# General Mandolin Topics > eBay, Craig's List, etc. >  I guess the signed Loar label fell out!

## f5loar

For those of you who have never seen a real Gibson Loar era F5 FAKE this is one to study.  It has the regular 1924 Master Model serial no. label complete with an unknown fake serial number.  I would assume the signed Loar label fell out over the years OR this maybe one of those undocumented unsigned Loars that were seconds not worthy of Mr. Loars approval (Darryl W. and Ken W. know what I am talking about) from '24.  Very interesting..................  Please note this is from a musical instrument dealer who seems to in the words of Sgt. Schultz of Hogan's Heros "I know nothing!!!!!"  May the bidding begin! 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Gibs...item1e666ab077

----------


## f5loar

oh wait, I can barely see there is a label attached in the lower F hole. Not sure why they would not have posted a clear photo of that label.   I've asked the seller to post a photo of the 2nd label.  Hummm maybe it is..............!!!XXXXX!!!!CCC   NOT!

----------


## rico mando

might be a good mando at the right price

----------


## Denny Gies

Yeah,, that durned lable thing happened to mine too.

----------


## Markus

That's a lot of pinky-planting going on ... also interesting to see the non-bookmatched back with the interesting grain. 

For the current $0.99, I'd buy it.

----------


## Jim Garber

Hmmmm... it could be worth 99¢ (current bid).

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

What about the case? Does it look period-correct and possibly authentic? Those real F5 cases from that period can be worth quite a bit, at least more than the current bid price ($22.72). 

BTW, if memory serves, this seller is the same one that had returned Alan Bond's stolen Stan Miller mandolin to him once it was brought to the seller's attention, as mentioned in this thread.  So while they are no instrument expert, they do seem to do the right thing when the opportunity presents itself.

----------


## Spruce

First Loar I've seen with a walnut back....
That's gotta be _rare_....

----------


## Tom C

There's just so much wrong with that it's not even funny.

----------


## nobullmando74

They should have taken it to the Pawn Stars! Easily 15k if not more.  :Laughing:

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

I kinda like it.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

Woops. Spoke too soon. It's up to $510.00. Still tempting cuz it's a neat piece, but after about $600.00, the temptation will cease. If it wasn't for the walnut back, I think this would be a pretty cool one to have.

----------


## Charlieshafer

The walnut is actually pretty, but the scroll? F holes? Strange little piece of mandolinism.

----------


## mrmando

Jamie Curtis built an H5 with a walnut back that sounds _amazing..._

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> What about the case? Does it look period-correct and possibly authentic? Those real F5 cases from that period can be worth quite a bit, at least more than the current bid price ($22.72).


The case is not authentic, not even close. I sold a mandolin for a friend several years ago on eBay. An early 30's F2 that Mandolin Brothers sold with a Loar case in poor condition. The bidding war at the end of the auction took me totally by surprise. It was really for the case. I didn't know what it was or I would have separated the two.

----------


## JeffD

It seems to have taken a heck of a wack on the treble side of the bridge, pushing it to the edge of the bass F hole.

----------


## Spruce

> Jamie Curtis built an H5 with a walnut back that sounds _amazing..._


I'm not _positive_ it's walnut, but it sure looks like it to me....

----------


## mrmando

The case looks a lot like the cases used for Gibson EM200s in the mid to late 60s...

----------


## John Kinn

Works great against scroll envy!

----------


## Bill Snyder

For posterity.

----------


## Charlieshafer

> I'm not _positive_ it's walnut, but it sure looks like it to me....


Has to be; we just got in a bunch of walnut with almost identical figure. Now the fun part is is it Claro, or English. We've had both with that same figure and graining.

----------


## Glassweb

ouch!

----------


## Ken Waltham

Should make nice kindling come October.....

----------


## jim simpson

Wow, the price has exceeded $1000.00 with days to go till the end. Do you suppose bidders are thinking it's the real thing? 

This listing probably violates Ebay policy.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Yes, selling counterfeits violates eBay policy.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

The seller isn't taking any questions about it, I assume he knows it isn't real.

----------


## michaelpthompson

> Yes, selling counterfeits violates eBay policy.


But eBay can't enforce that unless somebody reports it. Hint, hint.

----------


## Eric Hanson

Reported. Let's see how long it takes, if the powers that be even take action. :Whistling:  :Popcorn:

----------


## Ben Milne

The top looks as if it might have had a repair after something like a fire-poker had been thrust through it...   If it's Bill's lost 2nd loar it could be a bargain even with the refin/ back replacement etc  :Laughing:

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

I messaged the seller about it, and hope they will do the right thing to either update the listing or pulled it altogether.

----------


## almeriastrings

Looks like claro walnut to me.

Back in the 60's there was quite a little "industry" in making what people now call "fakes". You have to remember, there was nothing like the choice of F5 type mandolins that are around now. You got a Gibson F5 at a whole lot of $$ (and in many cases, not much of a mandolin either), or you got a plywood piece of junk.... the plethora of independent luthiers now cranking out top-line instruments just did not exist. Neither did the pac-rim imports. It was also not viewed quite as dimly as it is now to put on a repro label or logo, either... so, some people made their own attempts at "creating" shall we say, "vintage" instruments. Some of those people went on to become "legit" luthiers in their own right. This is nothing new, of course, as "fake" Strad's outnumber real ones by thousands to one...

Some (like these "fake" mandolins and banjos) can be genuinely good instruments in their own right. Some are not. There is no real way to know unless you can see it and play it. They were not all made to scam someone... a lot were made because somebody wanted a vintage-style F5 or RB250 and no-one at the time was making them.

There was also a lot of "retro" customising going on... adding herringbone or abalone  to more recent D-28's, 45-style headstock overlays, and putting together new instruments from old parts or damaged examples. You could not buy a '45 from Martin until 1969... so prior to that, if you wanted one, "faking it" was the only way to go. You have to put this in historical context. Some of these are now interesting, and collectable in their own right.

