|
Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link.
Joe Spann - Posted - 10/21/2009: 06:18:28
Some of the pre-World War II Gibson banjo manufacturing dates that we commonly accept are incorrect.
Surviving pre-war Gibson factory records do not contain detailed and specific information about production dates for individual instruments. It is possible that Gibson never kept this data in the way that C.F. Martin and other manufacturers did. However, by combining other contemporary external source material and the surviving original Gibson factory records we are now in a position to make some badly needed adjustments to our Gibson banjo manufacturing chronology.
One of the first people to attempt the compilation of a pre-war Gibson manufacturing date system was Mr. Davis Kennedy. In a letter published by Bluegrass Unlimited magazine in March 1969, Mr. Kennedy laid out the first important information that would be used for years in assigning production dates for Gibson banjos. Davis Kennedy worked at Gibson as the Supervisor of the Custom Department from 1965 through 1968 and collected his data firsthand from the Gibson factory employees during that period. Roger Siminoff began building on that early data when Pickin’ Magazine published his Gibson Banjo “Serial Number” list in the 1970's. Vintage instrument dealers like George Gruhn, John Bernunzio, Stan Werbin, Stan Jay and legions of private individuals followed the example of these earliest pioneers and collected their own lists of Gibson numbers. These materials first became widely available in the 1990's when Tom Biggs placed a large collection of Gibson information on his Internet website.
As the data began to mount, cracks began to appear in the accepted dates. Tom Biggs originally voiced his concerns to me on this topic over 15 years ago. Other collectors began to see the problems as well, especially those who collected Gibson guitars and mandolins. The system used by the banjo enthusiasts simply did not square with information collected by the guitars and mandolin players. The situation worsened as original sales receipts surfaced, more catalogs were reprinted and a few nearly complete collections of Mastertone Magazine were complied. In his recent book even Jim Mills points out a few of the problems with our accepted chronology.
In retrospect part of the problem is clear. No single collector or dealer had enough data from which to draw valid conclusions. Gibson built over a hundred thousand instruments before World War II and a list containing 200 numbers or even 2,000 numbers is simply not enough data. Another problem is that bad information was repeated. In his original 1969 letter, Davis Kennedy stated that the first flat head Mastertones were built in 1932. But immediately afterwards he qualified that statement by writing that “no one knew for sure, but the most popular guess at Gibson was 1932.” Mr. Kennedy never intended that 1932 be taken as an absolute. But the information was repeated over and over again for years and unfortunately it was incorrect.
The confusing and inconsistent Gibson “system” of serial numbers and factory order numbers adds to the problem. Each batch of instruments built by Gibson during the pre-World War II period had a “factory order number.” This number was used by the accounting department to track the actual costs of manufacturing the instruments. The price of raw materials, finished sub-assembly parts and labor used in the production of each particular batch of instruments were tracked and assigned to that factory order number. High quality instruments like L-5 guitars and F-5 mandolins also received an actual serial number upon completion. Other mid-line instruments like banjos and lower quality guitars simply retained their factory order number with the addition of a bin number instead. Lower quality instruments often got no identifying numbers at all, even though they originally had a factory order number just like everything else.
In a 1970 interview former Gibson employee Wilbur Marker stated that the factory order numbers originated in the weekly production meetings. The senior staff gathered together each week and decided what would be produced in the near future. According to Wilbur Marker, a pre-printed and serially number form was used to initiate a production run. The number on this form became the factory order number. External evidence today shows that Gibson had been using the factory order number system as early as the 1910's and perhaps before that. Indeed, by the time the first Mastertone banjos rolled off the production line in April 1925 the factory order numbers were already in the 8,000 range.
It would also be naive to assume that the factory order numbers were always used in sequential order. Existing evidence shows this is simply not so. Some instruments took longer to sell, some took longer to produce. What began as a pile of pre-printed forms with sequential numbers was not always exactly in numerical order at the end of the production line. For the period from 1925 through 1930 they are nearly sequential, but from 1931 onwards chaos was the order of the day. In my examination of the 1935 shipping ledger sometimes I wonder if someone knocked over that pile of pre-printed forms and then just picked them up off the floor without returning them to sequential order.
