1995 gibson f-5 l /1995 flatiron signature

[frankenstein]

interested to hear opinions on the value of a 1995 gibson f-5 L and a 1995 flatiron f-5 " signature " mando's. for instance both in great condition , both weber signed. are they worth the same dollars ??

[Gail Hester]

Interesting question. #The book on a Flatiron artist signature series F5 is $3700, much more than a Performer or Festival but the Flatiron signature series first appeared in 1996 (according to the book). #That sounds about comparable to the book on a Gibson F5L of that era. Now the real experts can chime in.

[Danny Clark]

i would think a Gibson would be $4400 or so,$400-$700 more than the Flatiron

[Philip Halcomb]

The sad thing is that they are pretty much identical with the exception of inlay etc... I found that some of the 90s F5s scream. But what Danny said, "the gibson" being on the headstock raises the price a little.

[Bernie Daniel]

frankenstein: the value of a 1995 gibson f-5 L and a 1995 flatiron f-5 " signature " mando's.

Fun question.

I think in this case they are identical in construction but the Gibson would generally be worth a bit more because it is a "Gibson" and the F-style mandolin started with them.

That's my opinion of couse and you might luck into a Flatiron devotee who wants the signature model and could care less about an F-5L. #Then the Flatiron is "worth more".

It might be noted too the the Flatiron is certainly more rare than the Gibson. #That's important too I guess.

Although Gibson started the F-style they fell on their face for a long period -- and Flatiron was the reason they are back to making great mandolins today. #I wonder what would have happened if Carlson and Weber et al. had told Gibson to keep their money?

[Steven Stone]

[I wonder what would have happened if Carlson and Weber et al. had told Gibson to keep their money?]

That wasn't an option.

Either they sold or faced being sued into extinction.

[Ken Berner]

Philip, They are not so much the same, in that the Flatiron Signature Series mandolins are X-braced; the Gibson is not. My argument has always been that they should be valued equally, as they were built in the same shop by the same craftsmen. Some folks certainly value the Gibson name more than Flatiron, but that does not take away the fact that Montana-built Flatirons, whether before the Gibson buyout or after, were high-quality instruments.

[Ken Berner]

Steven, It is good to finally see a face attached to your name! You raise an interesting point and we will never know. We can assume that if that fine group of luthiers were intact today, that high-quality instruments would be produced and sold at prices more affordable for the average player.

[Bernie Daniel]

Steve Stone: That wasn't an option.
Either they sold or faced being sued into extinction.

Steve, that is an interesting comment and I cannot address it one way or the other-- I have no data on the matter.

But what leads you to that conclusion? # Were there real threats of legal action or is that your supposition as to what might have gone down?

Ken Berner pointed out that the Flatirons were X-braced (I think I knew that once but forgot it) -- but given that a Gibson law suite might well have failed.

So what leads you to that belief that the demise of Flatiron was inevitable? #

(this is straying a bit OT from the question but it is certainly related to the question) #

[f5loar]

I was at the Station Inn the night the deal went down between Gibson and Flatiron and they both sat at the same table. If there was any ill feelings they sure kissed and made up quickly. I'm with you can add $500 or so to the Gibson because it's a Gibson. There were some differences in the two but the name alone would justify a higher price on the Gibson. Seems I seldom see Flatirons of any model being played out in public.

[MikeEdgerton]

This whole "sued into extinction" thing comes up here now and again but I've never seen it documented by any of the offended parties and I wonder why? By now any agreements of confidentiality would have expired. If that's the case, why is Bruce Weber making F5's now? I'd just like to see someone that was there actually weigh in. I would think that the agreement would have been made in a lawyers office if there was any real animosity.

[frankenstein]

gail hester has pointed out that the festival and performer models are valued much less than tha " artist " . i guess my real question is .... which one would you guys buy allow more for the gibson of course.. < gggg >

[Ken Berner]

From my humble observation, the $$$ differences between Gibson F5 models and Flatiron F5 Artists of that era seem about the same as those mentioned above. For some time, when I was trying to purchase my first Flatiron Artist, I was really keeping close tabs on asking and selling prices. Sometimes, to my dismay, an Artist model would sell way below what it should have, but there may have been issues with that particular instrument. I've even seen a Flatiron F5 Master Model let go for $3,600 by an individual and a A5 Artist go for $1,100 by a dealer. I e-mailed the dealer to find out what was wrong with the mandolin; "nothing", they said. Go figure.