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Ad seems to be carefully worded as if he either knows it's not the real thing or highly suspects it's not the real thing. Bet this instrument has a very interesting history ...  :Wink:

----------


## almeriastrings

I think a lot of these have interesting histories. Most were made quite a few years before even plans (let alone kits) for F-5 mandolins were readily available.. people made moulds by guesswork, or often unreliable measurements from instruments in for repair or borrowed for a few hours, some were made from nothing more than catalog pictures... some are very, very highly skilled work with great materials. Some are pretty dire. I have seen some that were just great mandolins, though... others only fit for firewood. No consistency whatever with these... but, if you find a good one, they are fascinating conversation pieces! Obviously, anyone SELLING one today should be upfront about what it is (or is not).

----------


## Ray(T)

Is somebody going to post this on the "Worst Scroll" thread?

----------


## Vernon Hughes

The seller probably/actually knows nothing about this..They are part of the treasure hunters roadshow that sets up in holiday inns all over the country and buy instruments/collectibles for pennies on the dollar from people who really want to sell and know less than what they do..I bought an old a model from them sometime back and from the responses to my specific questions before purchase they actually didn't really know anything..I complained after receiving the instrument about some serious condition problems and they reimbursed me 200.00 on a 500.00 purchase because they didn't know enough about it or the problems..fair enough..I'm not defending them,just sharing my experience..That one's definitely not right though..

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I'm pretty sure Tom reported it when he posted the OP, I reported it, I'm sure others have reported it. I was unable to ask the seller about it because he wasn't answering questions about it. I still think that's shady. The real problem is that eBay stands to make money on these so they are reluctant to take down a listing from a legitimate member. They'll take down the listings from the sketchy guys. Somebody is buying this thinking they're getting a treasure. Hopefully they won't be too disappointed.

----------


## Bill Snyder

They do have this in their listing:
_"we are very happy to correct anything that may be amiss. If you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, you may return it for a refund."_

AND it is back to 0 bids with a starting price of 99 cents.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

The original link is showing the listing as having been ended. If you want to see something interesting look at his negative feedback. He has a 99% rating because he sells so much but a good percentage of the negatives are for musical instruments and non shipment.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

So is it completely illegal to sell that then because it says "The Gibson" and it isn't one? Or could he sell it as a fake and be off the hook? Like if he put it up on the classifieds as a Fake Gibson Mandolin. Cuz it still shouldn't be hard to sell that one.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

You cannot sell counterfeit items on eBay, even if you say it's a fake according to their rules. They don't always enforce their own rules.

----------


## almeriastrings

Interesting question... there are probably copyright infringement issues.... "The Gibson" script and flowerpot, for example... then again, look at how many mandolins have included the latter! As to the basic design, just about every non-Gibson "F-style" is - to some extent - a "fake" in that regard!!!

----------


## JeffD

It is illegal to sell counterfeit. Even if you sell it as counterfeit.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

Then I'll take it for free and not tell anyone.  :Grin:

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Interesting question... there are probably copyright infringement issues.... "The Gibson" script and flowerpot, for example... then again, look at how many mandolins have included the latter! As to the basic design, just about every non-Gibson "F-style" is - to some extent - a "fake" in that regard!!!


It would be the same for every Martin style dreadnought guitar as well. Some designs are widely copied but when you put a brand name on it then it becomes a counterfeit item. There are watches made by most of the major asian manufacturers that look like the Rolex oyster case. It only becomes an issue when you put the Rolex brand name on it.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

It's a 70's Iida/Alvarez with it's original case

----------


## f5loar

I don't think they used walnut on those 70's imports.  The headstock and F holes are too crudley cut to be japan import. The binding is poorly done.   I'm seeing just a bad attempt by a backyard woodsman likely from the late 60's to early 70's.  The case is the same Gibson used in late 68 to early 70 for the F5,F12,EM200 and A5.  I asked the seller to send me a photo of the 2nd label and he did get back to me with this "All the label states is things that have been tuned and looked over back in the day, so the sticker would not have anything to do with manufacture or up to date"

----------


## Ken Waltham

Agree, Tom. That's a late 60's Gibson case. Had a couple of F12's in that case in the past.
Ken

----------


## f5loar

I've got a closet full of them.  Likely the worst F5 case Gibson ever used.  Very whimpy compared to the previous and post cases of this era.

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

Looks like it's back - this time sold as an unknown vintage with no reference of Gibson anywhere in the ad: http://www.ebay.com/itm/130569953387

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

I still think it's pretty neat.

----------


## stonefingers

$400 and climbing...

----------


## Jim Garber

"This listing was ended by the seller because the item is no longer available."

----------


## Mike Black

Could this be one of those infamous F4 conversions?  The headstock looks like an F4 flowerpot.  It has the F4 neck healcap. Looks as if it's gotten a new longer neck and new top.   Wasn't this a big thing to do in the 70's?

----------


## Mike Black

Oh, and a phony label too.   :Smile:

----------


## Mike Black

> I'm not _positive_ it's walnut, but it sure looks like it to me....


Bruce,  Do you think it could be a brown stained flamed birch/maple (F4)?  If you look at the top near the bass side back edge, the finish is worn off and it's a light color.

----------


## amanco45

> You cannot sell counterfeit items on eBay, even if you say it's a fake according to their rules. They don't always enforce their own rules.


There are dozens of fake (ca 1900) early Italiano style violins on eBay at any given time.  Strads, Stainer, Hopf etc.. with original looking signed label, mid 16th century date etc..  Just because they are 100 years old makes them no less fake.  I would say they (eBay) nearly never enforce their own rules, at least in the violin category.  You just don't see as many mando fakes so it seems to be a bigger deal.  :Wink:

----------


## Spruce

> Bruce,  Do you think it could be a brown stained flamed birch/maple (F4)?  If you look at the top near the bass side back edge, the finish is worn off and it's a light color.


It wasn't the _color_ that was making me think "walnut", but the look of the graining....

Yeah, it could be maple I guess....
Hard to say....

----------


## Pete Summers

> There are dozens of fake (ca 1900) early Italiano style violins on eBay at any given time.  Strads, Stainer, Hopf etc.. with original looking signed label, mid 16th century date etc..  Just because they are 100 years old makes them no less fake.  I would say they (eBay) nearly never enforce their own rules, at least in the violin category.  You just don't see as many mando fakes so it seems to be a bigger deal.


