# General Mandolin Topics > Looking for Information About Mandolins >  Lloyd Loar Mandolins

## Mandosam

I've heard so much about Loar mandolins but have never quite understood why they are so loved. Is it because they are so old or is it the way they are made? What is about them that makes them sound so good and makes them so special.

----------


## fscotte

:Popcorn:

----------

Billy Packard, 

hank, 

Timbofood

----------


## George R. Lane

> 


+1

----------

hank

----------


## AlanN

Mandosam -

You're new here. For us jaded vets, we've been up, down, roundabout and back again re: this very topic. Does that mean that it shouldn't be re-visited? Hardly. But, whilst we wait for the responses to pour in, I'll have some popcorn, too...

----------

hank

----------


## JeffD

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...quot-Loar-tone

----------


## JeffD

This is a good start:

----------

Backlineman, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Robert Mitchell

----------


## DataNick



----------

Timbofood

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Bill Monroe bought what turned out to be a Gibson F5 mandolin that was signed by Lloyd Loar in a barber shop in Florida. That mandolin became the gold standard for mandolins and the price for those mandolins sold by Gibson and signed by Loar have gained value over the years. It should be noted that Loar didn't build these mandolins, he inspected them at the end and had input into how they were built. To read more about Lloyd Loar check out *this* page on Roger Siminoff's site. I would characterize the Loar phenomena as Gibson getting it right and perhaps not even knowing what it was they got right. In the ensuing years many builders have gone to great pains to duplicate the Loar sound and mystique. Some get closer than others. The mandolins that are sold under the brand name "The Loar" have no connection with the Gibson built Lloyd Loar signed mandolins. That is strictly marketing.

----------

DataNick, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

hank, 

Ivan Kelsall, 

JEStanek, 

red7flag, 

Robert Mitchell, 

Timbofood, 

UlsterMando

----------


## Doug Freeman

> I would characterize the Loar phenomena as Gibson getting it right and perhaps not even knowing what it was they got right.


Who would ever have known Gibson got anything right with the F-5 unless Monroe happened to find and play one? That's ground zero for the F-5 reputation (probably same with the L-5 and Lang). What if Monroe had played an F-4, or anything else? He still would have been the best in the land. Would followers not have sought out whatever instrument the master played? Isn't it because of the masters playing these instruments, and followers believing THAT'S what a good instrument sounds like, that they're revered? How can we say there is something objectively great about their sound outside that context? I have no idea, I'm just asking!

----------

Barry Wilson, 

J Mangio

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> ...I have no idea, I'm just asking!


You probably know as much as anyone else.  :Smile:

----------


## BradKlein

Another point that may help the OP understand the lure of the Loar is this. In the few short years that Loar was overseeing production, Gibson built by far the 'finest' mandolins it ever made, before or since - as judged by countless musicians. They were terribly expensive and came well after the mandolin craze was over. Consequently there were not many made or sold, and there was no company or luthier making the American Mandolin to those standards for half a century or more. So as demand rose with the invention of bluegrass and the popularity of a number of musical styles, supply remained constant and extremely limited. If they'd been as popular as martin ukuleles... well, I'd probably be able to afford one!

----------


## DataNick

> Who would ever have known Gibson got anything right with the F-5 unless Monroe happened to find and play one? That's ground zero for the F-5 reputation (probably same with the L-5 and Lang). What if Monroe had played an F-4, or anything else? He still would have been the best in the land. Would followers not have sought out whatever instrument the master played? Isn't it because of the masters playing these instruments, and followers believing THAT'S what a good instrument sounds like, that they're revered? How can we say there is something objectively great about their sound outside that context? I have no idea, I'm just asking!



One of the world's most premier mandolinists, Dave Apollon, played the Gibson F5, even keeping at least 2 on hand so he could switch after breaking strings. This was much before bluegrass came on the scene, and I'd bet that because of Apollon, the F5 had already started to garner a reputation as a stellar instrument...

----------

Backlineman, 

f5joe, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Frankdolin, 

red7flag

----------


## Mandoplumb

> Who would ever have known Gibson got anything right with the F-5 unless Monroe happened to find and play one? That's ground zero for the F-5 reputation (probably same with the L-5 and Lang). What if Monroe had played an F-4, or anything else? He still would have been the best in the land. Would followers not have sought out whatever instrument the master played? Isn't it because of the masters playing these instruments, and followers believing THAT'S what a good instrument sounds like, that they're revered? How can we say there is something objectively great about their sound outside that context? I have no idea, I'm just asking!


Maybe the masters believed THAT'S  what a good instrument sounds like. Monroe owned and played other mandolins before and after he found that Loar in that barber shop but it was THE one for him and the one that seems to go best with the music he "invented".

----------


## f5loar

The founding fathers of Bluegrass music decided early on (or at least by late 1945 when many say was the birth of Bluegrass) that their style of music would be made on an early 20's Gibson F5; a pre-war Martin D28 guitar and a prewar Gibson Flat head Mastertone banjo along with a really old fiddle and bass fiddle of your choice as long as it's really old.  Is that the reason the Loar F5 is so special?  Probably.  Why are they so expensive?  They ain't makin' em no more!

----------


## almeriastrings

Yes... well... they only had two options, didn't they? War-time or pre-war  :Smile: 

Those pre-war D-28's were only 6 years old at the time, too.

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From Brad Klein - _"..Gibson built by far the 'finest' mandolins it ever made, before or since..."_. With due respect,that's purely a matter of personal opinion,& as we've read,not ALL Lloyd Loar signed mandolins come up to scratch. But - i will grant that most of them do sound very good,as do many other makes of mandolin,but with a ''different'' sound of their own. 

    If i'm perfectly honest,& despite my love of several makes of mandolin (notably Ellis mandolins),the one mandolin that i'd love to own (if it still sounds the same),is Chris Thile's 'Dude.'. It was far more pleasing & seemingly ''well balanced'' to my ears than his current Loar. It's no wonder that after letting it go at one point,he then sought to get it back,
                                                                                                                              Ivan :Wink:

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

George R. Lane, 

UlsterMando

----------


## JKA

> I've heard so much about Loar mandolins but have never quite understood why they are so loved. Is it because they are so old or is it the way they are made? What is about them that makes them sound so good and makes them so special.


Mandosam...or Sam for short, it's because these mandolins are the 'Holy Grail' for a large section of mandolin players, and collectors. 

There are so many opinions as to why they sound so good, a lot of opinions are quite subjective but there is no definitive answer...it's just so.

That doesn't mean to say the're aren't instruments available to us mere mortals capable of holding their own when it comes to offering everything one would want in a mandolin at a price many of us can aspire to.

Loar is history, myth, intrigue, and food for discussion for all time to come...as it should be. 

Enjoy the forum...it's quite addictive 

Keith

----------


## UlsterMando

Thank you BradKlein, I love "The lure of the Loar"
- another mando-compulsive disorder finds a name !

Move over MAS :Laughing:

----------


## Mandosam

I am beginning to see all the different opinions. I don't think anybody has a definitive answer as many of you have pointed out. I think I knew that there wouldn't be a definitive answer, I just thought I would ask and see all the different opinions. Thanks for the responses everyone, and by the way, as a new guy, the forum is very addictive.

----------

UlsterMando

----------


## JAK

Mass hypnosis (IMHO)!!!

----------


## Bill Kammerzell

> One of the world's most premier mandolinists, Dave Apollon, played the Gibson F5, even keeping at least 2 on hand so he could switch after breaking strings. This was much before bluegrass came on the scene, and I'd bet that because of Apollon, the F5 had already started to garner a reputation as a stellar instrument...


I don't know if Dave's F5 would bring 1.125 million dollars?

----------


## Denny Gies

Mike and F5Loar continue to add so much to our understanding.  Thanks to both of you.

----------


## f5loar

> Yes... well... they only had two options, didn't they? War-time or pre-war 
> 
> Those pre-war D-28's were only 6 years old at the time, too.


Yes, but they had lots to choose from too!  Bill could have stuck with his F7 that seemed to suit him since 1934. What if that barber shop had a killer F4 like Jimmy Martin found?  Earl could have stuck with his RB11 with no tone ring at all! Or one of those fancy new Epiphone or Vega banjos.  And Lester could have found just as good a sound on a prewar Gibson J30 or even a war time SJ.  But they didn't.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

It's not too hard to imagine,that after Lloyd Loar departed from Gibson,that the luthiers who'd been building mandolins to the ''Loar spec.'' carried on in like manner & that the mandolins produced for quite a while afterwards, were of exactly the same quality,but of course 'not signed' = had a label stuck inside 'em !. I really can't imagine a bunch of luthiers simply abandoning the way they built just because LL left Gibson. That is very probably why some Gibson mandolins built well after LL left also sound so good. The one owned by Butch Baldassari for one,the superb Gibson once played by Ralph Rinzler for another,neither of them Loars,but to my ears every bit as fine sounding.

