Loar awareness...beginning when??

[musicofanatic]

I searched as diligently as I could to see if this had been discussed previously...pardon me if I missed it, but...

At what point in history did bluegrass instrument scholars cotton on to the significance of the name Lloyd Loar?? We can be entirely certain that when Monroe walked into that Miami barbershop and picked up the mandolin that caught his eye from out on the sidewalk, that he did not peer into the treble-side f-hole and gasp, "A Loar! And only 150 bucks!!". I have just been wondering when the mania commenced and what obsessives were involved? Thanks for anyone's willingness to engage...

[rcc56]

Well, Bill already had a 30's Gibson when he walked into that barbershop. I don't know if he was aware of the significance of the signature [he might have been], but he knew the 20's F-5 was a better instrument.

While a lot of early bluegrass was performed on oval hole Gibsons, some of which were very good mandolins, the players were certainly looking for the early F-5's by the 1960's. Any good player who encountered one knew that they were better than 30's and later models with one stroke of a pick, and word got around. But like any good thing, obsession and myth eventually took over, and the signature became the mark of the holy grail. In fact, the F-5's built without the signature from 1925 until they changed the design in the very early 30's can be as good as the signed models.

The mystique can be maddening, though. About 20 years ago, a fellow I know bought an F-5 that was designated as a 1929 model by the accepted references of the day. When Joe Spann's book came out and rewrote the serial number date charts from information that had newly come to light, the 1929 designation of the serial number was changed to 1931, and the mandolin lost some market value and desirability, even though it is still the same mandolin and was built the same as late 20's instruments.

One wonders what might have happened if Bill had encountered a really good D'Angelico mandolin and adopted it as his primary instrument.

As far as scholarship is concerned, you could say that it started the day Gibson introduced the style 5 instruments. Advertising and marketing materials, including articles about their unique construction, abounded from the beginning. And even though the mandolins and Mr. Loar himself fell into obscurity for decades, the L-5 maintained its position as Gibson's premiere instrument until the company changed hands in 1970, even though Loar's name was no longer being used. And in 1978, Loar's name was back in Gibson literature when they introduced the F-5L in their first attempt to redesign their by then very shoddy mandolins.

At least the Loar legend isn't like the current rocker's recent obsession with Fender Mustang guitars via Kurt Cobain. The Loars were very good instruments when they were made. Mustang guitars were designed, marketed, and priced as student level instruments, and are still nothing more than that . . . except that now they are getting to be very expensive student level instruments. And we won't even talk about the D-18E, except to say that there's an internet shop listing a '59 model [the "Cobain year"] for $70,000; which is an awful lot of money to ask for what was perhaps Martin's biggest mistake. And some poor soul will probably buy it, sooner or later.

[musicofanatic]

Thanks for responding. Addressing your points...

Yes, I am aware that Monroe was playing an F7 at the time, and I'm sure the feel (longer neck) and response he got from the F5 was immediately apparent to him.

I think of Curly Seckler and Paul Williams as oval hole mandolin players in bluegrass.

Maddening indeed...so many quirks and qualifications that I ran across in my own recent Loar search.

If Monroe had instead selected a D'Angelico, one might suggest that it would have fallen to another player to latch onto the Loar as the ultimate bluegrass mandolin...if ever. Additionally, the 270-some available Loars looks like a lot compared to what I presume was D'Angelico's minimal mandolin output!

I have just been wondering who were amongst the first to cotton onto the 1920s F5 as "the one"...Mike Seeger, Ralph Rinzler...Grisman...? Weren't they amongst the first studious Monroe acolytes and thus likely the first to have the opportunity to peer into an f-hole of the holy grail? Prior to that, were there other mandolin players in bluegrass music documented as playing a Loar signed F5? Whilst I cannot think of specifics, I do recall seeing photos from 50s/60 of players with wide-headstock/block logo Gibson F5s. I will presume they were after at least "the look" of Monroe's...but I cannot recall seeing any with a script-logo F5...I believe Norman Blake had what looked like a 20s F5 early on. Tut Taylor was certainly hip to 20s Gibson mandolins, but dunno just at what point...?

