davidcava - Posted - 05/13/2011:  16:54:13

Where can I purchase your book Joe? I'd like to buy one.

Thanks for all the work,

David

davidcava - Posted - 05/13/2011:  17:03:05

Just ordered it off of Amazon, thanks again Joe, can't wait to read it.

David

RB100 - Posted - 05/13/2011:  17:37:57

Just made my order to Amazon as well...looking forward to learning more about those old Gibsons! Thanks for your efforts on this, Joe!

Bill

smoky - Posted - 05/13/2011:  17:50:58

Joe,

You have, no doubt, written an important book for Gibson fans of all types.  Bought a copy.  Great job.  Many, many folks are smiling with you while they read Spann's Guide.  Enjoy your moment!!!!!!!    

I just wish I had pre-war to look up!!  

Steve

1990 RB-250

pgroff - Posted - 05/13/2011:  18:14:23

Joe,

I want to thank you again for so often helping folks here on the hangout (including me) with research questions on Gibson banjos, from your knowledge based on so much hard work over the years -- even before the book was published, and "pro bono" i.e. for free.

It's plain as day that you are a scholar motivated by your own curiosity and a will to help others.

I also appreciated your unexpected insight as a genealogist into my own research question (on the J. J. Dwyer banjo).

Thanks again and congratulations on the publication of your "labor of love!"

PG

Bronx banjo - Posted - 05/13/2011:  18:30:26

There are many revelations in this book but we're not talking about them. One of particular interest to me is that both Scruggs' and Snuffy Jenkins' banjos were manufactured in 1930; much earlier than previously thought. Apparently they hung around the factory for a long time before being shipped. Another is that Gibson knew nothing about the tone ring formula at Star Brass Works. Can someone explain to me why we are talking about the profit motive of Joe Spann?

beegee - Posted - 05/13/2011:  21:36:40

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bronx banjo

There are many revelations in this book but we're not talking about them. One of particular interest to me is that both Scruggs' and Snuffy Jenkins' banjos were manufactured in 1930; much earlier than previously thought. Apparently they hung around the factory for a long time before being shipped. Another is that Gibson knew nothing about the tone ring formula at Star Brass Works. Can someone explain to me why we are talking about the profit motive of Joe Spann?

---

Money was tight in the Great Depression. I took a while for things to start rolling after the crash of '29.

I've always marveled at the notion that Gibson actually knew or cared about the metallurgy process. They were not especially in the musical instrument business. They were concerned about selling stuff and musical instruments was their vehicle of choice. manufacturing in the 1920' was not especially sophisticated and one thing that the book emphasizes is that there were a lot of furniture makers in the Kalamazoo area. Gibson did make use of assembly lines and mass production to a point and I just don;t even find it plausible that they would take the time to "engineer" a metallurgical formula for anything.  They had to find something affordable and easily workable. Now why they didn't go with pot metal tone rings when they switched to pot metal flanges is a question I'd like an answer to.

I have a friend who is a  vintage dealer who pooh-poohed the book when I showed it to him. he said,"We've ( meaning the the inner circle of dealers)known all of that stuff for years." he didn't even give the book a glance. Now he is calling me to dig out FON's for him. I applaud Joe for his diligence and making this available. For anyone who has ever written for a niche market, you know there is not a lot of money forthcoming for all the work involved.

Lono - Posted - 05/13/2011:  22:05:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by beegee

I've always marveled at the notion that Gibson actually knew or cared about the metallurgy process....................They had to find something affordable and easily workable. Now why they didn't go with pot metal tone rings when they switched to pot metal flanges is a question I'd like an answer to.

---

I haven't seen any facts that Gibson cared about the metallurgy process other than to compete with other manufacturers at the time.  Even that is speculation that they wanted a "bell bronze" formula perhaps to compete with the Silver Bell.  The speculation makes sense but without hard facts it appears that's all it is.

