# General Mandolin Topics > Vintage Instruments >  Unsigned Lloyd Loar mandolins

## Nick Royal

Does anyone know how many of the Loar mandolins were not signed? And why
did that happen, vs. signed ones by Lloyd Loar? 

Also, has a book about Loar been written? 
Thanks for the feedback,
Nick

----------


## f5loar

Since you have been a cafe member since 2002 you really missed the boat on these topics.  It's been discussed many times before on here.  So to save you doing a search on the subjects,  there were a few Loars that were completed but not signed when Loar left the building in late December, 1924. The reason no one else signed them is speculated because Loar was the only Acoustic Engineer employed by Gibson at the time leaving that label useless when he left.  Or you can specultate when cleaning out his desk he took the remaining box of 1000 with him.  They only lacked a few more hours to completion and missed the last batch he signed.  When they shipped later in 1925 they were exact in all respects to what a late '24 signed Loar was like, a couple with flowerpots and a couple with ferns.  About 6 total.  Because they are missing the signed Loar label they tend to be priced slightly more than an unsigned mid 20's Fern.   You can search the F5Journal at the mandolincafe archives (found on home page) and go to the last of the Dec. 1924 signed Loars and there you will see the transition to the Ferns.  A few weeks ago during the LoarFest thread it was brought up that no Loar book has been published yet but it has been considered.  Finding a sponsor to help defray the cost has not been found yet.  To find out about the man Loar Roger Sminoff has right much about him on his website.

----------


## pfox14

I don't think there's enough information available about what Loar did or didn't do while at Gibson to write a book. There's an awful lot of speculation on the subject, but there's simply more information about what Loar did after Gibson during the Vivi-Tone years and don't know if that would make an interesting enough book.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

*Here* are some past threads on the subject. The applicable subject lines will jump right out at you. *Here* is Roger Siminoff's page about Lloyd Loar.

----------


## Capt. E

> Since you have been a cafe member since 2002 you really missed the boat on these topics.  It's been discussed many times before on here.  So to save you doing a search on the subjects,  there were a few Loars that were completed but not signed when Loar left the building in late December, 1924. The reason no one else signed them is speculated because Loar was the only Acoustic Engineer employed by Gibson at the time leaving that label useless when he left.  Or you can specultate when cleaning out his desk he took the remaining box of 1000 with him.  They only lacked a few more hours to completion and missed the last batch he signed.  When they shipped later in 1925 they were exact in all respects to what a late '24 signed Loar was like, a couple with flowerpots and a couple with ferns.  About 6 total.


A friend of mine in Austin Texas owns one of these last "unsigned" instruments. I believe it has a flowerpot. Except for the lack of a label, it is indistiguishable from any other Loar F5.

----------


## PJ Doland

f5loar-

Kickstarter would be a great way to defray the cost of publishing such a book. Just putting that out there, in case anyone is interested.

----------


## Big Joe

The transition was very short.  There are two unsigned Loar's I am very familiar with.  The earlier one (by I believe 2 numbers apart in SN) has varnish and the other lacquer.  I don't know of any produced after that that were varnish. 

One other issue with unsigned Loars.  Some were returned to the factory for warranty or other work during the later 20's or 30's and the original labels removed and new labels applied with the original serial number.  These were usually also given a lacquer top spray to make them look new again and often new hardware at the same time.  That was standard repair method by the factory in those days.

----------


## danb

Which serials are we talking about here? the only one I know is 81268 (Butch B), of which I only have a couple of repair photos showing the neck join..

Presumably the definition is "varnish, serials soon after last signed loar" ?

----------


## Buck

Vince Gill is reported to have a varnished unsigned Loar.  I have not seen it in person.

----------


## doc holiday

Capt E   If it's the same one I've seen, the label says Jan 1925,  but has no signature.... it does have a flowerpot & is great sounding mandolin

----------


## Capt. E

> Capt E   If it's the same one I've seen, the label says Jan 1925,  but has no signature.... it does have a flowerpot & is great sounding mandolin


That matches my memory. I strummed it a bit, but owner didn't want it tuned up to full tension. Still, it had very very nice tone. Owner's first name starts with "T", right?

----------


## doc holiday

Yes, that's the one.
I have a photo of it somewhere

----------


## djweiss

I bet the last name starts with an "E"...If I'm right, it's been mentioned recently by the owner himself.

----------


## Nick Triesch

I bet if there was a book on Loar they could sell at least 4000 copies just from this site.  But I do not think many more after that.  That is the problem.

----------


## Capt. E

Good "guess".   
OK I guess it is no secret I am talking about Tom Ellis.  Here is a post about this instrument:

"Re: What is the best mandolin somebody handed you to play:
I was in Tom Ellis' booth at IBMA and after having me test drive one of his ovals, he handed me another instrument without comment. I looked down. Gibson on the headstock. Looked old, very old. "Is this what I think it is?" Tom just smiled. I was so afraid that I would drop it. I played a few tunes. Truthfully, the instrument had spent recent time in a safe and needed some waking up. Tom's smile when he handed it to me was worth the experience alone."


And another post in the same thread from Tom himself:
"I met Monroe in about 85 at Austin City Limits to show him a mandolin (actually Buck's). When I introduced myself, he looked at me and said "boy, din't you useta play banjo with me?" Wayne Lewis said "no Bill, that was Tony" He handed me his, took mine and took off on Kentucky Mandolin. All I remember was trying to keep up (though I won Hugo in 78 with that tune) and BOY was his action HIGH"

----------


## djweiss

more here:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...ar-Sound/page3

----------


## PJ Doland

If Francois Charle can sell multiple printings of his Selmer book, then somebody could definitely do OK with a Loar book. 

Assuming 4000 copies total, you could put a $50 Kickstarter base price on it and you would have a ~$200,000 production and printing budget. No exposure unless it hit the fundraising threshold.

----------


## bootinz

There are no unsigned Loar's. They're all signed!

----------


## G7MOF

> There are no unsigned Loar's. They're all signed!


I must admit, I was always under that presumption!!!

----------


## lenf12

> There are no unsigned Loar's. They're all signed!


