Did Loar reject any instruments?

[weindan]

Question: Are there any Loar era F-5's (or L,K,H etc. 5 style Master Model instruments) that LL rejected and did not sign, with only the Gibson label?

[William Smith]

Question: Are there any Loar era F-5's (or L,K,H etc. 5 style Master Model instruments) that LL rejected and did not sign, with only the Gibson label?

Great ?, probably spoken here in the past but I'd imagine what instruments that weren't up to par were reworked and then once they met his specs they got the label? or if beyond help they were burned. I doubt any made it out of the factory without signatures/serial#'s the ones that were not up to the standard of the day, if so it would seem that they would've surfaced by now.
I've heard that in the early depression era that there was a bunch of guitars that were 2nd's etc. that made it out, Gibson quality was kinda hit n' miss then.

[MikeEdgerton]

It's been discussed a few times. While you're waiting for the definitive answer you might take a look at some of these threads. The applicable ones should jump right out at you.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

As Mike said, the matter has been discussed here quite a bit - with no definite answer.

To me it seems unlikely that any Loar rejects will surface - unless we believe that those unsigned examples (completed in 1925 with 1923 factory order numbers, but no Loar signature) were rejected by Loar and reworked. Those F5s generally sound great.

To me the famous label is part of Gibson's marketing hype, although Loar was partly responsible for quality control (when he was not on tour playing music) and may have breathed down some worker's neck now and then; check this out, apparently Loar's handwriting:



But could he have tested and signed over 50 F5s on Feb. 18th 1924?

Loar F5s were probably never strung up and checked earlier than shortly before shipping. And no earlier did they receive their hard ware. (Some Loar-signed F5s have later style tuners, indicating that they were shipped later than Dec. 1924, when Loar had already left Gibson).

[Timbofood]

I was under the impression that examples which did not make the grade, were reworked when possible but if they failed, they met with a rather unpleasant end. Don't have time to snoop through the litany of past threads tonight.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

I was under the impression that examples which did not make the grade, were reworked when possible but if they failed, they met with a rather unpleasant end. Don't have time to snoop through the litany of past threads tonight.

May well be; there is a lot of speculation.
My idea is that Gibson's best workers, possibly violin makers, may have executed some sort of tab tuning of parts (whether it is a good approach or not) as to Loar's instructions in order to just not rework anything but instead come up with repeatable results.

[carleshicks]

As Mike said, the matter has been discussed here quite a bit - with no definite answer.

To me it seems unlikely that any Loar rejects will surface - unless we believe that those unsigned examples (completed in 1925 with 1923 factory order numbers, but no Loar signature) were rejected by Loar and reworked. Those F5s generally sound great.

To me the famous label is part of Gibson's marketing hype, although Loar was partly responsible for quality control (when he was not on tour playing music) and may have breathed down some worker's neck now and then; check this out, apparently Loar's handwriting:



But could he have tested and signed over 50 F5s on Feb. 18th 1924?

Loar F5s were probably never strung up and checked earlier than shortly before shipping. And no earlier did they receive their hard ware. (Some Loar-signed F5s have later style tuners, indicating that they were shipped later than Dec. 1924, when Loar had already left Gibson).

What's the story on the f5 that needs the brace reshaped, is that in a Loar f5? I have never seen that before.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

What's the story on the f5 that needs the brace reshaped, is that in a Loar f5? I have never seen that before.

It's Loar #72211; you may want to check the MA:http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/72211

The pics were taken by Tony Williamson.

[carleshicks]

That is very cool. I cannot believe I never noticed that before.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

That is very cool. I cannot believe I never noticed that before.

I cannot believe that either, Carles. I know you are a geek.

[kudzugypsy]

i worked at Gibson in the early 90's and was one of the final quality control inspectors (fun job!). although they didnt make mandolins there at the time, i'm sure the protocols were similar. if an instrument didnt meet QC, it got sent back down the chain - very, very rarely would something get the saw - but it happened - they would saw off the headstock and then i dont know where it ended up.
looking through the archives, one can see evidence of many Loar mandolins not fitting into the batch they are suppose to be in. in a production environment, you get mistakes - they are often finish related. when i was there if the finish failed it was put in an 'oven' and the finish baked off and usually repainted BLACK - ha - all the black guitars were usually rejects...or wood that didnt cut it - flaws, etc
remember, the F5 is very similar to the F4, which Gibson had been producing for many years so they had the tooling and skilled workers well worked out. a lot of issues would be fixed before it moved on down the line.

i have a theory that the off-quarter tops producing runout around the recurve is the reason the loars got darker and darker sunbursts vs the early light batches. they were covering that up with darker stain

there is no doubt that LL did inspect these before he signed the labels because they all appear signed on specific batch dates that didnt coincide with his touring schedule - when he was on tour he never signed batches.