Larry Hanshaw - Posted - 05/13/2011:  23:44:57

I've been reading through this book all day and have marveled at how much information is packed into it. I found myself being taken back to the days when all these things were happening and all the thoughts and ideas that must have gone on within the company, the nation, music and the era in time. Any of the criticisms in this thread either overt or veiled seem extremely petty and most certainly in poor taste. A great reference and look into the window of time has been created here and something I'll refer to over and over throughout the rest of my life

grich - Posted - 05/14/2011:  00:28:58

Boy oh boy ....  $%#@  is really going to hit the fan on his next book !

Slingerland - Posted - 05/14/2011:  07:28:20

I stand behind my criticisms. For those of you who have dismissed my concerns, take the time to actually read the documentation I have provided. I know I don't find my criticism petty and the family of the founder of the Dayton String Instrument Co. would not find the inaccurate characterization to be petty.

I am NOT trying to discount the general importance of this book or the amount of work Joe has put in, but my concerns are valid.

Edited by - Slingerland on 05/14/2011 07:28:59

ProfessorBanjo - Posted - 05/14/2011:  07:52:13

I thought my 27 was a 28 and my 30 was a 34. 

Congratulations Joe, I just receive my copy. 

Edited by - ProfessorBanjo on 05/14/2011 07:58:38

RB100 - Posted - 05/14/2011:  07:57:33

quote:

---

Originally posted by ProfessorBanjo

I thought my 27 was a 28 and my 30 was a 34. 

---

I love the style 1s and 2s and am looking forward to seeing if the dates of serial numbers of these conversions I own aligns with conventional wisdom...all are players and certainly not of great street value, but they have wonderful sentimental value to me. More information on these will be 'icing on the cake' and 'fodder for conversation'...

Bill

Edited by - RB100 on 05/14/2011 07:59:49

flathead33 - Posted - 05/14/2011:  08:34:28

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slingerland

Joe- I'm done talking about it. I did not want to ruin your excitement. I've expressed my gratitude to you for your contributions. Best wishes,

 

Paul

---

Slingerland - Posted - 05/14/2011:  08:44:43

I WAS done. Apparently several others aren't.

Edited by - Slingerland on 05/14/2011 08:46:20

nittio - Posted - 05/14/2011:  09:29:58

Greg I can't wait to get the second installment of this book . Will Joe need any security ????

impickin5 - Posted - 05/14/2011:  15:48:12

Joe,

I've enjoyed reading your book and will re-read it a few more times. Some things I garnered from book is as follows:

That my 1928 TB3 8977-25 was actually a product of 1928.

That a TB1 (9925-11) conversion that I once owned and sold was a product of 1931. As I recall from an earlier search on the original "Tom Biggs" list and per an email to Curtiss McPeake, it was a product of 1935. Now according to the banjophiles list, it was a produced in 1932.

Anyway, don't let the drive-by naysayers bother you. Enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Ray 

2many5s - Posted - 05/14/2011:  21:00:06

​I know I don't find my criticism petty 

​Now THERE'S a surprise. 

Slingerland - Posted - 05/14/2011:  22:13:03

Bravo. Well done. Extremely clever. A+

1xsculler - Posted - 05/15/2011:  08:27:29

I just ordered both Joe's and Jim Mill's books from Elderly and I can't wait to receive them. I expect there are some inaccuracies in both of them as there is in all written material but I have no doubt that I'll learn a lot about pre-war Gibson stuff which I find fascinating. Thanks to both authors for their efforts.

Bastertone - Posted - 05/17/2011:  08:46:19

I just received the book today from amazon. I was hoping to find out more information about my GB4 but it seems to be one of the areas of sparse info. The serial number doesn't make sense to the lists (mine is 553) and I didn't find a description of my version (14" hollow rim, no tone ring and dowel stick instead of coordinator rods).

It's possible I just haven't looked far enough into the book yet.