+1 for this statement. There are only pre-Loars, Loars and post-Loars. I got to check out Butch's '25 and it is a very fine post-Loar mandolin.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

----------


## Big Joe

Yes, there are unsigned Loars.  They may have been signed at one time, but there are a number who have lost the label either from time or from the factory removing it during repair.  And, there are a few true Loar's that never were signed because he left the factory before they were shipped.  I appreciate the sentiment of no unsigned Loars, but it just doesn't fit the truth of the situation.  There may be a decreased value if the signature is missing, but that does not alter the mandolin itself.

----------


## G7MOF

Wouldn't unsigned Loar F5s just be Called, and known as Gibson F5s, If so wouldn't the 40s and 50s F5s be Loars as well?

----------


## Bill Snyder

I believe the "unsigned" Loars were built on his watch and due to be signed had he not been let go.

----------


## f5loar

For that matter a signed Loar is really just a Gibson F5 model.  It does seem a bit confusing or at least you guys are trying to make it confusing.   These few "unsigned" Loars from the next batch of F5s/L5s were sitting on Loar's desk awaiting his signature when the janitor cleaning out Loar's office told the luthier bringing them in that "Mr. Loars was let go last week and he ain'ts heres no more".  So the luthier assumed they were not getting the Loar signature label after verifying that indeed Mr. Loar no longer worked for Gibson Co.,  so he just ran them on down to the shipping department as is without that final signed inspection approval. Had Mr. Loar been there in early Jan. of 1925 he would have signed and attached the final approval label through the lower F hole and over the Factory Order Number (FON) and those too would have been known as signed Loars.  But they weren't so they ain't.

----------


## Ben Milne

Have any other F5s been found with matching FONs to the Baldassari and Ellis owned mandolins?





> Wouldn't unsigned Loar F5s just be Called, and known as Gibson F5s, If so wouldn't the 40s and 50s F5s be Loars as well?


Read the thread. The finish specs were where changed to laquer from here on in. The less than handful of instruments being discussed were built being supervised by, held, tuned and breathed on by Lloyd Loar. Not so the F5s of later eras you mention.
They have always been officially called Gibson F5s, referring to instruments as Loars lets us be more specific. Like Tom says, the only difference on these couple of instruments in question is the lack of signed label, while the differences from '25 onward increasingly differ from Loar's specifications.

----------


## Ben Milne

Have any other F5s been found with matching FONs to the Baldassari and Ellis owned mandolins?





> Wouldn't unsigned Loar F5s just be Called, and known as Gibson F5s, If so wouldn't the 40s and 50s F5s be Loars as well?


Read the thread. The finish specs were where changed to laquer from here on in. The less than handful of instruments being discussed were built being supervised by, held, tuned and breathed on by Lloyd Loar. Not so the F5s of later eras you mention.
They have always been officially called Gibson F5s, referring to instruments as Loars lets us be more specific. Like Tom says, the only difference on these couple of instruments in question is the lack of signed label, while the differences from '25 onward increasingly differ from Loar's specifications.

----------


## bootinz

Loar didn't build the mandolins. He may have designed, approved and signed them but he didn't build them. If they aren't signed they aren't a "Loar". We're paying for a signature. I could undersatnd the argument if he built them but he didn't.

----------


## G7MOF

That's what I was asking, would you buy a Porche if it looked, sounded and perforemed like a Porche, but didn't have the badge?

----------


## Capt. E

The few (6) unsigned F-5's that were completed during LL's tenure but were not signed by him have sold for half the price of one with a Label.   Instruments that once had a LL signed label but have lost it over the years are another matter.  they have serial numbers that fall within a documented batch, I doubt their value would be reduced quite as much.

----------


## Buck

You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a "Loar mandolin" made by Gibson.  "Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe a small subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins.  "Unsigned Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe an even smaller subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins.  If that group of owners/buyers/users says there are Loars and Unsigned Loars, why would I disagree?  To argue otherwise serves no real purpose that I can see.

This reminds me of the argument that a December 8th 1941 D-28 is not a prewar guitar....

----------


## bootinz

It may not serve a purpose to argue the point but it clearly makes a difference in the value of the instrument.....right or wrong that's a fact. BTW, the war started on DEC 7th '41 so I guess the 8th isn't pre war.

----------


## Capt. E

> You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a "Loar mandolin" made by Gibson.  "Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe a small subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins.  "Unsigned Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe an even smaller subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins.  If that group of owners/buyers/users says there are Loars and Unsigned Loars, why would I disagree?  To argue otherwise serves no real purpose that I can see.
> 
> This reminds me of the argument that a December 8th 1941 D-28 is not a prewar guitar....



You probably just summarized the whole thread. 

Dec. 8th.??   I've heard you shouldn't buy something that came off the factory line on Monday.

----------


## Buck

> It may not serve a purpose to argue the point but it clearly makes a difference in the value of the instrument.....right or wrong that's a fact. BTW, the war started on DEC 7th '41 so I guess the 8th isn't pre war.


I never said there was no difference in value.  I simply pointed out that these terms are used to describe certain groups of instruments.  Even though unsigned Loars are less valuable than signed Loars, they are still more valuable than later lacquered instruments.  If the folks shelling out the cash know the difference between a Loar, an unsigned Loar, and a 20's Fern, I have to believe those terms mean something.

As far as Martin guitars are concerned, no changes were made in design or construction until early 1942.  They are priced according to construction details and most buyers know the differences.  Few owners would argue that an early '42 with steel neck reinforcement is not a prewar Martin.  Internet forum members argue over such things all the time.  The war started on December 8th when congress declared war, but again the guitars didn't change until 1942.  It took a couple of months for the steel restrictions to have an effect.

The point of all this is that collectors (not just instruments either) use various kinds of terminology as shorthand that may not mean anything to folks outside their circle of interest.  These term usually to define features, some of which are related to historic events, but not necessarily in exact sync with the historical calendar.

----------


## f5loar

There is a big difference in design and construction between a 1938 and a 1941 D45.  Many changes were made before 1942.

----------


## Buck

> There is a big difference in design and construction between a 1938 and a 1941 D45.  Many changes were made before 1942.


Yes, there were many changes, including the change from 12 fret to 14 fret, bar frets to T-frets, ebony to steel neck reinforcement, X-brace position, popsicle brace, neck block size, neck width and bridge spacing, and several different tuners were used.  All of those changes affect value and desirability in some way.  No war-related changes occurred until early 1942 though.  My point was that collectors use terms as shorthand to describe the bigger picture.  Within the bigger picture there are other subsets of the subset.  Loars and unsigned Loars are broad subsets of prewar Gibson F-5's.  There are similar subsets within Loars, but you know those better than I ever will, so I'll not embarrass myself trying to enumerate those.   :Smile: 

It's better to take time to understand those things as opposed to arguing over terminology that almost everyone else already agrees on.