A Fender Mustang was fabricated with the same materials and production methods as higher-end Fender, and a fine guitar, if one does not mind the short scale length. And don't most D-18/28Es end up re-topped? Dunno about much the Cobain association, but understand the "celebrity association" phenomena....

Thanks again,

JonR

[grassrootphilosopher]

I do think that this is one of the more interesting questions recently asked.

I actually wonder why there’s not so much traffic on this thread. Could it be because of the time difference between Europe and the Americas?

As of 1977 (which is about when Happy Traum’s “Buegrass Guitar” and Pete Wernick’s “Bluegrass Songbook” came out) there was already an awareness of Lloyd Loar mandolins and prewar D 28 Martin guitars. A couple of years before this was apparently different.

As far as I know, in the 60s those instruments were just considered old. They were cherished because they sounded great. The name may not have meant anything much like the adornment of a herringbone binding or rear respectively forward shifted bracing.

So this begs the question when the name on the label started to be associated with a certain time period in which great mandolins apparently were built.

Since even the younger old-timers amongst us may not be able to answer this question out of personal knowledge there may be oral history that we can dip into by having statements by the ones who can tell.

[rcc56]

I know that I first became aware of the Loar mandolins by the late 1970's, when David Grisman specifically listed the use of two of them on his first quintet album.
I believe that Bobby Osborne already had his mid-20's F-5 in the mid 1960's, perhaps earlier.

The folklore and hype comes in only sometime after 2000, when people start splitting hairs over specific batches and debating the differences between signed models and instruments from the later 1920's.

For the record, there is little, if any structural difference between signed instruments and those of the later '20's. The first change, other than the introduction of the fern peghead inlay later in the Loar period, was the introduction of lacquer at an undetermined date. The big differences do not come until around 1932, when the instruments are made with heavier builds and much heavier finishes.

Joe Spann told me that Gibson very nearly went out of business in 1932. Many of their most skilled workers were laid off. This explains many of the changes that occurred in the instruments during the 30's.

[f5loar]

From what I have found it was Lester Flatt who played the first F5 in bluegrass in the Kentucky Pardners. If you are of the belief that the Monroe Bros. sound was the foundation for the sound of the forthcoming "bluegrass" name, then one would know the music Charlie Monroe made after Bill left him in 1938 was of the same style and sound. Charlie hired a young Lester Flatt as the mandolin picker and tenor singer in 1944. But Lester didn't have a mandolin so Charlie had bought a nice 1941 for his use in his band for those band members that didn't have one. And regardless of the brotherly "feud" they did still keep in touch with each other and continued to perform in reunions until Charlie died. So I would speculate Bill knew of this F5 of Charlies, played it and was not impressed enough to get one like it. Monroe was in the Chicago area to see other country musicians play old Gibson mandolins which is likely the reason he got his first Gibson, a Loar era A model during his early years with the Monroe Bros. and then later traded up for the new '34 F7. I'd say he was happy with the F7 until he held that F5 at the Barber shop in Miami. If you have ever played an F7 and then an F5 back to back, it's easy to see the huge difference, especially down in that B chord where Monroe was starting to put many of his new songs in. It's possible Charlie Bailey did have his 1928 that Bobby Osborne got in 1960 before 1944, but I've not seen evidence of that in dated photos. We also know that while in Chicago in the mid 30's, Charlie and Bill did see Dave Apollon live at a show and possible Bill noted the F5 he was playing. It could have been Dave's '23 Loar or his early 30's Fern. After that Jan. 1945 purchase by Bill Monroe, those that would follow his sound would note he had a Gibson F5, but not necessary a Loar F5. By the 50's many pro pickers in bluegrass would go and purchase new Gibson F5s, but ironically they were few and hard to find so many opted for a used one, which usually up being a mid to late 20's F5. Also ironically the price of a used F5 was less than a new one. Soon that price by the early 70's would be the same and then it was Steve Stills who bought bandmate Chris Hillman a 1924 virzi Loar and from there the price started up to a max. of $250,000 paid around 2006 for a 1924 Fern Loar with Virzi. The 2008 recession hit and prices came back down and now they seem to be slowly climbing again. The general rule has been for a long time that signed Loar F5 is worth about double the price of a later Fern on up until 1932. The 1933 to 1942 are priced less than the Ferns. I've seen Loars change hands in the $160K range and Ferns in the 75K range.