Faking a Gibson mandolin is a trademark violation, among other things, so it is a bigger deal than old fiddle copies of Stradivari, Stainer etc. Those old Cremona violins do not have a trademark issue, of course, so copying their design and label is simply routine in the violin trade. It's just the way the violin trade works -- and supposedly any reasonably educated fiddler knows this and takes it as a matter of course. 

Not everyone does, though. Many non-fiddlers think any violin labeled "Stradivarius" is a valuable antique worth millions (re: Pawn Stars). There is no way Ebay can do anything about the way violins are marketed except deal with actual fraud when (and if) they discover it. They can't reform the violin trade.

Claiming a particular violin is an ACTUAL Stradivari made instrument when it isn't, is fraud, just as is claiming that a fake Gibson mandolin is real one. Ebay will deal with those issues if reported, in my experience. But they have to determine it's truly fraud. They are not going to do anything just because a violin label says "Antonius Stradivarius Cremonenfis, feciebat anno 1723" or whatever -- That's what most old trade violin labels say -- to claim it as fraud because of a label would mean charging every violin store or seller on the planet with fraud everyday.

If it is not a real Gibson mandolin, but claims to be, Ebay will do something about it if reported. We've all seen a number of cases of that happening.
 :Frown:

----------


## i-vibe

now over 2K w 47 bids.

seller has changed the item listing to "Vintage Unknown Mandolin".  a clever strategy as it absolves him of trying to pass it off as the real thing and it will no doubt appeal to a lot folks who might perhaps think they are getting a steal on the genuine article from a seller who doesn't know what he's selling.

----------


## Spruce

Us $5,300.01...

 :Disbelief:

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

Did somebody just pay $5300 for that thing? I'm beside myself....

----------


## i-vibe

yikes. i know what p.t. barnum would say.

----------


## Spruce

> Did somebody just pay $5300 for that thing? I'm beside myself....


Yep....
Here 'tis...

Bidders:19
Bids:59

Are we missing something??

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

> Are we missing something??


I know what I'm missing - a boatload of cash with no place to spend..

----------


## grassrootphilosopher

I´d like to ask the folks that (still) monitor ebay (listings).

Would you say that in this case it is a strategy to do a shill (winning) bid to keep the people (us) from thinking that you tried to fool them with a previous faulty listing?

----------


## Mandolin Mick

:Disbelief:

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

Someone got a pretty neat looking mandolin that's not a vintage Gibson for the price of a very nice used newer Gibson. 

If one of us meets this guy at a festival jam, what will we say?  :Confused:

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

> If one of us meets this guy at a festival jam, what will we say?


"I've got a nice vintage unsigned Loar with the label fell out that I'd like you to look at..."

----------


## rico mando

I'd say nice Loar and let him live in blissful happiness

----------


## allenhopkins

I'd say, "Can I try your mandolin?" and see if I think it was worth the $5.3K.  Not that my playing level is adequate to make such a judgment...

----------


## Bill Snyder

Hey, the winning bidder may think he really put one over on the seller. 
Like they say - You pays your money and you take your chances.

----------


## f5loar

no doubt a crime has been committed and the seller got off Scott free laughing all the way to the bank.  However it is not the first fake Loar to change hands without question as to it's authenticity.

----------


## Spruce

How could somebody be ready to shell out that kind of dough on a "Loar", and _not_ be hip to these pages...??   :Confused:

----------


## barry

Could that possibly be work from one of the early builders?....Marion Kirk, perhaps.

----------


## Carma

I am happy to chime in here since I am the buyer of this mystery mando.  You can relax folks - no crime was committed and no fraud was perpetrated by the seller on the poor uniformed buyer (Yours Truly). 

Bill Snyder (above) noticed the most important part of this listing as it relates to my purchase:  
"we are very happy to correct anything that may be amiss. If you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, you may return it for a refund."   I emailed the seller prior to bidding as well and he was very clear he did not know what this is, and was happy to sell it offering a full refund.  He does not represent it to be an authentic Gibson mandolin, nor does he say it is not.  The simple truth is that he does not know, and neither do I.  

I intend to get it in hand or into the hands of a competent expert to evaluate and then either keep it or return it for a full refund as per the terms of the listing.  Seemed like a no brainer to me and a fun way to find out what the heck this thing is.   I'm getting more detailed photos of the beast and will post them on photobucket as soon as possible.  I'm intrigued by all of the theories and conjecture about this mandolin and I look forward to reading many more as I get more photos and information posted.   Is it a Lost Label Loar?  I doubt it.    But wouldn't it be fun if it is?

I enjoy reading these forums (Gibson, Gretsch, Mando, etc etc).  They are a great source of information.  But I'm always surprised at how negative people are - so often jumping to the worst conclusion, so often suspecting the worst.  Being critical.  Being negative.

You can all relax.  No harm done here.  Just a fun fishing trip.

Anyway ...

"The reward for conformity is that everyone likes you but yourself."
Rita Mae Brown  :Grin:

----------


## mrmando

Carma -- there are no experts on Gibson mandolins anywhere in the world who are more competent than Tom Isenhour, Darryl Wolfe and Ken Waltham, all of whom have already weighed in here. If you don't trust those guys, I'd sure like to know who you're going to take it to. 

I wonder how many times this seller will have this mandolin returned before he changes his policy? He still has to pay his eBay fees, which must be pretty stiff on a $5300 transaction.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

It would be the strangest looking Loar I've ever seen. 

I don't think we're jumping to the worst conclusion at all. Some of the best mandolin experts in the world are on this forum and they have seen it all. We didn't want anyone shelling out $50k+ for something that's worth significantly less. I think we'd be even more insensitive if we saw a fake and told a potential buyer to spend his life savings on it just cuz it's a "could be". 

That said, I was hoping that the buyer would find this thread. I think the mandolin looks pretty awesome! I'm excited to see more pictures and maybe even a video of how it sounds (hint hint)!

----------


## Carma

There have been lots of comments on what is isnt, but no consensus as to what it "is" that I can see (did I miss it?).  I realize this is where the experts rest their heads and that is why I'm going to contribute more information on this piece.

----------


## Mandolin Mick

Interesting having the buyer weigh in ... at least we know his thinking in this transaction.  :Confused:

----------


## Carma

Here's the Photobucket Album - only eBay photos so far.  More on the way.


http://photobucket.com/MysteryMando

----------


## mrmando

> There have been lots of comments on what is isnt, but no consensus as to what it "is" that I can see (did I miss it?).