    I can't imagine that the first mandolin NOT to have a 'Loar signed label' inside it,sounded worse 'all of a sudden' than the last signed Loar - so what price the little piece of paper & all the hype (so to speak) that goes with it ?.

   I _can_ imagine a situation where the last 'signed Loar' & the next one off the line, built by the same guys,to the same specifications,but of course _not_ signed ,being scrutinised. I'd bet a shed load of cash,that 'whoever', would find a reason to prefer the _signed_ mandolin above the other,despite them 'maybe' sounding as identical as 2 mandolins can. As we've all been told so many times,the label makes quite a difference to the tone.

   I'm sorry to sound so sceptical,but i am. Yes - 'some' Loar signed mandolins are terrific mandolins & i'd never dream of saying otherwise -but,to imagine that the ones that came after were 'inferior', is pretty hard going for me,as i've read,not ALL Loar signed mandolins sound good withing their own group,
                                                                                                                                       Ivan :Wink:

----------

UlsterMando

----------


## Atlanta Mando Mike

Provenance, rarity, fingerprints, legend, mystery, and magic...  in no particular order  :Wink:

----------


## Ken Waltham

> Who would ever have known Gibson got anything right with the F-5 unless Monroe happened to find and play one? That's ground zero for the F-5 reputation (probably same with the L-5 and Lang). What if Monroe had played an F-4, or anything else? He still would have been the best in the land. Would followers not have sought out whatever instrument the master played? Isn't it because of the masters playing these instruments, and followers believing THAT'S what a good instrument sounds like, that they're revered? How can we say there is something objectively great about their sound outside that context? I have no idea, I'm just asking!


These are interesting points, but, I think they are perhaps backwards. Monroe chose that F5 in the barbershop window because it was superior to other mandolins he had access to. In turn, that sound it produced allowed him to create a different style of mandolin playing because he now had the correct tool to do it with. The sounds and styles he heard in his head could now be enunciated.
Same with Eddie Lang. When he joins the Whiteman band in 1929, playing a 1928 L5, he chose that "new" Gibson design because it allowed him to be heard in an ensemble environment, and it pretty much immediately spelled the death knell for the Tenor Banjo in that role. Now, he could make real music, supply rhythm to the band, AND be heard. Something not possible before. If he had picked up an L3 or other round hole guitar, change would not have happened, because no one would have heard him.
Now, most, of not all banjoists wanted to play guitar.
Same could be argued for Charlie Christian, when he brings an electric ES150 into the big band world. Now he could play lead lines, imitate horn lines, etc... He moved the guitar from the rhythm section into the lead instrument world.  In this case, I am not arguing for the ES150, but, the Electric guitar. It is rumoured that Benny Goodman said " who the hell wants to hear an electric guitar anyway??" If he had done his lead work on an unamplified guitar, no one would have heard him.
Just my two cents.
And, once again, I will reiterate my point that Loars sound much more alike than they ever do different, and I have Never heard a bad one. If you have a real bad one, sell it to me at say, 40% of it's value...  :Smile:  I'll take them all.

----------

DataNick, 

f5joe, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Glassweb, 

hank, 

Hendrik Ahrend, 

Ivan Kelsall, 

sgarrity, 

Timbofood, 

UlsterMando

----------


## Timbofood

> Mass hypnosis (IMHO)!!!


I think you may mean:
MAS hysteria :Grin: 
Excellent perspective on the "application of new design" Ken. Very true, indeed.

----------


## JFDilmando

I owned a disappointing Loar at one time.... I sold it... but it still was as good as 99% of the other top end mandolins I have owned.  I had an older Monteleone F5  that shined above it, but like I say, it was as good as most get, just not up to some other Loars.  Other Loars I have owned, can't be touched side by side of some of the best Gils or Monteleones, or Altmans that I have owned at the same time....  much of it is a matter of taste regarding what you want to hear from a mandolin.

Some of the very top end classical instruments just sound weak and shallow to my ear... but the owners LOVE them.... Katerina loves her instrument over that of hubby Mike Marshall, and Mike prefers his Loar.... to each their own...

----------

DataNick, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

hank, 

Ivan Kelsall, 

UlsterMando

----------


## Ken Waltham

One thing I don't mean to imply is that Loar signed F5's are simply the best mandolins in the world to Everyone. Sound, etc is very subjective, and we all have opinions. I do mean to say they all sound wonderful, at the very least, to me.

On addressing the pricing issue.. one way to put it very succinctly, ... there are Rembrandt's, and then there is the "school of Rembrandt". Both are very nice paintings, but the price difference will be significant.  Loars are Rembrandts.

----------

DataNick, 

f5joe, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Glassweb, 

Ivan Kelsall, 

Timbofood

----------


## JeffD

Our tastes change as we gain experience, of course. And our tastes change depending what we have been listening to and what we have been playing lately. 

The way I am right now, were someone to give me a signed Loar, I would sell it, (after playing it 24/7 for a week and a half) and purchase a Kerman, and a couple high end bowlbacks, and a liuto cantabile. With the remaining funds I might think about a second Kerman. And do some traveling. In a new camper. Pulled by a new Jeep. ...  :Wink: 


But you know, check in with me in a few years.

----------


## Steve Sorensen

One thing that seems to be missing in these discussion is that LLoyd Loar was a player first.  What he added to the mix was a player's desire to have complexity, depth, balance, and power which were on par with great violins.  

Gibson started down that path, but sold out and moved on before completing the quest.  Loar carried the ball to the finish line (for the time).  The craftsmen who were building didn't really get the benefit of that feedback loop after Loar left because the mandolin was on a fast decline in popularity . . . 

Monroe brought a player's ear back into the mix.  But it sure took Gibson a long time to appreciate that perspective.  

And the Gibson Corporation, as it evolves over time seems to keep one thing consistent -- the inability to maintain the player's perspective in the qualities of the instruments that they produce.

We're seeing, with guys like Dave Harvey and Danny Roberts, the ebb and flow of that attention in current production.  Dave and Danny are examples of excellent players who clearly love mandolins of fine voice and great playability . . . and bring that love to work regardless of the way the corporate wind is blowing!

Steve

----------

carleshicks, 

hank

----------


## Ken Waltham

> One thing that seems to be missing in these discussion is that LLoyd Loar was a player first.  What he added to the mix was a player's desire to have complexity, depth, balance, and power which were on par with great violins.  
> 
> Gibson started down that path, but sold out and moved on before completing the quest.  Loar carried the ball to the finish line (for the time).  The craftsmen who were building didn't really get the benefit of that feedback loop after Loar left because the mandolin was on a fast decline in popularity . . . 
> 
> Monroe brought a player's ear back into the mix.  But it sure took Gibson a long time to appreciate that perspective.  
> 
> And the Gibson Corporation, as it evolves over time seems to keep one thing consistent -- the inability to maintain the player's perspective in the qualities of the instruments that they produce.
> 
> We're seeing with guys like Dave Harvey and Danny Roberts the ebb and flow of that attention in current production.  Dave and Danny are examples of excellent players who clearly love mandolins of fine voice and great playability . . . and bring that love to work regardless of the way the corporate wind is blowing!
> ...


 Very very true. he was a player first, and, as Hendrik once said so well, he must have had an active hand in quality control, because, even though the same guys are building..theoretically, the quality drops progressively as you go onwards, and, almost immediately to some degree.

----------

DataNick, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

hank, 

Hendrik Ahrend

----------


## MikeEdgerton

The quality may have dropped more due to the fact that the best of the best were moved to the products that Gibson was actually selling and making money on. The mandolins took a back seat to the banjo very quickly. Even Loar was designing banjo's. 

From *Roger Siminoff's Loar page*:




> Lloyd’s work on banjos was equally astute. Loar developed a new banjo design with a hollow tubular tone chamber supported by spring-loaded ball bearings. This instrument was the foundation of the heralded Gibson Mastertone banjo line and the many pot-assembly hardware derivations that were to follow.