Otherwise it looks to be a well put together book, a huge undertaking and something to be proud of.

BTuno - Posted - 05/17/2011:  14:19:10

It may be one of the earliest GBs.  Before the 1925 Mastertones, and before the trapdoors, Gibson's first series were all 3 digit FONs.   Yours probably has just the tube flange and a black paddle shaped peghead with fleur-de-lis.   Right?  If so, yours is the earliest GB FON, in my records (the old Biggs A list), but there are probably others.   I'd be interested if it has a hollow rim with steel ring, etc.    Prolly sounds pretty cool!

BTuno - Posted - 05/17/2011:  17:13:08

Oops, neglected to add that GB #553 was prolly made 1918-1920. 

Bastertone - Posted - 05/17/2011:  19:40:15

Thats right, hollow 14" rim, no tone ring, the skin sits on wood. A fleur-des-lis and the gibson inlayed on the paddle headstock. There are a couple of pics of it on my home page. Sounds fantastic and plays beautifully. The original skin says "homer montgomery Xenia ohio,  fainter but legible is a second name from before or after, E. I montgomery , also of Xenia ohio.

plunka5 - Posted - 05/17/2011:  19:43:30

I ordered mine from Amazon.com this evening...looking forward to reading Joe's massive undertaking of an American icon company!

JoeZ - Posted - 05/18/2011:  10:08:32

I've only just poked into the book for a few moments since it arrived.  So far, I think my 1935 is still a 1935, but my 1938 is apparently a 1940(ish).  Despite a possible 2+ year-of-manufacture change, it's still one of the best sounding banjos ever made.  And that's what matters.   That's what I DON'T need the book for.  Otherwise, I'm looking forward to a great and interesting read in the near future. 

1xsculler - Posted - 05/19/2011:  06:19:13

Does anyone know if the FON lists are meant to be complete and up to date with other sources like Greg Earnest and banjophiles?

country frank - Posted - 05/19/2011:  07:06:11

I bet it's a tense few moments for some prewar owners as they look up the serial numbers of their respective banjos in Joe's book.

As i own a prewar Deering [Afghan war] i have no horse in this race and just look forward to doing some serious learning.

Incidently i co-wrote a book about a decade ago, it took a year of my life and was without a doubt one of the most exhausting enterprises i have ever embarked on, never to be repeated either. With that in mind i once again commend Joe for his sterling effort.

JD-RB5 - Posted - 05/19/2011:  07:52:19

Oh Boy ! My autographed copy from Joe is on the UPS truck and out for delivery. May cut practice short tonight and have a read and learn session instead. And yes Frank, it will be tense as I look up the FON on my instruments. :)

country frank - Posted - 05/19/2011:  08:04:24

quote:

---

Originally posted by JD-RB5

Oh Boy ! My autographed copy from Joe is on the UPS truck and out for delivery. May cut practice short tonight and have a read and learn session instead. And yes Frank, it will be tense as I look up the FON on my instruments. :)

---

Good Luck Joe! bet you're not alone on that one :0)

Good call on an autographed copy as well as a prewar [some people have all the luck huh!]

1xsculler - Posted - 05/19/2011:  08:10:26

So, who would you rely on for FONs, vintages and authentication of whatever you may want to authenticate, Greg Earnest, Jim Mills or Joe Spanning or do they all coincide and am I just not reading thoroughly enough?

Greg Earnest - Posted - 05/19/2011:  08:48:59

Joe's book contains by far the most complete and accurate information on prewar Gibson factory order numbers and serial numbers ever published.  His information is what I refer to when listing banjos on my site.

There is a great discussion going on over at the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, in which some owners are asking Joe questions about specific instruments and he's explaining in detail how he reached some of his findings.  Good stuff:

theunofficialmartinguitarforum...nn-s-book 

1xsculler - Posted - 05/19/2011:  09:28:49

Greg, Why are there banjos listed on your site that are not listed in Joe's book?  I'm sure I'm missing something here?  I guess that Joe did not intend to list every known pre-war banjo so I'm not sure what his purpose was in listing FONs.  Does banjophile's serial number and/or FON coincide with Joe's info?