[musicofanatic]

Thanks, Tom...pretty thorough response.

[musicofanatic]

I did find a 2007 thread here wherein Darrell Wolfe confirmed some of my speculation and filled in some of the blanks. Delighted with all of the input!

[Denny Gies]

I have nothing to add except to say this is a fun thread. Thanks to everyone.

[Dick Wade]

thanks guys, that was interesting and informative

[grassrootphilosopher]

I don´t think we´re done...

What we have seen is an interesting historical outline of the price development of old (pre war) Gibson F-5 mandolins.

What I wonder:
Was there a price difference between Lloyd Loar F-5 Gibsons and post Loar Fern Gibsons and what we now think of as "lesser" wartime Gibson F-5 mandolins when people were looking for a good F-5 let´s say in the 60ies, 70ies and even 80ies? And if so, what would be the price difference?

The distinguishing signature by Lloyd Loar is the identifying mark of a varnished F-5 as opposed to a laquered F-5 (post Loar Fern). Otherwise apart from the design development I wouldn´t want to speculate about the miniscule differences bringing about a price difference of 50 % (in the 2008 heyday of mando prices: Lloyd Loar F-5 up to 240.000 USD; post Loar Fern 120.000 USD).

What is my strong belief:
In 1994 David Grisman brought out the first Tone Poems CD along with a booklet. Tony Rice played the vintage guitars while David Grisman played the vintage mandolins. At that time a Lloyd Loar F-5 was no more than 40.000,- USD and a wartime F-5 was less than 10.000,- USD. Within less than a handful of years the prices of 20ies Gibson F-5 mandolins spiraled out of control (along with the prices of modern luthiers like Lynn Dudenbostel, Steve Gilchrist and Nugget/Kemnitzer). I can only atribute that to the very sophisticated approach of David Grisman who combined all his abilities of making incredibly nice music while marketing (old) instruments. Mind you, he is buying and selling instruments and also was the sole distributer of Gilchrist mandolins in the US at that time. So while other forces might also have been in play, like Eric Clapton´s "Unplugged" album which caused a resurgence in acoustic live music (also in bars and clubs), David Grisman had definetly something to do with the rapid price increase in certain vintage instruments because of his "Tone Poems" recordings.

On a side note. The other day I saw a Monteleone jazz guitar for sale (online) for way more than 100.000 USD.

So when did it really begin to matter to buyers to have Lloyd Adair Loar´s signature on a lable inside a mandolin?

[Jim Hilburn]

I'd like to know more about who began playing bluegrass style after Monroe. The Stanley's, the McReynolds, and the Osbornes. Then the northeasterners like Mike Seeger and Joe Val and the on to the 60's with Doyle and who else?
And how did the Loars become part of that evolution.

[Jim Hilburn]

F5Loar's post was great but kind of skipped from Monroe to Stills. There's a lot in between.

[grassrootphilosopher]

I'd like to know more about who began playing bluegrass style after Monroe. The Stanley's, the McReynolds, and the Osbornes. Then the northeasterners like Mike Seeger and Joe Val and the on to the 60's with Doyle and who else?
And how did the Loars become part of that evolution.

Earl Garner (not! Errol Garner), Pee Wee Lambert, Frank Wakefield, Bobby Osborne, Joe Val, Jesse McReynolds, Mike Seeger are the Lloyd Loar mandolin owners (at least at a time) that come to mind from the top of my head.

Incredibly important first generation bluegrass musicians were "The Lonesome Pine Fiddlers" (Ezra Cline, Bobby Osborne, Paul Williams, Melvin Goins, Charlie Cline, Curly Ray Cline, and Larry Richardson). Pretty much anyone that played with Bill Monroe and went on to play with others can be named. Jimmy Martin comes to mind.

There are many, who seem quite obscure under a modern musical point of view but who were instrumental in spreading the music at the time. A very great band was Red Cravens and the Bray Brothers.

There is so much to listen to, so many musicians to read and to hear about.