The shipping ledgers also show another important fact. After the stock market crash of October 1929 Gibson had extreme difficulty selling plectrum (PB), regular (RB) and any gold plated banjos. One All-American tenor (9747-4) was shipped and returned nine times. By 1937 it is described as being “shop worn.” The final Mastertone banjo shipped prior to World War II was a style 6 which had been sitting around the factory since 1928. I have interviewed a Gibson employee who worked there in the period 1938-1940. He remembers seeing hundreds of dusty older instruments sitting around in the famous rolling racks. Some of them in a state of partial disassembly. The shipping ledgers themselves show that Gibson had a considerable back stock of instruments. These often appear in the ledger with the notation “TB-G old style” or simply “L-5 old.”
It is not difficult at all for me to believe that the Earl Scruggs RB-Granada was assembled in the first quarter of 1930, but not shipped until 1934. The shipping ledgers show that type of thing happened with regularity. Research on my book continues on a daily basis. Hopefully, I will be able to share a revised and more accurate Gibson banjo production chronology with everyone at a near date.
Edited by - Joe Spann on 10/21/2009 08:21:35
Trashbanjo - Posted - 10/21/2009: 06:51:06
Extremely interesting ,thanks for all your hard work!!!!
"Pick it right or pick through it,just dont stop".
Vic Jenkins
Brian - Posted - 10/21/2009: 07:27:47
Facinating!
Brian
f5loar - Posted - 10/21/2009: 07:55:32
Does this information now make the Mills Banjo book obsolute?
Tom Isenhour
Joe Spann - Posted - 10/21/2009: 08:04:23
quote:
Originally posted by f5loarDoes this information now make the Mills Banjo book obsolute? Tom Isenhour
Not at all. Jim refrained from making "absolute" statements when he could not prove something as fact. If a statement is from a secondary source he says so. He gives his sources when possible and in the case of the Snuffy Jenkins RB-4 recanted a previously published date as an error. I may be wrong, but at the moment I can't think of anything in Jim's book which will be refuted by my research. Amplified...but not refuted.
kjcole - Posted - 10/21/2009: 08:17:03
If the book is as well-written as the post, then sign me up for a copy. Nice writing style.
Kelly
strang - Posted - 10/21/2009: 08:20:04
Great stuff, Joe 
- = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -
Bluegrass -- THE Original Country Music!
BrittDLD1 - Posted - 10/21/2009: 08:39:51
Very impressive work, Joe. Glad to see it happening.
Best-
Ed Britt
••• A good fiddle tune will bring two or more people together who might otherwise be enemies. •••
The Old Timer - Posted - 10/21/2009: 09:13:32
In his new book, which I like very much, Jim Mills goes out of his way MANY times to say that the "serial numbers" can no longer be believed as absolute guides to manufacture dates. I think Jim makes it a major point of his book, and he credits having access to SHIPPING records as what is shedding the new light.
Safe to say, you probably don't see many 9000 series or the 3 digit series or the lettered series in the 1920s. As Joe has suggested, things changed RADICALLY after the stock market crash!
I for one, am now perfectly happy to think that an 8000 series banjo might not have been finished, shipped, purchased until WWII!
I think this helps me "accept" the "1927" and "1928" Bella Voce and Florentine at Gruhn's with big flat head tone rings. Those pots (with factory order numbers) might have sat around for years before being finished up into fancy gold plated banjos, and by that later time, flat head rings might have been the ones at hand, and in fact preferred for plectrums and RBs.
Joe, I would like to know what you know about the "second series" of factory 4 digit order numbers supposedly from the late 20s that being with "0".
The Old Timer
I can win the attention of most any girl, wherever I may roam -- But singing and playing on a banjo alone, won't work against a trombone! Uncle Dave
Joe Spann - Posted - 10/21/2009: 12:41:11
Here is a wonderful example of why the pre-World War II Gibson banjo manufacturing chronology needs adjustment.
I was contacted today by the owner of an RB-1 from lot #9527. He asked me what I thought the manufacturing date might be. I replied that the summer of 1929 was the correct time frame. He later responded that the son of the original owner had always claimed that the banjo was bought by his father in 1929. So all that makes sense.
But here's the catch....
Under the current and commonly accepted chronology any of us would probably have dated this banjo to 1933. What the current owner couldn't understand was how the original owner had purchased the banjo 4 years before it was built!
justryin2play - Posted - 10/21/2009: 12:46:43
Joe, thanks again for a very informative post.
Like the others, let me know when you publish these artifacts.
southerndrifter - Posted - 10/21/2009: 13:53:12
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Spann
Here is a wonderful example of why the pre-World War II Gibson banjo manufacturing chronology needs adjustment.