[nashvillebill]

[I wonder what would have happened if Carlson and Weber et al. had told Gibson to keep their money?]

That wasn't an option.

Either they sold or faced being sued into extinction.

On what grounds would Gibson have sued Flatiron?

[re simmers]

I bought my Flatiron at Baltimore Bluegrass in 1992. It is a 1991 F-5. It was in a showcase right next to a Gibson F-5. Both were signed by Bruce Weber. Both played and sounded the same to me..super. The Flatiron was $1995 and the Gibson was $2995. I don't really know about the x-bracing. I don't really know if the Gibson name makes their mandolins worth 50% more. I guess the buyer determines that. I don't regret the Flatiron purchase.

[fatt-dad]

I don't buy the "sued to extinction" claim either. Wonder what "Snopes" has on this - ha!

f-d

[pickinNgrinnin]

I thought the Flatiron F5 was their only tone bar braced Mandolin. It was the one with the flowerpot inlay on the headstock. The Artist F5 was of course, X braced. Not sure about the Master. I wish Gibson still had that old Flatiron link up and running as it had a lot of good information there.

[Hal Loflin]

Nothing on "Snopes". I also tried Googling Flatiron/Gibson Lawsuit all sorts of ways and could only find where Flatirons were being sold as "Gibson Lawsuit" mandolins.

I owned a pristine pre-Gibson Flariton Artist and regretably sold it to get my son a laptop when he went to college. Glad I got him the laptop but still to this day wish I had the mandolin.

I had done a lot of research on Flatirons when I bought this one and always felt that Gibson bought Flatiron more to beef up there line and get back some of the reputation they had lost during the late seventies. I never could find anything solid about Gibson going after Flatiron for copyright infringements, just felt that they liked what Carlson and Flatiron were doing and saw it as a chance to buy a quality company. Also it was probably a pretty good business deci$$ion for Carlson. I found it interesting that Bruce Weber helped move the plant to Nashville but after some time he moved back to Montana and started Weber.

As stated in a previous post, it seems to me that if Flatiron was doing something wrong then Weber would still possibly be in the same boat. I live about 20 miles from the OAI Showcase shop and have visited and played pretty much everything Gibson has in their current line as well as some older models. It's also right around the corner from another of my favorite stores...Bass Pro Shop. I often looked at, played and wondered about the Gibson F5L and felt is was comprobable to the Flatiron Artist that I had (sound, looks, inlay, binding, etc.). Some of you more knowledgable Gibson owners will know the exact differences but to me they felt, played and sounded like the same.

Maybe Big Joe could chime in here. He probably knows alot of history on this...Good thread though!

[Big Joe]

At the time Gibson bought Flatiron Mr. Weber was not a principal, and I don't believe he worked for Flatiron at that time. He was not a consideration. Mr. Carlson did NOT have to sell but chose to of his own volition not under duress as someone has thought. He really never wanted to be in the mandolin business according to his own statements and Gibson was happy to purchase them. There has never seemed to be any ill will between any of the components of the sale. Same with Mr. Weber when he left Gibson to form STE. He is a fine man who makes a fine product and he chose to be where he is.

Now to the value. The Gibson and Flatiron were structually a bit different. The Gibson should bring 4500-5500 while the Flatiron would brind 500-1000 less depending upon condition, etc.

[frankenstein]

thanks for the info crew.. i didn't want to bring out a gibson versus flatiron thing but a few bars of dueling mando's could be appropriate right now. squeal like a pig !! i just wanted to know the real value of these mando's as i may buy one in the future.. i recently had Mike Blohm build me a 3 point f-5 that is just great.. so Montana is a good place for mando building it seems regardless of the name on the headstock.. speaking of flatiron/gibson people i have a John Walker guitar that is just killer.. check 'em out.. thanks again..

[f5loar]

The climate in MT is another reason Gibson wanted Flatiron and the reason they still build their acoustic guitars there today. The biggest reason was to get those acoustics out of Nashville so they could turn out more electrics there and still meet the high demand for the comeback of the F5L and Jumbo guitars.