----------


## Ben Milne

> You could make the argument that there is no such thing as a "Loar mandolin" made by Gibson.  "Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe a small subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins.  "Unsigned Loar" is a term used by collectors/players to describe an even smaller subset of Gibson F-5 mandolins.  If that group of owners/buyers/users says there are Loars and Unsigned Loars, why would I disagree?  To argue otherwise serves no real purpose that I can see.
> ....


Nicely summarised. 




> That's what I was asking, would you buy a Porche if it looked, sounded and perforemed like a Porche, but didn't have the badge?


I wouldn't buy either option, but I would think those that would should expect a discount of sorts.

----------


## f5loar

Don't forget the obvious change.........   snowflake inlays to hex inlays.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Some of you guys just don't get it.  Let's deal with the darn facts.

The last batch of signed Loar mandolins was FON 11985 and they had serial numbers like 79835, 79836 and all had Flowerpot's and Virzi's.  


The Baldassari, Derrington and such "Unsigned Loars" were all flowerpot mandolins with the stamp/FON number of 11985.  They all have serial numbers like 80782, 81250, 81251, 81266, 81290 range.  

The last two signed Loar mandolins are 80190 and 80191 and appear to be stragglers from the main batch.  We also have an unsubstantiated note of 80416 being a signed Loar mandolin.  All of these are before the "unsigned" mandolins of the same FON batch as the signed ones.

There is a batch of Fern F5 mandolins with serial number both slightly before and after the above "unsigned" mandolins, but they all have later FON numbers, all have Ferns and all look and sound different than an "unsigned" Loar.

----------


## Ben Milne

> The last batch of signed Loar mandolins was FON 11985 
> 
> The Baldassari, Derrington and such "Unsigned Loars" were all flowerpot mandolins with the stamp/FON number of 11985.
> 
> Fern F5 mandolins all have later FON numbers, all have Ferns and all look and sound different than an "unsigned" Loar


 This is what I was wondering about earlier. Thanks Darryl.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Update.  I have received info "substantiating" 80416, the last recorded signed Loar mandolin.  It is a silver hardware, flowerpot, no Virzi mandolin.  Another "unsigned" Loar has also been identified.  81176 with flowerpot, gold hardware and no Virzi.

----------


## shylock3

Is 81489 too far out to be considered an unsigned Loar? Probably is.

----------


## Ken Waltham

One interesting thing I have observed.... All the unsigned Loars I have played all sounded really good. But then, so do the Dec 1924 batch of Loars that I have played. A very obvious connection.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

"Is 81489 too far out to be considered an unsigned Loar? Probably is. "


That specific mandolin is an enigma.  I believe it to be an unsigned Fern Loar.  I have never seen another mandolin remotely like it

I also chased that mando for years, having known it existed in the Knoxville TN area.

----------


## shylock3

> "Is 81489 too far out to be considered an unsigned Loar? Probably is. "
> 
> 
> That specific mandolin is an enigma.  I believe it to be an unsigned Fern Loar.  I have never seen another mandolin remotely like it
> 
> I also chased that mando for years, having known it existed in the Knoxville TN area.


Darryl, I kinda got the mandolin by accident. Most people knew who owned it and that he also had a Loar. At the time he priced the Loar at something like 55,000 and the 25 at 30- or something similar to that.
I saved my money and it took me a few months, prices were rising. I called him back hoping I could still get the Loar for 55k,,,Nope. He had backed out on selling it and was going to leave it to his grandson, but if he sold it it would be 100k. He said he would still sell the Fern, so I wound up buying it at about what I was going to pay for the Loar.
He approached me later wanting to sell the Loar but I thought he was too high, at least for the market at that time.
Sometimes the chase is good. I've had a lot of people try to buy it. I'm happy to know you think it's an unsigned Loar.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> Darryl, I kinda got the mandolin by accident. Most people knew who owned it and that he also had a Loar. At the time he priced the Loar at something like 55,000 and the 25 at 30- or something similar to that.
> I saved my money and it took me a few months, prices were rising. I called him back hoping I could still get the Loar for 55k,,,Nope. He had backed out on selling it and was going to leave it to his grandson, but if he sold it it would be 100k. He said he would still sell the Fern, so I wound up buying it at about what I was going to pay for the Loar.
> He approached me later wanting to sell the Loar but I thought he was too high, at least for the market at that time.
> Sometimes the chase is good. I've had a lot of people try to buy it. I'm happy to know you think it's an unsigned Loar.


It would be nice if you could post some pictures in Loar Pic of Day thread.  All I have are a few 35mm shots my Dad took about the time he sold it

BTW, the Loar is for sale now  $175K I believe

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Darryl, couldn't the FON move you a little closer to when that mandolin was actually manufactured?

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> Darryl, couldn't the FON move you a little closer to when that mandolin was actually manufactured?


Yes, but that's a broad situation.  The FON would indicate "parts that were manufactured at the same time for the same purpose", but not necessarily assembled, nor finished.  Hence, varying finishes, serial numbers and parts on most of these.

This is also happening at the same time that it appears Gibson changed their business model.  The post Loar instruments seem to more closely fit Joe Spanns assertion that the serial number is an indicator of when it was sold and the FON relates to when it was "manufactured"  Gibson seem to have changed to "built to suit/build if ordered/sold" after the Loar period

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From what i've read (mostly on here),Lloyd Loar personally inspected all the mandolins coming off the production line. If he thought that any of them exhibited_ ''especially good tonal properties''_,he personally signed the labels.If that is so,then if there's no label inside & unless one can prove that a particular instrument 'did' have a label at one time,then for me it's not a 'true Loar',simply a 'Loar period' instrument. If, as has been stated,Lloyd Loar signed labels in batches,ready to be applied to the instruments,_then any instruments bearing such a label that were never inspected by Lloyd Loar,_shouldn't correctly be regarded as 'true Loars',in the same way that famous paintings that are unsigned,that 'might be' by famous artists, can only be described as 'attributed to' & command less cash than a signed one by the same artist.
    Re.*f5loar*'s assertion that the Mandolins on Mr Loar's desk _'would have been signed & labeled'_ - who says ?. For all we know,LL might have thought that they were no good (hardly likely i must admit),but we can't make assumptions like that. In order for any instruments to bear his signature,_he was required to have inspected & played them_ - if he wasn't there he couldn't, & those instrumnents as good as they might be,are simply NOT Loars,just very fine instruments that 'might' have been signed (or not),
                     Ivan :Wink:

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

The signed "Loar" label was an advertising gimmick.  There is no such thing as one that did not pass muster.  IMHO

----------


## Ken Waltham

Agreed on that point.