Well, if you want a definitive answer as to what it _is,_ you might have to search the world over. The walnut back and the shape of the scroll are enough to rule out its being an authentic Gibson F5. But you may never find an expert who knows _exactly_ what it is, unless it's one of those copycat jobs where the copycat considerately puts in a label with his name attached to the underside of the top. (Be sure to have your expert check there with a dental mirror.) How long has the seller given you to have it checked out?

----------


## Spruce

> Just a fun fishing trip.


_I'll_ say....

----------


## Carma

Return policy is 7 days from receipt of the mando, which should arrive next week, unless i go pick it up since I'll be close by next weekend.  As for labels, I have not seen any more pictures than the one in the photo, which sure looks like a Gibson label, but by the consensus here is likely a fake.  I'm curious what it is about the label that make it appear fake to the experts.

----------


## mrmando

'Tain't the _label_ ... the finish is wrong, the binding is wrong, the wood is wrong, the scroll is wrong, the heel is wrong, the lower treble point is wrong. That's what I can see off the bat in 30 seconds, and I'm not even an expert.

I could peel the label off a Coke bottle and put it on a Pepsi bottle, but it would still be a Pepsi bottle.

Anyhow, I've got a mandolin that is almost certainly an old Gibson, but it doesn't have a factory order number, so it's a little unusual. Let me know if you'd like to take it for a fishing trip.

----------


## Spruce

> I'm curious what it is about the label that make it appear fake to the experts.


No white border beyond the black "ring" for starters...

That, and what it's stuck to...   :Wink:

----------


## f5loar

Wish I could afford to go on a $5000 fishing trip!  While the experts here don't agree on what it is they do agree on what it is not.
The problem I had from the get go after the seller was told by many from here it was not a Gibson you would think if he knew he might be selling a $100,000 plus mandolin on ebay he would at the least get a 2nd or even 3rd opinion before listing it at 99 cents.  To just let the photos do the selling is not cool when it could involve $100,000 or $5000.  It may indeed be a killer copy of the famous Loar F5.  It could even be an early attempt by guys like Randy Wood or MK Kirk but even they knew to use the correct wood species and at the least the heel point correct with better sized F holes.  Maybe even an early Luke Thompson or Bob Shue.  Looks like it could even be a CE Ward.  But without the mandolin for an in hand inspection it's anybodies guess at this point from those photos.  The fact the maker went to the trouble to not only use a fake label but also pick out a fake serial number is pretty crafty.  I never could get the seller to send me a photo of the other label.  It's possible that label will tell the tale of the loar of the Loar.  Don't you have to pay return shipping if you don't like it?
Happy to hear a crime was not commited and money has changed hands between a willing seller and a willing buyer.

----------


## Vernon Hughes

That rings a bell..Luke Thompson..I played a couple of his long long years ago when in Folsom,Louisiana at a festival he used to put on..They never were pretty things but they did sound good..Ya never know..

----------


## JLeather

> I wonder how many times this seller will have this mandolin returned before he changes his policy? He still has to pay his eBay fees, which must be pretty stiff on a $5300 transaction.


I've had returned items before and there is a form where you claim that the sale did not take place, and the buyer agrees, and then eBay will refund you the final value fees.

----------


## baptist mando55

This looks a lot like the mandolin that Bruce Jones used to have. if it is that would be C E  Wards third mandolin. Bruce told me he had sold it to a preacher. I think at some point the neck had been repaired bu Bob shue. It had a small pickguard glued to the top and this one looks like it ma have had something there. It was a great mandolin I took lessons from Bruce and used it many times. IM sure f5loar may remember it. Bruce plays a real good Ward now.

----------


## Carma

More detailed photos have arrived - including the "Loar" label:

http://photobucket.com/MysteryMando

----------


## mrmando

Interesting. Here's the fake label:



Here by way of comparison is a real March 1924 label:


Note the marked difference in handwriting. Also, the real signature does not include the middle initial "A" and "March" is not abbreviated.

----------


## Spruce

This  detail should be one givaway (for those who know) as to whose work we are looking at:

----------


## Carma

> Note the marked difference in handwriting. Also, the real signature does not include the middle initial "A" and "March" is not abbreviated.


Yes I noticed that -I pulled up a few on the F5 pages.  All that trouble to put labels in and horrible job of the signature.  Strange but true.

----------


## Carma

> This  detail should be one givaway (for those who know) as to whose work we are looking at:


Does it tell us who's work we are looking at?  Or just who's we are NOT looking at?  If you have solved the mystery builder please speak  :Smile:

----------


## Spruce

> Yes I noticed that -I pulled up a few on the F5 pages.  All that trouble to put labels in and horrible job of the signature.  Strange but true.


I would think that building a Loar copy that would pass the muster of these pages would rank as the #1 most difficult feat to pull off in the whole wide world of forged luthiery....
And forgetabout a hands-on inspection....   :Wink: 

I doubt there's a _single example_ of a mandolin legitimately masquerading as a Loar out there....
Anyone??

A far cry from the world of violins or Fenders....

----------


## Carma

I'm anxious to hear more opinions on who may have built this instrument since it appears we know who did not build it ... Does that pointed heel offer any clues?

----------


## mrmando

> All that trouble to put labels in and horrible job of the signature.  Strange but true.


The difference, perhaps, between a forgery and a tribute. This builder wasn't trying to fool the experts. He couldn't help it if the fools were fooled.

----------


## baptist mando55

_still think it may be bruce jones old Ward. josh greene accidentally knocked it ove and BRuce had Bob Shue fix it maybe even rplaced the neck.Acccording to Bruce it was his third. rough but sounded good_

----------


## Carma

> _still think it may be bruce jones old Ward. josh greene accidentally knocked it ove and BRuce had Bob Shue fix it maybe even rplaced the neck.Acccording to Bruce it was his third. rough but sounded good_


Can you direct me to information on this maker?  Thanks

----------


## mrmando

Clermon Eugene Ward of North Carolina was a well-known regional luthier/repairman. He passed away in 2009. Tom (f5loar) knew him for many years and will certainly have an informed opinion about whether C.E. made this mandolin.

