# General Mandolin Topics > Vintage Instruments >  81489 f5

## shylock3

Darryl these are some pictures you wanted to see of the Unsigned Loar 1925, I purchased this in 2002.

----------


## JFDilmando

A bit surprised there has been such a lack of interest in this post.... has this particular instrument been hashed over in other threads in the past ?
How valid is this particular designation for this mandolin...?

----------


## Ken Waltham

I have seen and played that mandolin 3 or 4 times. It was always one of my favourites, a really nice early Fern. It had an interesting history, and was in really nice shape.
Today, I would like to compare it to my Fern Loar, as I did not have such a thing back when I knew that F5. It is possible that it may have been built while Loar was still at Gibson, but, it also has some features that are not Loar attributes. 
I have never heard of Fern F5's being referred to as unsigned Loars, but, this one, and a couple of others I used to know, may qualify as such. Still, I think it may be best to be cautious with such designations.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Hi Guys, I have not been on the cafe in a day or two.

As Ken stated referring to it as "unsigned" may have been pre-mature without having the photos.  I was speaking only from memory.

BUT.......NOW THAT I SEE THEM AGAIN...............absolutely no doubt.  Classic March 31 1924 Fern Loar.  The color is right, the binding is right and it even posses the figure of maple seen at that period in time.

Nearly identical to F5LOAR's 76549  In my opinion, this is an unsigned Fern Loar.  Thanks for posting

----------


## f5loar

That's what I see too.  Unsigned in all aspects even if it did have a lacquer overspray and gold parts as many were done after Loar left.  It would seem logic there was another batch of Ferns to come before Loar left in so much as the passage of time From March to December of 1924 would allow more to be made up.   There are several early Ferns that fall into this category IMO.  The Grisman Fern which is an early post Loar serial number had been refinished and new fingerboard put on it but it would likely have been like this one too maybe!

----------


## grassrootphilosopher

> The Grisman Fern which is an early post Loar serial number had been refinished and new fingerboard put on it but it would likely have been like this one too maybe!


I know about the Appolon fingerboard through the Tone Poems CD. But have you got information when the refinish was done. Was it before Grisman got the Fern? That´s what I would think.

----------


## Bill Halsey

Fine photos of a terrific F-5, shylock3 -- thank you for those!

So then, ivoroid or white bindings on this instrument?  (Spann puts FON 8231 prod. year at 1926, & a ship year of 1927 for s/n 81489.)

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> Fine photos of a terrific F-5, shylock3 -- thank you for those!
> 
> So then, ivoroid or white bindings on this instrument?  (Spann puts FON 8231 prod. year at 1926, & a ship year of 1927 for s/n 81489.)


Bill hits it right on the nail. Shylock, can you confirm the FON number on this and whether there is any evidence of ever having a Virzi?  We need to rethink if FON is 8231

----------


## shylock3

The last digit is hard to read, FON is 8225 or possibly 8223. Hope this helps.

----------


## shylock3

By the way it doesn't seem to have had a Virzi.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Well, here is the problem that this FON introduces to the situation.  (keep in mind this mandolin looks nothing like other fern mandos with FON 8231 and we have zero, 0, notta records of any F5 with 8223 or 8225))

Loar signed mandolins have the FON number under the "Loar" label.  The only Loar FON we can determine from the period is 11985.  The flowerpot "Unsigned Loars" have this FON

However, there is evidence that the 4-digit 8XXX FON may have existed concurrently with the 5 digit FON during later 1924 (or what we thought was later 1924)

In my book, we need to see that 82XX FON under the Loar label of a true signed Loar mandolin to know for sure.

The other thought provoking thing this situation brings is that how can a later FON number instrument possess the looks and features of what appears to be a much earlier mandolin, could they have possibly put the FON in later, in affect fulfilling a shop order with a built and varnished instrument that already should have an FON??   This is quite likely based on the way Gibson switched to adding a "A" suffix in 1925.

Quite possibly, the fallout from this discussion is that the signed Fern Loar mandolins have a 4-digit FON under the Loar label and actually could have been built a bit later than their signature date may lead us to believe.   Fern Loar owner's do not shoot the messenger.

----------


## Bill Halsey

Uh-oh . . .  :Redface: 

Joe?   -- Help!

----------


## Ken Waltham

Well, I am a Fern Loar owner....  :Smile:  I think it is possible that the FON was put in later, I am not real solid on the whole FON thing in the book. It fits better for banjos, etc, than mandolins.
It is also very possible that this particular Fern was just finished with supplies that were left over from the "Loar Period". It is, obviously, a very early Fern, it has the colour and the look of a Loar Fern, I remember it quite well. Perhaps it could be as simple as they used some "left over" materials in the finishing process. A few years back, I knew where most of the Loars, Ferns, etc, resided, but never kept good notes.
I remember 2 more EARLY VARNISH Ferns that existed, but, never came into the public arena. Unfortunately, I do not remember where they were now. One.. someone had painted binding on the F holes, like a later L5 guitar.
Perhaps these ones had the same FON as this Fern we are discussing.

----------


## f5loar

I don't know one Loar Fern owner that is willing to take out the Loar label to see what FON is under it.  I too have seen early '25 Ferns with Loar like appearance and varnish.  They are out there.  That's why I've always said you should include some early Ferns as unsigned Loar Ferns and not Fern Ferns.  Making only one batch of Loar Ferns way back in March of '24 which means they may have been started in late '23 makes no sense.  There had to be a 2nd batch in the works because the change from flowerpots to ferns sure happened quickly after Loar left.  We know from the first catalog appearance of the F5 that Loar wanted a Fern pattern.