----------


## f5loar

you got that right.  There is some mighty fine post Loar Ferns out there.

----------


## almeriastrings

It was very good marketing!

Still works after all these years.

----------


## doc holiday

"the war started on DEC 7th '41 so I guess the 8th isn't pre war."  Actually, the war had been going on since 1939..... :Smile:

----------


## doc holiday

....the Texas unsigned Loar...

----------


## almeriastrings

> There is a big difference in design and construction between a 1938 and a 1941 D45.  Many changes were made before 1942.


Absolutely correct.

This is a mandolin forum, so delving into the minutia of pre-war (1939) and war-time Martins is probably a bit too off-topic, but one of the 'big' changes in that period was from the 1 3/4" nut width to the 1 11/16" width. That occurred in late 1939. I have one of the last D-18's with the wider nut from that year. The "war period" instruments are very interesting in their own right. Use of plastic tuner buttons, ebony rod neck reinforcement, etc.  I have a "matched pair" of 1945 D-18 + 000-18 both in their original, brown Lifton hardshell cases. These are super, super-light guitars. Light as a feather... but I digress.

Back to Mr. Loar.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Frm *f5loar* - _"..There is some mighty fine post Loar Ferns out there."_ Absolutely,& who could say with certainty,that those Mandolins,had Lloyd Loar still been around,might not have been signed & thus become 'true' Loars. I can't help but feel that the current Gibson MMs would come under that category.The one's i've heard have been as good as it gets for me,
                                                                                                                                                                   Ivan

----------


## doc holiday

Ivan, the......"mighty fine post Loar Ferns" being referred to are the later 20s examples.  While the modern Derrington era MMs are fine mandolins....(like the Martin D18A/'real '37 D18 comparison)......regardless of similarity of construction.......put them side by side and they are not in the same league.  After another 70 years of aging who can say.  But for the purpose of this topic....they are apples & oranges.

----------


## almeriastrings

> Ivan, the......"mighty fine post Loar Ferns" being referred to are the later 20s examples.  While the modern Derrington era MMs are fine mandolins....(like the Martin D18A/'real '37 D18 comparison)......regardless of similarity of construction.......put them side by side and they are not in the same league.  After another 70 years of aging who can say.  But for the purpose of this topic....they are apples & oranges.


This always fascinates me. In what way are they apples and oranges? 

Certainly in value and collectable status. No argument there.

Sound, though? I have to say, even though I love vintage instruments, and have several fine examples - I honestly could not say there were invariably superior to the best modern examples (once those have been played in a bit). In true blind test I very much doubt I could say which was which. Exactly this was found with that recent trial involving seriously desirable vintage violins vs. fine modern examples, and with Tony Williamson's "ID the Loars" project, apparently "no-one" could really say for sure:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...n-Loar-contest

I goes beyond simply telling them apart... it also comes down what you like best. The vintage, super-collectable ones do not always win there either. They might be worth ten or twenty times the best modern "equivalent" but there is no automatic guarantee they'll sound any better (or even as good) to you.  There is a lot of variation... those 20's and 30's instruments were *factory produced*. On a production line, by mostly semi-skilled workers. They were not "master luthier" built.  There is some interesting old movie footage showing the CF Martin factory in 1939 (I like to think it is my old D-18 being worked on there!). It would be fascinating if something similar existed of the Gibson plant in the 20's. There are some good still photos, though, and Joe Spann's book is very instructive.

----------


## doc holiday

Almeria, the topic is 'unsigned Loars' & that refers to a specific group of Gibson F5s from a very narrow window of time.  Ivan K, then posits that he thinks MMs are for him 'as good as it gets.  
 ' Frm f5loar - "..There is some mighty fine post Loar Ferns out there." Absolutely,& who could say with certainty,that those Mandolins,had Lloyd Loar still been around,might not have been signed & thus become 'true' Loars. I can't help but feel that the current Gibson MMs would come under that category.The one's i've heard have been as good as it gets for me, Ivan"  
 The apples and oranges is that we're discussing a small group of vintage mandolins.....not what one prefers, or which might sound better....  While my experience with vintage Martin guitars, like yours shows some variance, modern instruments 'factory made' like current Martins vary as well.....but in the end  vintage and modern instruments are different.....but that isn't the topic of this thread.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Herschel Sizemore,who i believe owns 3 Loars,is one of my 2 favourite Mandolin players,the other is John Reischman,who owns what is widely regarded as the best of the Loars.Whether it is or not is a matter of your own personal opinion,it sounds fine to me. In his tuition DVD,Herschel Sizemore plays a Gibson Master Model (MM) & i have to say that 'for me',the Loars that he's used for the majority of his recordings don't sound any better at all than the MM.Ok,i am comparing recordings not 'real life'- 'in the wood' tone etc.,but given the quality of today's recording equipment,i think that the comparison is still valid. If it isn't valid,then it throws Tony Williamson's Loar 'comparison' recording out of the window.
   That the sound of_ any particular instrument_ is a matter of personal taste,is self evident,that's why one player will choose a Gibson over an Ellis, or an Ellis over a Heiden  & ................ I feel as does *Doc H*,that after years of 'maturing',many of the superb instruments being made today will be every bit as good as the Loars. But that again,will be a matter of personal opinion, & around we'll go again.
   To return to the original point - 'un-signed Loars',there aren't any.Call them what you will,if it isn't signed then it's NOT a Loar,given the criteria that _Loar had to inspect them & find them 'superior' & then sign them_. As i said in my first post,i firmly belive that many of those instruments that were never signed (because he'd left Gibson), must be very fine instruments indeed,maybe or maybe not worthy of Loar's signature,but,as they weren't signed,they are not 'Loars' as we think of them (IMHO),
                                                                                                                                                                      Ivan

----------


## G7MOF

I totally agree with you Ivan, the name Loar makes them more collectable, not playable.