----------

hank, 

Timbofood

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> Our tastes change as we gain experience, of course. And our tastes change depending what we have been listening to and what we have been playing lately. 
> 
> The way I am right now, were someone to give me a signed Loar, I would sell it, (after playing it 24/7 for a week and a half) and purchase a Kerman, and a couple high end bowlbacks, and a liuto cantabile. With the remaining funds I might think about a second Kerman. And do some traveling. In a new camper. Pulled by a new Jeep...


One small conundrum here Jeff...
If we accept (and I do) your premise that "our tastes change depending what we have been listening to and what we have been playing lately", after a week and half of playing the Loar 24/7, you just might decide to keep it!

----------

DataNick, 

Timbofood

----------


## Ken Waltham

> One small conundrum here Jeff...
> If we accept (and I do) your premise that "our tastes change depending what we have been listening to and what we have been playing lately", after a week and half of playing the Loar 24/7, you just might decide to keep it!


Ha! I'd never take that bet!

----------

Timbofood

----------


## UlsterMando

> It's not too hard to imagine,that after Lloyd Loar departed from Gibson,that the luthiers who'd been building mandolins to the ''Loar spec.'' carried on in like manner & that the mandolins produced for quite a while afterwards, were of exactly the same quality,but of course 'not signed' = had a label stuck inside 'em !. I really can't imagine a bunch of luthiers simply abandoning the way they built just because LL left Gibson. That is very probably why some Gibson mandolins built well after LL left also sound so good. The one owned by Butch Baldassari for one,the superb Gibson once played by Ralph Rinzler for another,neither of them Loars,but to my ears every bit as fine sounding.
> 
>     I can't imagine that the first mandolin NOT to have a 'Loar signed label' inside it,sounded worse 'all of a sudden' than the last signed Loar - so what price the little piece of paper & all the hype (so to speak) that goes with it ?.
> 
>    I _can_ imagine a situation where the last 'signed Loar' & the next one off the line, built by the same guys,to the same specifications,but of course _not_ signed ,being scrutinised. I'd bet a shed load of cash,that 'whoever', would find a reason to prefer the _signed_ mandolin above the other,despite them 'maybe' sounding as identical as 2 mandolins can. As we've all been told so many times,the label makes quite a difference to the tone.
> 
>    I'm sorry to sound so sceptical,but i am. Yes - 'some' Loar signed mandolins are terrific mandolins & i'd never dream of saying otherwise -but,to imagine that the ones that came after were 'inferior', is pretty hard going for me,as i've read,not ALL Loar signed mandolins sound good withing their own group,
>                                                                                                                                        Ivan



It is a fair subject for informed scepticism. So much Loar debate concerns the
issue of their price - the least interesting thing about them. Your question about 
the last Loar compared to the first "post Loar" is right on the money . . .
if you'll excuse the metaphor.

----------

Ivan Kelsall

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

I hope that most folk understood my scepticism re. the possible drop off in quality immediately after LL left Gibson. Personally, i think that the quality was maintained for a ''period of time''. How long that was,we'll never really know,but what we do know,is that many seriously good mandolins were made by Gibson in the years post LL. I'd maybe agree with Ken Waltham in that there could have been a gradual decline in quality over the years. Just _what_ caused the Gibsons produced in the 1970 era to be as dire as several informed folk on here have described them ?. Who was in charge of the Gibson mandolin production line back then ?.
   The name Gibson on the headstock of a mandolin still has 'kudos' to this day. It's no wonder then that eventually Gibson did at least employ folk like Charlie Derrington & those before him ( i don't know who they were), & currently Dave Harvey,to keep 'em coming 'good'. I wish that they'd done the same for their banjos,but that wasn't to be - that they usually sell their mandolins for more cash that their banjos could be one reason.

     I don't know the number of banjo builders out there compared to mandolin builders,but considering the number of each,maybe we should be very thankful that Gibson are building mandolins at all - even as a non-Gibson owner,i am,as other folk desire them.
The ones being produced under the guidance of Dave Harvey seem to be as good as any they've ever produced, & the 'Goldrush' & 'Sam Bush' models are,IMO superb. I'd love to own a good example of either one,if i could find one over here at an affordable price,
       Ivan :Wink:

----------


## Mandoplumb

What happened at Gibson in the late 60's and 70's was what happens to so many companies that get the name as "the best". They start to believe that people have to have their product and will continue to buy it regardless, so why not cut corners produce it cheaper charge more and rake in the money. Thankfully Gibson seems to have turned back before it was too late, a lot of companies don't. Even so they suffered some damage, they will never be THE only mandolin to have like they once was.

----------

Ivan Kelsall

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Thanks for the info. mandoP - a bit of wrong thinking on the behalf of the Gibson Co. at that time. As you say,Gibson seem to have realised that their Mandolins still have a lot of potential,even in a market where there are more choices than ever. Personally,i'm no Gibson mandolin 'fanatic',but ''the name'',is for me,still the one to have if you can find a good one. Will that portion of Mr Monroe's legacy ever fade i wonder ?,
                                     Ivan :Confused:

----------


## Jim Hilburn

It helps to have seen some examples of post Loar mandolins and I have. I once got to play 3 Loars, one from each year they were produced and a 25 Fern in one sitting. To my ear the Fern sounded the best of all, at least more powerful, but the construction changes were quite evident.
Another time, I had 2 consecutively numbered F5's in my shop, one a 32 and one a 33. They still sounded pretty nice but the details I admire in a Loar had given way to a less ideal look.
It's important to remember the stock crash of 29 and how Gibson was hanging on by their fingernails. Also mandolin production was way off, possibly down to just custom orders. They were using some leftover parts like the Fern overlays but changed to worm over tuners which went right through the leaves of the inlay.

----------

DataNick, 

Ivan Kelsall

----------


## JeffD

> after a week and half of playing the Loar 24/7, you just might decide to keep it!


There is that risk.

The cool thing about owning a signed Loar would be all the first rate mandolinners I would get to meet, as I let folks play on it. And first rate luthiers I would meet as I let folks take measurements. That could be some serious fun.

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## T.D.Nydn

I think pros buy expensive instruments so they can take it off their taxes. That's why Eddie van Halen owns like 400 rare guitars...

----------


## Timbofood

Pro's buy things because they want and can afford to. 
I agree at some point the Gibson company did see that the demand had returned for a higher quality mandolin which needed special attention by people with an understanding of what they are supposed to be which not just guitars. The fact that the guitar business was able to help the mandolin return to better quality is pretty simple logic. It is lucky that the Cowles, Siminoff, Halsey triumvirate was on hand to answer the call from he company to figure out how to teach some of the guitar guys there what needed to be done.
The decline after Mr. Loar left was slow at first, then snowballed into "who cares" range thankfully the thaw came at all, now, there is pretty strong evidence that the work started to rebuild the department has borne fruit from healthy trees!

----------


## CES

> This is a good start:


I love this video, because I can totally hear what he's describing. On my own I would hear differences, but probably couldn't explain what I was hearing that well. As much as we obsess about tone, CT takes it to savant level. Props.

----------


## Steve Ostrander

They all sound fabulous in his hands.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Pro's buy things because they want and can afford to.


Pretty much, yeah.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

Like most of us, I frequently think about the "winning the lottery" possibility in regard to mandolins. Initially I'd be tempted to buy one of those "unsigned Loars" to save money and basically have a Loar. Then again, I could also get  Gil and Gibson MM etc. (among many others). When push came to shove, I'd most likely do the latter. If I found a Loar, be it in an attic or whatever, I'd have a harder time selling it, since the story would be worth more to me. I have an old guitar like that. I found it and have a good story about finding it, so it's worth more to me right now than money could make up for (unless a very rich and bored idiot comes along).

----------

DataNick

----------


## Willie Poole

It may be that Gibson, like many companies, had a "Lifetime warrantee" on their instruments and along came makers of heavy gauge strings thinking that a better tone was available using those so those builders made the tops thicker in order to withstand the extra tension from using thicker gauge strings...

     I was in Nashville one day and visited Gibson`s repair shop and that day there was both of Bobby Osborne`s mandolins there for some tweaking, a Loar and a `25 Fern, the differences in them was very obvious to me both in looks and sound, the Fern was more trebely than the Loar but also the Loar was not as good to my ears as some other Loars that I have played...I do not know exactly how many Loars that I have played but they all did not sound alike and some were lots better than others but that was in my younger days when myself as well as a lot of others did not know or care as much about set ups as we do now days...a friend of mine that lived in Texas owned one of the worse sounding Loars that I have ever heard, not just my opinion but shared by quite a few other pickers, but the fellow that bought it from him sent it to Gibson and they checked it out and did a great set up on it and I am told now that it is one of the better sounding Loars around...I also never cared for the ones that had a Virzi, but that is just my taste compared to other peoples...