----------


## baptist mando55

ce ward died a couple of years ago H..E made rally good mandolins and many banjo necks. f5 loar can tell you more.He is very famous in the bluegrass world. Did Sonny Osbrunes famous 6 string banjo neck Doyle Lawson played a ward for a while .         you can see a good example at  Harry Wests site

----------


## Carma

well if it does turn out to be made by a man named "ward" that will be quite spooky since that is my first name.

----------


## Spruce

> This builder wasn't trying to fool the experts. He couldn't help it if the fools were fooled.


Well, things were a _lot_ different back in the 60's-70's....

----------


## mrmando

True; we didn't have information and photos of Loars concentrated in any one spot, as we do now.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> I'm anxious to hear more opinions on who may have built this instrument since it appears we know who did not build it ... Does that pointed heel offer any clues?


You do understand that even if you do figure out who made it the mandolin still won't be worth what you paid for it, right?

----------


## Carma

> You do understand that even if you do figure out who made it the mandolin still won't be worth what you paid or it, right?


Of course if its not worth the money I will return it or negotiate with the seller once I determine what it might be worth in the market or to me personally.

----------


## mrmando

Yeah, I think $5300 is pretty steep for a Ward. Cliff Sargent and John Monteleone are the only builders I can think of whose old Loar copies could legitimately be worth that kind of coin. No, it isn't likely that this mandolin was made by either of those chaps. John's are pretty well documented; Cliff's less so, but they both got many more of the details right.

----------


## mrmando

> I would think that building a Loar copy that would pass the muster of these pages would rank as the #1 most difficult feat to pull off in the whole wide world of forged luthiery....


Let's just say that if I possessed an iffy mandolin and wanted to maintain the illusion that it was a real Loar, the _last_ thing I'd do would be to put photos of it on the Internet.

----------


## woodwizard

You can get a real Gibson for that amount. Many F4's, F2's are available and very nice snakheads including some A2-Z's. I would have thought long and hard on this one before making the jump.  :Confused:

----------


## Carma

I'm gonna throw out a wild theory here - is it possible this was made back in the day as an "employee" model.  Since Loar did not build the instruments, is it possible that one of the Gibson Luthiers built this on his own time?  I know this was common at Martin back in the day.  The thing just looks too old to me to be build in the 70's - the finish checking and the surface damage just look much older to me.  I trade in a lot of older guitars, so I see quite a few 40-50 year old instruments in all kinds of condition, and this just looks older to me than 40 years.

Thoughts?

----------


## mrmando

Well, you'd have to explain how and why said employee built something that didn't match any of the forms and jigs and templates available to him in the Gibson shop, and used methods and materials different from the ones he was accustomed to working with on REAL Gibson mandolins. More difficult than that would be explaining why the employee went to the trouble of putting a company logo on the headstock, copying a serial number and faking the acoustic engineer's signature. Loar had a reputation as a _musician_ at the time, but he didn't carry the cachet as a _luthier_ that he enjoys today. His theories on mandolin construction would have been regarded as experimental at best, not to mention that the Master Models were commercial failures when they came out.

There was no reason to fake a Loar until the 1960s.

----------


## f5loar

Wayne Henderson is an early builder that made pretty darn fine Loar copies.  And he has done the fake labels too.  His would be more than $5000.  Ward did a few with fake labels.  Early models I don't recall him signed his name to them.  If somebody could post the photos to Jack Lawerance (picked with Doc Watson) he would know as he worked for Ward back then.  I had an early Ward Fake Loar and this one is not as good.  I see now why the seller did not post photos of the fake signed Loar label.  That's pretty obvious it's fake.  Instead he posted a close up of the serial no. label which looks more real.

----------


## Carma

> Wayne Henderson is an early builder that made pretty darn fine Loar copies.  And he has done the fake labels too.  His would be more than $5000.  Ward did a few with fake labels.  Early models I don't recall him signed his name to them.  If somebody could post the photos to Jack Lawerance (picked with Doc Watson) he would know as he worked for Ward back then.  I had an early Ward Fake Loar and this one is not as good.  I see now why the seller did not post photos of the fake signed Loar label.  That's pretty obvious it's fake.  Instead he posted a close up of the serial no. label which looks more real.


The photos are all online in a public album - www.photobucket.com/mysterymando    I can email Jack Lawrence the link if you know how to reach him - PM me.  Thanks.

----------


## Spruce

When you get the mando, pop out the strap button and have a look inside....
You might find something interesting...

----------


## Carma

> Well, you'd have to explain how and why said employee built something that didn't match any of the forms and jigs and templates available to him in the Gibson shop, and used methods and materials different from the ones he was accustomed to working with on REAL Gibson mandolins. More difficult than that would be explaining why the employee went to the trouble of putting a company logo on the headstock, copying a serial number and faking the acoustic engineer's signature. Loar had a reputation as a _musician_ at the time, but he didn't carry the cachet as a _luthier_ that he enjoys today. His theories on mandolin construction would have been regarded as experimental at best, not to mention that the Master Models were commercial failures when they came out.
> 
> There was no reason to fake a Loar until the 1960s.


As I said it was a wild theory - I'm not thinking of someone trying to fake one - Martin employees built one-off instruments for their own pleasure, to experiment with new designs or materials, and all kinds of other weird stuff.    Because this is so "wrong" in so many ways as an "imposter", I have to wonder if it was not built with that intention at all, but with the intention of perhaps trying something new - new wood, new heel design, or some other prototype design?  As I said a wild theory but a theory nonetheless.

----------


## Carma

> When you get the mando, pop out the strap button and have a look inside....
> You might find something interesting...


  .... such as?

----------


## baptist mando55

the reason i thought it might be ce wards work iplayed bruce jones old mandolin a good bit. that was over thirty years ago.but the color is right and it looks like it could have had astick on picguard pulled off his had one glud on guitar style. it was crude but it wa only his third. if i remember correctl bruce said it was made from an old cello.

----------


## mrmando

That's not a new heel design, it's a bad copy of an old one. It's not an experimental scroll, it's a badly cut scroll with a flat spot and a too-wide gap. It's not so different from existing designs as to be a prototype. A prototype would not get a serial number and a signature label. No photocopiers in the 1920s ... if you wanted a signature label you'd have to steal one off Lloyd's workbench. (And having stolen the labels, why would you trim the edges off them?) If you were prototyping an instrument, you would expect to demonstrate it to the boss at some point -- and then you'd look pretty foolish with a badly forged signature in it.