I was contacted today by the owner of an RB-1 from lot #9527. He asked me what I thought the manufacturing date might be. I replied that the summer of 1929 was the correct time frame. He later responded that the son of the original owner had always claimed that the banjo was bought by his father in 1929. So all that makes sense.
But here's the catch....
Under the current and commonly accepted chronology any of us would probably have dated this banjo to 1933. What the current owner couldn't understand was how the original owner had purchased the banjo 4 years before it was built!
I've heard those kinds of stories too Joe! I have heard more than one story of original flathead bowties being bought in the 1940's! Heck, one was remembered to be bought in the '30's!! My point is, without proof-positive of some of these purchase dates, memories cannot be relied upon. Lynwood Lunsford If we had some ham, we could have some ham & eggs.........if we had some eggs!
otd86866 - Posted - 10/21/2009: 22:16:36
Once again Joe, GREAT info and thanks for all your research and hard work. I sure wish there were some kind of records pertaining to the custom shop of the PW era. I can trace my PW to about 1935 but don't know the year it was actually made. Numbers put it in the 1925 production but that can't be right as it has features that were not available that early. Sure would be great to find something firm on it's production. Thanks again for all the great info.
Bob
f5journal - Posted - 10/22/2009: 06:31:10
Great post. This fully agrees with the findings I am reaching on mandolins and guitars
Joe Spann - Posted - 10/22/2009: 07:13:26
quote:
Originally posted by f5journalGreat post. This fully agrees with the findings I am reaching on mandolins and guitars.
Thanks Darryl. Your Gibson mandolin scholarship is well known and I appreciate your insights. Working together is important.
BvilleDon - Posted - 10/22/2009: 08:48:06
quote:
Originally posted by f5loar
Does this information now make the Mills Banjo book obsolute?
Tom Isenhour
Jim was very careful in the statements he made. He particularly noted there was an inherent error in referring to the numbers as "serial numbers" because that implied an order in the numbering system and they were anything but "serial". Don
Greg Earnest - Posted - 10/22/2009: 09:26:36
This is really exciting. . . the biggest advancement so far in our understanding of these old banjos and Gibson's production practices. This is what has needed to happen for so long. . . someone with Joe's training and abilities as a researcher (and writer) having access to these records. More, Joe. . . more!!!
ge
The Prewar Gibson Banjo website
http://www.earnestbanjo.com
fgodbey - Posted - 10/22/2009: 10:46:43
Thanks for sharing, Joe, and for undertaking all the hard work that goes into a project like this. As Greg said, it's really exciting.
--Frank
apherigo - Posted - 10/25/2009: 05:45:13
The previous owner of 9774-3 insists that it was purchased in 1928. He said he had documents to prove it... I've begged him to try and find that document. He's looking.
Aaron, North Carolina
--------------------
Maple Chief #75
1988 Gibson RB-3
Ks_5-picker - Posted - 10/25/2009: 05:58:42
quote:
Originally posted by apherigo
The previous owner of 9774-3 insists that it was purchased in 1928. He said he had documents to prove it... I've begged him to try and find that document. He's looking.
Aaron, North Carolina
-
I've got a 9781-80 kel kroydon.Would that not be somewhere close to this banjo in chronology? The KK's were certainly a banjo born of the depression. Rod Here's some music you might enjoy. http://cdbaby.com/cd/roddursthttp://tinychat.com/banjolounge Come on in an enjoy!
Oldtwanger - Posted - 10/25/2009: 06:51:17
[/quote]
I've heard those kinds of stories too Joe! I have heard more than one story of original flathead bowties being bought in the 1940's! Heck, one was remembered to be bought in the '30's!! My point is, without proof-positive of some of these purchase dates, memories cannot be relied upon.
Lynwood Lunsford
[/quote]
Consider this, Lynwood:
A Top tension TB-7 sold in 1941 or later could accurately be described as ".....an original flathead bowtie bought in the 1940's.....". Not the familiar RB-250, but still an accurate description. Would have been true in 1937. Yeah, the bowties had slots, but still they are the original bowties.
Just rattling your chain, pal......
Oldtwanger Frank
'Information not shared is lost.'
apherigo - Posted - 10/25/2009: 07:39:28
quote:
Originally posted by Ks_5-picker I've got a 9781-80 kel kroydon.Would that not be somewhere close to this banjo in chronology?
