'Signed' mandolin question

[morganpiper]

i was wondering what the signature on a mandolin label signifies, bear with me, this question might not be as stupid as it sounds ie, if a gibson f-9 is signed by Charlie Derrington, but a different one from the same era is not signed, what does that signify? Any difference in quality?

[LongBlackVeil]

Look up "unsigned Loars" and you can find the answer to basically the same question. My answer is that it doesn't mean nothing. Neither Lloyd Loar nor Charlie Derrington built the mandolins whether their name is on it or not.

[Ivan Kelsall]

The 'myth' had it that Lloyd Loar used to test each mandolin off the line, & if it was a ''better'' sounding mandolin than the others, he'd sign it - not true !. LL used to sign labels in batches, & they were placed inside the mandolins by the builders. It's very likely that he hardly played any of the 'signed' Loars that we revere today. Regardless of 'signed' or 'un-signed',if a mandolin sounds 'good to you', really,what else matters ?,
Ivan

[Astro]

Well if LL didn't have any hand in the build and they just applied signed labels randomly then the whole LL mystique that demands 6 figures if more of a collectable/social fad than it is an unusually Superb instrument.

I wonder if Dave Harvey has an actual hand in building them now or if he actually plays the ones he signs? Does he send them back for adjustments if they seem dull? The two signed ones I've played were great instruments and as said above, the proofs in the picking. But just for curiosity, Whats the deal now ?

[Tobin]

i was wondering what the signature on a mandolin label signifies, bear with me, this question might not be as stupid as it sounds ie, if a gibson f-9 is signed by Charlie Derrington, but a different one from the same era is not signed, what does that signify? Any difference in quality?

Leaving aside the Lloyd Loar mythos, and speaking only for more recent models, I don't think the signature (or lack thereof) is any indicator of quality. Gibson has gone through phases where some models had the signature label and others didn't. The higher end Master Models will have signatures but the lesser-appointed models may not. It doesn't mean the lesser-appointed ones are lower quality, necessarily, as if they weren't good enough to be signed. They just weren't flagship models.

What's more important in terms of quality is the era in which it was built. Not only quality, but particular design changes that may have been in effect during each person's tenure. A mandolin built while Charlie Derrington was in charge may be more or less desirable than one built under Danny Roberts, Bruce Weber, Dave Harvey, etc., depending on what a particular buyer wants out of it. So the era is more important than the signature, IMHO.

[LongBlackVeil]

Well if LL didn't have any hand in the build and they just applied signed labels randomly then the whole LL mystique that demands 6 figures if more of a collectable/social fad than it is an unusually Superb instrument.

I wonder if Dave Harvey has an actual hand in building them now or if he actually plays the ones he signs? Does he send them back for adjustments if they seem dull? The two signed ones I've played were great instruments and as said above, the proofs in the picking. But just for curiosity, Whats the deal now ?

Sure is a long running fad

[Timbofood]

Back when I sold vacuum cleaners (yes, door to door) we talked about "perceived value". In that business it was the number of piles of dirt you laid out, $5.00 a pile was the agreed amount. This is one more pile.
A signature gives the impression that someone really does care about the end product, and in many cases, the builders signature is much like his "word" that what you have is something he is proud of. In some cases, it's pure hooey.

[Big Joe]

I can only speak for the Charlie era of mandolin building. Every Master Model and every Distresses Master Model were played by Charlie and several others of us to ensure it was the product we wanted to produce. Every mandolin that went out our door was played and inspected by someone, mostly Danny Roberts and usually others as well. Charlie often had a hand in the building process, and most certainly in the design and process. Every aspect was under his direct control. With the varnish mandolins, he had his own formula for the varnish and French polish and mixed it himself. The bluegrass division was very hands on by everyone and that included the management staff. It was not unusual to see a jam session break out when testing a new mandolin. We had incredible players and highly skilled craftsmen in our division and produced what we felt was an incredible product. Charlie was also very good about sharing information with other builders. It was truly a unique time in Gidson history. That does not detract from any time before or after, but I can speak personally of that time.

[DataNick]

...I wonder if Dave Harvey has an actual hand in building them now or if he actually plays the ones he signs? Does he send them back for adjustments if they seem dull? The two signed ones I've played were great instruments and as said above, the proofs in the picking. But just for curiosity, Whats the deal now ?

David Harvey is very "hands on" in the build process at Gibson from what I can tell. It's a small shop operation and he does perform some aspects of the build process personally. It appears also that he plays every mando going out the door (roughly 60-75/year) as documented by his Facebook video postings of new mandolin builds.

[Ivan Kelsall]

The 'fact' that LL didn't actually build the mandolins himself,or even played all of them,doesn't discount the fact that many of the 'signed' Loars have turned into the Holy Grail of mandolins. However,it might have taken quite a while for them to reach maturity & sound as good as they do.That is why many of us on here speculate that many top quality mandolins being made today by highly professional builders,will,over time,reach similar levels of tonal quality. That remains for future players to discover. All we can do is choose the best of what we can afford right now & enjoy it - as we do,
Ivan

[almeriastrings]

The 'fact' that LL didn't actually build the mandolins himself,or even played all of them,doesn't discount the fact that many of the 'signed' Loars have turned into the Holy Grail of mandolins. However,it might have taken quite a while for them to reach maturity & sound as good as they do.That is why many of us on here speculate that many top quality mandolins being made today by highly professional builders,will,over time,reach similar levels of tonal quality.