If you're "not thinking of someone trying to fake one," then what possible reason could there be for the serial number and the signature? Keep in mind: A Gibson instrument with that serial number almost certainly WAS made and DID exist. Although it's not in current records, it may turn up at any time. Back in the day, putting that same number in a prototype instrument would have been a very risky and foolish thing for a Gibson employee to do. 

If I was aware that Wayne Henderson had made some Loar copies, I must have forgotten. Yes, most definitely anything made by Wayne is worth some serious coin.

----------


## baptist mando55

ward wasnt trying to fake a loar he was just building a mandolin . people in the know  knows  that his later work is very desirible like isaid if this was his it was very .early

----------


## Spruce

> .... such as?


A signature, a date, or--as I used to do when building these things--a nudie pic glued to the neck block for all those folks who like to pull the endpin to have a look...    :Wink:

----------


## jim simpson

I've posted about my Gibson copy made by Chris Warner previously. I remember buying it off of a friend and feeling kind of weird as it was a copy. At least Chris had a visible label indicating that it was a copy with the date and his signature. Evidently mine wasn't as good as the one Marty Stewart owns and plays. 

Carma,
Based on the amount that you paid, I'm guessing you were hoping it was a real Gibson? Unless you are buying it as a player and like it as such, I would guess you'll be sending it back.
Best,
Jim

----------


## Carma

> A signature, a date, or--as I used to do when building these things--a nudie pic glued to the neck block for all those folks who like to pull the endpin to have a look...


  I'll ask the guy to have a look.  Its still in IL.

----------


## Carma

> If you're "not thinking of someone trying to fake one," then what possible reason could there be for the serial number and the signature? Keep in mind: A Gibson instrument with that serial number almost certainly WAS made and DID exist. Although it's not in current records, it may turn up at any time. Back in the day, putting that same number in a prototype instrument would have been a very risky and foolish thing for a Gibson employee to do.


I agree with you - that is why I can't help wondering if this did not come out of the Gibson shop.  Who in the 70's knew the list of all the Loar serial numbers, which ones had been found, and which ones had not - not to mention all of them that have turned up in the last 40 years.  The fact that this serial number is correct for the period, has the correct date on the label, and has never been duplicated in any known instrument raises the question in my mind "how did the faker know what number to use"?

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I hateto be the guy always throwing the wrench in the works here but the reality is that this is a mandolin built by an unknown builder that didn't do a real swell job in copying what he was trying to copy. I think you're going to find that it's not going to end up being the treasure you want it to be. There was a reason that many people here reported this as a fake to eBay that triggered the delisting and subsequent relisting. I'd like to think you went into this with your eyes open but it doesn't look like you did. I hope for your sake that the seller will honor his return policy.

----------


## Carma

> I hateto be the guy always throwing the wrench in the works here but the reality is that this is a mandolin built by an unknown builder that didn't do a real swell job in copying what he was trying to copy. I think you're going to find that it's not going to end up being the treasure you want it to be. There was a reason that many people here reported this as a fake to eBay that triggered the delisting and subsequent relisting. I'd like to think you went into this with your eyes open but it doesn't look like you did. I hope for your sake that the seller will honor his return policy.


Mike my eyes are wide open, I know its not a Loar, I'm in regular communication with the seller, I'm having fun finding out what it is, the seller will take it back, and the world is great.  Thanks for your help and the help of all others on the Forum in id'ing this mando.

----------


## mrmando

> I agree with you - that is why I can't help wondering if this did not come out of the Gibson shop. Who in the 70's knew the list of all the Loar serial numbers, which ones had been found, and which ones had not - not to mention all of them that have turned up in the last 40 years. The fact that this serial number is correct for the period, has the correct date on the label, and has never been duplicated in any known instrument raises the question in my mind "how did the faker know what number to use"?


There were, in fact, some collectors keeping lists in the 1960s and '70s, as interest in Loar-signed instruments began to build. These lists would have been available to the few individual builders interested in making copies. Newly discovered Loars continue to trickle in at a slow pace. I bet Darryl could tell us exactly how many have been discovered since 1965, but I'd wager if you picked a number of an unknown Loar instrument back then, there's a 50/50 chance it would still be unknown today. Whereas, if you picked that number in 1924, the instrument would most likely be a _known_ instrument that could be looked up in the shipping log. I don't think Lloyd would have been too amused. You could lose your job.

Apart from that, again, it didn't come out of the Gibson shop because it's a crude copy that doesn't match Gibson-made instruments in most of its details. Your theory would necessitate that someone had all of Gibson's tools, patterns and know-how available to him, yet somehow built a mandolin without using any of those resources. Why would a Gibson craftsman deliberately build something on his own that was markedly inferior to the stuff he built on the job? It's illogical. 

There are several serial-number groupings of 3/31/24 Loars; the number chosen for this mandolin falls midway between the first two groups. Statistically, it's most likely that the real 75875 is not a Loar-signed Master Model at all, and the first serious attempt at cataloguing non-Master Model instruments -- the Mandolin Archive -- is less than a decade old. The Archive comprises just a fraction of more than 90,000 instruments ... the real 75875 is among the tens of thousands yet to be recorded.

----------


## Carma

> There were, in fact, some collectors keeping lists in the 1960s and '70s, as interest in Loar-signed instruments began to build. ...


Cool - that could explain it then.  Thanks.

----------


## baptist mando55

it could be one of many just from the north carolina area ce ward,bob shue,dean clawson, and evena guy that used to run  mineral springs music barn. thet called him sqirrell ithink his last name was aldridge harry west has two gibson copies on his site

----------


## mrmando

Bob Shue is still around and still building, but he's not a computer guy from what I know.

----------


## baptist mando55

Bob shue builds great mandolins some look better than others but i never seen on that didnt sound very good. both bob shue and ce ward lived in concord nc

----------


## mrmando

> Mike my eyes are wide open, I know its not a Loar, I'm in regular communication with the seller, I'm having fun finding out what it is, the seller will take it back, and the world is great.  Thanks for your help and the help of all others on the Forum in id'ing this mando.