      We all like something different so there will always be a discussion on which mandolins are the best, myself, right now I own a great sounding Ratliff R-5 (F-5) that suits me to a "T" and it is all I need although I do have a back up mandolin just in case something happens to the R-5...and that is a custom made F-5 made from the Siminoff plans....

    Willie

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

DataNick

----------


## jimmy powells

I think some of the players who have been featured playing Loars can make almost any high end mandolin sound great. They get them PRECISELY in tune intonation wise (which makes a difference), they ahve a great plectrum technique and actual pick and when they get one which is LOUD, BALANCED and has a genuine tone I reckon they sound pretty close to each other. So it is not the actual sound that makes them worth $175,000 compared to a $10,000 high end modern F5. It's all the reasons of rareity, Bill Monroe etc as mentioned but no one can tell me that the SOUND can make one mandolin worth $175000 against a good high end $10,000 modern mandolin. Even if it was felt that the tone was "special" compared to a $10,000 modern F5 then that may make it worth $15,000 but that's all.

I've played two Loars. one was fantastic. The other was the opposite.

Jimmy

UK

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Jeff Mando

> Like most of us, I frequently think about the "winning the lottery" possibility in regard to mandolins. Initially I'd be tempted to buy one of those "unsigned Loars" to save money and basically have a Loar. Then again, I could also get  Gil and Gibson MM etc. (among many others). When push came to shove, I'd most likely do the latter. If I found a Loar, be it in an attic or whatever, I'd have a harder time selling it, since the story would be worth more to me. I have an old guitar like that. I found it and have a good story about finding it, so it's worth more to me right now than money could make up for (unless a very rich and bored idiot comes along).


If I won the lottery, I'd probably remodel the bathroom and keep playing my ol' bowlback!

As far as finding a Loar in the attic goes, you are describing the difference between a "collector" and a "dealer".......that is you feel justified in keeping it, because you have nothing in it and it makes a good story......however, the "dealer" knows it is costing you $175K to keep it........unless, of course, you don't need the money!  George Gruhn regarding business once said something to the effect of, "if I found a $100 bill on the sidewalk, it doesn't mean that I would sell it for $50, just because I don't have anything in it, would I?"

----------

RodCH

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> ...So it is not the actual sound that makes them worth $175,000 compared to a $10,000 high end modern F5. It's all the reasons of rareity, Bill Monroe etc as mentioned but no one can tell me that the SOUND can make one mandolin worth $175000 against a good high end $10,000 modern mandolin. Even if it was felt that the tone was "special" compared to a $10,000 modern F5 then that may make it worth $15,000 but that's all.


You are right of course, rarity is a factor...surely a huge factor. But, while you (or I) may not perceive a tonal difference that merits 175K, neither one of us can say with certainty that it doesn't exist. 

I don't have that kind of money to spend. Even if I did, I'm not sure I could justify spending it on one of those beautiful old F5s. 

I do respect the opinions of those (players) who have chosen to own one. Just one example...Reischman.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From Flatrockhill -_ "....may not perceive a tonal difference that merits 175K, neither one of us can say with certainty that it doesn't exist"_. Exactly !. Some people _might_ hear a difference & some people _won't_,although just how much a person's imagination comes into it i couldn't guess. If we're told _often enough_ by ''informed'' persons that A is better than B,then less informed persons can come to doubt _their own opinion_ that B is in fact,better than A.

    I remember that shortly after i bought my 'used' Ellis "A" style,a friend & fellow Cafe member brought his own lovely Heiden "A" style down to my home & we compared them one against the other using both our picks - his a Blue Chip, & mine a Primetone.
I couldn't tell one from the other using either pick,my friend thought that maybe my Ellis was a bit 'rounder' in tone,but to my ears,they sounded very,very much alike.

  You mention John Reischman - JR is widely regarded as having possibly 'the best' Loar out there,but i've seen a home made video of JR & Chris Thile jamming together,JR on his Loar, & CT on his famous 'Dude' & honestly,i couldn't tell one from the other. You could tell _who was playing though_,CT's technique was very different that JR's. I still prefer the tone of CT's original Dude. to that of his current Loar - but that's just my taste in tone. Apart from rarity value,can we really say that a 'Loar' is worth the cash asked for them ? - on a tonal basis,my opinion is that there are many modern mandolins that 'sound as good' - 'but different',& in some,the difference may be very small indeed (IMHO). I haven't heard him play one,but i wonder just how JR's Heiden mandolins sound in his hands - pretty darned 'special' i'd imagine,
                                                                         Ivan :Wink:

----------

Flame Maple, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

UlsterMando

----------


## almeriastrings

We can debate for ever (and sometimes it seems like it) about "tone" and financial "worth".....  it is a funny old world...

To inject a slightly different angle into that, I have a couple of guitars that are both "worth" quite a lot. I also have a fairly recent (2007) guitar built by a maker who for whatever reason, never got a foothold or real reputation in the traditional dread area and who then dropped the line entirely (Breedlove). Those sold for "only" $1500. I happily use the latter and use it both live and for recordings often in preference to the others.... I like how sounds. It is very precisely intonated. It mics up well. It plays well. 

Total sacrilige and heresy... but there you go  :Mandosmiley:

----------

DataNick, 

Flame Maple, 

sgarrity

----------


## Timbofood

Just for reference, perceived value is just that. An instrument, diamond, vintage car, or whatever is only worth the perceived value when: 
A- A purchase price is met or,
B- the item is insured and suffers loss or irreparable damage (theft or destruction)
Nothing has any real "value" until someone else sells/buys it.
That said, if I had the money and would enjoy the "Pride of Ownership" I'd get one in a New York minute!
Prime example of why these are such gems is shown in the "Tony Williamson, Lloyd Loar" thread where he plays "Golden Slippers"! That would be in the running for sure, after I get my Halsey! :Grin:

----------


## JFDilmando

it always cracks me up when someone subjectively says that something is "worth it" or "not worth it", or something like "even if I had the money, I wouldn't spend it on that"....  all that reveals is the relative value or scarcity of money to that particular person.  It reminds me of a boss, berating an employee for spending so much on a dinner on the expense account, and challenging the employee to spend the money "like it was your own"..... then being shocked when the next expense account comes back with a bottle of $200 wine on it in one dinner....  "I thought I said to treat these expenses as if you were paying with your own money !!" says the boss....
"well," sighs the employee, "I have been holding back, knowing the business was struggling, but my family has been in politics for generations, and this is how we eat every night."

You can't assume your perception of what is of any value means ANYTHING to anyone else, unless you are assuming they are as poor or as rich as you are... or that they have hearing as poor as yours !!

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

Billy Packard

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

*John* - I take your point fully. But,there are people around with boat loads of cash who choose to buy 'this' rather than 'that' simply because it's a 'preference', _scarcity of cash_ doesn't come into it. However - amongst us mere _cash strapped mortals_,your point has a ring of truth. 'Priorities' also come into our choice of what or what not to buy or even 'whether to buy'.
Currently,i have enough cash to buy my 'dream mandolin' - _but_ - that cash is my home emergency cash,accrued over several years, & living in a 150 year old house,you never know when it's going to be required. My point - many factors come into play when deciding whether to spend cash,not simply if you have it or not. Somebody once told me the secret of ''how the rich stay rich'' - _they don't spend anything_ ! :Grin: 
                                                                                                    Ivan :Wink:

----------


## UlsterMando

JeffD cleared this for me . . .
What they are is inseparable from what they do.

----------


## Jeff Mando

> Somebody once told me the secret of ''how the rich stay rich'' - _they don't spend anything_ !
>                                                                                                     Ivan


Another version of that is, "never invest your OWN money -- always use somebody else's!"