----------


## eightmoremiles

There may be non-destructive ways to find the FON beneath the label. X-ray of the area with a "light" technique (low kVp, low mAs) might bring out the graphite penciling. Numerous art works have been x-rayed to reveal forgeries, or prior legitimate alterations. There must be literature in the art history community that would clarify how this is accomplished.
Just a thought.

----------


## Joe Spann

Howdy,

I missed this thread last week because I was traveling, doing research for my next book. Thanks to Darryl for bringing it to my attention.

If the Factory Order Number (FON) on F-5 #81489 begins with the digits 82__, then it was constructed in the early part of 1926. Having said that, there is nothing to prohibit it from being constructed from older parts. The same Gibson employees who worked with Lloyd Loar in the period of 1922-1924 were still present in 1926.  In my opinion it is naive to believe that Loar single-handedly constructed the Master Model instruments bearing his signature label. In order to produce the Master Model instruments in commercial quantity, the majority of the factory employees would had to have been involved along the way.  Loar certainly must have taught them the finer points of building the Master Model instruments, and they certainly retained that knowledge after he left the company in December of 1924.  Also, because Gibson was a factory, it seems very probable (in fact almost certain) that when a wood-working jig was set up to produce mandolin sides, backs, tops, necks, etc., that extras were created, and then stockpiled for future use.

We know for a certainty that some "unsigned" Loar F-5 mandolins exist because they exhibit the same FON as a proven Loar exemplar.  This means that the parts which went into their construction were produced during Loar's tenure with Gibson.

Everything produced at Gibson had a Factory Order Number (FON). It was a neccessary part of the accounting process. Even the wooden toys produced in 1933 had FONs.

Joe

----------


## MikeEdgerton

One only has to look at the early to mid thirties Gibson second line instruments to realize that Gibson manufactured extra parts and used them years later. Some of those instruments looked like they were sweeping the floors and finding things like bridges. In that case they were using what they had to make instruments they could sell cheap. I imagine they always produced the parts for the mandolins in batches and I would imagine they always produced more than they needed in the event of a problem with one part or another. That just makes logical business sense. When they closed the Kalamazoo plant years later a ton of components hit the market. Some are still popping up on eBay.

----------


## Christian

[QUOTE=Joe Spann;1048074] Having said that, there is nothing to prohibit it from being constructed from older parts. The same Gibson employees who worked with Lloyd Loar in the period of 1922-1924 were still present in 1926.  

But then, how can we explain the presence of a finish and a coloring so similar to the the one used on instruments having been built in December 24? I can understand the fact that old parts (backs, tops, or even a fully constructed mandolin) where saved for a while, but I don't see how the employees could have reproduced the finishing techniques that were used several months (years) before.

----------


## Joe Spann

Hello Christian,

I think it was a simple matter for the Gibson employees to produce the same type of finish in 1926 which they had used in 1922-24.  The finishing department was located on the third floor of the factory. Fast-drying, sprayable nitro-cellulose lacquer was invented in 1923 and we begin to see Gibson using it by 1925. The change to nitro-cellulose finishes required the purchase and installation of air compressors, spraying guns (made by DeVilbiss), etc on the third floor.  The hand-applied varnish finishes used by Gibson before 1925 required no such equipment, only time and attention to detail. Any Gibson employee who had been applying varnish finishes before 1925 could easily have done so afterwards because no complicated equipment was required, the only things needed were the varnish and the knowledge of how to do it.  Gibson's main supplier of nitro-cellulous lacquer (Forbes Varnish Company) was also their main supplier of varnish.  So obtaining the varnish was no problem.

To me, the main question is "why would a 1926 instrument have a varnish finish?"  I think the answer is probably something I said in my previous post. Loar had trained the employees to build his Master Model instruments in a very exact way.  Part of that method was the use of a varnish finish. After Loar's departure in December of 1924, the employees simply continued building the style 5 mandolins in the same way they had been taught.

Joe

----------


## barry

Yeah.  One day at the Gibson factory in 1926 the compressors went down and the spray guns wouldn't work.  
Someone yelled back to the factory floor,  "We got mandolins that need to go into finish!".  Someone yelled back, "Well, get Clyde down there.  He can brush on that goop we used when Lloyd was here."

85 years later, the great, late unsigned Loar mystery is born.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Well, I am still not fully on board with this.  I pretty much agree with Joe's post and explanation, but I do not buy that 81489 was finished (as in stained and overcoated) a year or even two years after the majority of the March 31, 1924 signed Loar Ferns that it looks like.  Some assumed slice in time needs to move forward or backward and it is appearing the the Fern Loars are the key.

Of specific interest to this conversation is this little known fact:  Signed Fern Loar 76787 was special ordered by Eugene Claycomb with a red F4 finish.  The mandolin was ordered in late 1926 and received in 1926, complete with it's March 31, 1924 signature date.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Hi, Captain Obvious here. Perhaps the mandolin(s) was/were finished in 1924 and sat on the shelf in that state waiting for a sales order and then got their serial number label. If they manufactured them in batches there's no reason they wouldn't finish them in batches.

----------


## chris

It seems to me that Gibson had overproduced both mandolins and the parts to build them in comparison to demand. I believe like Tom, there was a suppose to be another batch of Fern Loars.  The headstock binding on the early post Loar ferns looks the same but, the body binding isn't.  Perhaps all these necks were made up while Loar was still there and it took years to use them up. As far as the rest of the parts, They could have had them in all stages, plates carved, Bodies half together,sides bent.Ect...   


