TSSN - Posted - 01/16/2012:  06:19:08

So, I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, though maybe not this exact question.  At any rate, it hasn't come up here at the MHO, so here goes...

In short:  Did Lloyd Loar appreciate at the time, or at least before he died, that he had become essentially what Stradivari was to the  violin?  Archimedes knew it with his "Eureka!" moment?  Einstein knew he had nailed E=mc**2.  Was it that quick? 

Or did he "figure it out" before he died (1943, the beginning of Monroe's rise to prominence)?

TI_USER - Posted - 01/16/2012:  13:01:15

I don't think Loar signed F5's or any F5, for that matter, were widely thought of until after Loar's passing.  The instrument was not received with much acclaim and was almost dropped by Gibson, I believe.  It wasn't until the rise in populatity of bluegrass music and Bill Monroe that the F5 became legendary.  In Roger Siminoff's article about the life of Lloyd Loar he mentions this.

"From studying the depth of his work, one gets the sense that in his eyes, the thing we hold so dear – the "Loar-signed mandolin" – was just an insignificant blip in his massive outpouring of creativity. Loar's patents, letters, and drawings reveal a highly motivated individual with a thought process that never stopped – always searching for what lay beyond truth and excellence in musical instruments."

The entire article can be viewed here.  It's very informative.

siminoff.net/pages/loar_background.html

Edited by - TI_USER on 01/16/2012 13:02:14

mandovoodoo - Posted - 01/16/2012:  16:01:17

Lloyd wasn't and never will be the equivalent of Stradivari, given that he was not the craftsman who developed the model in his own hands. He's more like Edison - running a shop that implemented his ideas. It's a very different situation.

TSSN - Posted - 01/18/2012:  04:51:10

Thanks for the link.  Very informative, and pretty well answers the question I had.

Regarding a lack of equivalency between Loar and Stardivari, I believe that is to be expected in recent centuries, no?   It seems to me that is difficult to find Stradivari-type instances anywhere in the last 200 years or so---people who were forced to be a "one-man show" because of the slowness of travel, commerce and communications.  Fulton with his steam engine may well have been the last one man show. 

So Loar was more like Edison.  If that is true, then that's like saying that Einstein was just an idea man, because it wasn't him who may have done this. Anyway, this is an online forum, and I would love for someone to prove me wrong.

Ben Venuti - Posted - 01/18/2012:  06:48:27

But what was it that he did? The scroll design and the arch top were Orville's .The adjustable bridge and the truss rod were already in the works at Gibson before Loar. The F hole design was done by Shutt before the F5. No patents associated with Gibson are held by Loar.The F5 was just another step in an evolution that Orville Gibson started and it seems that he did start it! The F5 was in fairness the most advanced mandolin that Gibson ever produced and Loar seems to have put all the pieces together in one package. Guy Hart though built the thing, He ran the factory floor.
So did Gibson know how he had revolutionized stringed instruments? Probably. I think we tend to overlook who the real genius in all this was. Did Stradivarius know he was Stradivarius in the sense of how we see him? In the 19th century Strads were not favoured, I've read, as the trend was towards more darker German style violins like Stainers. I think he was a very successful luthier in his time but known only in a very small circle of people maybe. I doubt that he was featured in "People Magazine"

TSSN - Posted - 01/18/2012:  15:37:48

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ben Venuti

... Loar seems to have put all the pieces together in one package.

---

But that seems to be the same as saying that Shelby was just some guy on the Ford Mustang assembly line.  So, is all this attention really misplaced?

mandovoodoo - Posted - 01/18/2012:  18:47:12

I don't know that attention is misplaced - time will tell, he's a modern fellow without a really big track record. A few decades.

I do know that one cannot draw a direct analogy to Stradivari. Although Stradivari simply refined the design, as did Loar.

Time will tell. Give it another couple of cycles. 80 years or so.