----------


## tim noble

"The signed "Loar" label was an advertising gimmick. There is no such thing as one that did not pass muster. IMHOI" answers the big question on unsigned Loars. I presume that Loar signed all production F5s during his tenure.  Some companies actually destroyed products that did not meet their standards but not sure about Gibson. While a label adds significant value it doesn't change the intrinsic value as a musical instrument.  
Tim

----------


## doc holiday

Thank you Tim.

----------


## tim noble

Doc
The instrument that Shylock3 just posted and this whole discussion reminds me of of my initial involvement in this forum.  I am the proud 2nd owner of one of the 10 or so documented 1921/1922 Cremona sunburst F4s. I've changed my thinking based on these discussions.  Initially I considered it "Loar Period" then "Loar prototype" (finish).  After digesting a lot of expert advice its now just a 22 F4 with Cremona finish. The rest is as Daryl stated - marketing.  I think the finish may be an initial experimentation with a brown finish rather than the standard red but that doesn't change the potential for the mandolin, only the color.  If there is added value its due to the rarity of the finish on F4s or due to the fact that someone prefers the burst. I generally agree that if an F5 was constructed during HIS tenure, shares the subtle distinctions common in the signed examples such as wood, finish, binding, etc. and was even sent out after he left, it can be considered and "unsigned Loar". IF only he signed mine?? smile
Tim

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

If the signing of the 'Loars' was a gimmick,then why weren't they ALL signed ?. From what i know,the criteria for Loar to sign the label was that the instrument should be _'exceptionally good'_ (in Lloyd Loar's opinion),by comparison with others made at the same time. From *Tim* -_ "I presume that Loar signed all production F5s during his tenure "_. If that's so,why are there so called un-signed Loars,instruments made during his tenure with Gibson that he didn't sign ?.
   All this is making me think that i can begin calling my 'Tudor' wristwatch (made by the Rolex Co.) an un-signed Rolex !!. Apart from being laughed off the planet that is, :Laughing: 
                                                      Ivan :Wink:

----------


## Ben Milne

> If that's so,why are there so called un-signed Loars,instruments made during his tenure with Gibson that he didn't sign ?


As discussed, this was due to his sudden departure. There are a small number of transition instruments.

----------


## f5loar

Right.  These few were so near completing had Loar come back to work after the holidays he would most certain have signed them as the next batch of Master Model F5s.  But he didn't as he was "let go".  You don't usually fire upper management employees.  You ask them to "retire" early or "let them go".  He was let go and these few mandolins continued on to be completed without his signature label.  Calling them "unsigned Loars" is a proper term but remember the lack of the signed label reduces the price significantly so no harm done.  I call them "bargin bin" Loars.  Best bang for you buck in a prewar 20's F5.

----------


## Jim Nollman

Speaking of the vagaries of one's own personal taste, I have heard John Reischman perform several times at the Vancouver Folk festival. I was aware that he owned one of the premier Loars, so i listened closely to the sound of that one, and also noticed he sometimes reached for another mandolin on certain songs, with a slightly more jazz-inflected sound. I believe it was a Heiden.

On the Loar, John certainly demonstrated a masterly if a slightly unconventional deep sounding bluegrass tone. And...I preferred the sound of the other mandolin, upon which he seemed to feature some great chording and double stops (if my memory is correct). 

So it goes.

----------


## tim noble

I enjoy following this thread but I thought it was about a small group of unique instruments built within a short time after Loar's departure not about if their better than new ones???  These several instruments are historically important as a transition from what is considered the best few years of the F5 mandolin. Comparisons are not the point it's the inherent build by the same people- not at the top management but actually those building the instruments.
Tim

----------


## John Duncan

> the Loars that he's used for the majority of his recordings don't sound any better at all than the MM.                                                                                                                  Ivan



From what I understand, Herschel did not use a Loar on "Bounce Away"; he used a brand new mandolin at the time of that recording.

----------


## doc holiday

Originally Posted by Ivan Kelsall  
"the Loars that he's used for the majority of his recordings don't sound any better at all than the MM. Ivan"

This would be your personal opinion. Recordings are only a one dimensional representation of an instrument, and not really the foundation for the reputation of the Lloyd Loar period F5s.  :Smile:

----------


## f5loar

John R. has a really nice custom made newer Gibson DMM that he uses when he does not want to travel with the Loar.  Are you sure it was his Loar you heard?  They do look pretty similar from 20 feet away.  And Herschel has owned and recorded with so many mandolins for the past 60 some years I doubt he remembers what he used on Bounce Away back in the 80's.   I'm thinking the cover showed him at least holding a Loar or else it was a fake Loar.

----------


## AlanN

Notice his first name

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

*Ben* - I was responding to *Tim Noble's*'s presumption that Loar signed _ALL_ the F5's that were made while he WAS there,which he didn't do,only the ones he thought were 'exceptionally good'.
*Doc* - Of course it's MY opinion & of course other folk differ,that's why discussions like this are so interesting,
                                                                                                                                                              Ivan

----------


## almeriastrings

> *Ben* - I was responding to *Tim Noble's*'s presumption that Loar signed _ALL_ the F5's that were made while he WAS there,which he didn't do,only the ones he thought were 'exceptionally good'.
> 
>                                                                                                                                                               Ivan


Ivan, where does that "exceptionally good" quote/assumption come from?

I do not think you will find that Loar-period F5 'seconds' as it were, ever emerged from the factory, or that they sawed them in half, as per C.F. Martin rejects (I have one of those, by the way - Dick Boak donated one to me a few years ago)... Loar signed _labels._ In batches.