When Loar left the demand was low and there may have been no more need to produce any more parts for a while, Now that Loar was no longer pushing his production.  If they needed to fill an order or Just build one, All the parts as well as half completed and fully assembled mandos. were ready to finish.


  There were held over F-5s in previous batchs that didn't get finished til sometime later while Loar was still there. I can understand where the Eugene Claycomb Loar could have been either Refinished to fill a special order. If a Loar signed F-5 was just sitting around and it wasn't selling, It would be a lot faster to strip and refinish rather than build a whole new one. Or it could have just been laying around.


   As far as the finishing, Once they are stained it could have been just a matter if they had time to spray it or someone had to use the varnish.  It seems the big batch production for the F-5 was gone and was more one off type thing now.


  So what would be an unsigned Loar?  One built from all Loar parts or one fully assenbeled and finished while Loar was there?

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

The conversation has strayed away from the "main point and hard question".  Mike and Chris's posts are both fully valid and make sense, BUT, The FON number is normaly assigned before they even start carving the pieces.  This is how they track the parts and the labor hours associated with it.  Any overproduced item would be marked with an FON of the build period.

The mandolin in question, according to both of the aforementioned posts, should have a Loar FON.

Now being that is has a 822x FON, explain how the mandolin can be clearly varnished, clearly have a two layer Loar pickguard, clearly have ivoroid point protectors, Loar period smaller diameter tuner bushings, wood figure and coloration of a March 31, 24 Loar, even a green lined case, the "florida" shape that only appears on mid '24 Loars.  It also does not have the irregularity in the scroll that just post Loar ferns have.

I still submit that there is a high likelyhood that the 822x FON may include the real Fern Loars since this FON has not been seen before.  Additionally, the 82xx FON's do intermingle with serial numbers associated with the Loar period.

For example  FON 8229 is for a batch of straight A models bearing serial numbers around 79716.  Loar signed mandolin 79835 bears FON 11985, just like the other known "unsigned Loars" which have serial numbers in the vicinity of the mandolin in question here.

Go figure

----------


## chris

Were the FONs assigned to each individual part or the instrument as a whole?

----------


## Joe Spann

> The conversation has strayed away from the "main point and hard question".  Mike and Chris's posts are both fully valid and make sense, BUT, The FON number is normaly assigned before they even start carving the pieces.  This is how they track the parts and the labor hours associated with it.  Any overproduced item would be marked with an FON of the build period.


Not exactly.

Each and every individual mandolin/guitar/banjo part which was used to build an instrument was not marked with a FON.  As far as I know, in a completed pre-war Gibson mandolin the FON appears in only one place, either on the interior sidewall, or on the interior of the back.

When a batch of instruments was completed all the material used to build them would have been charged off to the FON in accounting at that time.  However, any remaining, extra parts were simply stored. These extra parts were not marked with the FON under which they were originally built.  So they clearly appear anonymously in later batches.

Make sense?
Joe

----------


## chris

That would fit with what I said. So could there be as little as one F-5 With it's own FON?

----------


## f5loar

I think all the experts agree there is a significant difference between a signed Loar F5 and a later Fern F5 on up to around 1930.  If you go by the duck theory, you know walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....etc.  then if these unsigned Loars look like a Loar, sound like Loar and only lack the signed label then they are "unsigned Loars" as the term applies.  Now to me the custom order (they were are custom ordered for that matter as the F5 was not a stock dealer item) F4 red finish Fern Loar is one odd ball in the mix.  But to me it was nothing like other Loar Ferns of this batch date mainly due to the finish while this 81489 does have everything a Fern Loar would have except the Virzi.  The red finish Fern Loar 76787 did have the Virzi but also noted it has an unusal thin top.  Which to me raises a flag.  Thinner top then other Fern Loars around it tell me finish was sanded back down to raw wood and then refinished in the custom order red F4 finish to fill that order. This would also explain they had dozens of near finished F5s not sold on hand on up until 1927.  And with the order coming in 1926 it also had the uncommon for '24 gold parts.  There still is several missing serial numbers around this red finish Fern batch.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> Not exactly.
> 
> Each and every individual mandolin/guitar/banjo part which was used to build an instrument was not marked with a FON.  As far as I know, in a completed pre-war Gibson mandolin the FON appears in only one place, either on the interior sidewall, or on the interior of the back.
> 
> When a batch of instruments was completed all the material used to build them would have been charged off to the FON in accounting at that time.  However, any remaining, extra parts were simply stored. These extra parts were not marked with the FON under which they were originally built.  So they clearly appear anonymously in later batches.
> 
> Make sense?
> Joe


I agree to a point or degree.  But it is quite apparent that there were overproduced "assemblies" that were marked with an FON (and no serial number).  These often layed around for long periods.  Case in point, the A suffixed 1925 FON's made from parts produced under the earlier FON they bear.  Example:  76274   11093A  H4.  This is clearly a Loar era H4 made from parts produced under FON 11093 built years before when the corresponding serial number would have started with 4xxxx.

Second case and point. All of the TL's are made from mandola bodies (not the top though) produced years before and are suffixed with an A or simply bear the very old FON No.  Example:  
76700   11172a  TL, 
77240   11190a  TL4
77259   11177A  TL
77260   11177A  TL
77282   3247    TL
77290   11177A  TL



Additionally, I just took apart A2 mandolin No. 73922 and the head block, the back way down at the tailblock and the top way down at the tailblock are all marked with the same and appropriate FON.  I can only assume that the end of the dove tail on the neck may also be marked (however I cannot be sure)

So, either their system changed some here and there over the years or...who knows

BTW, I enjoy a respectful cross-examination session on this stuff   :Laughing:  :Grin:  :Grin:

----------


## Joe Spann

> But it is quite apparent that there were overproduced "assemblies" that were marked with an FON (and no serial number).  
> 
> Additionally, I just took apart A2 mandolin No. 73922 and the head block, the back way down at the tailblock and the top way down at the tailblock are all marked with the same and appropriate FON.