From what banjophiles.com says (1934) I would guess so. The previous owner of my banjo said it was purchased in 1928 and with all these chronology issues popping up... who knows? Aaron, North Carolina -------------------- Maple Chief #75 1988 Gibson RB-3
rexhunt - Posted - 10/25/2009: 07:41:33
For what it's worth, my dad received his brand new TB-4 #9681-1 as a highschool graduation present in 1934. Could this have been sitting around at the factory for several years? Maybe his teacher had it for several years - I wish I could have asked him more about it. All I know is when he got it and what my grandparents paid - $150 which was the going price at the time. I currently own TB-4 #8836-16 on some lists dated at 1928. How much earlier was this made?
Rex
afchap - Posted - 10/25/2009: 13:31:20
Thanks, Joe. Great information. I tend to think that these crazy numbers and numbering system continued in post-war production. For instance, I have a couple of post war 100s that Banjofiles lists as 1949-1950. Yet, on the old Biggs site, they were listed as 1936. Gibson may well have had a bunch of rims that they stamped with FONs prior to the war, but because of the change to wartime production, these were shelved/warehoused until after the war when Gibson resumed banjo production, and then assembled into various "styles/models". Any thoughts?
Afchap
"Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness..."
southerndrifter - Posted - 10/26/2009: 06:41:36
quote:
Originally posted by Oldtwanger
I've heard those kinds of stories too Joe! I have heard more than one story of original flathead bowties being bought in the 1940's! Heck, one was remembered to be bought in the '30's!! My point is, without proof-positive of some of these purchase dates, memories cannot be relied upon. Lynwood Lunsford [/quote] Consider this, Lynwood: A Top tension TB-7 sold in 1941 or later could accurately be described as ".....an original flathead bowtie bought in the 1940's.....". Not the familiar RB-250, but still an accurate description. Would have been true in 1937. Yeah, the bowties had slots, but still they are the original bowties. Just rattling your chain, pal...... Oldtwanger Frank 'Information not shared is lost.' [/quote] Excellent point Frank! But, when I'm looking at this banjo that was certainly purchased during WWII (at least that was the recollection of the owner), and it is a standard late '50's/early '60's RB-250 flathead, that's when I know that memories can't always be relied upon! Chain duely rattled!!  Lynwood Lunsford If we had some ham, we could have some ham & eggs.........if we had some eggs!
Greg Earnest - Posted - 10/26/2009: 09:55:02
Joe and I have discussed the question of the early postwar FONs. They do appear to be leftover, unused prewar FONs. I don't know if it can be determined whether these were rims that were actually stamped before the war and then shelved, or if Gibson just picked back up after the war using "open" FONs from the late 1930s.
Oral histories passed down through families do have to be approached very skeptically. Many times I have been sent photos of the banjo that someone's granddaddy played in a speakeasy in the 1920s, etc., and it's a mid-1960s bowtie.
The Prewar Gibson Banjo website
http://www.earnestbanjo.com
Edited by - Greg Earnest on 10/26/2009 09:55:53
southerndrifter - Posted - 10/26/2009: 10:15:34
Speaking about the leftover prewar Gibson banjo parts, there is a story about Earl Scruggs visiting the Gibson factory in the late '40's. Scruggs claimed that there weren't enough banjo parts laying around to build one complete banjo!! Now maybe Earl didn't get to see the whole factory.........or there just wasn't many leftovers.
A very good friend of mine is the owner of an RB-100 that he bought, new, in 1948 (he has the sales receipt). This banjo clearly has leftover prewar parts on it. The rim is stamped 920-19. The resonator is a double-bound maple style 1 and the flange and tension hoop are both unmistakeably prewar era.
Lynwood Lunsford
If we had some ham, we could have some ham & eggs.........if we had some eggs!
Edited by - southerndrifter on 10/26/2009 10:16:49
dhergert - Posted - 10/26/2009: 10:47:01
I'll throw a couple of points out to knaw on...
1) It's been mentioned, but probably not developed much, that while the serial numbers during the 30s are not reliable for shipping cronology, the serial numbers do seem to mean something about the *production* date at least for the rims. Has there been any effort to try to line those serial number production dates up?
2) The grail Mastertone years of the 30s do pretty clearly suffer from this FON dating issue for shipping... In contrast, my observation has up to this point been that the early Mastertone years starting with 1925 and moving up through the beginning of the great depression seem more reliable... Are there any records, or any other viewpoints that would point away from using the serial numbers during these early years to form a fairly reliable cronology?