I am really glad you're doing all this, BTW. You are essentially performing the seller's due diligence for him. Shoot, _he_ ought to be paying _you_ for doing what he was too lazy to do.

----------


## Spruce

> Who in the 70's knew the list of all the Loar serial numbers, which ones had been found, and which ones had not - not to mention all of them that have turned up in the last 40 years?


Not Gibson...   :Wink:

----------


## almeriastrings

What seems odd to me on this one, is why go to the trouble of faking the label, and then use the wrong BACK on the thing? That just seems plain weird. Unless the idea was to make it look sorta-kinda-roughly like a Loar from the front, but look on the back and the truth is right in front of your eyes? A sort of little bit of humor from whoever built it?

It should be very interesting to take a look around inside with an inspection mirror and see if there are further revelations lurking in the depths...

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

Ward - I am glad to hear that you went in with eyes wide opened, and as you can see there are lots of experts here on the forum hoping to help figure out exactly what it is.  And if you don't mind me asking - I am curious to hear what you saw in the mandolin when you spotted it on the auction site.  I mean, you must have seen something that many of us didn't in order to motivate you to go to the lengths you did to win the auction.  Care to share with the rest of us?

----------


## baptist mando55

most of these guys werent trying to fool any one they were just supplying  good mandolin at agood price most of these copies or fakes as you like to call them were much better than what gibson had at the time demosey youngs hutto had the gibson on the peghead. if iremember correctly he told me in th late 70s he gave around 750 dollars for his hutto

----------


## Spruce

> ....and as you can see there are lots of experts here on the forum hoping to help figure out exactly what it is.


Not just any "experts"...
"_The_" go-to folks for anything "Loar"...




> What seems odd to me on this one, is why go to the trouble of faking the label, and then use the wrong BACK on the thing? That just seems plain weird.


Well, I don't think one person in a 1000 could smell that one out back when this thing was built.
After all, I've seen authentic walnut Gibsons with scrolls on 'em before...   :Wink: 

Hell, I'd bet a beer that it's walnut, but not much more than that....
We _could_ be looking at maple through yellowed lacquer...

----------


## f5loar

I looked closely at all the photos posted and I dug out the one clear photo I have of my 1970 Ward Loar copy complete with fake labels.  While I see some similiarities I see alot that is not close to this one.  Ward had better truss rod covers (you had to make your own back then as Gibson's were the bigger post war style).  Ward had better guage at placing the bridge where it should be and not right on the edge of the upper F hole as this one is.  Ward had finer cut pearl inlays then this one.  As far as the aging cracks if made in late 60's to early 70's it's had plenty of time to craze crack in the lacquer.  Ward would not put a pointed heel on a Loar copy but he would have left it on an F4 conversion to Loar F5 which he did many of those.  While it does look walnut from some photos the close ups look more like cheap maple with not much flame,curl,figure in it.  Ward made his own Loar style bridges back then.  He used current Gibson hardware in tuners and TP.  The big scroll is very similar to an early Ward scroll.  This is nothing more then a poor attempt in copying a Loar F5.  It's likely the builder did not have one to go buy as he built it.  Likely from photos he made of a real one he saw one time.
The finish is way off.  The F holes bigger then a 60's F5.  Way too many wrongs to be even remotely close to being right.  It's a $1000-$1500 mandolin if it plays and sounds good.  No more, no less.  By the way the case is a late 60's Gibson F5 case which might indicate to when it was built.  After 1971 you would be getting the heavier case used on those 70's F5s.  IMO it's only a 50/50 it's a Ward or Bob Shue copy.  I would lean more towards an early 70's Shue.  Shue did use "The Gibson" and flowerpot inlays cut from scratch but I don't remember him using fake labels.  He is still living in Concord and building mandoins and guitars.  As far as serial nos. the late Benny Cain published a listing of known Loar numbers in the May, 1970 issue of BU.  If you knew Benny as many of the early F5 builders did they would have access to his list before then.  And you can forget this being an employee built F5.  Gibson would have fired that guy!

----------


## Carma

> Ward - I am glad to hear that you went in with eyes wide opened, and as you can see there are lots of experts here on the forum hoping to help figure out exactly what it is.  And if you don't mind me asking - I am curious to hear what you saw in the mandolin when you spotted it on the auction site.  I mean, you must have seen something that many of us didn't in order to motivate you to go to the lengths you did to win the auction.  Care to share with the rest of us?


I was just curious what it really is - with a money back policy there's really no risk so why not?  I knew I could return it or renegotiate the price if its something I want to keep.  Nothing ventured nothing gained I say.

----------


## mrmando

> And you can forget this being an employee built F5.  Gibson would have fired that guy!


 I'm thinking of the scene early in_ The Red Violin,_ where the master luthier picks up his apprentice's instrument, looks it over, proclaims it worthy of a "priest or courtesan" -- then smashes it.

----------


## baptist mando55

f5 loar did  you ever play at mineral springs music barn

----------


## barry

The lablels could have been added later by someone else.

----------


## Crabgrass

> I'm thinking of the scene early in_ The Red Violin,_ where the master luthier picks up his apprentice's instrument, looks it over, proclaims it worthy of a "priest or courtesan" -- then smashes it.


Fantastic movie....

----------


## Spruce

> Fantastic movie....


The sequel comes out next year I believe...
"The Yellow Cello"...
You can imagine what was in _that_ varnish....   :Wink:

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> "The Yellow Cello"...


Wasn't that a Donovan song?  :Cool:

----------


## MikeEdgerton

f5loar suggested that as a service to those reading this thread in the future that we post a link to a past thread on Fake Gibsons. I can't figure out which one he was referring to so *here* is a search string with two pages about Fake Gibson mandolins. Perhaps someone could point out the best of the lot for anyone looking to learn more.

----------


## f5loar

Wow!  So much about fake Gibsons.  I was refering to the one I started asking for photos of the fakes:
http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...ht=fake+gibson

Yes, back during my touring years with Garland Shuping and Wild Country we played the Barn in Mineral Springs many times.  Squirral would bring out his fake Loar many times for me to pick.  I still have horrid memory of how sore it made my fingers to pick it.  The neck angle was all wrong and it was so hard to pick.  I have a feeling this one will be hard to pick.