Ivan, I have a similar house.  My wife wanted a "historic" home..... :Cool:

----------

Ivan Kelsall

----------


## Timbofood

My house is just old.
Correction...."vintage"!
1935

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Jeff - My home is far from Historic - Hysterical maybe,but Historic NOT !!! Imagine my overwhelming joy,when,a week before Christmas 2012,my wife called me downstairs to see this - a huge hole in my hall ceiling caused by a badly repaired lead pipe having leaked water onto a 150 year old plaster & lath ceiling. Fortunately,my brother in law repaired it & replaced all the old lead piping with steel lined plastic piping & put a new ceiling, complete with plaster coving up for us. The guy who does my decorating for me got it done 2 the day before Christmas eve.
    This is the reason why i need an 'emergency fund'. The previous year,i had to have a wall in my backyard knocked down & re-built = EXPENSE!!!!, :Frown: 
                              Ivan :Wink:

----------

Jeff Mando

----------


## Jeff Mando

> Jeff - My home is far from Historic - Hysterical maybe,but Historic NOT !!! Imagine my overwhelming joy,when,a week before Christmas 2012,my wife called me downstairs to see this - a huge hole in my hall ceiling caused by a badly repaired lead pipe having leaked water onto a 150 year old plaster & lath ceiling. Fortunately,my brother in law repaired it & replaced all the old lead piping with steel lined plastic piping & put a new ceiling, complete with plaster coving up for us. The guy who does my decorating for me got it done 2 the day before Christmas eve.
>     This is the reason why i need an 'emergency fund'. The previous year,i had to have a wall in my backyard knocked down & re-built = EXPENSE!!!!,
>                               Ivan


Not to mention a 150 year old house has 150 year old trees that need maintaining.  Even in Mississippi, those guys don't work cheap!

----------


## jim simpson

> Not to mention a 150 year old house has 150 year old trees that need maintaining.  Even in Mississippi, those guys don't work cheap!


Use this picture when someone asks why are you selling your (fill in the blank).

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

I also forked out £3,000 UK ($4,000 US), to have my roof totally replaced a couple of years ago. I'd run out of pots & pans to place under the dripping water coming through my ceiling !. 
    I don't see my 'dream mandolin' appearing over the horizon any time soon. If i was still working,i'd already have it,
                                                                                                                                                            Ivan :Wink: 
 Maybe this should go in the ''Home improvements'' section ?.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

> I also forked out £3,000 UK ($4,000 US), to have my roof totally replaced a couple of years ago. I'd run out of pots & pans to place under the dripping water coming through my ceiling !. 
>     I don't see my 'dream mandolin' appearing over the horizon any time soon. If i was still working,i'd already have it,
>                                                                                                                                                             Ivan
>  Maybe this should go in the ''Home improvements'' section ?.


What IS your dream mandolin Ivan? Or is it just a concept awaiting realization?

----------


## Capt. E

Yeah, my paid for house is just hitting 50 y/o and I have neighbors that are having to replace their cast iron sewer lines (47 year life expectancy, I am told) The cost can run up to $30K. Yeah, I really don't need a $10K+ mandolin. I'd like to retire comfortably in a decent home with everything working.
I once was able to play an unsigned Loar (first batch after LL stopped signing) and it was very very nice. I am envious of all of you who have played (and owned) more that one GREAT instrument. 
I also really appreciate the guys at Fiddler's Green letting me play an Ellis (and other fine mandolins) when they have one on the wall. It keeps the dream alive.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Hi Andrew - Most folk on here if they've read my posts over the years,will know that i have a distinct liking for Tom Ellis's mandolins. Going back many years,when the old 'Frets' magazine was still being published,they ran an article on Tom Ellis & the mandolin that he'd made for Ricky Skaggs. Even though i'd never held an F5 style mandolin,i could recognise the incredible workmanship. Many years later,at a UK Bluegrass festival,i got to hear one up close & i thought it was simply immense !. For me - it was as good as i'd ever want a mandolin to sound. It was many years afterwards that i actually bought my first mandolin.

    I'm very fortunate that a couple of years  ago (almost) ,Trevor at TAMCO UK, made me an offer that i couldn't refuse on a used Ellis "A" style. Actually,i did refuse it at first,then relented. The mandolin is excellent in every way,but an Ellis "F" style is still my 'dream' mandolin - i'm lucky to be half way there (sort of !) & i do get a real buzz out of playing it, & thanks again Trevor !!.
                                                                                                                                        Ivan :Wink:

----------

Andrew B. Carlson

----------


## Verne Andru

> The mandolins that are sold under the brand name "The Loar" have no connection with the Gibson built Lloyd Loar signed mandolins. That is strictly marketing.


I realize it can be suicide to counter-point a moderator, but my understanding is The Loar mandolins are designed by Greg Rich who was a Gibson custom shop builder and I've read claims he had access to Lloyd Loar's notes and building techniques which have been modified and used in the new builds. The Loar 600 model is supposed to be very similar to the '20's era Loar signed Gibsons, again going strictly from what I've read.

I have no experience with The Loar other than owning one of their archtop guitars, which is lovely, but I do own the top of the line Paris Swing mandolin, also designed by Greg Rich, and it is a fabulous sounding and playing instrument.

----------


## Verne Andru

> What happened at Gibson in the late 60's and 70's was what happens to so many companies that get the name as "the best". They start to believe that people have to have their product and will continue to buy it regardless, so why not cut corners produce it cheaper charge more and rake in the money. Thankfully Gibson seems to have turned back before it was too late, a lot of companies don't. Even so they suffered some damage, they will never be THE only mandolin to have like they once was.


Again going just by what I've read, the decline in quality at Gibson was discovered to coincide with the introduction of noisy automated equipment in the Gibson plant which made it impossible for the workers to "hear" the instruments they were building. Once this was discovered to be the problem source and corrected - during the 90's IIRC - quality rose dramatically.

----------


## BradKlein

> Again going just by what I've read, the decline in quality at Gibson was discovered to coincide with the introduction of noisy automated equipment in the Gibson plant...


I think this is a vast oversimplification of the complex history of manufacturing at Gibson. 

I would also agree with MikeEdgerton's point. There is no more connection between 'The Loar' mandolins and Loar-signed Gibson mandolins beyond a superficial similarity in shape and some design elements that are common in F-style mandolins. I don't believe there are any surviving 'notes' or 'building techniques' of Lloyd Loar's that have come down to anyone at Gibson or elsewhere that are not widely known to a anyone who is interested. That's not to say that Gibson hasn't developed its own way of doing things - and in recent years their top efforts were led by some of the most careful observers of the original Loar mandolins.

----------

FLATROCK HILL, 

Timbofood

----------


## Verne Andru

> I think this is a vast oversimplification of the complex history of manufacturing at Gibson. 
> 
> I would also agree with MikeEdgerton's point. There is no more connection between 'The Loar' mandolins and Loar-signed Gibson mandolins beyond a superficial similarity in shape and some design elements that are common in F-style mandolins. I don't believe there are any surviving 'notes' or 'building techniques' of Lloyd Loar's that have come down to anyone at Gibson or elsewhere that are not widely known to a anyone who is interested. That's not to say that Gibson hasn't developed its own way of doing things - and in recent years their top efforts were led by some of the most careful observers of the original Loar mandolins.


There was quite a thread here a while ago about surviving Loar building notes and the connection between The Loar and Gibson comes via Greg Rich, former Cafe attendee, who was one of their custom shop builders that used that knowledge in his The Loar designs.

And, yes I've oversimplified the complex history of Gibson manufacturing as you can do a search on this site and find tons of other threads that speak to this issue.

Perhaps doing a search might help fill in the blanks for some who have not already seen them.

----------


## f5loar

A "bad" Loar?  I'm with Ken W. on this one except I say "show me a bad Loar and I'll show you it's a fake".   That's a nice way of saying there are indeed some pretty good fake Loars out there (see other threads) that do have the fake labels with fake serial nos. and that do fool a lot of people most of the time. Some of these really nice fake ones are over 40 years old, so they even got that old smell to them now.  I've had several guys tell me they were not impressed with the Loar they played.  So I checked into it and sure enough it was a fake.  You get into spending over $100K for any musical instrument, you best be getting that 2nd opinion as to what is right and what might not be right. Martin guitars are a good examples.  Many of those 30's D28s were re-topped at the factory in the 40's. The same workers may have done the repairs.  They get traded around without an expert looking into it.  Now I'm not saying these are crooks doing this.  Many times it's the children of those original owners who were told by their deceased love one it was bought new in 1936.  What that deceased loved one did not tell the grandkids, is old granddad got drunk one night, fell off the stage, broke the neck off, send it back to the factory for a free new neck. It's like buying those old vintage cars, better look under the hood and check that VIN number on the motor and transmission. Lots of little things can affect price in these collectible "things".    Now I've played a few Loars that were not up to par as far as set up.  Bridge not seated correctly, truss rod out of adjustment, old strings, etc.  And in all reality the really good luthiers that do know how to set up one correctly have not been around but a few decades.  And I also agree there are some really good builders of the classic Loar F5.  That's why you see pros like Thile, Skaggs, Grisman, Osborne, etc playing "other" brands, but they still got their Loars.   And comparing Osbornes Fern to a Loar is really not right because recently serial nos./FON have been "readjusted" from known factory records and the Osborne Fern starting building in 1928 and shipped out in 1929.  So it's not as close to the unsigned Loars as once thought and this would account to the difference in sound.