I absolutely agree with you Darryl. Sometimes, entire "assemblies" of parts laid around in the factory for years. We see evidence of this in guitars and banjos as well. Gibson usually slightly over-built when filling an order.  This allowed for spoilage.  I was told that directly by one of the pre-war employees.

As far as the marking of FONs on more than one part of a pre-war Gibson mandolin......well.....I learned something today!  And that's always a good thing.  I have a great respect for informed discourse as well.  I also believe very few people are better schooled in pre-war Gibson mandolins than Darryl Wolfe.

Joe

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

I also believe that at least one or more of the following statements are true

1)  They were using both the 5 digit and later 4 digit FON sequence concurrently/at the same time for a while (there were two different FON books at the same time)  See Exhibit A

2)  They may have been erasing old FON numbers (that existed on parts and/or assemblies) for a while when fulfilling a new FON...then applying that FON

3)  When they changed their business model during this period, they could not exactly figure out how to properly do what they were doing with respect to FON's  This led to the A suffix to indicate an instrument that had not just been built from scratch to fullfil an order

Exhibit A

79224   11999   A
79268   8097    F4
79285   8092    Ajr
79386   8122    A
79439   8153    Ajr
79607   11995   A2Z
79716   8229    A
79791   8229    A
79792   8190    Ajr
79806   8190    Ajr
79835   11985   F5
79841   11142A  O
79844   11142A  O
79845   11999   A2Z
79860   1198x   A2Z
79914   8284    A
80092   11345   K2
80107   8356    H1
80270   8405    Ajr
80286   8405    Ajr
80319   8355    F2
80377   8355    F2
80434   8430    A
80485   8430    A
80515   11963   A2Z
80529   8230    F4
80570   8350    L5
80624   8123    A4
80782   11985   F5
80849   8559    Ajr
80931   8193    Ljr
81108   8614    A
81251   11985   F5
81268   11985   F5
81273   8657    L5
81290   11985   F5
81362   8563    F2
81489   8231    F5
81547   8510    A
81564   8123    A4
81657   8231    F5
81763   8712    Ajr

Now look at Exhibit A

Tell me how a mandolin FON 8097 at the top can bear a serial number that predates all Dec 1, 1924 signed Loars, all "Unsigned Loars" and the serial number of the subject mandolin if the serial number was assigned when they were completed/and/or shipped.

There is something fishy in Dodge City and this is my point.

----------


## Joe Spann

> That would fit with what I said. So could there be as little as one F-5 With it's own FON?


Yes Chris, that is correct.  In fact, I've seen many "one-off" or "custom" pre-war Gibson instruments which are the only instruments in their batch.

Joe

----------


## Joe Spann

> This would also explain they had dozens of near finished F5s not sold on hand on up until 1927.


I strongly agree with this statement.

Joe

----------


## Joe Spann

> 1)  The were using both the 5 digit and later 4 digit FON sequence concurrently/at the same time for a while (there were two different FON books at the same time)
> 
> 2)  The may have been erasing old FON numbers (that existed on parts and/or assemblies) for a while when fulfilling a new FON...then applying that FON


I will respectfully point out that a third alternative also exists. Gibson massively overbuilt mandolin family instruments in the period followed World War I.  The popularity of the mandolin had faded. This resulted in a large backstock of nearly completed or completed mandolin family instruments which sat around for many years.  As orders were received Gibson's employees gradually depleted this backstock.....and applied the paper serial number labels at the time of shipping.

I also could easily believe choice #2.   :Smile: 

Joe

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Thanks Joe, I was composing and editing several times on my last post while you posted

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

JOE SPANN _ "I will respectfully point out that a third alternative also exists. Gibson massively overbuilt mandolin family instruments in the period followed World War I. The popularity of the mandolin had faded. This resulted in a large backstock of nearly completed or completed mandolin family instruments which sat around for many years. As orders were received Gibson's employees gradually depleted this backstock.....and applied the paper serial number labels at the time of shipping."

I also could easily believe choice #2. 




I agree again

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

This stuff reminds me of "The X Files"

----------


## Christian

> This stuff reminds me of "The X Files"


Darryl, Joe, this is great, fascinating stuff, please keep it coming!

----------


## chris

Darryl, Do you think they stamped the FON through the F hole after the F-5 was completed or before the back went on?

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> Darryl, Do you think they stamped the FON through the F hole after the F-5 was completed or before the back went on?


I had always presumed the parts were stamped as they were made, as a method of directing X number of rim sets, backs and top, and neck to a point of final assembly.  But maybe they were only penciled on and in the end the complete intrument received a stamp.  I no longer feel sure about many things I have held with reasonable certainty now.

One could say an FON on the headblock is a certain indicator that the FON was applied to the rim set before top and back was installed.  However, it is possible they were done after the instrument was completed

----------


## Bill Halsey

I think FON stamping post-assembly would be unlikely.  Here are a few neck block stamps from various Styles A & F:



It would be quit difficult to achieve that kind of consistency, esp. off-center, horsing around thru a soundhole 
with one of these . . . 


And it certainly would not fit thru an f-hole.

----------


## Bill Halsey

FWIW, the FON stamp bears some similarity to the older Lyre label s/n stamp . . .

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> FWIW, the FON stamp bears some similarity to the older Lyre label s/n stamp . . .


