, or it really was a Loar and we all just watched the deal of the century, or Tom wanted it for his Bill Monroe display at home.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I looked very hard at those pictures. Only Cliff could have done the peghead inlay..this was a steal

[allenhopkins]

Interesting how times have changed and (1) it's considered "bad form," and legally liable for prosecution, for individual luthiers to label their instruments "Gibson," and (2) some of the former "copy" builders are now getting higher-than-new-Gibson prices for instruments they build with their own labels.

I remember back in the '70's buying a pretty poor Gibson copy for $500 or so, with "The Gibson" clearly inlaid into the headstock (no label, though) made by some guy in Pennsylvania. Had it a couple years, sold it when I finally bought my own F-5.

I have two instruments, a '20's Gibson GB-3 Mastertone guitar-banjo re-necked as a 5-string, and a 1940 Martin 00-28G classical re-topped and re-necked as a 00-42, that have original-maker parts and "replacement" parts in them. The newer components have, respectively, a "Gibson" inlay and a "Martin" decal, installed by the luthiers who updated them. Don't think this crosses the line, however, since the original instruments were authentic and properly labeled, and both are clearly marked so that their origin and provenance is unmistakable.

Still, interesting to see copies still on the market. Didn't Elderly Instruments get in trouble with Gibson, by listing a banjo as a "Gibson copy"? I guess it's Gibson's position that sellers of copy instruments, can't even allude to the Gibson name.

[MikeEdgerton]

I looked very hard at those pictures. Only Cliff could have done the peghead inlay..this was a steal

I kind of figured. There wasn't enough talk by those that would have known.

[zeke]

That looks incredibly "Cliffie"! Wish I could see it up close, as he did sign them on the inside. And he did sooooo love those labels. My first self made mando was a Virzi'd copy, as he said to do it that way for first one. Man, do I miss him....

[barney 59]

Did Sargent make a habit of using fake Loar signature labels? If this is from the 70's how on earth would someone come up with an "unknown" serial number? For the most part they were all unknown. I have Siminoff's list of vintage mandolin serial #'s (June 1975 Pickin'). He lists 109 mandolins(including my A-0) of all types and 27 Loars only. This may have been the most comprehensive list available at that time. There was no archive back then to find a missing number from. Could it be that someone put that label in more recently as an attempt to maybe pass it off as a real Loar?

[f5loar]

I believe it was Benny Cain of the DC area that was the first to publish a list of Loar serial nos. in BU magazine in 1970. It would have been easier to pick an unknown number back then then it would be today since most all of them have been found. Loar serial nos. ran in batches with consecutive nos. most of the time. Many who did use the fake labels at least signed their own name or put "copy" on it. The illegal use of the Gibson logo in the 70's was rampent!

[barney 59]

I believe it was Benny Cain of the DC area that was the first to publish a list of Loar serial nos. in BU magazine in 1970. It would have been easier to pick an unknown number back then then it would be today since most all of them have been found. Loar serial nos. ran in batches with consecutive nos. most of the time. Many who did use the fake labels at least signed their own name or put "copy" on it. The illegal use of the Gibson logo in the 70's was rampent!

But if it's still an unknown number that would be a pretty lucky guess.

[MikeEdgerton]

How would it be a lucky guess? Monroe's number was a known quantity. Monroe plus one would have been a natural.