I'll have to admit that my focus of interest is very narrow, i.e. 1929 to 1944 banjos only.

Edited by - 1xsculler on 05/19/2011 09:32:57

Greg Earnest - Posted - 05/19/2011:  10:49:10

The lists in Joe's book are intended to facilitate the dating of prewar Gibson instruments by serial number or factory order number.  There was no attempt to list every known prewar Gibson instrument since to do so would require several lifetimes worth of work and would result in a book easily as lengthy as a full set of encyclopedias.  Also, for dating purposes all that's required is the first and last serial number of a given year. . . in the cases of banjos from 1929-1944 (also my primary interest), the vast majority of instruments are only marked with factory order numbers and in that case, the important thing is to list each known lot number and what kind of instrument was in it.  That's what Joe has done.  Having information about each individual instrument within  a lot, while interesting, doesn't yield much new information.  Hope all this makes sense.  I am not aware of any banjos on my site who are not represented by lot number in Joe's book, but if you'll tell me a specific one you're looking at I'll check on it.

thanks,

ge

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1xsculler

Greg, Why are there banjos listed on your site that are not listed in Joe's book?  I'm sure I'm missing something here?  I guess that Joe did not intend to list every known pre-war banjo so I'm not sure what his purpose was in listing FONs.  Does banjophile's serial number and/or FON coincide with Joe's info?

I'll have to admit that my focus of interest is very narrow, i.e. 1929 to 1944 banjos only.

---

Edited by - Greg Earnest on 05/19/2011 10:50:43

TB-2 - Posted - 05/22/2011:  12:11:54

I finished the book last night! Joe, that was just great! Your reasoned approach should help to dispel much of the folklore surrounding these instruments. Bravo and thanks for your dedicated work!

Now I have a couple questions: My brother would like to know what FON batch his F-7 mandolin SN 95028 was part of. I saw two batches of F-7 mandos listed, FON 205-A in 1935 and 939-B in 1936, yet the book says F-7s were produced from 1934 through 1939. Does this mean that there were other batches yet to be discovered? He also would like to know an estimate of how many F-7s were produced.

And everybody here probably still wants to know whose handwriting is in the resonators!

Thanks again,

Tim Mullins

1xsculler - Posted - 05/22/2011:  15:07:23

Joe has FON 1109 as 1937 TB-11s & MB-11s and Greg Earnest has a FON 1109 banjo documented which is a TB-1.  I'm curious why?  Might it just be a typo in Joe's book?

TB-4 Guy - Posted - 05/22/2011:  15:41:11

quote:

---

Originally posted by TB-2

I finished the book last night! Joe, that was just great! Your reasoned approach should help to dispel much of the folklore surrounding these instruments. Bravo and thanks for your dedicated work!

Now I have a couple questions: My brother would like to know what FON batch his F-7 mandolin SN 95028 was part of. I saw two batches of F-7 mandos listed, FON 205-A in 1935 and 939-B in 1936, yet the book says F-7s were produced from 1934 through 1939. Does this mean that there were other batches yet to be discovered? He also would like to know an estimate of how many F-7s were produced.

And everybody here probably still wants to know whose handwriting is in the resonators!

Thanks again,

Tim Mullins

---

 Is there no FON inside of the F-7 Mandolin? I have a 1949 Gibson F-12. The Serial Number is inside of the bass side F hole slot on the label and the FON is stamped inside on the right side visible through the treble side F hole slot.

TB-2 - Posted - 05/22/2011:  16:34:49

Thanks, TB-4 Guy, I'll tell him to take a look for it!