There is a lot on this on Roger Siminoff's site:

http://www.siminoff.net/pages/loar_contributions.html

This is also an interesting paper:

http://www.siminoff.net/Media/downlo...rHear-9-06.pdf

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

*Almeira* - It's something that i've read 'somewhere' in the past. It was given that not ALL the instruments coming off the line would ALL be signed.They had to be 'better than the others' to qualify for signing. If they were all signed,it would be meaningless in terms of some 'being better' than others. It does beg the question - "what happened to any Mandolins that were regarded as NOT good' ?.Also,why was it necessary to sign them at all - was it simply to varify the fact that they had been inspected ?. Lots of things i personally don't understand,
                                                Ivan

----------


## almeriastrings

> *Almeira* - It's something that i've read 'somewhere' in the past. It was given that not ALL the instruments coming off the line would ALL be signed.They had to be 'better than the others' to qualify for signing. If they were all signed,it would be meaningless in terms of some 'being better' than others. It does beg the question - "what happened to any Mandolins that were regarded as NOT good' ?.Also,why was it necessary to sign them at all - was it simply to varify the fact that they had been inspected ?. Lots of things i personally don't understand,
>                                                 Ivan


OK... well, as has been said before, there was mucho marketing involved in this. Not a lot different in overall concept than 'signature' instruments, or the labels Chris Martin signs to this day. These were never 'hand selected.. the best coming off the line' type of thing, they _were_ the line.  There were no Loar period F5's that were "lesser". If they were an F5, and they were not actually defective in some way, in other words, unless they failed fundamental QC and were used for firewood, or whatever they did with those (if that happened at all), they _all_ got signed during Loar's tenure (with the exception of a small number that were built during his time there, but not released until after he left - when of course, he was no longer signing anything at all). There are not actually all that many Loar period F5's around in existence, as commercially, at the time, they were not exactly a success. It took Bill Monroe, decades later, to really 'up their profile'.

----------


## f5loar

In June it will be 90 years since the first signed Loar F5 was introduced to the world.  While nobody knows for sure it has been estimated about 280 F5s were made until Loar left in late 1924 or about 10 per month over a 30 month period.  To this date of the year 2012 about 220 have been documented by the F5Journal and posted here on the cafe.  (my count is estimate not exact, so if somebody wants to take the time to count them and post the actual to date count of the F5s be my guest. Darryl has the total but I couldn't find it on the cafe.)  That leaves about 60 unaccounted for.  My guess is about half of those or about 30 are known by others to exsist but not accounted for in the F5Journal.  Now if you are one of those 30 reading this and wish to submit your Loar information to the F5Journal there is no better time than now to do so.  And by doing so you will not only help further the research of the Loar mandolins but also have postive proof that your Loar is registared and with photos on file should it be stolen there is a much better chance of recovery since your flame pattern is like a fingerprint that cannot be erased by a thief. Owners names are withheld from public knowledge.  Now you are down to 30 truly unaccounted for by anyone.  You would think with only 30 left to find that in the other 250 already found if a 2nd unworthy of Loar's signature label was out there it would have popped up in 90 years.  TMK (and others) it has not.  So you can assume by this speculation that no seconds were made and sold to the public.  So if only 30 are left to be discovered how many of those were destroyed by acts of God, man or woman?  Fire, flood,demolition,divorce.....etc?   I'm guessing half of those leaving only about 15 to find in someone's attic or closet.  The original owners are now dead and those left to family that have not come forth may do so most anytime in the near to distant future.

----------


## Buck

> *Ben* - I was responding to *Tim Noble's*'s presumption that Loar signed _ALL_ the F5's that were made while he WAS there,which he didn't do,only the ones he thought were 'exceptionally good'.


There is just no credible evidence anywhere that what you're saying is true.  Everything we know historically is that Loar signed labels in batches and these labels were applied to the finished instruments.  There is no evidence of "Loar rejected" F-5's.  If they were built, they were "approved".

These Loar-era F-5's are different than later F-5's because they were built and finished differently.  That is also why collectors/players of these instruments use the term "Unsigned Loar" for instruments built near the end of Loar's tenure at Gibson that were built and finished exactly like the previous instruments, but had no Loar signed label because Gibson's marketing plan changed.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> There is just no credible evidence anywhere that what you're saying is true.  Everything we know historically is that Loar signed labels in batches and these labels were applied to the finished instruments.  There is no evidence of "Loar rejected" F-5's.  If they were built, they were "approved".
> 
> These Loar-era F-5's are different than later F-5's because they were built and finished differently.  That is also why collectors/players of these instruments use the term "Unsigned Loar" for instruments built near the end of Loar's tenure at Gibson that were built and finished exactly like the previous instruments, but had no Loar signed label because Gibson's market plan changed.




Agree.  I'm also beginning to wonder if Loar was even in the same room with an F5 when he signed 36 July 9 dated labels

----------


## Joe Spann

> Agree.  I'm also beginning to wonder if Loar was even in the same room with an F5 when he signed 36 July 9 dated labels


Agreed Darryl, it does stretch the bounds of credulity.....36 mandolins at one sitting, in one day?  

I estimate there were a total of 289 Loar-signed F-5 mandolins produced between June 1922 and December 1924. 

My best guess is that 47 of these are as yet unlocated and undocumented.

Joe

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> I estimate there were a total of 289 Loar-signed F-5 mandolins produced between June 1922 and December 1924. 
> 
> My best guess is that 47 of these are as yet unlocated and undocumented.
> 
> Joe




That's reasonably close to my figures.  I have 230 documented, and my highly scientific method of filling in the blanks projects 329 made with virtual certainty.  My then SWAG assuming that in several lifetimes 10% more are documented (outside the bounds) leads to that statement at the very bottom, which may be high.

Here is my Explanation from my spreadsheet 

 * The above "estimates" are based on a mathematical formula that takes into account the first and last								
verified number within an established "batch" of instruments.  The estimates should be considered 								
minimums since no assumptions have been made concerning the actual size of individual batches.								
In recent years several new small  batches and dates have appeared, however, it is reasonable to								
assume that all batches are accounted for at this time.  Therefore the estimated numbers will increase								
only when instruments are added between batches, changing the established batch size.  It is this								
author's opinion, after careful analysis of the batch data, that the present F5 Journal estimate is well								
within 10 percent of the actual numbers of instruments produced.  Consequently, The F5 Journal estimates								
total Loar signed instrument production to be around 430, with mandolins accounting for about 360.

Here is a screenshot that shows how I am doing this.  The first two columns allow me to calculate numbers

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From* Buck* -_ "There is just no credible evidence anywhere that what you're saying is true."_. I understand your doubt,but i didn't conjour what i said out of thin air,why would i do that ?. As i said, it's something that i read in the past,
                                                                                                                                                     Ivan

----------


## danb

I've added a checkbox for "unsigned loar" on my mandolin archive database.. 