That does rather presume that they all sound fantastic, or that you'll like how they sound.... this, however (in my experience) is not necessarily the case at all. Same applies to prewar "Holy Grail" Martin guitars. Some are as good as the hype... others, certainly not! Personally, I think that we are seeing some of the best instruments ever built being made right now. Guitars. Mandolins. Banjos. Violins too, possibly, though I don't know enough about those to form any meaningful opinion. I have owned (and still own) a few of those "holy grail" class prewar instruments, though, and I truly believe that while they were without a doubt superior to typical 1960's, 70's and many 80's factory instruments, the current top line builders today do not need to take a back seat to them in any department. YMMV (as they say).

[Mandoplumb]

Totally agree with Almeriastring all the Loars I have heard sound like a Loar, but all don't have that undefined something that makes them great. They are all very good mandolins but not all are great mandolins. Also everyone may not like the Loar sound as hard as that is to believe!

[Timbofood]

I've said it before, all the builders today are standing on the shoulders of what was delivered by the factory at Parsons street when they were under the eyes of some very, very forward thinking designers, acoustical engineers and most importantly, shop men! All the signatures in the world would mean nothing without guys actually meeting "production schedules".
The modern demands are so much less (per builder) than the pressure on the Gibson company in the teens and twenties. Individual builders are just that, individuals. Some build as they are driven, some have made as many as they feel they want, others have passed into the larger life. Small shops are everywhere, almost. The demands for quality instruments will always be there. There is no reason that the instruments of current manufacture should not be completely amazing, they all have so much greater accuracy in tooling than the old "seat carving" gang set up used in the early days.
To say that a signature "makes a difference" is just silly.
Let's face it, if you made something that is a true "pearl" wouldn't YOU sign it? Then again, if it's rubbish....to the band saw! Like the unknown "seconds" were under Mr. Loar's tenure.

[Willie Poole]

IMO...The reason that we feel that better instruments are being built today (which they are) is because the recording systems and sound systems at festivals are so much better so when we hear a good sounding instrument we want to duplicate that sound, also there is so much more info out there on the Internet and word of mouth at seminars telling some of the secrets that were used in days gone by such as varnish formulas....Better ways to age wood, different materials being used for picks and strings...

I don`t feel that because a mandolin is signed should make it cost more or even hold more value as it gets older, I suppose that a signed label is a way of "proving" that it is an original factory instrument but as we know labels are available on the Internet to those that want to "cheat"....Just my 2 cents worth...

Willie

[Bob A]

If I was in the market for an F5, I'd be willing to pay more for one made by Charlie Derrington, out of respect and affection. That's a personal decision, and does not necessarily reflect a qualitative difference.

Beyond that, it's always nice to know who made your mandolin; information provides some value, even if it's not monetary. Of course, once a significant monetary enhancement is evident, the fraudsters come in. It's very hard to find a violin with any age that bears the actual label of its maker, for example. When values jump from thousands to tens and hundreds of thousands, you just know that the crooks are gonna come out of the woodwork, so to speak.

[LongBlackVeil]

If I was in the market for an F5, I'd be willing to pay more for one made by Charlie Derrington, out of respect and affection. That's a personal decision, and does not necessarily reflect a qualitative difference.

Beyond that, it's always nice to know who made your mandolin; information provides some value, even if it's not monetary. Of course, once a significant monetary enhancement is evident, the fraudsters come in. It's very hard to find a violin with any age that bears the actual label of its maker, for example. When values jump from thousands to tens and hundreds of thousands, you just know that the crooks are gonna come out of the woodwork, so to speak.

Usually the ones who sign it aren't the ones who made it though, when it comes to Gibsons at least.

[Tobin]

Usually the ones who sign it aren't the ones who made it though, when it comes to Gibsons at least.

Exactly. Which is why the label is only important to show the era in which it was made, or under whose tenure it was made. For Gibsons, at least.

With other makers like Ellis, Nugget, Heiden, Dudenbostel, and the like, the person who signed the label is the person who did the important work on the instrument. They did more than just run the shop. But at Gibson in years past, the guys who signed the labels may have just been in charge of design and such. Not actually building.

[DataNick]

Exactly. Which is why the label is only important to show the era in which it was made, or under whose tenure it was made. For Gibsons, at least.

With other makers like Ellis, Nugget, Heiden, Dudenbostel, and the like, the person who signed the label is the person who did the important work on the instrument. They did more than just run the shop. But at Gibson in years past, the guys who signed the labels may have just been in charge of design and such. Not actually building.

Yup +1:

My 94' F5L was signed by Larry Barnwell. In speaking directly with Bruce Weber, Larry was the plant mgr. at the time and had zero visibility into the actual mando build process as far as personally himself performing build tasks. Bruce told me that it was his team that built my mandolin...