# General Mandolin Topics > Vintage Instruments >  Loar F5's and the FON?

## Mike Black

With Spann's guide to Gibson shedding a lot of light and attention on the FON.  

My question is do the Loar F5's have a FON?

There doesn't seem to be any listed in the Archive for the Loar F5's.  There are FON listed on the F5's starting in 1925 after Loar was asked to go. 

Seems strange.  :Confused: 

Inquiring minds want to know.   :Whistling:

----------


## Mike Black

Thinking about it...The reason that the FON are not listed in the Archive is so that they cannot be faked. That's one thing that someone who is "In The Know" would be able to use to verify if it was a REAL Loar F5 and not a FAKE.

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

Loars do have FONs. As I understand it, they are penciled and hidden under one of the lables. If my memory serves me right, there are at least three FONs listed amongst Loars in the archive, two of them in '22 (e. g. # 70321, the mando-viola) and at least one in '24, I believe it was an H5. It was from comparing some Loar FONs to post Loar FONs that the concept of "unsigned Loars" could be confirmed.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Henry is correct.  The FON is stamped under the Loar signed label.  We only have a few recorded and that is from the couple of mandolins that the label fell out or was purposely removed to discover a serial and FON

"Scratchy" is an example.  That is the Loar mandolin that appeared to have been shoplifted from the factory  Both labels were defaced with a pocket knife or similar.  In order to confirm a serial number, the labels were removed and put back in.  Another mandolin in the same batch simply had the Loar label fall out.  The FON was noted and the label put back in

We can see the FON on post Loar Ferns because it is located where the Loar label would have been... under the treble F-hole

Here:

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/79835

and here:

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/79833

----------

Mike Black

----------


## pfox14

The one with the Loar label all defaced is kinda strange. Why would someone do that?

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> The one with the Loar label all defaced is kinda strange. Why would someone do that?


We can only guess.  But the mandolin was uncovered lacking all parts and having the labels defaced.  We assume is was shoplifted out of the factory  _"mental picture of a guy in an overcoat with an F5 tied under his armpit_"

Note that the mandolin did not even have a screw hole for the pickguard

----------


## Ken Waltham

I sold Charlie a Loar case when he had scratchy. Whatever happened to that F5? And, what was it's date? Dec, 1924??
I can't remember just now.
Ken

----------


## Mike Black

> I sold Charlie a Loar case when he had scratchy. Whatever happened to that F5? And, what was it's date? Dec, 1924??
> I can't remember just now.
> Ken


Ken,  
I believe Darryl linked to that one earlier.  

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/79833

*The notes on it say:* 
Labels defaced, bears all attributes of a 12/1/24. New tuners, F4 style tailpiece, exceptionally clean, no threads in pickguard hole. Magnificent, archetypal "Loar" chop. Stainless steel frets installed by Charlie Derrington.


Possibly "shoplifted" out of the factory prior to "stringing up". Prior to removal of label, assumed to be around serial no. 79838 to 79840. Some rumor that is impossible to verify is that the instrument was removed from the factory by Lloyd Loar himself. 

In 2004, the owner steamed off the defaced label to reveal the pencilled-in serial number below, 79833. Pictures of the removed label that accompany this listing taken after that, obviously! 

Nicknamed "Scratchy" by Charlie Derrington in honor of the scratched-off labels.

----------


## Ken Waltham

OK, thanks! Yep, that would be the case I sold Charlie. BTW, Dec 1, 1924 is one of my personal favourite batches. I bet that's a great F5. Some of those pictures look like Dexter's place... Carmel.

----------


## JFDilmando

Kem
Looks like Dec, '24 batch apparently.... no readable label, so no date.... 2 #'s away is a 1Dec signed F5

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

Talking peeling off labels, here's #75319 and a - fortunately - unsuccessful attempt of probably many years ago:

----------


## chris

I bought scratchy when it became available for the first time from the owners. The story was, The grandfather had aquired the mandolin through a trade.  He had an auto repair shop and traded his work for the mando. It then remained in the family for many years.  There was no case, no pickguard, incorrect tuners and tailpiece.  There was a hole for the pickguard mount but, When I looked very closely in the hole, It appeared there were no threads from a screw ever being put in.  It is a great souning mandolin.  I would have loved to have had the virzi removed from it.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Thanks for clarifying the screw hole deal....hole but no threads...now I remember

----------


## Ken Waltham

> Thanks for clarifying the screw hole deal....hole but no threads...now I remember


I remember that statement, about the screw hole. But, no threads... that makes no sense, does it?? I never could believe that.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> I remember that statement, about the screw hole. But, no threads... that makes no sense, does it?? I never could believe that.


I believe it very much.  Gibson obviously had a jig for installing pickguards.  Holes drilled for the guard, but never installed.  This accounts for why the guards are exactly interchangeable

----------

Mike Black

----------


## Timbofood

Sure, it was "spirited away" prior to finger rest installation...no threads, makes perfect sense to me.

----------


## Joey McKenzie

The pilot hole is drilled and the screw cuts it's own threads - right?

----------


## Ken Waltham

> The pilot hole is drilled and the screw cuts it's own threads - right?


Oh, OK, I get it.

