1974 Gibson F5 - what's top of the market?

[fatt-dad]

So, it seems all original, hasn't been played in some time (strings broken and such), but a local auction house will have a 1974 Gibson F5 up for sale tonight. I don't want it, but it does beg the question, what would such a mandolin fetch if all set up, structural sound and ready to play?

Here's the link to the photo:

http://www.alexandersantiques.com/Pr...5th/img570.htm

I mean were they really that bad? At its best will it sound like somebody jammed sock in it?

Just curious. . .

f-d

[f5loar]

If you can get it under $2000 it's a great deal. These can be reworked and upgraded to a really good sounding mandolin and it is a real Gibson. Top of the market is $4000 or that's the most I've seen at dealers so half that you are safe should you not like it and need to unload it. If it's got that awful crumbling disease on the binding it would lower the value considerable as it would be costly to replace that binding. Binding intact and all else looks good go for it. Should you get it for $1000 or less , I'll give you $1200 for if it's all there.

[fatt-dad]

So, I'm going shopping with a grand in my pocket tonight! (Well, maybe. . .)

f-d

[Buck]

Tom's right on with his prices. The pick guard looks to be deteriorating, so it's probably a loss, except for the hardware if it isn't overly corroded. I doubt you'll get it at what I would consider a reasonable price. My experience with local auctions in the internet age has been that guns and musical instruments sell for full retail or more, almost without regard to condition. People look at dealer prices on line and assume that the item they're bidding on is worth at least that much. We know better.

Can they be that bad? Yes. The better imports today will almost certainly be better sounding, and for a fraction of the price. I've never played an original from this period that I would carry home if I had to play it as-is. Some that have been re-graduated and/or refinished by folks like Randy Wood do sound very good, but they still don't bring any more money than a dead sounding original. So, if you want it to play, you need to get it cheaply enough to have someone make it better. Buying one already redone by a known repairman for $4K is another thing entirely.

[AlanN]

Yes, suppose they can be that bad, but I remember one in particular, a dark-stained '74 F-5 which was pretty darn good.

[Mike Romkey]

I look forward to hearing the outcome. Please let us know what it brings. (I see they have an L6 S. I can remember wanting one of those, once upon a Santana.)

[fatt-dad]

I may or may not find out. I didn't go, but know somebody that'll be there and he may learn the winning bid.

I will let you all know if I find out.

f-d

[fatt-dad]

. . . and now for the rest of the story. Gavel price was $1,500.00. I didn't see it, so I don't know any condition issues (I wasn't there). My colleague said, "It looked good!" He's not a mandolin or guitar guy though, just works the local antique auction house.

Apparently the first item auctioned that night.

f-d

[f5loar]

so about $1850 out the door with commision fees and local taxes. Not bad but after seeing the PG crazing I would have expected some of the binding to be crumbling too. Hard to tell in the one photo but it was all there.

[fatt-dad]

More like $1,650.00. This auction house is 10% or so I'm told. . .

I'm sure somebody will do just fine on the buy. All I could think of was Charles Johnson at the back of the room adding another to his inventory.

f-d

[Buck]

You still have to pay sales tax on the $1650, unless you are a retailer and buying it for inventory. At that price, I would have bought it - and I'm cheap! I've never seen a decent instrument sell that low at any local auctions near me, but I keep trying....

[Kevin Stevens]

http://guitarhouseoftulsa.com/store/...ibson-f-5.html

Here's one at a shop in Tulsa. I played it for about 10 minutes one afternoon, it sounded good, but it does have some wear, but the binding didn't seem too bad.

[mangorockfish]

How long, in years, did this "bad period" last? From when to when?

[fatt-dad]

I know that when Gibson bought Flatiron (late 1987) it solved their problem. I have no idea how the Gibson mandolins sounded or played prior to that. I just know that Gibson needed to do something and Flatiron was on a bandwagon.

f-d

[almeriastrings]

A place I worked in the late 1970's had one hanging on the wall for years.... they used it as a kind of "negative demo" to sell Ibanez copies......yes, it really was that bad. There was also an RB-250 Mastertone 5-string and a flat top (a J-55, I think). They used to sell a lot of Yahama's after folks tried that J-55!!!

[CES]

A place I worked in the late 1970's had one hanging on the wall for years.... they used it as a kind of "negative demo" to sell Ibanez copies......yes, it really was that bad. There was also an RB-250 Mastertone 5-string and a flat top (a J-55, I think). They used to sell a lot of Yahama's after folks tried that J-55!!!

I've seen that done recently to sell a 400 dollar Morgan Monroe...worked, too!

[f5loar]

The turn around was late 70's when work begin on the new model F5L. I know Monroe got one of the first F5Ls dated Jun, 1978 and it's a great mandolin. You get into the early 80's and you get Charlie Derington and Jim Triggs working together on the F5L so those were some good years.

[James Sanford]

I bought a new one in 1974. I had "Gibson Fever". Worst mistake I ever made. Traded it for a fiddle and a Japanese copy F5.

Lost big time on that deal. Paid $1500.00. Lots of money in 1974...still quite abit.

[f5loar]

I know lots of mandolin pickers that got bit by the new designed Gibson F5 of the early 70's. Gibson did a super job promoting the banjos and mandolins to the bluegrass pickers by going to festivals and setting up show booths. Of coarse the display models were super! Dealer prices were around $1200 including the case but many dealers could charge more due to the demand and not many were coming out of the factory. Still a long wait if you ordered one.