TSSN - Posted - 01/20/2012:  18:45:38

80 years...  So neither Lloyd knew before he died, nor do we...

mandovoodoo - Posted - 01/21/2012:  15:03:25

Exactly. They're a modern fad, as is "bluegrass." Who knows if either will become persistent fixtures.

Ben Venuti - Posted - 01/21/2012:  22:00:56

As bluegrass is a form of American country music it will survive I'd think .
Siminoff's article sort of makes out that the F5 was just one blip in Loar's career. The mandolin craze at the time was winding down as the mandolin itself was reaching a high point in construction. Recording music was the very big cool thing really getting under way at that time as well but I have heard very little recorded mandolin music from that period. With the exception of Dave Apollon I can't think of a single name of a mandolin player from the Loar period(or before the Loar period for that matter) up until Bill. Kind of strange considering the mandolin's popularity at that time. You would think that there would be several virtuoso players at least that would have been recorded. .

Jim Yates - Posted - 01/21/2012:  23:45:02

Many musicians who have played both, seem to feel that the Loar signed A5 is as good an instrument as the Loar signed F5s.  I wonder if its rarity makes it more or less valuable.

TI_USER - Posted - 01/22/2012:  10:07:02

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Yates

Many musicians who have played both, seem to feel that the Loar signed A5 is as good an instrument as the Loar signed F5s.  I wonder if its rarity makes it more or less valuable.

---

That's an interesting question.  I have never heard a price mentioned when discussing the Loar A5, but I would think, since there's only one, that it would be even more valuable the the Loar F5's.  But you never know, it probably receives the same unfair discrimination that every other A5 mandolin gets.  The assumption that, because it is not a F model, it is somehow inferior.   Nothing could be further from the truth.  There's no reason that a well designed A5 should sound any different than an equally well designed F5.  I know that the sale of the Loar A5 was private and no financial details were disclosed, but I also wonder about it's value.

TSSN - Posted - 01/22/2012:  10:52:41

quote:

---

Originally posted by mandovoodoo

Exactly. They're a modern fad, as is "bluegrass." Who knows if either will become persistent fixtures.

---

And yet we persist in using the "Loar" terminology.  Not Gibson, or Hart, or Shutt, as Ben pointed out.  We all seem quite comfortable with it. 

Makes me wonder:  What else would you call those specific Gibsons?

mandovoodoo - Posted - 01/22/2012:  15:32:54

I don't have a problem calling them "Loar" vs. the ones without a signed label. It's not unreasonable. But it's not necessarily going to persist as being an important thing in pricing vintage mandolins. Could well be a fad. Radium springs. Bustles. Bleeding. Humors. Tulip bulbs. Hula hoop. Phrenology. Capital punishment (oops, forget it, we still do that). Actually, more like a "fashion" - longer lasting than a fad. One could consider "bluegrass" a fashion within "country" or some larger musical genre, and the "Loar" being an accessory to that fashion.

We violin people tend to take a long term view. The violinists used to like Amati workshop instruments and Stainers, then Strads got to be popular. Now the old time music is a curiosity, but the instruments are used for newer forms.

TSSN - Posted - 01/26/2012:  19:59:23

So I have mulled that response for a while now.

So, this is just about pricing, and value only?  When some people speak "Loar" around me, it is almost reverent...  The desire to play one is palpable---because of the quality of the music it makes.  Sure, it's expensive, but it has little to do with monetary value, and much more to do with experiencing that quality.  I have not yet had a chance to play one.  Should I get that opportunity to do so, I will be seeking the latter.

Ben Venuti - Posted - 01/27/2012:  00:45:15

I don't know what the A5 sold for but my guess is that it went for a big price. It's the only one and Tut Taylor is a pretty shrewd trader,I doubt that he let it go cheap. By all reports it's an astounding mandolin,some claim that it's the "best one ever". Anyway it's a legend and hiding someplace in California I heard. Somethings are highly desired and rare and somethings are rare because nobody wanted them then or now. The Loar signed A5 is the former and could possibly be, from a collectors point of view, the most valuable mandolin of all or # 2 figuring that Bill's personal mandolin will be certainly #1.