Tim Mullins

Greg Earnest - Posted - 05/22/2011:  17:05:23

The TB-1 on my site is from the 1936 lot #1109 ("phantom letter" B).  The 1937 lot #1109 ("phantom letter" C) was TB-11s and MB-11s.

Usually duplicate lot numbers in different years also happened to be different types of instruments. . . guitars, lap steels, etc., which is one reason this "turnover" stuff remained a mystery for so long.  The guitar people and the banjo and the mandolin people, etc. all had their owns lists of numbers but they weren't talking to each other so the duplications weren't so obvious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1xsculler

Joe has FON 1109 as 1937 TB-11s & MB-11s and Greg Earnest has a FON 1109 banjo documented which is a TB-1.  I'm curious why?  Might it just be a typo in Joe's book?

---

f5loar - Posted - 05/22/2011:  21:47:02

that F7 would be a late '37 .  Are you saying it does not have the FON in the lower F hole?   It should have one.  Sometimes the red ink faded and it's hard to see.

I take them in a dark closest with a good flashlight to find those light FON.  He should look for that first. 

1xsculler - Posted - 05/22/2011:  22:28:18

I'm saying FON 1109 is a 1937 TB-1 and Joe indicates that FON 1109 is TB-11s and MB-11s

country frank - Posted - 05/23/2011:  02:59:17

I loved the anecdote about a 'secret ingredient' coming out of a safe at the Star Brass Works just as the crucible was ready to poor......

Banjo Saint - Posted - 05/23/2011:  14:29:36

If you love prewars, buy this book.  It is a quick enjoyable read and has lots of tables with valuable information. 

Many thanks to Joe Spann.

RB100 - Posted - 05/23/2011:  15:10:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo Saint

If you love prewars, buy this book.  It is a quick enjoyable read and has lots of tables with valuable information. 

Many thanks to Joe Spann.

---

I couldn't agree more! I have had mine for about a week and am thoroughly enjoying...while it is a fairly quick read, it will take me much longer to really digest the large amount of information here. I did find that a prewar conversion that I had thought was an early 30s actually is a 1927...not a problem for me since I really do want to be able to as accurately as possible describe and document these instruments.

Bill

DHoffmeyer - Posted - 05/24/2011:  17:25:49

quote:

---

Originally posted by TwoTrax

quote:

---

Originally posted by justryin2play

I don't see how "who is getting rich" is relevant to the topic of this thread.

I started this for discussion into things made public in Joe's book that have had impact on banjo related transactions.

I had a personal experience with some info revealed in the book, and had hoped others would relate/comment.

Who's the richest should be discussed in the off topics in a new thread.

---

I was holding back, trying to be nice.  I have issues with some of the info in the book but will not air it here.

---

Kind of too late, wouldn't you say? 

Forrest - Posted - 05/28/2011:  05:27:23

Am I the only one that finds "Tim's" postings inappropriate?

dobroman - Posted - 05/28/2011:  07:26:01

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forrest

Am I the only one that finds "Tim's" postings inappropriate?

---

I think you will find a lot of people will agree with you. I for one have found Joes book fascinating. Pictures alone are worth the price of the book, and then add all the personal stories...... Those type of critical postings tend to run people away from the HO. Who wants to post a question or offer an opinion just to get ripped apart? I am aware of a couple people very knowledgeable people that stay off hear because of just that type of feedback.

Emiel - Posted - 05/28/2011:  07:32:22

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forrest

Am I the only one that finds "Tim's" postings inappropriate?

---

Forrest, I can find only one "Tim" on this thread, Tim Mullins, "TB-"2". This is what he said: "I finished the book last night! Joe, that was just great! Your reasoned approach should help to dispel much of the folklore surrounding these instruments. Bravo and thanks for your dedicated work!"

So why inappropriate?

Edited by - Emiel on 05/28/2011 07:32:49

country frank - Posted - 05/28/2011:  07:33:39

Emiel, Forrest means Two Trax i believe.