Certainly does.  I'm with you, unlikely applied after assembly.  Sometime around 1922 or so, the started using the stamp for "MANDOLIN" also and "A2 and such"

----------


## danb

Nice FON photos. Tangeant, but this is the oldest style (from SN 4870)

----------


## Joe Spann

Dan, 

I think it's so cool that the earliest FON stampings actually said "Order No."

Joe

----------


## Bill Halsey

Never saw one of those -- terrific!

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Great stuff Dan

----------


## Ken Waltham

Dan; I have never seen anything like that before either!

----------


## danb

Hard to photograph. I tried and couldn't get shots of another just last weekend!

Seems that's the style in use until around serial 6500 ish.. I'll dig a bit more and see if I have one

----------


## danb

Same instrument/FON, slightly different photo. This is f2 4870

5544 has it.. 3263 did too. Wish I'd managed to snap a few more shots  :Smile:

----------


## danb

Bill- what's 3261? That runs in a series with a couple oddballs. F2 #3263 was mine.. & A4 #3264 was a friend's. Both had no inlaid pickguards (or raised ones.. far too early).

----------


## danb

Seems to be a good thread for unusual things.. I'll just leave this here!

No sign of color fade from green (checked inside pocket and under a couple spots where no sun damage could be). Theories.. chemical change in the dye or original lemon yellow case. Everything else is so clean and near-pristine, I'm thinking original lemon yellow case.

----------


## Brian Aldridge

> Not exactly.
> 
> Each and every individual mandolin/guitar/banjo part which was used to build an instrument was not marked with a FON.  As far as I know, in a completed pre-war Gibson mandolin the FON appears in only one place, either on the interior sidewall, or on the interior of the back.
> 
> When a batch of instruments was completed all the material used to build them would have been charged off to the FON in accounting at that time.  However, any remaining, extra parts were simply stored. These extra parts were not marked with the FON under which they were originally built.  So they clearly appear anonymously in later batches.
> 
> Make sense?
> Joe


This might explain the F7. A big stock pile of F4 mahogany necks and F5 type bodies laying around, then a weird marriage.

----------


## Bill Halsey

> Bill- what's 3261? That runs in a series with a couple oddballs. F2 #3263 was mine.. & A4 #3264 was a friend's. Both had no inlaid pickguards (or raised ones.. far too early).


I don't know the instrument, Dan -- although the label image appears on Roger's site under "Lyre Labels".  This label appears to be on a walnut back.

----------


## f5loar

Odd case color?  Don't assume all vintage mandolins have their original cases.  We've seen many outlive the life of their original case by many decades.  Some cases just crumbled after 60 years.  Climate conditions play a big party in how they stood the test of time.  I would explain the orange case color as either a sample sent to Gibson as a one off or it was made by Geib for another company like Bacon/Vega/LyonHealy and found it's way to a Gibson.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> This might explain the F7. A big stock pile of F4 mahogany necks and F5 type bodies laying around, then a weird marriage.


Excellent train of thought.  I'm with you on this one for sure

----------


## Loudloar

> I would explain the orange case color as either a sample sent to Gibson as a one off or it was made by Geib for another company like Bacon/Vega/LyonHealy and found it's way to a Gibson.


Here's a late 20's Geib & Shaefer case for a Ludwig Banjo. They clearly used gold plush for other companies. I'm not aware of any proven prewar Gibson cases with gold plush.


Steve

----------


## danb

> Odd case color?  Don't assume all vintage mandolins have their original cases.  We've seen many outlive the life of their original case by many decades.  Some cases just crumbled after 60 years.  Climate conditions play a big party in how they stood the test of time.  I would explain the orange case color as either a sample sent to Gibson as a one off or it was made by Geib for another company like Bacon/Vega/LyonHealy and found it's way to a Gibson.


I was just visiting it last weekend. Definite Geib, Gibson A case, and original Lemon Yellow.

----------


## danb

At first I thought it was a faded green one like this shows a bit:

But I checked in the pocket, lifted some of the padding.. even solid yellow throughout.

----------


## danb

Here's a really cool piece of paperwork that landed in my inbox just a few days ago as we were discussing unsigned Loars. Fits right in with Joe's dates!

----------


## AlanN

What a historical letter that is! Note the cable address GIBMANDLIN. 10 chars. The grand daddy to email, txt.

Thanks for sharing that.

----------


## JFDilmando

And so... ref 83660, Gibson is saying that they built this mandolin in '28, and were specific enough to say August 27 !!!  Where do we know there are records that are that specific for a date of build ??
The implication is that there were at one time, but they have all either been destroyed or lost ??  
In any case, ref to the Archive, how does that mesh with the "traditional" date of build stated as '25 ?

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> And so... ref 83660, Gibson is saying that they built this mandolin in '28, and were specific enough to say August 27 !!!  Where do we know there are records that are that specific for a date of build ??
> The implication is that there were at one time, but they have all either been destroyed or lost ??  
> In any case, ref to the Archive, how does that mesh with the "traditional" date of build stated as '25 ?


My answer to that question is that there were shipping records, and that is what they are referring to.  With that in mind, the build date could be earlier.  Also, Spanns research is pushing these dates out from 25 to 27 or 28.

All things lumped together, this immediate change after Loar left is now looking more like a gradual change over the years.  The actual serial number progressions came to a screaching halt compared to the 1920-1923 production numbers.

