I'm quite sure that refinishing was not at all necessary when retrofitting a Virzi. Gibson even offered to fit a Virzi into any sent-in instrument. Sawing the back of with a thin saw and glue it back on again is easy for skilled luthiers, especially when not geek thought about measuring the depth of the rim afterwards. Randy Wood BTW does a great job sawing off backs and cleanly putting them on again with hardly any material lost. Here's a few pics of Loars with retrofit Virzis (Post #8):
https://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/t...Virzi+retrofit
Hendrik
Emily sent me this photo of 71839. Binding all looks right to me.
Jim, IMHO the binding looks fine, but the body point protectors are the giveaway. They are form fitted into the top binding only, not (any more) into the back binding. The glue joint (right there at the body point protectors) is a wee bit more visible/black. Hence, the saw blade did not hurt and reduce the back binding, but just the rim. I'm sure this Virzi is a well done retrofit. According to the MA #71839 was shipped on 1/25/23. Was the Virzi even available that early at Gibson?
Sure?
Next question is why the PP isn't dovetailed, top included.
Almost looks like a pencil line though.
Hendrik beat me to it, yep what he said I don't know when the Virzi was an option as I have no old catalogs. Someone sent me a great link where all the old Gibson catalogs are on the web but I can't find it! I'd love to know when they were offered as well as how much the Virzi option would cost?
I just read most of the thread about retrofitting.
What I question is in every other example the binding ends up thinner. But now with this one they did it differently and sawed it in such a way that the binding ended up the correct thickness. I haven't studied this like many of you but I always thought Virzis were mostly in the later instruments so I see why this one is suspect.
I haven't got a dog in the fight but I'm intrigued about it now.
Hey Jim, I think maybe the luthier's-builders at Gibson took extra time on this one? Or just luck the binding turned out-or it was bound after the Virzi installation? Thats the only thing that makes sense to me as of now, Each old Loar and even Ferns down the line are all different due to being all hand built. The ones I've seen, one can really tell by the thinner back binding. I think the earliest Loar F-5 with a Virzi may be that very early "Parrot Loar" I'll have to look at the photos of it to see if it was retro-fitted. My guess is yes it was. I find it all very fascinating.
Gibson offered the Virzi as an option in their Catalog N as well as their Gibson Service Manual; both were published in later 1923 (pgs. 37, 44 respectively s. below). Neither the Cadenza nor the Crescendo of October mention the Virzi (as far as I can tell from quick glance), although the F5 is featured. In 1924 the Virzi became standard on the F5. Hence, the Fern F5s (with the modern plain white body and neck binding instead of ivoroid) had their Virzis installed during manufacturing, no doubt about that. Note that not only earlier F5s, but also later (per serial # that is) F5s had the Virzi retrofit, installed after completion, as visible from the lack of the form fit pp in the back binding. Depending on where you saw the back off and to which extend you have to plane/level the back for a proper glue joint, you lose more or less of the back binding. Seems like 71839 is very well done in that respect, but the form fit detail was removed, as far as I can tell from your pics.
Anyhow, if you wonder why the Fern Loars had their Virzis installed during construction and "later" F5's Virzis were apparently retrofit (there may be exceptions, though), check out the few available F5 FONs. According to Spann, #s 75325, 79835, both signed in 1924, have 1923 FONs. 80782, 80783, 81250 have 1925 serial #s, but they also have 1923 FONs ("traditional estimates" = guess work puts those "unsigned Loars" into "1925"). And their body and neck binding is old fashioned - pre Fern Loar - ivoroid. In my book, it makes perfect sense that those apparently 1923 F5s (according to Spanns FON observations) had their Virzi installed later, as they are no real 1924 F5s with Virzi as standard. Also note that the first 1926 F5s (FONs 8224, 8231) link closely in construction detail to the Fern Loars from 1924, they not only have the Fern inlay in common, but also the plain white body and neck binding. As for Virzi installation prices, Bill, check the Cat. N page 37.
I've looked through my pictures and I can't find a good example of the 'dovetailed' point protectors on a Loar mandolin (or similar age 'F'). The tapered fit into the binding only shows up on one side of the point and I'm not sure I remember which side.
I assume, however, that it is the same as this PP in a Loar mandola. This mandola has a virzi, and from the looks of the binding here it was probably retrofitted. At some time the point was apparently lost and someone replaced it with a piece of maple wood. There is a notch into the back binding on this one (that the wooden PP does not fit into) and there is no notch in the slightly-thinner top binding. It is typical for instruments with retrofitted Virzis to have the top binding notch and not the back binding notch.
Whoever made and installed this replacement PP apparently didn't know about the dovetail detail.
(I replaced the point protector with ivoroid to match the other one in the mandola. Here it is before color and finish touch up to show the fit.)
From the other side it just looks like this:
A photo from this angle is thus not conclusive.
John Hamlett
www.hamlettinstruments.com
Hm, John, forgive my frankness, but I see it the other - normal - way around: There is a notch in the top binden, but not in the back binding (in the upper two pics that is). Your third picture is a bit puzzling, as the notch is in the back binding; what's the story. On my '28 Fern, the notches are hardly visible viewed from above (the neck side). From below (the end pin side), however, both notches are clearly visible. Seems to me like this is the concept.
Hendrik, you are correct, the notch is missing in the back binding. I had an attack of dyslexia and saw it the other way around. Looks like it is too late to edit my post which is unfortunate. Thanks for pointing it out.