Best,
-- Don
http://www.youtube.com/user/dh5string
http://home.att.net/~dhergert
http://mysite.verizon.net/don_hergert
"If you must use your banjo as a snow shovel, do so:
only don't wonder if it sounds dull afterwards."
-- S.S. Stewart catalog, 1896.
Oldtwanger - Posted - 10/26/2009: 12:36:57
quote:
Originally posted by dhergert
I'll throw a couple of points out to knaw on...
1) It's been mentioned, but probably not developed much, that while the serial numbers during the 30s are not reliable for shipping cronology, the serial numbers do seem to mean something about the *production* date at least for the rims. Has there been any effort to try to line those serial number production dates up?
2) The grail Mastertone years of the 30s do pretty clearly suffer from this FON dating issue for shipping... In contrast, my observation has up to this point been that the early Mastertone years starting with 1925 and moving up through the beginning of the great depression seem more reliable... Are there any records, or any other viewpoints that would point away from using the serial numbers during these early years to form a fairly reliable cronology?
Most Gibson scholars, myself included, would agree that the factory orders numbers were maintained in an orderly, almost serial manner up to about mid-1930. I believe the reason was that Gibson up to that point was selling everything they could make. Most likely every item on the Factory order represented a sale and using FONs in serial order was easy; there probably was an accounting dept employee that ensured it. 1929 and the bananas hit the fan. As Joe Spann pointed out, sales fell off drastically. Banjo sales in particular were hard hit not only due the economic dilemma, but also because banjo popularity was on the wane and indeed did not return for decades. So in 1930 what is Gibson to do? They have a factory full of departments staffed with skilled, loyal artisans that must be kept busy or lost. So gradually the Factory Orders contain a higher number of instruments for which there are no sales – busy work - after all, sales will pick up shortly, right? Now you must bear in mind the fact that a Factory Order is what in the industry is generally called a “release”. A release is an authorization to all departments to begin the processes of producing the items listed therein. The release authorizes purchasing to obtain materials; wood shops to use those materials to produce rims, resonators, neck blanks, etc. It authorizes metal shops to machine hardware – brackets, rods, nuts, stretcher rings, tonerings, etc, and the plating shop to electroplate that hardware in the required finish and quantities. It also established an account number into which all costs were charged, and the eventual sale of each instrument credited. Can you begin to see how the issuance of this number can predate the shipment of an instrument by several years? With no sales, the work was done and the parts placed in stock as work-in-process. The rim, being the major component of the instrument was stamped with the FON, a dash, and its line number. Then the rim was finished and stocked. As Joe Spann has pointed out, from the evidence of FON issuance including that of mandolins and guitars, it appears as though most of the rims used through the mid-thirties were produced in 1930 and 1931 or even earlier. It is my belief that rims produced in this manner were mostly raised head rims for TB's – they had been the hot seller and expected to continue as such. If an order was received for an RB or PB, a rim was easily cut down for the purpose. I do not believe that very many instruments were assembled completely for stock, and I do not believe that Gibson would have disassembled a completed instrument to change a raised head to a flathead; the labor cost of doing so would eat up the profits – Gibson was too frugal to do this. Of course, if RB's or PB's were specified on the order, flathead type rims would be produced with the seal placed lower. At this point, around the end of 1931, it is evident that the bins were overflowing. The economic bottom fell out and a massive layoff occurred in 1932. Apparently thereafter, the very few orders for banjos were satisfied by pulling already completed parts according to a bill of materials for that item, completing and fitting a neck and resonator, and assembling the instrument. There was no need to use the prenumbered rims in any particular order, so whatever came out of the bin was used, adding to the chaos caused by issuing FONs in random series. Chaotic only to historians, as it really didn’t matter to Gibson at the time. They were trying to survive. Oldtwanger Frank 'Information not shared is lost.'
Edited by - Oldtwanger on 10/26/2009 19:25:31
Oldtwanger - Posted - 10/27/2009: 05:42:46
quote:
Originally posted by El Dobro
So possibly that would account for heavy flatheads in early tube & plate banjos.