----------


## f5loar

I don't think they completed an F5 on one day and shipped it out the next.  Shipping records would also have exact dates while FON are more general dates like the month of July in 1923.  It appears they were sitting on quite a few F5s in various stages of completion waiting on orders that seldom came in.  Dave Apollon was their biggest F5 customer and he got his free for the endorsement.  Walter K. Bauer who played first mandolin in Loar's Gibsonions told me that after Lloyd left things went to pot at Gibson in the mandolin department.  He said he got a 30's F5 and the tuners fell apart in a few months.  He mentioned how they got heavier in weight and on the finish and were using cheaper woods.   He switched to Vega after that.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> I don't think they completed an F5 on one day and shipped it out the next.  Shipping records would also have exact dates while FON are more general dates like the month of July in 1923.  It appears they were sitting on quite a few F5s in various stages of completion waiting on orders that seldom came in.  Dave Apollon was their biggest F5 customer and he got his free for the endorsement.  Walter K. Bauer who played first mandolin in Loar's Gibsonions told me that after Lloyd left things went to pot at Gibson in the mandolin department.  He said he got a 30's F5 and the tuners fell apart in a few months.  He mentioned how they got heavier in weight and on the finish and were using cheaper woods.   He switched to Vega after that.


Agree...I'm just saying that if a customer asked when a mandolin was built, I think all Gibson had was shipping records

----------


## f5loar

I guess we can surmize that the Gibson personal in charge of customer relations/questions  was no better in 1947 then they are today.  I think you are right in it's all they had in 1947.   While Joe has not found any proof we have long heard about the fire that destroyed a lot of the Gibson factory and records in the mid 30's.  Do any build records with FON exsist from the 20's and 30's for the F5s?

----------


## Joe Spann

> Agree...I'm just saying that if a customer asked when a mandolin was built, I think all Gibson had was shipping records


Strongly agree with this statement. I just don't believe Gibson had an entirely seperate set of records showing the exact date every instrument reached completion...what would be the point?  Why would they waste time and money creating such a document?  However, I am very pleased to see the dates given in the letter coincide precisely with my adjusted chronology.

Joe

----------


## Joe Spann

> While Joe has not found any proof we have long heard about the fire that destroyed a lot of the Gibson factory and records in the mid 30's.


Repeat after me..."There was no fire, there was no fire, there was no fire."  LOL

Joe

----------


## f5loar

Long time vintage dealers like Harry West and Benny Cain is where I heard about the fire.  One thing for sure , the F5 and other instruments sure went through some major changes starting around late 1934.  While the banjos were considered to get better in the mid to late 30's as well as some mighty fine jumbo guitars not so with the F5.

----------


## ellisppi

I had conjectured a lot of this a few years ago and posted my thoughts here a few times. What I'm seeing is that while it may have lingered on longer than I thought, I bet Loar was not the only key employee to go from the mandolin dept. The flowerpot unsigned mandolins of 11985, most surely were assembled and finished in Nov/Dec 24, my reasoning being that the last batch of F5's was signed Dec 1st. If Loar was still active there in Dec, they would have at least a small batch well under way. My thought was always that they were hanging in the drying room to cure over the holidays. The ferns with low numbers like we are discussing, finish not withstanding, I ask the question. Do these mandolins have ivoroid binding and mitered point protectors. The pictures of this mandolin do not show me that it does. I like to see it in person

----------

bdjbdj

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> I had conjectured a lot of this a few years ago and posted my thoughts here a few times. What I'm seeing is that while it may have lingered on longer than I thought, I bet Loar was not the only key employee to go from the mandolin dept. The flowerpot unsigned mandolins of 11985, most surely were assembled and finished in Nov/Dec 24, my reasoning being that the last batch of F5's was signed Dec 1st. If Loar was still active there in Dec, they would have at least a small batch well under way. My thought was always that they were hanging in the drying room to cure over the holidays. The ferns with low numbers like we are discussing, finish not withstanding, I ask the question. Do these mandolins have ivoroid binding and mitered point protectors. The pictures of this mandolin do not show me that it does. I like to see it in person


Part of the enigma with this question is that some of the signed Fern Loars do not

Curiously, white celluloid (or whatever one chooses to call it) first showed up late in the Feb 18, 1924 batch on front bount pegheads and the fingerboards with the hump in the florida. 


79824  Bill Camp  Signed March 31, 1924, Fern Loar, but has a Nov/early Dec serial number

75945 depicting earlier perhead with white

73670 "unsigned" with white celluloid, not-humped florida but white binding and gold parts.  Also has the flat spotted scroll contour seen on well post Loar "Ferns"

----------


## Ken Waltham

I am not sure I understand the previous question... but, I have never seen a Fern Loar that *did not* have white body binding. That also holds true for this F5 we are discussing. All Fern Loars, and this Fern have the white binding under varnish that has yellowed, so they do not appear the stark white of post Loar Ferns. 
The white will show through on the common wear spots, where the varnish has been removed.

----------


## Bill Halsey

Excellent examples, Darryl -- thank you!




> I am not sure I understand the previous question... but, I have never seen a Fern Loar that *did not* have white body binding. That also holds true for this F5 we are discussing. All Fern Loars, and this Fern have the white binding under varnish that has yellowed, so they do not appear the stark white of post Loar Ferns. 
> The white will show through on the common wear spots, where the varnish has been removed.


Ken, I think Tom Ellis may have restated my question in #7 of this thread: i.e., is the binding on 81489 white or ivoroid?  Often difficult to tell from photos, but it appears white to me, esp. compared to the ivory points.  However, the headstock bindings look a bit more like ivoroid color, with black & white offsets.

Can't tell from these photos if the ivory points are dovetailed into the bindings, as that feature is usually only visible from the tail side of each point.  They always appear flush on the neck side.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Ken is 100% correct about the FernsLoar body binding being white.  I left the case slightly open because as he says, some of them appear to be ivoroid but likely are not.