----------


## Mike Black

> I believe it very much.  Gibson obviously had a jig for installing pickguards.  Holes drilled for the guard, but never installed.  This accounts for why the guards are exactly interchangeable


Interesting...Never thought of that.

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

In order to keep this thread alive, please allow for some thoughts on FONs again. According to Joe Spann's guide, there were at least two H5 mandolas made in 1924, indicated by FON 11058A. Most interesting to me is that FONs 11896 and 11985 (on Loar F5s and/or on some post Loar F5s) indicate a production year 1923. Hence, it appears that no F5 mandolins where made at all during 1924 and '25. That two year gap before the FON 8231-batch of 1926 might help explaining the obvious differences compared to the Loar batches.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> In order to keep this thread alive, please allow for some thoughts on FONs again. According to Joe Spann's guide, there were at least two H5 mandolas made in 1924, indicated by FON 11058A. Most interesting to me is that FONs 11896 and 11985 (on Loar F5s and/or on some post Loar F5s) indicate a production year 1923. Hence, it appears that no F5 mandolins where made at all during 1924 and '25. That two year gap before the FON 8231-batch of 1926 might help explaining the obvious differences compared to the Loar batches.


This is relatively consistant with my newer thinking.  In other threads I touch on the thought of management saying "stop building" "finish up all this stuff that we have started".    I truly believe "A" behind 11058" means older leftover FON parts being repurposed for newer needs.  The instruments during this period were odd in that they were inconsistent.  Such as black A2's stamped "A" with low end tuners.  TL tenor lutes with old mandola FON's followed by "A" and they still had to build certain things from scratch with new FON's.

Let's also not forget that Gibson was very focused on labor and materials involved in the build process to price out and cost out instruments (and probably who was a cost effective employee)

The leftover FON parts were likely already absorbed into the finanancial accounting and probably only seved as repair warrantee pieces.  Assembling them into finished new instrument helped avoid bankruptcy, but they still had to account for the work via and FON, hence the "A"

----------

almeriastrings

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

Thanks so much, Darryl, that makes sense. I was hoping you would shed some light on this.

----------


## Joe Spann

It does my heart good to see that people like Darryl Wolfe understand what I was trying to say in my book.  George Gruhn is another prominent vintage instrument who also totally understands the whole FON vs serial number issue.

Joe

----------


## pfox14

Joe, I am so glad that you have devoted so much time and effort into recording and explaining FONs. I find myself constantly referring to your book in helping to date various Gibson instruments and better understand the whole manufacturing process. I think thte change from the 5-digit A FONs to the mid-20s and 30s 4 digit codes can also be attributed to the change in management in 1924. Guy Hart, although not the most well-liked person in Gibson history, certainly understood the need to more efficiency and consistency in the manufacturing process. I would venture a guess that there were much fewer left-over parts floating around in the mid-20s through the 30s than had been previously the case. Of course, there are plenty of examples of "floor sweep" instruments in the late 30s and early 40s, which is an oddity in and of itself, but such instruments don't seem to appear as much during the 1925-1938 period making the FONs much more consistent. Right around the time we see these floor sweep guitars and such is also around the time Gibson started stamping letter code serial #s that resembled FONs i.e. FG-3149, etc. There wasn't any big changes in management at that point, so it makes me wonder if there were other changes going on that I'm not aware of. They went from fairly consistent FONs to serial #s to FONs again and then it gets a bit fuzzy after that until they re-introduced letter-coded serial #s in the 1950s. I wonder Joe, if you have considered a follow up to your book for everything after 1941.

----------

Joe Spann

----------


## Joe Spann

Paul, I don't think I have enough data to produce a similar Gibson reference for the period after 1941.

However, I do now have enough _additional_ source material to produce a second volume of Spann's Guide 1902-1941.

The publisher is willing to do it, but I wonder about my own stamina.

Joe Spann

----------


## Annette Siegel

"Paul, I don't think I have enough data to produce a similar Gibson reference for the period after 1941.

However, I do now have enough _additional_ source material to produce a second volume of Spann's Guide 1902-1941.

The publisher is willing to do it, but I wonder about my own stamina."

Joe Spann

This is wonderful news!   I think you need an assistant  :Wink:  ...what can I do to help?

----------


## goaty76

Paul,
What kind of additional info are you talking about?

Phil

----------


## Timbofood

I am with "Nettles" how can one help?

----------


## FL Dawg

> The publisher is willing to do it, but I wonder about my own stamina.


I'll put the coffee pot on.

I would love to see volume 2. I hope others have been emailing and sharing their FON data for their instruments so we can build a more comprehensive index, maybe with features and transition points of note for certain instruments.

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

Vol. 2 would be a great idea - with an extended section on Loar's Master Models. I'd buy two, BTW.

----------


## pfox14

> Paul,
> What kind of additional info are you talking about?
> 
> Phil


Well, there is a lot of information about Gibsons from 1941 through the war and up till 1947. Gibsons ledgers end in 1947. My understanding is that a lot of the shipping ledgers for after 1947 went missing, so we'd have to rely on available information about Gibson's serial # system for that period and existing instruments. For instance, let's determine once and for all when the Les Paul was first introduced - 1952 or 1953 - stuff like that.

Joe,
Hopefully you'll get the chance to do a follow up to your book. All depends on the publisher, but a 2nd edition would be awesome.

----------