TI_USER - Posted - 01/27/2012:  12:06:03

I have heard similar things about the Loar A5.  One article I read said it was better than any of Loar's F5's he had ever played.  It's really sad to not have that mandolin getting some regular playing.  I read on Roger Siminoff's site about Lloyd Loar's personal F5 that he played.  I wonder where that mandolin is and what it's price tag would be.

Ben Venuti - Posted - 01/27/2012:  13:21:11

I thought Roger had it. When I heard that the A5 came to California I wondered if maybe he got that one. I thought maybe Grisman, being such a hound, but then you think he would play it out. I know some of the California collector elite but I've never thought to ask any of them. I sure most of that circle knows exactly where it is. I'd love to play up there with those guys but I'm too poor. I have managed to make a pretty good poor mans collection through the years and I do try and hunt down and play great instruments if I get the chance. I managed to sit down and play a '37 Gibson Advanced Jumbo the other day when I was in NY. Never saw one before and I don't know if I know anyone that ever saw one but it was what they say it is-- and that is the best sounding and playing flat top Gibson guitar that I ever heard. At 50k though I had to give it a wide miss!

coelhoe - Posted - 01/29/2012:  15:38:38

OK. I played the Loar A5 when Tut Taylor had it., and I've played four other Loars, as well as one Loar-era oval hole A model. Sam Bush told me about the A5 (I think) and I made trip to Nashville in'72 or '73 specifically to see the Opry and then play the A5 at Taylor's the next daythe next day. A bonus was the fact that Buck White was playing with his girls and Jack Hicks that night at the Pickin' Parlor next door and we stayed over for it.

Among the Loar F-5's that I played, one was exceptional, two were just ok and one was mediocre in terms of volume and tone. One of the ok ones had a "Virzi Tone Producer" inside. Didn't seem to make much difference. The Loar A5 ranked with the exceptional F5 in sound. They are not all the same.

One thing about the Loar-made instruments that is unique but rarely mentioned is overall precise feel of the neck and fingerboard. They almost beg you to play them. Your hand fits perfectly and the notes just seem to arrive without thinking, an experience I had also in playing the Del Gesu Guarnerius at the Library of Congress. Not to be mystical, but the instruments seem like an extension of the mind. In Loar's case, these mandolins were made specifically for classical players, of which Loar was one himself. I've only played one other mando that had the same "hand" as the Loars and that was one made Steve Gilcrist that I played in '84.

There was a Loar F-5 that popped up on Antiques Roadshow a while back. It is exciting to think that there still some of these "floating" around. Who knows.......