As for the third picture, there is no notch. It is the other side of the same point. There might have been some erosion from the loss of the original PP and the addition of the wooden one but there is not actual nitch.
John Hamlett
www.hamlettinstruments.com
John's example is typical but the specs settled in mid 23 and earlier Loars show some odd features like different wood selection, f hole size, tone bar shape etc. There are not many of those around and good pics of details are scarce so it is quite possible that the dovetailing of PP started later in 23.
BTW, Jim, what is the PP material? It's hard to see from the pics. Most Loars had ivory but F-4's had ivoroid and early Loars could also spot that. Since ivory doesn't stick to plastic too well (using HHG or cellulose glue), that could be reason to do the dovetails.
Adrian
So when it comes to sawing a back off I assume the process would be to have the blade resting on the bottom gluing surface of the back as you cut. Then you would lose some of the kerf and the sides.
Whether you lost any binding thickness would depend on if it was routed in below the gluing surface and into the kerf rather than being the same thickness as the edge of the back plate.
I also had a 34 F-5 Fern, and the body points were dovetailed in and nice! Even though most all Loar's had the Virzi "retro-fit" it sure doesn't bother me at all, it's just another one of those Gibson things. So, were most of the later Fern Loar's with Virzi's were born with the Virzi? My Dec.1st 24 F-5 had the retro-fit Virzi and that's after the Fern Loar's.
Yes, I believe so, as the Virzi was standard on 1924 F5s. (Unless somebody special ordered a non-Virzi F5, changed his mind later and had the Virzi installed.)
From what my/our limited knowledge about F5 FONs tells us, your Dec. 1st. (# 80191) may have a 1923 FON – as # 79835 (also signed on Dec. 1st '24) definitely (that is according to Spann) has a 1923 FON and was just built in 1923, yet without Virzi. Look at the construction features, most notably the ivoroid binding.
Most likely, the Fern Loars are the only true 1924 F5s with later appointments, s. a. plain white body and neck binding and slightly different arching AFAIK and possibly more differences. Fern Loars have similar construction features to 1924 H5s (except for your Jan. '24 H5, Bill). The two known H5 FONs are definitely from 1924 (again, according to Spann).
I mentioned this earlier - and it doesn't sit well with Loar experts, who are used to date F5s by their signatures - but - telling from both the few known FONs and the construction features - I highly suspect that the Fern Loars were the only F5s made in 1924 and 1925. All other 1924 Loars and 1925 F5s were made at least laid on keel in 1923 (and possibly equipped with hard ware later just prior to shipping).
And the phenomenon of the 1924 standard Virzi fits right in.
Greetings
Hendrik
Referencing my photo in post 1205, there are what appear to be some saw nicks into both top and back binding equally. Any idea what happened to leave that feature?Binding done before the points? That would make sense for the dovetailed points too.
So I've been doing some Virzi reading this morning including a 2007 thread about the earliest known Virzi. Darryl mentioned 71900, Jan. 12 '23.
The Karasik is 71839, Jan. 5 '23. However, it's been hiding in plain sight in Denver for decades and may not have been documented.
Is there a way to determine if it's original or retro by looking at the tonebars and Virzi foot locations?
Also in a Mandozine discussion someone said Virzi's were available in 22 and 23 for an up-charge. Is that accurate?
I'm thinking most all Virzi's were retro-fitted-granted I haven't really investigated the Loar Ferns? I know I've seen Gibson A's and F's that have had Virzi's added, one was a 1919 A model, another a K-1 or K-2 that had a Virzi added. So, I think many-most have had them retro-fitted? It did cost extra for the Virzi installation. Hendrik up above gave the price list.
I pretty much believe the binding was done before the points. Otherwise the dovetailed points would make no sense and be PITA to do. I think they removed the wood from the point just before fitting the point protector and the nicks can be traces of this work. I wonder what tools thya used to remove the points. They always show kind of regularly "toothed" surface.
Adrian
I spent 2 hours with a Loar and didn't really even look at some of the finer details we're talking about here because the point was to make a video recording. At that time I was totally unaware that some Virzis were retrofitted. I've never felt comfortable getting into these discussions with the "experts" but suddenly I'm finding out that the Loar in question may have been taken apart and based on history theres a good chance it was.
But the physical evidence isn't so clear. Hendrik, earlier you stated the points were form fitted into top binding but not the back. First of all I don't know what form fitted means but I assume you mean the dovetails. However this instrument doesn't have dovetailed points. What I do see are the saw nicks into the top and back binding which are very similar in size. This seems like the feature that would have been removed with the back being taken off. Tell me what I'm missing.
I think I can get another session with this mandolin and take some good photo's to get to the bottom of this.
I don't think this had been discussed before... I never thought about that too much, but in what state did they retrofit the virzi in factory inventory? I guess it could be done easiest on unfinished mandolin and then finish it, the only trace would be the missing dovetail. Otherwise the traces of such action would be much more visible or full refinish of the sides would be needed to cover it.
The nicks in Jims pic could be just scratches from cleaning the PP from finish. Perhaps they scored it with sharp blade to prevent chipping or the PP fell of and someone cleaned the surfaces with sharp blade before reattaching the piece... Hard to tell.
Adrian
Now that I'm totally confused let me ask this. Was the Virzi in 71900, Jan. 12 '23 original equipment or a retro? If it's retro then it doesn't seem it could be considered the first Virzi since the Parrot had one (backwards).
What I'm getting at is 71839 as signed 7 days prior and it's been basically out of sight for the last 85 years. Is there a chance it may be the earliest Virzi?
Bookmarks