----------


## baptist mando55

i have  played quite a few of these  fakes and heard many. some of them were as good as any. i dont think very many was trying to pass them off as real gibsons they were just coping what they knew. i would love to have one of huttos or wards gibson copies. that woud br my mando if price were no object

----------


## mrmando

> The lablels could have been added later by someone else.


Yes, but ... why? 

Occam's Razor is always a useful principle to keep in mind when thinking about these things: The most likely explanation is the simplest one that accounts for all the facts. The addition of labels at a later date is an unnecessary complication. It doesn't explain any known facts that are not explained by the simpler theory.




> i have played quite a few of these fakes and heard many. some of them were as good as any. i dont think very many was trying to pass them off as real gibsons they were just coping what they knew. i would love to have one of huttos or wards gibson copies. that woud br my mando if price were no object


I have a feeling this one will be available soon, at somewhat less than $5300.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

As a service to the Cafe Members, *Occam's Razor*.

----------


## baptist mando55

the ward copy that bruce jones had i know he was asking 4500 for it at one time. i know he sold it to a precher for cash  and a martin shenndoah i dont know how much cash . but i dont think he would have let it go for much less than what he wanted. f5loar did you ever play either of bruces mandolins.

----------


## f5loar

I've known Bruce for many years and played at least one of his copies but didn't think much of it.  It was well worn in I remember and didn't pick too bad. I know he had Ward do many repairs on it over the years.

----------


## mrmando

Here are some photos of a 1979 Bob Shue mandolin, in case anyone's curious...

----------


## baptist mando55

yes f5loar this  was the mandolin that i thought that this one could possibley be. like i said this was over 30 years ago. iwas taking lessons from bruce and i thought it was the best. according to bruce hisself it wasnt nearly as good as what he uses now. i remember garland shupings band so i have probably seen you play. mineral springs used to be place for bluegrass hated to see it close.

----------


## almeriastrings

Personally.... I would be unlikely to pay 5K for something like this, but putting it into context, you can now pay 3.5K for a Chinese 'Kentucky'.... so at around the 2.5K mark _some_ of these 60's/70's copies/repros/'fakes' do not look at all bad to me. On some (not all) you have very decent materials and workmanship (granted some are rough on both counts), but others are really quite nice. Certainly unique. Certainly a talking point and with the world now awash in F5 copies at bargain basement prices, I can't see many more being made, and certainly not with 30-40 years of picking on them already.

----------


## woodwizard

> Here are some photos of a 1979 Bob Shue mandolin, in case anyone's curious...


That looks like a much nicer mandolin to me.

----------


## Carma

Just so the group can have some closure here, I wanted to add that we did not proceed with the transaction, I made a lower offer to them which they declined, and last I heard they were trying to get more information on the mando.  Thanks for all of the input to this thread.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

That's too bad. I really hope someone else on this site can get hold of that mandolin. Or that the final buyer joins. I really wanna hear it!

----------


## f5loar

The best information they can find on that mandolin is right here in this thread.  I doubt a hands on expert would add more then what we have said here about it.

----------


## yankees1

> For those of you who have never seen a real Gibson Loar era F5 FAKE this is one to study.  It has the regular 1924 Master Model serial no. label complete with an unknown fake serial number.  I would assume the signed Loar label fell out over the years OR this maybe one of those undocumented unsigned Loars that were seconds not worthy of Mr. Loars approval (Darryl W. and Ken W. know what I am talking about) from '24.  Very interesting..................  Please note this is from a musical instrument dealer who seems to in the words of Sgt. Schultz of Hogan's Heros "I know nothing!!!!!"  May the bidding begin! 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Gibs...item1e666ab077


  I read in his ad for returns that his address is Springfield, IL ! If he posts again I can go by there and check mandolin and owner out! I would bet that the address given is not a residence .

----------


## mrmando

> I would bet that the address given is not a residence .


So what? 

Judging from the large number of instruments and other used items that the seller has posted, it seems likely that he/she deals in secondhand and antique goods for a substantial portion of his/her living. So the address might well turn out to be a pawnshop or antique store, rather than a residence. No crime in that.

----------


## f5loar

I would guess a pawn shop in which they thought they took in a real Gibson F5 and when they found it was fake they put it off on ebay.  Even Pawnshop guys know to call the big boys when something like a signed Loar walks in their doors.

----------


## Vernon Hughes

The party selling the mandolin works for treasure hunters roadshow (google them,quite an operation)and most likely knows little or nothing about the items he/she lists..They set up in holiday inns all over the country and pay pennies on the dollar for things people want to get rid of,instruments,comics,vintage toys,gold coins,etc.  They were in town near us recently,though I didn't attend..I did see where they took out a full page color ad in the newpaper here,pretty pricey ad I imagine..

----------


## banjo1

The mandolin does not have walnut any where.Maple and spruce and after a good cleaning you can see that the wood is of top quallity. 

  What were the names that you experts thought could have built the mandolin?

Not even close to being a real Loar but it is a really good mandolin.After installing new string this morning, it is opening up and sounding great. The checking in the finish does tell me that it does have some age to it and even smells old. Workmanship of the build is 2nd or 3rd rate but the sound more than makes up for that.
 That being said.............the mandolin is off of the market.

----------


## baptist mando55

I thought possibly a early  C E Ward.

----------


## f5loar

From the photos most guys thought it was walnut more so by the color.  I could see maple gains it.  Good to hear this is a good sounding player.  Hard to tell from photos when you don't know who made it.  Some names were thrown around here and no one came up with traces of those makers in that copy.   It shall remain a mystery.  You will get asked what do you have there and I would just say here you look at it and tell me.  My guess it's from the late 60's to early and mid 70's. Lots of builders attempting F5 copies in that era and using fake labels. After the mid 70's copy builders got better.   Someone said the labels could have been added later and that is possible.

----------


## Schlegel

Seems it's back on Ebay now, and using the old pics from the previous auction as well.

----------


## Vernon Hughes

It's the same fraud seller as the 1927 H-1 and the F-4..been reported,still on though..

----------


## Schlegel

> It's the same fraud seller as the 1927 H-1 and the F-4..been reported,still on though..


That's often my first thought when I see recycled pics...

----------