[Bernie Daniel]

I know lots of mandolin pickers that got bit by the new designed Gibson F5 of the early 70's. Gibson did a super job promoting the banjos and mandolins to the bluegrass pickers by going to festivals and setting up show booths. Of coarse the display models were super! Dealer prices were around $1200 including the case but many dealers could charge more due to the demand and not many were coming out of the factory. Still a long wait if you ordered one.

I was thinking about this very thing today. I went into the local Guitar Center and played a 1950 F-12 they have had for years in the store (its been priced at $4000 for at least 5 years -- recently they lowered it to $3K and its still there -- but I digress). Anyway it sounded like most of the Gibson from that era kind of dull and thuddy with a weak projection - and the these '50's mandolins were generally better than the 60's and '70's.

The GC also has a whole wall full of some of the new import mandolins including Kentuckys, The Loars, Wasburns, Kelly, Ibenez etc. I swear ALL of these inexpensive imports sound just great. You want to play them. There was a "distressed" Washburn that was simply outstanding for $800!! There was a used Jade that was just as good.

So I wonder what could have possessed Gibson Inc. to make the inferior instruments that they churned out during the "dark" period? Why do it? I mean what was the point?

Would it have cost them anymore to do the carving and assembly right? The labor and material costs were expended for those poorer instruments anyway, so why not do it right?

Gibson had the plans and the institutional knowledge to make an outstanding F-5 -- they started the model after all and the '20" Loars are still the world standard.

What were they saving by making those poor sounding instruments instead of good ones?

[f5loar]

In the defense of the 1950 F12 at Guitar Central, the 1950 still had the glued to the top fingerboard which pretty means it's no more than a long neck A50 model in terms of sound. It was not until 1951 when Gibson decided it best to raise the fingerboard off the top in the style of the F5 of the 50's and most those F12s are not bad. I've seen quite a few of 1951 through 1964 F12 models that would sound better than the F5 of the same period due to it being lighter in weight. After 1964 they do tend to be thicker in the tops and more heavy on the lacquer. We've discussed this many times before. While the 50's F5/F12 models were in no way close to being the mojo of a 20's F5 they were used by many professionals of the day most noted Jesse McReynolds and Everet Lilly. Even Bill Monroe bought a new 1964 F5 as a spare. Many bought them new and like Dean Webb kept them many decades recording and doing live shows with no problems of sound they got from their choice of Gibson. Dave Apollon certainly had no problem projecting with a 50's or 60's F5. He even had a custom made 50's F12 with the F5 fingerboard finished in the solid red color like Jethro's custom red A5 (wish I knew who had that one). So don't discount as bad all 50's and 60's F5/F12 models. Some were quite good.

[almeriastrings]

Definitely. Seen a few 50's and early 60's that were not at all bad. A couple were really quite nice, and nothing to complain about at all sound-wise. Not up to current standards, I think, but they have some years on them and certainly a decent instrument. It was the Norlin era when they really took a major nose-dive... the ones I used to see regularly were the mandolins, guitars and a few banjos from that 1972-1975 period. Man... were they over-built. Some of the acoustic guitars were truly dire. Sounded like they were stuffed full of socks. I remember we had a customer who special ordered a Hummingbird... waited months, then when it finally arrived, it was beyond horrible. There was a Yamaha FG-160 that came in the same day that simply destroyed it. No contest. Fortunately, we found a defect on the bridge so sent it back to the distributor and cancelled the order... the guy took the Yamaha home.

The story at the time was they wanted to reduce warranty work, so built everything as heavy as possible in consequence. It is interesting to read Roger Siminoff's experiences when trying to convince the management of the time that in fact, their instruments right then were not "the finest ever made". They really seemed convinced they were, and were quite resistant to the idea that anything could be done to improve anything.... thank goodness Roger kept at them, and the rest is history. The recovery steadily gathered pace.

Worth a read!

http://www.mandolincafe.com/news/pub...s_001217.shtml

[woodwizard]

In 1970 or 71 I seen one in a music store for sale I remember very well for $1499.00. I was just out of high school & I thought it was beautiful but was just getting into the mandolin and broke. Then about 10 years later I purchased a 1970 or so one (like new condition) for about the same price or a little under. Played it for about 10 years and sold it with all the battle scares I put on it for $1500.00. It didn't sound bad but just didn't have the volume you would exspect out of an F5.

[mrmando]

So I wonder what could have possessed Gibson Inc. to make the inferior instruments that they churned out during the "dark" period? Why do it? I mean what was the point?

Well, for one thing there weren't any Ibanez or Kentucky or The Loar mandolins around for comparison/competition.

[almeriastrings]

The first Ibanez copies I saw were around 1976, I think they had just come out the year before. Here's a link to the famous poster of Bill playing one... the story behind this is in Bob Black's "Come Hither to Go Yonder" book about his time with Bill. The photo was evidently taken on that Japanese tour.

http://ibanezmandolin.com/ibanez-man...ole-interview/

Over the years, I have worked on a couple of these. Unfortunately, they chose just about the worst Gibson F5's ever to copy... but even so, they were not bad. Still on the heavy built side, though, with thick lacquer and very average materials, especially the backs and sides, which were often hardly figured at all.