Don
Very likely, Don, although the rings did exist as early as 1928. The full bore rings would show up especially in early rims produced for Florentines and BV's, etc, high dollar slow movers. One of these sold in the mid thirties could have and probably was assembled on a late twenties FON. For example, these Florentines shipped in 1937: 8756-7, 0253-53, 9090-2, 9090-3, 601-1, 643-1, 9137-2. BV 8787-9 also shipped in 1937. AA's 9747-4 and 9748-5 went out in 1937. A Bella Voce with rim 9068-1 and resonator 8602-9 was purchased new in 1940 by the original owner, chrome plated and almost no decorative paint. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Oldtwanger Frank 'Information not shared is lost.'
Shimdog - Posted - 10/27/2009: 10:52:59
Great thread. Fascinating stuff Frank and Joe.
I have one question. If the rims and other part were simply stuffed in a bin and pulled somewhat randomly in the 1930's, what would explain the general consistencies within each FON "serial number"? In other words, while the years of production listed in the Biggs and Banjophiles sites are certainly debatable given all of the evidence already mentioned earlier, in most cases there is consistency of model and specs among the bin numbers within a FON (ex...9547 and 9878 are TB-2, 9549 and 9903 are TB-3, and the well-known 9524 flathead 3's).
Other than making an assumption that they would have actually all been made before 1930 when the numbers seem to line up, what would could be an explanation for such consistency?
Thanks,
Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." - Friedrich Nietzsche
anbanco - Posted - 10/27/2009: 11:53:27
According to Walter Carter, Gibson made only 250 instruments per year in 1930 and 31. This includes Banjos as well as Guitars and Mandolins. In order to remain in business, Gibson would have to practically stop making musical instruments. General Manager Guy Hart's top priority was to keep Gibson in business and his talented workforce intact. To this end Hart shifted most of Gibsons production to the making of wooden toys and founded the Kalamazoo Playthings Company as part of Gibson. The most popular were five models of Kel Kroyden sailboats and the motor powered Kroydon Rocket and Miss Kroyden IV model speedboats. The Kalamazoo line featured numerous pull toys and a scale model of the yachts Enterprise and Yankee. The toy company was so successful that Gibson had to purchase additional property to house new wood working machinery. By Feb 1934 Gibson was back to full time instrument production. Kalamazoo Playthings was disbanded, but the Kalamazoo and Kel Kroydon names were kept on budget lines of instruments, both introduced during the Playthings era. It is quite evident that without Kalamazoo Playthings, Gibson would not have survived the early years of the Depression.
Oldtwanger - Posted - 10/27/2009: 12:39:02
quote:
Originally posted by Shimdog
Great thread. Fascinating stuff Frank and Joe.
I have one question. If the rims and other part were simply stuffed in a bin and pulled somewhat randomly in the 1930's, what would explain the general consistencies within each FON "serial number"? In other words, while the years of production listed in the Biggs and Banjophiles sites are certainly debatable given all of the evidence already mentioned earlier, in most cases there is consistency of model and specs among the bin numbers within a FON (ex...9547 and 9878 are TB-2, 9549 and 9903 are TB-3, and the well-known 9524 flathead 3's).
Other than making an assumption that they would have actually all been made before 1930 when the numbers seem to line up, what would could be an explanation for such consistency?
Thanks,
Paul
Good question, Paul, I’m glad you’re paying attention! I did not mean to suggest that “all” completed and numbered rims were stocked in a common bin. There were differences between the models – stains, flange styles, etc, even grading. It is likely that they were stocked separately by model type, although FONs would be mixed within a type in storage. Factory Order 9521 was for a large number of TB-4 banjos. If 9521-10 was the 10th TB-4 on Factory Order 9521, even though it’s parts might be work-in-process for two or three years, by the time it got assembled it would still be a TB-4 just like -8 and -9 which may have preceded it or followed it. The Factory order specified the model for each line number. Oldtwanger Frank 'Information not shared is lost.'