Another fine detail is that white started appearing as the inner white line on the body binding with the outer being ivoroid in ealy 1924 at about the same time as the peghead white appeared.

As alluded to about the peghead binding on Fern Loars, yes, some (maybe not all) do have ivoroid binding.  This generally sets them apart from the prototypical fern of the 83xxx 84xxx genre

I present some related details from 73755, the July 9 1923 Fern Loar as examples of why I believe it does NOT belong to the March 31, 1924 batch, after those are some typical fern Loar shots (those actually came from Mr. Ken)   Edit:  The top row is 76779 and the bottom is 73755

----------


## Ken Waltham

Another unique item about Fern Loars are the tailpiece covers. They appear to be platinum. I have not seen one that was not.
I think the peghead binding is the same as the body binding, but is yellowed under the varnish. I did a close examination of mine a minute ago, and I believe this to be the case. The protector points are dovetailed, just as Bill says, visible from the underside only.
The body binding of the Fern in this thread, is white. I played it several times, and recall it clearly. I loved it!
This may really rock the boat, but, I believe the Fern Loar at Gruhn's inherited that Fern some time after it was made. I think that's a circa 1926 overlay added for whatever reason, be it damage or whatever. I do not think it left the factory that way.
Any opinions on that?

----------


## Bill Halsey

Ken, does the platinum t/p cover test + with the H2O2 app?

----------


## JFDilmando

I read Ken's suggestion regarding the later inlay of the Fern of 73755 with some interest... and I must say some skepticism (or for you Brits - scepticism).  I took all the pictures of Fern pergheads that I could find in the Archive, and printed them out for comparison...
this might not be the best thread to deal with this, but Ken opened the can of worms here so...
A few observations :  Ken has a discerning eye... from my perspective, there is only one possible "tell" that might lead me to believe there might be something to Ken's suggestion.  The lower right fern leaf of 73755 does not seem to turn up at an expected angle at the tip of the fern... comparison to other Loars, seems to suggest that this is anomalous.  There is only one other Fern in the timeframe that we are considering here that looks similar, and that is Eugene (83660).  Admittedly, I am dealing with pictures here, and in some cases, different angles, and scales...
For my eye, there are no other suggestions that any other similarities, or dissimilarities put it in anything other than Loar timeframe.
76780 is an obvious Loar example of blatantly post Loar inlay, but serious changes in the Fern design really were not evident to my eye until 86652 ('27) when divergence really started... significant variations became the norm after that, with experimentation of design being the norm, and each Fern seeming to be to some degree unique...

So the July 9 Fern, a torch with a Fern inlay added in '26 like Eugene... perhaps... if one upturn of a fern leaf is the smoking gun.

----------


## JFDilmando

This relationship could, of course, suggest other possibilities... if one accepts that Eugene's inlay and the July 9 Fern inlay are related, it could also work in reverse... these two seem unique to each other, in that other fern tips pre and post Eugene all display characteristics similar to Loars... only these two have that "tip drop"... it could mean that these particular inlay pieces were cut in the July 9 timeframe, and then for some reason, the similar cut leaf to 73755 was set aside for some Gibsonian reason, and later found and installed in the later Eugene, to use up "this ol piece of pearl"...  Possibly just as plausible as sending back 73755 for a Fern inlay in '26.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

> I read Ken's suggestion regarding the later inlay of the Fern of 73755 with some interest... and I must say some skepticism (or for you Brits - scepticism).  I took all the pictures of Fern pergheads that I could find in the Archive, and printed them out for comparison...
> this might not be the best thread to deal with this, but Ken opened the can of worms here so...
> A few observations :  Ken has a discerning eye... from my perspective, there is only one possible "tell" that might lead me to believe there might be something to Ken's suggestion.  The lower right fern leaf of 73755 does not seem to turn up at an expected angle at the tip of the fern... comparison to other Loars, seems to suggest that this is anomalous.  There is only one other Fern in the timeframe that we are considering here that looks similar, and that is Eugene (83660).  Admittedly, I am dealing with pictures here, and in some cases, different angles, and scales...
> For my eye, there are no other suggestions that any other similarities, or dissimilarities put it in anything other than Loar timeframe.
> 76780 is an obvious Loar example of blatantly post Loar inlay, but serious changes in the Fern design really were not evident to my eye until 86652 ('27) when divergence really started... significant variations became the norm after that, with experimentation of design being the norm, and each Fern seeming to be to some degree unique...
> 
> So the July 9 Fern, a torch with a Fern inlay added in '26 like Eugene... perhaps... if one upturn of a fern leaf is the smoking gun.


  Could you put up the two best pics that you have of the 2 you're studying for us to study too?

----------


## Glassweb

With all due respect to Ken, (who has a HECK of a lot of experience with pre-war Gibson F5 mandolins) the current owner as well as George Gruhn of Gruhn Guitars, I'd have to say this mandolin's headstock should be considered "innocent until proven guilty".

----------


## danb

seems there would be a fairly straightforward test for platinum. I always thought it was silver plating with an application of nail varnish on top to prevent tarnishing. Below is   a photo of 76547's tailpiece.. I had thought that the different patina/layers we can see on the left side are arm wear on the varnish.. so some tarnishing showing there.. but shiny silver on the lower right.

My #9100 dates to 1909, and this has a custom tailpiece cover with monogram. This has a sterling silver hallmark on the inside, and is very shiny/varnished surface in appearance

----------


## BradKlein

> Another unique item about Fern Loars are the tailpiece covers. They appear to be platinum. I have not seen one that was not.