[allenhopkins]

I'd like to know more about who began playing bluegrass style after Monroe. The Stanley's, the McReynolds, and the Osbornes. Then the northeasterners like Mike Seeger and Joe Val and the on to the 60's with Doyle and who else?
And how did the Loars become part of that evolution.

There was a little pocket of "early bluegrass" in southern Ohio; Jim & Jesse recorded and played out of Cincinnati as The Virginia Trio (with Larry Roll), the Osbornes started in Dayton, worked both with Jimmy Martin and Red Allen, and as mentioned above Red Cravens & the Bray Brothers worked out of Urbana IL.

Another bluegrass scene grew up in the Washington DC/Baltmore area, with Buzz Busby, Earl Taylor, the relocated Red Allen & the Kentuckians, and of course the Country Gentlemen. This continued to generate great bands like Cliff Waldron w/Bill Emerson et.al., Seldom Scene, etc.

The Dillards started in Missouri, migrating to CA; the Lilly Brothers came from West Virginia to Boston, where with Don Stover and Tex Logan they played for years. All of these bands got started in the early-to-mid 1950's; some took advantage of the "folk revival" to get gigs north of the Mason-Dixon Line, others concentrated on bar and club gigs, until the weekend festival circuit started to get established in the mid-1960's. The circulation of some of these bands through college and folk club audiences probably inspired many of the "city-billy" bluegrass groups that sprang up –– Greenbriar Boys, New York Ramblers with Grisman, Roger Sprung, Scottsville Squirrel Barkers with Chris Hillman, even Jerry Garcia.

Don Reno, who would have been Monroe's featured banjoist if not for military service and the arrival of Earl Scruggs, had a long and distinguished career starting in the late 1940's, working with Red Smiley and later Bill Harrell. And, of course, the most famous of those "playing bluegrass style after Monroe" were two of Big Mon's alumni, Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs, who in terms of visibility and commercial success eclipsed their former mentor. Not in terms of mandolin playing, though (sorry, Curly!).

Loars? Well, that of course had much to do with Monroe's featured instrument, but the fact is that early Gibson F-5's were available, were much better than the mandolins Gibson was turning out in the late '40's and through the '50's, and were thus bought and featured by many of the "pros." Same with Mastertone banjos -- and pre-war Martin dreadnaught guitars, especially "herringbone" D-28's. It became a status symbol to have an older Gibson or Martin -- and still is, to some extent, although acceptable alternatives are now available from current builders.

There is enough variation among individual instruments, to make generalizations about what model and/or vintage of mandolin, guitar, banjo etc. is the "best," a bit uncertain. I'm sure there are Lloyd Loar F-5's that most would rate lower than a top-quality Gilchrist, or some other current brand. The market, though, can't make those fine distinctions; it goes by make, model, and vintage -- and, to some extent, condition and provenance. Musicians do make those distinctions -- at least the best experienced professionals do. They play what works best for them, but can also be sensitive to the prestige attached to an "iconic" label and vintage.

[Jeff Mando]

Allen makes many good points, especially noting that bluegrassers were "into" the vintage instrument thing decades before it became commonplace as a business.

[Jim Hilburn]

I've of course heard of all these acts as well a been a fan of many. It just seems that a good time line of how it all happened is hard to find.
I was introduced to acoustic music by moving next door to a band living in a house in Boulder in '71 where they played jug band and bluegrass as well as flat picked the Doc stuff. Still play with these guys today. But as much as I heard early bluegrass (and loved it) I never really grasped the history. Guess you had to be there.

[JeffD]

I am guessing the question is: at what point did the sound of a Loar become no longer a great sound competing with the sounds other mandolins, and become the center of the bullseye that cannot, even in principle, be exceeded. When did folks care less about sounding great, and more about sounding like Bill?

Same problem and more so with Stradivarius violins. The center of the bullseye cannot ever be exceeded.

[allenhopkins]

...I never really grasped the history. Guess you had to be there.

Woulda been nice to "be there," but if you can find a copy of Neil Rosenberg's 1985 book, Bluegrass: A History, from University of Illinois Press, you can get a lot of the information regarding the early development of the style.

Bunch of the "20th Anniversary" paperback reissues on-line for less than $10 used. Worth the investment, IMHO.