Darryl/Joe, how does this look as a concise definition of "unsigned Loar" ?

"an F5 mandolin lacking a loar signature that falls inside the serial range of known signed examples"

or

"an F5 mandolin with a serial number after the last known signed Loar that is finished in varnish and otherwise identical to a signed one".

----------


## Joe Spann

> "an F5 mandolin with a serial number after the last known signed Loar that is finished in varnish and otherwise identical to a signed one".


I prefer this definition Dan.

----------


## danb

> I prefer this definition Dan.


I do too.. trying to accommodate some other details with the first one.

Stamp number sure does seem to track nicely to the creation date. This is of importance, of course- instruments made closer to the same time share characteristics. Sometimes cosmetic, sometimes tonal. This is most clearly correlated with the FON stamp.

Serials- I agree that in general these are more likely to vary than FON stamps, matching up with your theories of "serial = warranty event = shipping date indicator". 

It seems some instruments got special handling- Loars so often progress in straight sequential serials that they must have had special handling. It's fairly rare but worth looking to see if there are many examples of, say F4s or A2zs in the middle of a run of Loar serials.

It's now very rare to find a new Loar serial that doesn't fill a gap in a long run of sequential serials from the same date. In fact- it's been a while for a new Loar to pop up.. the Fern July 9 of course being another exception to the long-thought rules.

----------


## Joe Spann

> Stamp number sure does seem to track nicely to the creation date. This is of importance, of course- instruments made closer to the same time share characteristics. Sometimes cosmetic, sometimes tonal. This is most clearly correlated with the FON stamp.


Yes, and with guitars and banjos too.




> Serials- I agree that in general these are more likely to vary than FON stamps, matching up with your theories of "serial = warranty event = shipping date indicator".


Thanks! 




> It seems some instruments got special handling- Loars so often progress in straight sequential serials that they must have had special handling.


I strongly agree with this statement.

Joe

----------


## mtucker

> So if only 30 are left to be discovered how many of those were destroyed by acts of God, man or woman?  Fire, flood,demolition,divorce.....etc?   I'm guessing half of those leaving only about 15 to find in someone's attic or closet.


You just never know where they're going to turn up either. My buddy had been chasing a rare early model car for 2-3 years and finally was able to acquire it ... after a long trip to southern Oregon he'd just pulled up to his place in SoCal with his newly acquired gem in need of total restoration. The car wasn't off the trailer yet when his next door neighbor, a little old lady, spots the car in his driveway...she sprints over to him and proceeds to declare that 'she has one just like it' beneath plastic and leaves on the side of her shed on the backside of her property. My friend who rarely sees and speaks with her, is caught completely off guard and doesn't believe ... he immediately says; 'let's go see it'. Sure enough, not more than 20 yards from his shop is the same car but in much better shape than his.... my friend was floored!

----------


## Buck

> From* Buck* -_ "There is just no credible evidence anywhere that what you're saying is true."_. I understand your doubt,but i didn't conjour what i said out of thin air,why would i do that ?. As i said, it's something that i read in the past,


I didn't say you conjured it up.  I said there's no credible evidence.  You keep saying it's something you've read in the past.  That is hardly definitive.

Meanwhile, we have some of THE prewar Gibson experts right here saying it didn't happen.  I've grown up around Bluegrass music where prewar Martin guitars and Gibson mandolins and banjo are are primary focus.  I know many other Loar/prewar F-5 owners who do not participate in online forums who all say the same thing, which is contrary to what your saying.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, but you keep putting this idea out there without with one shred of documentation to back it up.  I just fail to see why you do that.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> In fact- it's been a while for a new Loar to pop up.. the Fern July 9 of course being another exception to the long-thought rules.


Is that the one on the Antiques Road Show last year where the serial number had been used in a case of insurance fraud? That was a 24 Fern if I recall.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

_ It's something that i've read 'somewhere' in the past. It was given that not ALL the instruments coming off the line would ALL be signed.They had to be 'better than the others' to qualify for signing. If they were all signed,it would be meaningless in terms of some 'being better' than others. It does beg the question - "what happened to any Mandolins that were regarded as NOT good' ?.Also,why was it necessary to sign them at all - was it simply to varify the fact that they had been inspected ?. Lots of things i personally don't understand,
Ivan_ 

I do not want to get in the middle, but what Ivan is saying is somewhat correct, but only if you are nearly or more than my 60 yr age.  At one point in time this was the belief, but it was way before 50 or 60 Loars had been documented and NONE showing up unsigned

Hogwash was called on that implied advertising deal by Gibson 35 or more years ago.  Even if you read the label, it does not say Loar performed the said deeds listed on the label.  He just signed it.  How do you do those things all at one time????

Let's not forget that Wm Place also signed Bacon Artist models



Darryl

----------


## Brian Aldridge

There is a very tangible difference between Loars and early Ferns, from a playing perspective. The unsigned Loars are Loars. When you say Loar, it's means a lot more than just the signature.

----------


## almeriastrings

One question (three actually) I have on the early ferns relates to the finish. It is said that some had a lacquer overspray over the varnish. Any more detail on that? Also, what is the earliest documented date that sitka was used? Finally, what is known about the way the top wood was prepared and used? Sawn? Split? Bookmatched, or not always so?

----------


## Brian Aldridge

One thought on the finish question- You see a fair number of the mid 20s Ferns with lacquer spayed on the labels. This may have been due to the policy Gibson had of letting someone try an instrument out and sending it back if you didn't want it after all. They may have had to shoot some lacquer on it to make it look new again. There is one July 9 that was in Florida that looked as if it had maybe a lacquer over spay. An unsigned I once owned looked that way. It was an amazing mandolin. I think there may be some other folks on here that know of other mandolins that fit this description. I don't know of any early Ferns that had a varnish finish, as just after the unsigned Loars, they started using lacquer. I wouldn't be surprised if there were exceptions.

----------


## mrmando

> Is that the one on the Antiques Road Show last year where the serial number had been used in a case of insurance fraud? That was a 24 Fern if I recall.


The Antiques Roadshow Loar and the July 9 Fern are different instruments. The July 9 Fern is for sale at Gruhn's; the owner of the Antiques Roadshow instrument said she was going to lock it in a safe. 