----------

Glassweb, 

Rush Burkhardt, 

Timbofood

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> but my understanding is The Loar mandolins are designed by Greg Rich who was a Gibson custom shop builder and I've read claims he had access to Lloyd Loar's notes and building techniques which have been modified and used in the new builds.


So Lloyd Loar designed F5 mandolins with no tone bars? "The Loar" built at least one model without them. To be honest, every F5 out there is a copy of a Gibson in one way or the other. "The Loar" as a brand name is just that, a brand name. Greg Rich is a good businessman that saw an opportunity and took it and he has some good and some less than stellar instruments built under different brand names. There's no magic in that connection. 

http://www.axlusa.com/aboutus.html

----------


## Timbofood

Verne, not casting aspersions but, if you are going to "paraphrase" information available via search, why not footnote it if you have done the research? 
I'll go one more Tom, show me the worst Loar and the finest "The Loar" drunk, blind, and, stupid and, I still bet I can hear the difference in six notes and two chops.
This is silly. The one has no more to do with the other than green cheese and the man in the moon!
I must add the "value" point is probably best expressed in Walter Huston's character in "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" regarding the actual value of gold. Maybe Jaycat can attach an appropriate scene, I am too tired for that tonight.
Verne, I really don't mean to step on toes, it's all honest opinion here. No one is really right or wrong.
"Voxus Populorum" (Voice of the People), conversation is all good.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

I'd possibly agree with F5loar that there are no 'bad' Loars,but i'd bet some of them fall short of being as good as the _really_ good ones. In other words,while the very best Loars will sound superb,the 'lesser ones' might sound only _as good as_ or even _'not as good as'_ a lot of modern mandolins. Ronnie McCoury for one thinks that his Gilchrist is a 'better balanced' mandolin than his Loar. Mike Compton isn't a great fan of Loars,preferring his Gilchrist. However,that doesn't make Loar mandolins 'bad',just  _not_ the preferred weapon of some players.
      Again - it's all down to personal choice & the way _we_ hear things. Our individual hearing is different to one degree or another. My friend & fellow Cafe member Paul Cowham thought that he could hear differences between my Ellis "A" style & his Heiden "A" style mandolins when we played them back to back & 'blind' for each other,i couldn't hear any difference at all.
    I don't give any creedence to the_ ''Loars are always better than any other mandolins''_ scenario,never have & never will. It's down to personal choice. If i preferred a Loar over a selection of mandolins,then that would be _my choice at that time_. Another time,i might prefer another make of mandolin over the same Loar -it depends on _which other_ mandolins come along. Purely my personal opinion,
                                                     Ivan :Wink:

----------


## William Smith

I'd place a bet that anyone who possibly owned the "worst" real Loar out there WOULD be a happy camper! Unless they have the capital to pursue another one! I don't think I would complain because I don't believe there is a bad one, granted some are better than others but like F5loar said it comes down to setup. While a bunch are better than others each one is different and has class so to speak. Hey they are the original! Some have hardly been played and are just sitting around in cases or vaults. I'm a believer on the more ya play em rule so show me a bad one and I'll buy it for way less than half price :Grin:

----------


## Verne Andru

All I know about Loar's and Greg Rich is what I've read here over the years. Some good, some bogus. As Shultz used to say on Hogan's Heroes, "I know nothing!"

Carry on.

----------


## Billy Packard

How 'bout...

These are the Holy Grail because they are the original.  

Imagine, being there and putting all this together with L.L.  It was the absolute beginning of the F5.  

Never mind how great todays masters sound, if you want the original, there is no other.


Billy

----------

Timbofood

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From Bluegrasser78 - _"I'd place a bet that anyone who possibly owned the "worst" real Loar out there WOULD be a happy camper ! "_ That maybe true,but i spoke with one well known bluegrass artist a few years back,who described one that he'd heard as a 'dog' & he wasn't being complementary. Having said that,it was 'his' opinion & sticking by what i said in my last post,i'd like to have heard it myself as opinions differ. I've also heard others speak of Loars they've heard as not being very good - but compared with what ?.

   From Billy above - _"..........if you want the original, there is no other."_. That could very well depend on whether you attach more importance to the mandolin being played,or the skill of the player. For me,it's the latter. When i listen to Adam Steffey / Jeff Midkiff or Ron Pennington (a player i've only just discovered),i couldn't give a toot what they're playing - the music is all ,but then it has been for 53 + years,    
                                            Ivan :Wink:

----------


## William Smith

> From Bluegrasser78 - _"I'd place a bet that anyone who possibly owned the "worst" real Loar out there WOULD be a happy camper ! "_ That maybe true,but i spoke with one well known bluegrass artist a few years back,who described one that he'd heard as a 'dog' & he wasn't being complementary. Having said that,it was 'his' opinion & sticking by what i said in my last post,i'd like to have heard it myself as opinions differ. I've also heard others speak of Loars they've heard as not being very good - but compared with what ?.
> 
>    From Billy above - _"..........if you want the original, there is no other."_. That could very well depend on whether you attach more importance to the mandolin being played,or the skill of the player. For me,it's the latter. When i listen to Adam Steffey / Jeff Midkiff or Ron Pennington (a player i've only just discovered),i couldn't give a toot what they're playing - the music is all ,but then it has been for 53 + years,    
>                                             Ivan


Hey man they still are the original 5. And if one wants one for say the playing that most of us do just around the house I'd still take a "Bad" Loar. For me a bad one isn't out there granted I've only played a few and they were great ones except one but it still had a pretty good tone, it was weak on volume "I'd still want that one if I couldn't have another, It had more to give with a different setup". Each one is different and I know some are better with volume and tone than others, I bet even the "so called dogs" have something, and you can really tweak a mandolin to get everything out of it. and yes like you said "music is all" I agree to that motto, just like I don't care what a mandolin looks like it should sound great above all, I don't go in for cosmetics. I'd still take a bad Loar for the playing I do. I know a few guys that seem to buy and sell Loars almost like we mortals without the $$$ change our pants! They keep looking for the ONE or just trying as many as possible. All just my opinion.

----------

Ivan Kelsall

----------


## Willie Poole

As I have said before...a lot of mandolins sound bad because all they need is a professional set up...I had a friend that had a `23 Loar and my $295 Aria sounded better according to most folks that heard both and when he finally sold the Loar the new owner sent it to Gibson to have it checked out and when it came back it was one of the best sounding Loars that I have ever heard....But I have heard other makes that sound as good or better than the best Loar and it is all a matter of taste and what a person likes...

----------

William Smith

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

*Bluegrasser78* - Your points are totally valid & 'maybe' i'd do the same. But - if i had the choice between a 'bad' Loar & a mandolin that i personally thought sounded more ''pleasing to me'',i'd take the latter - every time !. I'd also agree with my friend Willie,that often,a poor sounding mandolin might simply need a bit of TLC showered on it. A poor set up & choice of strings etc.can wreck the tone of almost _any_ stringed instrument. For example - i once owned an Asian built Antoria banjo on which i used Bill Keith banjo strings, & it sounded as good as i could get it. When i bought  my Stelling,as soon as i got it home,off came the strings & on went a set of BK strings. A week or so later,at a UK Bluegrass festival,a good friend of mine told me that the Stelling sounded lousy,worse than the Antoria. I was mortified. When i got home,i removed the BK strings & put a set of Stelling (re-branded GHS strings) on & the difference was like chalk & cheese. I'd never even given the _original strings_ a chance.

    A few years ago,another friend of mine visited me & brought with him a lovely pre-war Gibson F-4 that he'd bought years earlier from Mandolin Bros. It had very light strings on it,an action that a microbe couldn't have crawled under & a bridge that looked like a log. It didn't sound good at all. I was amazed really, because this friend, (who now lives in Ireland), had played mandolin for a long time & IMHO,should have set it up far better than it was. So yes,there's a lot of truth in the fact that even the finest instruments can sound bad if not set up right,in a similar way to a high performance racing car,you need to maintain the optimum performance & that requires checking every now & again - but we all know that !.

  The bottom line 'for me' is that the good Loars will sound 'amazingly good',but to my ears,there are other mandolins that sound 'amazingly good' as well - simply 'different',
                                                         Ivan

----------

William Smith

----------


## Billy Packard

To continue my thoughts from above....

