I say this was a change in methodology that took place later.Īs mentioned, F5's were apparently slow sellers and Loars appear to be shipped well into 1926 Now, as I mentioned, I fully agree with Joe that they assigned numbers when they we shipped, but I disagree that this was the case during Loar and during the period right after. I care when they were made and/or completed to the most part. I really don't care when the instruments were shipped.
This ONE FACT flies in the face of Joe's assertion that the serial number was assigned when the instrument was shipped.
Gibson banjo serial number list serial numbers#
These were pretty apparently assigned in numeric order and in 95% of the cases the serial numbers all had the same FON number. Up until some point, which was post-Loar, all Gibson mandolin, mandola, guitar instruments had serial numbers written inside the box in the location that the label would eventually reside. I would prefer to address your questions with some statements of generalities. What evidence is there to support that Spann's concept of FONs and serial numbers is not valid for 1925-27?Henry, But does that necessarily mean that all post-Loar F5s were shipped even later, that is after all Loar-signed F5s were shipped and sold? I beg to differ. Would that mean that the "unsigned Loars", those few F5s with the same FON and construction features as the last Loar-signed F5s, were not shipped in 1925? I believe we agree that the Red Fern Loar (#76787) and quite likely a few other Loar-signed F5s were equipped with hard ware and shipped well after Loar was gone. What evidence is there to support that Spann's concept of FONs and serial numbers is not valid for 1925-27? But does that necessarily mean that all post-Loar F5s were shipped even later, that is after all Loar-signed F5s were shipped and sold? I beg to differ.Īnd the question as to when the box was glued together is not even touched at this point. So, in closing, it's an enigma, but it took several years for the radical changes we see from what we thought was 1925-1927 to take placeWould that mean that the "unsigned Loars", those few F5s with the same FON and construction features as the last Loar-signed F5s, were not shipped in 1925? I believe we agree that the Red Fern Loar (#76787) and quite likely a few other Loar-signed F5s were equipped with hard ware and shipped well after Loar was gone. So, in closing, it's an enigma, but it took several years for the radical changes we see from what we thought was 1925-1927 to take place With that in mind, it took Gibson years to need to make another F5 or many other low volume instruments from scratch. I maintain that serial numbers were already pre-assigned to closed up bodies, just like Martin did. I agree on this, but only with respect to instrument made after this odd period in time Joe maintains that serial number were assigned during the shipping phase and that FON's are the key to when it was made. He and I agree on 98% of things except for this short period about 1925-1927. So, most anything we attribute to 19 is likely later, especially if it looks different than 1924Īdditionally, Joe Spanns work bring much into focus. They used up things to save money and made hardly anything from scratch. Gibson apparently spent several years using up pre-carved stuff to reduce overhead and survive. When Loar left the building in late '24, instruments did change overnight to lacquer finishes with gold part and white binding, and Loar did not break the molds resulting in different shapes to F5 mandolin tops. With this in mind, not some of us old timers are forced to realize that things changed.
Walters great book points out management changes and inherent business model methodologies that essentially prevented bankruptcy The numbers between say 19 were reasonably linear as Gibson made instruments by the thousands that had not sold yet
BUT, one thing us old timers now have to realize is that the sequence was not linear. I am not going to argue the origin or validity of any serial number list.
0 kommentar(er)