Ben Venuti - Posted - 01/30/2012:  00:53:15

I know what you mean about the neck. Human beings are amazing is their ability to forget,or forget how. A thousand years of classical building and learning by the Greeks and the Romans and suddenly we forget --and for a thousand years! I have experienced what your talking about with the Loars I've played and also with Martin guitars from the late 20's and early 30's. They had these perfect formed necks and then the same companies suddenly forgot how to make a neck and actually to this day haven't learned it back!
Many of the new hand built instruments today have good or great neck design I think. Givens put a lot of thought into neck design --some of his early ones were very thin and maybe too thin where as the finger board got too narrow for many players but I think he finally got it down to a standard that was really nice.
I personally feel that many of the finest builds today are better than the Loars and time will tell but the craftsmanship and over all construction is clearly better on Gils,and Dudes, and some of the others as well. More thought it put into each and every one of the handcrafted mandolins today and I don't think that was the case with Gibson. They were built to formulas and by various people at a factory. Every piece of wood is different and if you don't adjust what you are doing to accommodate the individual properties of the materials you will get hit and miss results. Today"s builders are building to extremely high standards and I think as far a fretted instruments go, right now might go down as a golden age.
If you look at the photos of old mandolin orchestras you will notice that there are a great many woman. If you look at photos of classical orchestras from the same period you will notice that there are no woman --I mean,at least as far as professional philharmonic orchestras go -not any ,as in none! Woman weren't accepted in that club until WWll. Gibson could have considered who their market was and maybe slimmed down the necks to accommodate that market. Many of the teens Gibson's had fat clubbie necks and I think they would have heard back from some of their smaller handed patrons. They also began using the truss rod that they had for some years but hadn't incorporated into their instruments until the "Loar" era. They finally could make a finer thinner neck.
Very cool you got your hands on Mrs. Griffith's A5. The Loars I've played were all pretty exceptional and owned and played by professional musicians and in daily use so they were warmed up and set up for peak performance. But I have heard the talk about Loar duds. In the 70's it was still possible to find a Loar hanging on a music shop wall. Can you remember the prices? I could have bought one once for $2500 and that was in the early 70's. I thought it was an outrageous amount! I came across some others over the years for multiples of that price and in the late 80's or early 90's you could get one for around $15000. If I had only bought every one I heard about at those prices!
I do find with old instruments that you can pick one up and it doesn't seem like much but that can be because it hasn't been played much and maybe for a really long time. Once they get put to regular use a mediocre sounding instrument can turn into an exceptional sounding instrument.

TI_USER - Posted - 01/30/2012:  20:01:45

I know what you mean about the prices.  In 1985 I went shopping for my first F model mandolin, having played a 1924 Gibson A Snakehead for the first 9 years.  I took a trip with a friend to Mandolin Bros. and got my hands on a '24 Loar.  $8000.  I couldn't believe any mandolin could cost THAT much.  Oh, if only!!!  It is kind of cool that the first F model I ever played was a Gibson Loar.  I didn't know the significance at the time.

Ben Venuti - Posted - 01/31/2012:  10:14:35

Fiddles,banjos and guitars where I lived in the heart of Appalachia, no mandolins. Well, Everett Lilly--the Lilly's lived not far away but I didn't know them then and they traveled North to work anyway. I would myself travel north in the Winter to get some money,Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and NY mostly and would drag my guitar with me. The first mandolin I ever played was Frank Wakefields when he was staying at a friends house in Pittsburgh. My friend invited me over 'cause there was someone he wanted me to meet. I was a young whipper snapper guitar player and Frank said I should play the mandolin-- which might have had something to do with my guitar playing,don't know. He handed me his mandolin and said "You need to play one of these." I don't think you can say "No" to Frank I thought it was very cool sounding but strange looking. I noodled around with it a while, Frank showed me some stuff and then I went out and bought a '27 A-0, which I still have. Cost me $150, which was a huge stretch for me at the time. I had no idea what a Loar was. It was a fancier Gibson than what I had,that's all. I then got a teacher and he had a '23 Loar which I got to play some. There was a jam on a week night at a bar that I went to and Mac Martin would come there. .He played guitar with his band but would like to play his mandolin in the jam,which was also a Loar and I got to try that out as well. I lucked out,my A-0 is one of the best sounding A model mandolins I have ever heard and I have owned some other and upgraded models myself that weren't as good. The only other mandolins I had any experience with when I first started were Loars so I was jaded from the start.

demery - Posted - 05/27/2012:  18:00:34

When Bill Monroe bought his Loar used in a barber shop in Florida it was a used mandolin that sounded good. I doubt he thought of it in any way as we do today and in the 1970's before the Loar became collected...it was a fine instrument but did not have any mystique to my knowledge. I agree that when the Loar was produced it was an evolution in the mandolin by Gibson much like the Mastertone banjo that was also produced under Loar's tenure at Gibson. These instruments have become what they are to a great extent by those that played them and gained a reputation like Monroe and Scruggs. In my view there are great builders today putting out instruments of quality and who knows...in the years to come may become collectable and highly valued. David E.