f5journal - Posted - 10/28/2009: 07:49:28
Here is a listing of FONs I have. I have started with the 9000 series. Obviously these are not banjos, but you can see the correlation to serial numbers which does place some dating upon the FON
83120 9005 L3
83156 8296 Ajr
83195 8998 A4
83233 8231 F5
83446 9050 F5
83599 9050 F5
83660 9050 F5
83790 6216 F5
83793 9140 F5
83804 9140 F5
83805 9410 F5
83841 9172 A
84037 9210 Ajr
84177 9213 L3
84251 9140 F5
84252 9140 F5
84259 9251 L5
84264 9288 F5
84265 9288 F5
84270 9140 F5
84463 9245 F4
84468 9288 F5
84469 9288 F5
84682 9334 F5
84684 9334 F5
84685 9334 F5
84686 9334 F5
84741 9328 H1
84742 9328 H1
84916 9240 Ajr
85146 9411 F5
85299 9491 H4
85368 9411 F5
85369 9411 F5
85370 9411 F5
85386 9461 Lucas
85387 9461 Lucas
85473 950 A
85641 9614 TGL-3
85727 9575 A
85755 9418 L5
85928 9626 A
85954 9619 F5
85955 9619 F5
85957 9619 F5
86036 9621 K1
86134 9491 H4
86555 9686 L3
86626 9771 L5
86750 9759 A0
86842 9842 L5
86981 9771 L5
87216 9952 L5
87301 9820 A
87366 9889 F5
87367 9681 F5
87368 9681 F5
87464 99xx L5
87564 9681 F5
87565 9619 F5
87725 9965 L5
87760 9763 H5
87777 9881 F4
87828 9681 F5
87885 9417 Lucas
88118 135 A
88144 1071 F5
88526 169 Lucas
88555 200 L4
88845 301 A
89133 314 F5
89691 396 F4
89708 125 F4
90449 803x F5
90463 862 L10
90740 387 F2
90819 1006 L7
91308 1071 F5
91309 1071 F5
91503 1259 L5
91553 1071 F5
91580 1185 L4
91917 1399-11 L5
92438 511-P L10
93639 999-2 L5
93722 1144-5 F5
93723 1144-4 F5
94139 12040-3 L5
94225 12040 L5
94307 9210 Ajr
94336 1144-2 F5
94970 286-C1 F5
95335 801D-2 F5
95358 90U-4367 F5
96358 945 F L5
96388 565F F4
96390 565F F4
97176 35276 L5
97220 4091-G-4 F5
97221 4091-G-5 F5
97304 4xxxx F4
97365 48006 F4
97466 5220-G-4 F5
97490 5020G F5
97491 5020G F5
Edited by - f5journal on 10/28/2009 07:50:57
BanjoLink - Posted - 10/28/2009: 15:34:56
Thanks Darryl! There will be a lot of Hangout members interested in the numbers!
Mike Johnson - Posted - 10/31/2009: 16:37:57
It is an exciting time in banjo scholarship.I think the opportunities afforded by the internet are just in time to assist in discovering and understanding Gibson history.We might be a bit behind the curve in that many primary sources of information have passed on but there is much material that remains to be fully examined .The tools that this forum,Greg's websiteand others give us are formidable.m
Mike Johnson
apherigo - Posted - 10/31/2009: 20:00:35
How many Antonio Stradivari violins would have been saved from the garbage bin if todays internet technology would have existed back then (the 1700's or at least the 1800's when they settled in)? We almost take for granted the knowledge we have today of the wonderful instruments that were made to perfection.
Aaron, North Carolina
--------------------
Maple Chief #75
1988 Gibson RB-3
rexhunt - Posted - 11/01/2009: 10:48:49
quote:
Originally posted by silvioferretti
I don't think that many Stradivari violins ended up in the garbage bins...
No, but most of them had their necks modified Rex
BanjoLink - Posted - 11/01/2009: 14:36:11
quote:
Originally posted by rexhunt
quote:
Originally posted by silvioferretti
I don't think that many Stradivari violins ended up in the garbage bins...
No, but most of them had their necks modified
Rex
For good reason - those tenor Stradivari's sounded like crap and that style of music wasn't popular any more! 
silvioferretti - Posted - 11/01/2009: 23:58:31
Exactly what happened, them ole fiddles got a longer neck - pushed backwards and with a thin ebony fingerboard - and a heavier bass bar, and a thicker sound post, and a taller bridge, and steel strings, the whole nine yards, just because a certain style of music required that...
Methinks the internet would have offered to the hungry public a lot more baroque violins to convert to modern style, thanks goodness some unknown or at least unplayed jewels were never disclosed, thus allowing us to see how an original Stradivari (Amati, Maggini, you name it) actually looked like when right out of the maker's workshop.
"If you're gonna have a vice, try to find one that will keep you outta jail and maybe alive a little longer" - Alvin Youngblood Hart.
Silvio Ferretti http://www.scorpionmusic.com
http://www.redwinemusic.net
rexhunt - Posted - 11/02/2009: 02:47:47
I got to hear one of those converted Strads last night in the hands of Joshua Bell - he ain't Kenny Baker but that boy sure can fiddle.
Rex
|
Feeds