But if I have the sequence of events right, the Antiques Roadshow Loar was the most recent one to surface.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> The Antiques Roadshow Loar and the July 9 Fern are different instruments. The July 9 Fern is for sale at Gruhn's; the owner of the Antiques Roadshow instrument said she was going to lock it in a safe. 
> 
> But if I have the sequence of events right, the Antiques Roadshow Loar was the most recent one to surface.


That show was aired in January of 2012. The last before that was the one in Kansas near Scott if recall. That was about three years ago or so.

That's assuming they all end up being reported here.

----------


## Will Kimble

I have a couple thoughts to add...  

I am pretty sure Butch's unsigned is lacquer.  

I can think of two Loar-signed instruments (H5 & F5, both from '24) which appear to be lacquer but don't show any sign of being oversprayed or refinished.  Maybe some stragglers left the factory with Fern-era finishes?   

I have spent some time with one of the cremona F4s, I think it is from 1921.  It is my opinion that it is an oil varnish finish similar to an F5, whereas the other F4s I have seen appear to be spirit varnish.  I think these F4s sound unique.  

Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From *Buck* -_ "That is hardly definitive."_. Very true. However,in the (nearly)50 years that i've been playing Bluegrass music,i've read many things,having subscribed to the early editions of 'Bluegrass Unlimited',the now defunct 'Frets' magazine. I've also read many other articles on Bluegrass & it's associated instruments. So many in fact, that it's hardly likely that i'd remember exactly where i read what i read,especially as i've only been playing & ('really' interested in) Mandolin for the past 6 1/2 years.
    Regarding the absolute truth in _'what i read'_,well we all read things that we believe to be true at any one point in time,only to maybe find out that they were somewhat 'un-true', should we say.
*Darryl* - i'm 67,going on 20 !!, :Grin: 
                                                    Ivan :Wink:

----------


## danb

> I have a couple thoughts to add...  
> I can think of two Loar-signed instruments (H5 & F5, both from '24) which appear to be lacquer but don't show any sign of being oversprayed or refinished.  Maybe some stragglers left the factory with Fern-era finishes?


Sure thing Will, there are f5s in the July 9 batch with a very light and apparently original lacquer topcoat. Some examples appear to get slightly green binding as a possible result of this?

Didn't know the finish detail on the cremona F4s- very interesting

----------


## danb

Also, here's an archive search showing the F5s Darryl forwarded me to be tagged as "Unsigned Loars"

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/...ns.pl?unsigned

This also now appears under "advanced searches" in the archive, in case you lose it

----------


## Willie Poole

I don`t know what if any differences there were in the mandolins that were made shortly after Loar left Gibson but it seems that the same builders were still making them for a shprt period of time at least and it would seem that these mandolins would be just like and as good as any of the signed Loars even though they were a lacquer finish, why would or should they change anything in that short period of time? I have read some posts by F-5 Loar about how good some of the Ferns were that were made say in `25 and `26....It has also been posted on here that when a Loar was sent back for repairs years after Loar left that Gibson sprayed it with lacquer to make it look new....

   Good to see Brian posting again.....

  Willie

----------


## f5loar

I don't see any mention on the new list of which of the "unsigned" Loars had varnish or which had lacquer or which had lacquer spray over varnish.
Will is saying for sure Butch's famous unsigned Loar was all lacquer. I remember it being lacquer over varnish.   Others mention overspray so obviouls it covered the labels.  And was the overspray done when new or when sent back to factory for repairs?  I remember Herschel had or still has a really nice April 25, 1923 F5 that had an obvious lacquer overspray.  He was able to get Randy Wood to remove just the lacquer to bring it back to the orignial varnish finish. And there was another famous July 9 Loar that received an unwanted lacquer overspray in the early 50's and it's owner took care of removing the lacquer himself.  Bottom line is after Loar left lots of things changed besides that little label.  So many changes on up to 1942 that it's really hard to pin point consistancy in those years from 1925 to 1942.  Batches were small not big like during the Loar years.  Some years they only made them one at a time as ordered.  Senior guys retiring and many management changes during those years too make figuring out what happened after Loar left near impossible.  I think it's time for another LoarFest to get all those unsigned and early Ferns back together at one time for another close look to make sense of what did happen after Loar left.  There are guys that can rub a finish and tell you if it's varnish or lacquer or something else.

----------


## Brian Aldridge

> Also, here's an archive search showing the F5s Darryl forwarded me to be tagged as "Unsigned Loars"
> 
> http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/...ns.pl?unsigned
> 
> This also now appears under "advanced searches" in the archive, in case you lose it


The FON of 81250 is listed as unknown, but it is 11985 as one might expect. Just wanted to make it official. I took the first seven or eight pics shown of 82369. The first and second were intended to show the light overspray of lacquer. This treatment does those long line checking instead of the small spider web type you see in later versions of lacquer.

----------


## danb

> The FON of 81250 is listed as unknown, but it is 11985 as one might expect.


Updated

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Butch's mandolin is lacquer over varnish.  Like one of the post below (Will, I think), I have seen many many lacquer oversprayed Loars and shortly post Loar mandolins.  It is my feeling that these were as posted earlier "cleaned up" for sale.

Additionally, with all the new info about these mandolins laying around for a long time, it could also be that by the time they sold, they needed shining up to look like new

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

We would probably be remiss not to include 73670 in the unsigned list.  Many folks suggest "the label fell out"  However, the mandolin has all the classic traits of a later completion.  Gold hardware, larger bushings, lacquer overspray etc.

I would really really like to know the FON on this one.

----------


## almeriastrings

One other question... possibly in Joe Spann's area of expertise.... do the purchase ledgers from that period (or those that still exist) give any indication of where they sourced the lumber used on these instruments from?

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> One other question... possibly in Joe Spann's area of expertise.... do the purchase ledgers from that period (or those that still exist) give any indication of where they sourced the lumber used on these instruments from?


No, but a few surviving tidbits like this does...

----------


## Joe Spann

> One other question... possibly in Joe Spann's area of expertise.... do the purchase ledgers from that period (or those that still exist) give any indication of where they sourced the lumber used on these instruments from?


Yes, this topic is covered in detail on pages 52 and 53 of my book. While I didn't see any surviving financial records from the Loar period (1919-1924), what I did see from 1925 and afterwards agrees perfectly with Darryl's post.

----------