I have had the amazing good fortune to have played 8 Loar signed F5's over the years including Loyd Loar's personal instrument that Roger Siminoff got from Loar's widow.  They were all lovely with some variation from one instrument to the next.  

My point is they ARE the holy grail because they are the first and only.  None other exist.  It's not how they compare to others but rather what they ARE.  Also how wonderful they are especially being the first.  To this day many variations have come to be that are remarkable in their own way but the Loar is unique.  Like a Stradivarius is unique. 

I have several mandolins that I am totally stoked with and I don't covet a Loar, for what it's worth.

Short story...I was visiting with Stephen Gilchrist in the 'inner sanctums' of Gruhn's in 2010 sampling a couple of Loar's they had there.  After playing the second one I said to Steve, "Honestly, I think my Gilchrist A3 sounds better."  Steve winced and hurried me on, I guess one's not supposed to say such things!

Billy

billypackardmandolin.com

----------

Ivan Kelsall, 

Tom Sanderson, 

William Smith

----------


## William Smith

I totally agree with ya Ivan and Billy, a proper set-up is everything, Like I said you can really squeeze out everything with a great setup, and some newish mandolins sound great, I've never owned a Loar just played em, I have owned some real high end mandolins and they just didn't cut it next to my F-7 conversions thats why i don't have em anymore, and still playing my old worn 7's. I had the chance to play mine side by side with a feb.18th 24 for a few weeks and my mandolin was my choice of the two. I don't covet owning a Loar but hey I wouldn't mind it at all :Smile:

----------

Ivan Kelsall

----------


## Jeff Mando

> Steve winced and hurried me on, I guess one's not supposed to say such things!


I think that is a great point.  There is an implied decorum.  Same with Stradivari, Les Paul Bursts, diamonds, etc......

----------

Billy Packard

----------


## Ken Waltham

> To continue my thoughts from above....
> 
> I have had the amazing good fortune to have played 8 Loar signed F5's over the years including Loyd Loar's personal instrument that Roger Siminoff got from Loar's widow.  They were all lovely with some variation from one instrument to the next.  
> 
> My point is they ARE the holy grail because they are the first and only.  None other exist.  It's not how they compare to others but rather what they ARE.  Also how wonderful they are especially being the first.  To this day many variations have come to be that are remarkable in their own way but the Loar is unique.  Like a Stradivarius is unique. 
> 
> I have several mandolins that I am totally stoked with and I don't covet a Loar, for what it's worth.
> 
> Short story...I was visiting with Stephen Gilchrist in the 'inner sanctums' of Gruhn's in 2010 sampling a couple of Loar's they had there.  After playing the second one I said to Steve, "Honestly, I think my Gilchrist A3 sounds better."  Steve winced and hurried me on, I guess one's not supposed to say such things!
> ...


 Well said. I have been trying to get this across for years. Folks don't always understand the difference between a good sounding mandolin and money. Never in a million years would I attest that there are not good modern F5's, there are many.
But... like a Rembrandt, or the "school of Rembrandt", one is worth a lot more than the other by the simple fact of what it is. "The Original".

----------

Billy Packard

----------


## f5loar

There is out there from 2006 a recording of about 35 Loars that got sampled by two well known artists. It was from the 2006 Loarfest in Bakersfield, CA.  I'm sure some of you remember this.  I was there and the difference was so minimal, at least to my ears.  Those 2 guys knew how to keep the tone right.  They were very different in their styles too, but they knew how to do it.  They were all tuned to pitch and handed the Loar and they played the same song on them so as not to be different in their notes up and down the board.  The only thing not controlled was the type strings on them.  As far as Ronnie saying that about his Loar, that would be how he feels when he is playing it. To me seeing him live, the Loar had a better Monroe sound to it then his Gil.  Same can be said about the recordings he has done with the Loar.  Bobby Osborne has a Loar and a Fern.  Without getting into details, when he got that Loar he loved it.  Recorded his solo mandolin album with it. He did a couple of shows with Sonny and Sonny kept telling him man I can't hear that thing.  Sonny had stood beside him for some 30 years with his Fern and when he switched he knew it so Bobby went back to the Fern.  And Bobby knew there was a difference, so took out the Virzi in the Loar to see if it would make a difference to Sonny.  He ended up putting the Virzi back in.  So yeah, a lot of it is the picker and a lot of is your ears, not someone else.  Harry West told me one time (a dealer of dozens of Loars over 50 years) when I told him this one Loar that was so well balanced with the tone across all the strings didn't really cut the volume like another Loar he had.  Harry told me "that's why they make good microphones".  And you know, he is right.  You can have the finest Loar on earth, and the man behind your mic can kill it in an instant.  I've got lots of "other" F5s but 9 times out 10, if you see me doing a show, it will be with a Loar (or a Fern).

----------

FLATROCK HILL, 

Hendrik Ahrend

----------


## Billy Packard

f5loar,  when you mention, "Fern", to what are you referring to specifically?  A Loar Fern?

Billy

----------


## re simmers

About 25 years ago I met Benny Cain.   He had 5 Loars in the trunk of his car.   He played all 5.   One was spectacular.   The other 4 were not.   He said the spectacular one (in sound AND appearance) was insured for $25,000.....no insurance on the other 4.    His 'playing' mandolin at that time was a recently purchased Flatiron F5, which is what I was playing.
HOWEVER, I do not know the condition of the strings on each Loar, and I don't know if he regularly played all 5 Loars.   Maybe the 4 needed played!
   I played 4 Loars at Herschel Sizemore's house about 8 years ago.    All were fantastic, but 2 (consecutive serial numbers) were way better than anything.
Having said that, Tom hearing 35 of them at one setting is probably the best gauge here.

----------

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## paul dirac

This is for Sam, the original poster, as well as for the rest of us:
Though the four pages of responses to this post indicate that we, as a community, jump at the chance to discuss this topic, I feel it's healthy etiquette to encourage new members to use the forum search functions and read up on the wealth of existing knowledge on this topic. I've been around here a bit, and always search first before posting any content, if only to connect new info with old threads, and overall for future efficiency and completeness. Our "database" of past posts becomes less usable as these links deteriorate. I've noticed Mike E. and others typically respond with search results, and think it's good moderator intervention.
However, as these 4 pages of responses indicate, new interest and discussions do emerge, I just worry that it's cheating both Sam and future forum queries out of a fuller experience. What say ye?

----------


## f5loar

> f5loar,  when you mention, "Fern", to what are you referring to specifically?  A Loar Fern?
> 
> Billy


You consider a Loar as from June 1, 1922 until Dec. 1, 1924 and all are signed by Loar.  There is a dozen or so of the Fern Loar which all seem to have a virzi in them.   Then you have those half dozen or so called "unsigned" Loars.  Loar was there when they were beginning near completing but did not get the signature stamp.  In most all respects some do have virzi and some have Fern pattern.  Then you would have the Ferns , made after these unsigned Loars when Loar was gone from 1925 to 1935.  These were really close to the Loar, as many of the same guys were making them.  A few had retired out or switched over to other lines like banjos.

----------

Billy Packard

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Then you would have the Ferns , made after these unsigned Loars when Loar was gone from 1925 to 1935.


After that unfortunate episode at the company Christmas party?  :Cool:

----------


## JFDilmando

July 9, 23' Fern never had a virzi

----------


## Billy Packard

f5loar...

I understand.  

I visited Darryl Wolf once and checked out an F5 he had.  It had block fingerboard inlay but the numbers said the body it was earlier.  He suspected the body was around the shop a while, maybe even from when Loar was there, then mated with the later block inlay neck and a lacquer finish, maybe around 1930?  It was wonderful but not as nice sounding as his signed Loar.  He also had a guitar he made that was among the best sounding I've heard.

(Side story...When we were hanging out on the back porch visiting and playing mandolins this HUGE iridescent dragon-fly goes cruzing by.  I pointed at this wonderful creature and said, "Wow look at him!"  And just like that the dragon-fly zipped over and landed on MY FINGER!!  I could feel the weight of him, he was so big.  I froze with wonder, what a treat!  Darryl's going, 'What the Heck!')

Billy Packard

billypackardmandolin.com

----------


## Billy Packard

> After that unfortunate episode at the company Christmas party?


Mike, tell me about the unfortunate episode.