[rcc56]

I am guessing the question is: at what point did the sound of a Loar become no longer a great sound competing with the sounds other mandolins . . .?

You have to understand that the easy availability of high quality new mandolins is a very recent phenomenon. When I played my first chord on a mandolin in the mid 1970's, very few really good mandolins had been built since the Gibson changed the F-5 design in the early 1930's. Except for the limited number of fine, but very different mandolins built by John D'Angelico, virtually no one was yet building first class instruments.

This did not start to change until Rolfe Gerhardt started building Unicorn mandolins, the new and then independent Flatiron company started to build carved mandolins, and folks like the young Randy Wood and Steven Gilchrist started to study the old Gibsons, learned a little about what made them tick, and got their sea-legs at building good instruments.

I've had the opportunity to play quite a few mandolins over the years. I've never played a bad 1920's F-5, nor a bad Gilchrist. Since every instrument is different, some were better than others.

Some of the instruments I've played by some of the other "top-tier" makers were rather disappointing. I'll not mention any names.
The "center of the bullseye" either really doesn't exist, or it's a moving target. And no one hits it with every arrow.

The majority of the best F-5's I've played were early Gibsons and Gilchrists, joined by just a few other really top notch instrument by other builders. The few Newson mandolins I've played were consistently very good. But the field is growing, and that's a good thing, or else we would all be fighting over a few hundred instruments.

The last mandolin that really wowed me was built by John D'Angelico. Needless to say, it didn't sound anything like an F-5. Sometimes I wish I had bought that one.

[CarlM]

There was a little pocket of "early bluegrass" in southern Ohio; Jim & Jesse recorded and played out of Cincinnati as The Virginia Trio (with Larry Roll), the Osbornes started in Dayton, worked both with Jimmy Martin and Red Allen, and as mentioned above Red Cravens & the Bray Brothers worked out of Urbana IL.

Like all early country music, at least as a commercial phenomenon, a lot of it was driven by radio stations in a given area. I heard a recording of Merle Travis talking about having a regular gig playing on the radio out of Cincinnati in the late 1940s. He played with the Delmore Brothers and Grandpa Jones as the Brown's Ferry Four. Not quite bluegrass as such but the next closest thing.

[Jim Hilburn]

Allen, I don't know which is better on Amazon, good or acceptable but I have a good copy Rosenberg's book on the way.

[Sue Rieter]

Acceptable could mean close to falling apart but you can still read it. I bought a book recently called "Industrial Strength Bluegrass" about music in Ohio, and it was supposed to be Like New. It came in with bent pages, a crease in the cover, scuff marks on the page edges, and worst of all, it smelled like weird perfume. I had to air it out before I could read it.

[David Lewis]

I hope no-one has said this, and I mean no nastiness, but the obsession with playing what the 'masters' played is a part of it. Hendrix, SRV, Clapton, Beck with the strat, Coltrane with the Selmer, the 'STradivarius'. I am by no means suggesting these instruments are inferior, and not as good as they are made out to be. I've never played a Loar F5, and the only one I've ever seen was Monroe's in the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville. They asked me to play it, but I said, no, I want a clean instrument. (That last sentence is a lie). It's not the tool, it's the player. Did Thile improve as a player when he got his Loars? It's hard to say. He might have, but he did some pretty amazing stuff with the Dudenbostels. Would Sam Bush have been better with a Loar than 'Hoss'? Interestingly, he played a Loar, and was offered to buy it, but he didn't like it as much as HOss.

There is no doubt that the Loar is a fantastic instrument. But is it the pinnacle? I know a lot of modern violin makers get frustrated with having to replicate a 18th century technology in the 21st century. I wonder if our modern mandolin makers (and we are in a golden age) have similar frustrations? (If I get to see Peter Coombe in Canberra this weekend I might ask him?)

And I'm not making definitive statements re instruments - just thinking aloud...

[Jeff Mando]

...and worst of all, it smelled like weird perfume. I had to air it out before I could read it.

I, too, hate getting "more than I bargained for!" Recent pawn shop guitar purchase, guitar was fine, came with a gig bag that reeked of patchouli -- I know that's popular in some worlds, but not my thing....I haven't thrown it out, yet.....but, even my dog turns up her nose when she walks past it!