[Capt. E]

I know there were a few F-5's sent out in January following LL's departure from Gibson that surely would have been signed. I have seen and held one of them here in Austin.

[carleshicks]

I cannot believe that either, Carles. I know you are a geek.

I try not to be, but it is genetic.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

i have a theory that the off-quarter tops producing runout around the recurve is the reason the loars got darker and darker sunbursts vs the early light batches. they were covering that up with darker stain

there is no doubt that LL did inspect these before he signed the labels because they all appear signed on specific batch dates that didnt coincide with his touring schedule - when he was on tour he never signed batches.

Thanks, Kudzu, for that information.
Please allow for a few remarks.

As for LL inspecting all F5s:

Tuners seem to have been installed just prior to shipping, in several cases of Loar-signed F5s way after Loar had left.
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. That mandolin has 1926 style hard ware gold plated and large peg head bushings.
More obvious cases are #79719 with a head stock especially drilled for late 20s machine heads. Or #89133 (a non-Loar F5), where the fern inlay was properly laid out for earlier tuners, but drilled through for the tuners they had at the time of shipping.

My point is, when the above mentioned was common practice at Gibson, around 1924 they must have had dozens of F5s on the shelves with neither tuners nor strings. How could LL have inspected them - sound wise that is?

BTW There are several dark Loars with quarter-sawn tops, e. g. #75319.

[kudzugypsy]

my personal conclusions is that Gibson had A LOT of F5s already made and waiting for the sales to come in that never did. these mandolins did not sell..which is evident in the lack of post Loar mandolins. not to count for the majority of this new design going out to mandolin orchestra leaders, teachers, music stores, Gibson agents on LOAN for sales examples. you see 'Loar' mandolins showing up in the early 30's with current features - i held that one in my own hands to inspect it.

it was the same deal with Gibson banjos when the banjo market died in the late 1930's...it is well known in the banjo corner that they used the parts they had in inventory after the heyday and anything was possible - hence the "floorsweep" tag to most of these late 30's banjos. now do you think Gibson was doing anything different when the mandolin craze crashed in the early 20's? - i don't think so...it was just a little harder with a mandolin vs something you bolted together.

since i worked at Gibson, i got see the *production process* of an instrument and feel LL was involved with these much the way an engineer/supervisor would be. did he PLAY and PASS/REJECT everything with is name on the label...no - very doubtful, but being an engineer he had his hand in the final product certainly.
i don't know enough to say these were finished & labeled instruments ready to go out the door - i doubt it - they could have easily been in some stage 4 completion phase ready for finish, hardware, etc.

[dhergert]

Do you think LL signed through the F-hole?

Could he have signed the label with the back off, just before gluing together?

Or did he sign the label and then glue it inside?

Inquiring minds want to know...

-- Don

[MikeEdgerton]

Loar signed the label then it was pushed in through the f hole.

[Timbofood]

The labels were attached with what is now called (mostly) mucilage, a very light hide/gelatin glue and inserted through the ff holes
Try signing something with a fountain pen (or any steel nib style pen) through an orifice like that and it will become easy to see how it was done that way. Numerous labels were signed and ink allowed to dry before installation, at least that's the way I understand it.

[MikeEdgerton]

I will go as far as to say that getting a label with glue on it successfully through an f hole is tough. I would guess you get better at it as you go along and I doubt Loar was putting the labels in.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

A ser.# applied through the f-hole looks different and should have been an exception, such as here:

[lenf12]

I will go as far as to say that getting a label with glue on it successfully through an f hole is tough.

It's not all that difficult compared to a violin with much smaller f holes. Mark the label with whatever writing is needed, apply the glue and then insert the label into the f hole with forceps (long tweezers) and press into place with a pencil eraser. At Rigel Instruments the glue was a 3M spray adhesive but the glue can also be water soluble so any cleanup is pretty easily done. You're right about getting better with practice.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

[Timbofood]

Yep, spray adhesives are pretty nice but, aerosol cans weren't available at the time and I have serious doubts that anyone felt the need to use an "atomizer" (either bulb or mouth powered) over the simple use of a brush. Something to press it in place for the relatively short time would not have been a big deal.

[dhergert]

Thanks to all for the info about this... Pretty thought provoking, imagining LL signing all the labels, then someone gluing them and slipping them in through the F holes.

-- Don

[Timbofood]

Brush pot, brush, long tweezers and practice!

[Tom C]

I guess that is like asking are there any current unsigned master models without Harvey's signature? Yeah I know they all say master models but you know which ones I refer to.