----------


## paul dirac

> This is for Sam, the original poster, as well as for the rest of us:
> Though the four pages of responses to this post indicate that we, as a community, jump at the chance to discuss this topic, I feel it's healthy etiquette to encourage new members to use the forum search functions and read up on the wealth of existing knowledge on this topic. I've been around here a bit, and always search first before posting any content, if only to connect new info with old threads, and overall for future efficiency and completeness. Our "database" of past posts becomes less usable as these links deteriorate. I've noticed Mike E. and others typically respond with search results, and think it's good moderator intervention.
> However, as these 4 pages of responses indicate, new interest and discussions do emerge, I just worry that it's cheating both Sam and future forum queries out of a fuller experience. What say ye?


"Love me, hate me, but don't ignore me!"

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

From f5loar re. Ronnie McCoury's Loar - _"...To me seeing him live, the Loar had a better Monroe sound to it then his Gil."_ I'd possibly agree with you if i'd heard it live,but maybe R.Mc isn't after a ''Monroe'' tone ?. I don't think that his Gil.has a 'Monroe tone',at least on the recordings that i have. 

   I must say that ''for me'',the tone of Bill Monroes's mandolin is ''_the_'' tone, & only one mandolin that i've heard to date comes close,& that isn't a Loar or even a Gibson - it's Chris Henry's Randy Wood,which was (became) the subject of a previous thread.
What gives such a ''relatively'' recent mandolin such a tone,is something we can only speculate on. Most of us have to settle for purely 'good' sounding instruments of whatever make to begin with. Maybe the ''Monroe mandolin tone'' might creep up on them over time,but i'm not holding my breath regarding my own,
                                                                               Ivan :Wink:

----------


## f5joe

Folks ......... go back to the player as an equal component to tone.  Many folks cannot pull tone, period.

Chris gets it done right.

----------

DataNick

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Mike, tell me about the unfortunate episode.


Tom tells it so much better than I can.

I just cracked up doing the search for this. *This* story now has a life of its own.

----------

Billy Packard

----------


## JamieJ

> I've heard so much about Loar mandolins but have never quite understood why they are so loved. Is it because they are so old or is it the way they are made? What is about them that makes them sound so good and makes them so special.


There are many luthiers that make mandolins to the same specifications as the Lloyd Loar era Gibson F5.  The specs are not a secret, and are well known.  For the most part, owning a Lloyd Loar signed mandolin is a prestige issue, in my opinion.  When you own one, you are playing the same mandolin Bill Monroe played and that's a great feeling!  You are a member of a very elite group of musicians that own one.

However, there is one caveat;  a Lloyd Loar Gibson F5 mandolin will be nearly a century old, which means the Adirondack spruce will have fully cured and be at its peak potential, acoustically. That gives them an edge over other custom mandolins made to the same specifications, but are not as old.

These are great mandolins, arguably, and are the "gold standard" for bluegrass musicians, but are very expensive and relatively rare. There are only about 300 in existence.

 The bottom line is that you can get a great mandolin for a fraction of the price of a Lloyd Loar signed Gibson F5. 

 :Smile:

----------


## red7flag

My selection of Loars that I have played is small, just 4.  Two were owned by luthiers.  In both those cases, I thought their own work was better than their Loars.  I don't think either was played much or had been set up any time recently.  One Loar I played at a Local dealer was very underwelming to say the least, and not nearly as spectacular as many of the 10+K instruments he had for sale.  I am pretty sure that one one was well set up.  I just did not care for the feel or the tone.  One Loar I played was simply amazing.  I just did not want to move after playing it. I did not want to play more because I was afraid to drop it.  That was truly a stellar instrument in all departments, playability. tone.  It just had IT.

----------


## fidlplr1979

> 


Let the comments "commence",  :Cool:

----------


## William Smith

> Let the comments "commence",


I hear ya man! My take is they are the original that all makers try to emulate. When Loars were made they already were made with old growth wood. And Loyd didn't make em!!! Kinda an overseer, Today there is an abundance of great makers that have fabulous mandolins at great prices compared to "the original 5". The owners of real Loars are ageing and for the most part youngsters won't pay the prices that dealers/players/collectors would like to get so thats why there are so many for sale now and a lot cheaper than a few years ago when Loars were fetching 200-250G. Some have been sitting for sale for years 5 years for a few that I know of. Now ya can pick em up at the "Right" places/individuals 80-135G for some. so time will tell :Popcorn:

----------


## fscotte

> Let the comments "commence",


Why would u quote me?  Now I gotta reply...

Tone for your dollar, Loars are horrible. Absolute crud.  You'd have to measure the amount of tone per tenth of a cent.

----------


## JAK

Better tell that to Grisman, Reichsman, and Thile!

----------

Timbofood

----------


## HoGo

> Better tell that to Grisman, Reichsman, and Thile!


Well the first two of these bougt their Loars for few 1000s of $ back in time and the third guy got lots of disposable funds for free. :-)

----------

DataNick, 

Jeff Mando, 

Timbofood

----------


## Hendrik Ahrend

The 8k $ was a huge sum for John Reischman back then. And didn't the price for Chris Thile's first Loar (#75316) hurt him quite a bit? Maybe not that much when he purchased #75318 after the MacArthur-$$.
Other than that, your bashing of the too-expensive Loars may eventually lead to Loar prices go down - good for the ones who are in the market for one.  :Smile:

----------


## BradKlein

I love the history and construction of musical instruments old and new, valuable and cheap. I especially love learning about, and playing those instruments that have become iconic 'sounds' for various genres. (The Martin dread and the Gibson F-5 have come to play that role in bluegrass) 

But threads like this one, make me a little crazy. I think it is really valuable to listen to what great musicians say about their own instruments. Folks like Grisman, Reischman, and Thile truly love the instrument and have spoken about that love many times in many places. And their opinions are diverse, complex and interesting. Look at the obvious differences in those three. Dawg has one of the great collections of mandolins, covering every base. John Reischman and Thile have focused on the early F-5s in what seems like a search for the 'one' that best works for each. Throw in Statman, who has owned MANY instruments over the years, old, new, expensive, cheap including at least one early F-5. He's a serial monogamist, who is always hungry for one perfect instrument, and I'm quite certain he will never be wholly satisfied. When pros talk about instruments and gear, I listen hard.

I just don't know what to make of online opinions from folks I don't know, and haven't heard play. Often, I don't even know what genres of music they admire, even when I've 'known' them online for years!

----------

FLATROCK HILL, 

Timbofood

----------


## JFDilmando

Generally, all those folks that try and discuss "value" of an instruments voice in dollar terms, are focused on their internal need for money, or concern for the lack of it.  Their sense of value is dependent upon two things, their lack of money, and/or their inability to appreciate the sound of high end mandolins.   Either of those two things will lead one down the path of criticizing others for "valuing" an instrument where they cannot.

Where it becomes moronic, is when folks start expressing such opinions in the vein of not understanding the thoughts of others, or expressing their opinions as "sensible", relative to others.  This is not to discourage contributors here, expressing their opinions.  After all that is one of the things forums are for.... especially, since it is a hoot to read the profound exclaimations of those who cannot grasp what others can.

----------

Hendrik Ahrend, 

Timbofood

----------


## jimmy powells

> Generally, all those folks that try and discuss "value" of an instruments voice in dollar terms, are focused on their internal need for money, or concern for the lack of it.  Their sense of value is dependent upon two things, their lack of money, and/or their inability to appreciate the sound of high end mandolins.   Either of those two things will lead one down the path of criticizing others for "valuing" an instrument where they cannot.
> 
> Where it becomes moronic, is when folks start expressing such opinions in the vein of not understanding the thoughts of others, or expressing their opinions as "sensible", relative to others.  This is not to discourage contributors here, expressing their opinions.  After all that is one of the things forums are for.... especially, since it is a hoot to read the profound exclaimations of those who cannot grasp what others can.


Great players make most "good mandolins" sound great. I've played two Loars, one good one not good and a 1927 F5 which was fabulous. However I've heard many modern mandolins played by today's musicians and they can sound fabulous.

It's only going to sound as good as the player. The Gibson Loars are always going to be the Stradivarius mandolins and no doubt they will keep a very high value without actually being a great deal better than some of the high mandolins of today.

----------


## MontanaMatt

i figured I'd chime in regarding my Loar experience.  I played one at Greg Boyd's in 2008 or there about...it was one number off from BillM's... was not setup for easy playing, cost as much as my house, and left me wondering what the hubbub was all about.  It sold again a few years later for almost $100k more than when I saw it for sale.  Greg said I should mortgage my house for the investment, was probably sound(pun?) advice.

----------