I'm confused here.  I assumed this was a light-hearted joke.  No one has ever suggested that a tailpiece cover has ever been made of solid platinum, have they?  That would be very obvious just by the weight in the hand of course, but I can't imagine that such a thing has ever been created.

Solid sterling silver is easy to imagine.  But I had supposed that all prewar F-5s had silver plated engraved tailpiece covers.

Have I misunderstood?

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> With all due respect to Ken, (who has a HECK of a lot of experience with pre-war Gibson F5 mandolins) the current owner as well as George Gruhn of Gruhn Guitars, I'd have to say this mandolin's headstock should be considered "innocent until proven guilty".


I posted the peghead picture of 737555 so that you could see that it is clearly bound in transluscent ivoroid

As to the fern leaf anomoly, it is under the black paint, a very common situation where a small portion of the inly does not show

----------


## Ken Waltham

I don't know about solid platinum, but, they are different. They seem to be smoother, and less tarnish, or, more accurately, none.
Brad, I have always known that to be true, about silver, but, my experience with these is that they are different. A different plating process?? I am not sure, but, they look like like platinum to me. I am no jeweler, but, have bought my wife several vintage platinum pieces...
Have a look of my photo of 76779. You can see a little chip out of the plating on the cover. Does that give any clues? It is really a gleaming, shiny material. Different from other Loars I have owned. Does anyone have any ideas? 
Tom, yours is so clean when I first saw it, I thought it was a new repro.
76547 was dirty, it doesn't look like that now, Dan.

----------


## JFDilmando

Ah, Darryl, that certainly answers the comparison that I made regarding inlay, and Eugene.  That is always an issue with photo's and it's greawt to have real eyes on the issue.  If that is true that the Fern tip is hidden, I am sorry but from my hard look, I can't see what Ken is seeing when he  suggests that 73755 was inlaid in '26... Ken has forgotten more about Loars than I have ever known, but ref this observation, I am now just interested, rather than intrigued, as I spent the time testing the hypothesis to my satisfaction.
Interesting and as Ken said, a provocative suggestion.... I'd love to know the "whys" ...

----------


## f5loar

both of my Fern Loars have that real shinny look on the TP.  Never seem to tarnish and are so smooth looking compared to other Loars. I know what you mean about being a possible plat. plating.   Different but why?  Lots of things different about those Fern Loars.  And I've noticed they seem to get better oysters for the Fern Loars then those later Ferns.

----------


## Bill Halsey

> seems there would be a fairly straightforward test for platinum.


Platinum immersed in hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) should produce oxygen bubbles.  Make sure your peroxide is fresh and the platinum surface is clean.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

I'm not really buying into one small run of platinum plated TP's.  But I admit, there is something a little different looking.

But as far as 76779...I'm not convinced that's the original tailpiece it came with.  Bennie did some pretty weird stuff in the day

On a side note, 76779 is the first Loar I ever held in my hands.  At that time, we referred to a Fern inlaid F5 as "deluxe".  An F5 was an F5 and the details of signatures and stuff didn't matter

----------


## BradKlein

Ken - I don't have any real knowledge about precious metals. But 76779 is sporting a gleaming tailpiece cover!

I'd never done the old 'platinum in H2O2' trick although as I understand it, it shouldn't hurt platinum at all since it's serving as a catalyst and not reacting directly with the peroxide.  So for fun, I  dropped my wedding ring into a glass of H2O2 and watched it slowly become covered with bubbles of Oxygen.  Then I placed a 1930s kidney shaped TP cover from an old Harmony in the glass.  No bubbles.  So I think that I can state with some certainty that a tailpiece cover that probably wholesaled for a quarter in the 1930s, contains no platinum. (!)

Anyway, a bath in H2O2 might harm a lacquer finished silver tailpiece, and I wouldn't dunk one it if it were mine.  But solid platinum would have been very expensive, and noticeably heavier than you would expect in the hand. It's about twice as heavy as silver and three times as heavy as iron or tin, I think.

----------


## Bill Halsey

> On a side note, 76779 is the first Loar I ever held in my hands.  At that time, we referred to a Fern inlaid F5 as "deluxe".  An F5 was an F5 and the details of signatures and stuff didn't matter


Darryl, this is quite a coincidence, as I think that was the first one I ever got my mitts on, as well.  I was at B'ville in '68, and Bennie & Vallie had just performed.  He was standing near the parking lot talking to friends, and his mandolin case was lying open on the ground.  I timidly asked if he might hold it for a photo, and he grabbed it and put it right into my hand, telling me to go ahead and play it.  I recall seeing the Virzi thru the f-hole, and thinking that was a pretty curious device.

So my pal shot this photo (that's Bennie in coveralls on the right):

----------


## Ken Waltham

Same tailpiece cover....... and I have zero doubt it is an original Loar cover.

----------


## Ken Waltham

I should also acknowledge that, yes, Bennie did some really weird stuff. Very true. I mean, growing up on a dairy farm... can you believe that pickguard!!!
The tailpiece cover was definately real, though.
You should see what he did to the bridge... crazy stuff.

----------


## f5loar

Benny really knew how to "customize" his prized instruments.  Did you notice the hexagon bushings on that Loar?  Later on in the early 80's he had a different truss rod cover on that Fern Loar.  I guess the bridge "redo" was to lighten it up a bit for a brighter more cuttin' sound and make the virzi vibrate more for maxium power.  At least that's what he told me.   The pickguard is minor compared to what he did to Valle's prewar D45 pickguard.

----------


## fatt-dad

(deleted post, sorry it was not related to the OP and I forgot where I was. . . )

f-d

----------

