WEAVER IDENTIFICATION.

[IAN SALTER]

I've just read all of the archived discussions about Weaver made banjos. A few things that I noted were, that he varied the dimensions of his instruments, whilst retaining the same basic design; that he always stamped his name somewhere on them, even when made for another retailer; he carved a distinctive heel shape; the nuts used to attach the shoes were square, on his earlier products; at some point, he started to use metal tuning pegs and tailpieces.

As it has been stated that a lot of copies of Weaver's banjos were available from other makers, some of which are apparently very accurate, how many of the above characteristics have been found on these copies. Are there any other indicators to distinguish an original Weaver from a copy? If anybody has had an opportunity to compare an original and an accurate copy, did you feel that the original was a better instrument? 

[Joel Hooks]

I would have agreed with you.  I mean, you can see how I was confused.  In your initial post it seems like you are saying that these banjos did not exist.  Careful reading of your post tells me that you were likely saying that there were no counterfeit Weaver banjos, and I agree.  But it seems that many British makers made a model of banjo that were very similar or “inspired by” Weaver.  This is what I feel the OP was about, “copies”

I would call these (and the other “inspired” models) copies of Weaver.  Are they exact counterfeits?  No.  But it is pretty clear what they were supposed to be.

The exception would be CE MHS made in the era of mine.  Mine is a pretty good copy of a Weaver and no doubt has fooled many people into thinking these were made by Weaver.  But were you to have it in hand you would know instantly that it was not made by him.  I would call my MHS a “copy” Weaver.

I would call the Barnes Brothers MHS and Professionals “copies” of Weaver banjos even though they are different.  But it is clear what they are “inspired” by.

Richard William Ineson said:

I wonder what you would have said if I had posted these photographs and claimed that these banjos were 'much inspired by Weaver'?

[Richard William Ineson]

This is my original post, no, I cannot see how you could possibly be confused by anything which I wrote in the post at all.

I'v never seen an old copy of a Weaver banjo and I've never seen an illustration of a Weaver copy offered for sale by any maker until John Alvey Turner bought the remaining Weaver stock and the right to use the name, when Weaver retired in 1938. I've seen a few 'wood hoop' Weaver banjos made for JAT and sold in the 1950s but I've never seen a JAT Weaver banjo with a 'spun over ' rim. The Clifford Essex 'Professional' models (which I have owned, played or seen, over the years) had the square nuts on the tension hooks, some of these CE 'Professional' banjos bore no maker or retailer marks (I believe that this CE model was made by the Barnes Brothers, but I could be wrong) but most bear the CE label on the perch pole. Other than the square nuts, none of the CE 'Professional' banjos which I have owned, seen or played, bear any resemblance to a genuine Weaver banjo. I've never seen any metal pegs on a Weaver banjo. Weaver did install metal tailpieces on some of his banjos, and in particular, four stringed Banjolins, this was probably to accommodate the fashion for metal strings post WW1. Weaver's name does not appear (in my experience) on any of the banjos made by him for the CE Co, and and which are normally designated as the 'Special' model (the 'Special' appellation was also attached to banjos made for the CE Co, by other makers, and whilst all of the 'Special' model banjos will be excellent banjos, not all of them will have been made by Weaver) Weaver did not make any banjos for anybody other than himself after 1906. Some banjos have been offered as Weaver copies in recent years, again, of the ones which I have seen,  these bear no resemblance to the genuine article.

Do not feel any need to apologise for describing my well intended comments, based on my 65 years experience of the world of the classic banjo and taking the opportunity to examine every Weaver banjo (and CE 'Special' with Weaver provenance) and many hundreds of other banjos, which I have come across in that time (apart from around 40 - 50 Weavers which I have owned. My first real banjo was a Weaver, it cost £5.00 in 1960) whilst attending and sometimes performing at, every major Folk Festival, Bluegrass festival, Roots music festival, dozens of Folk Clubs, many Banjo Concerts (the latest, two performances by Aaron Jonah Lewis, one at Didmarton Bluegrass Festival, one at the B.M.G. weekend held in the west country, and Clarke Buehling in Sheffield last year) , the Midlands Banjofest, the Reading Banjo Festival, thousands of Local Pub performances, and kindred events. Hosting the Ridgeway Banjo Rally, under the auspices of the British (later International) Banjo Circle for 22 years, organising the Alfred Cammeyer Christmas Concerts, writing extensively for 'The Banjo Times', 'The Banjo Broadsheet', 'The Banjo', attending the ABF rally in Gettysburg in 1993, attending, and performing at the B.M.G. Federation annual concerts in various UK locations including London, Crewe, Bristol,  and Glasgow, attending the meetings of the Westminster Banjo Circle (Formerly the London Banjo Club) visiting, talking to and playing with the last of the real old classic banjo players in the UK, such as Bill Ball, Horace Craddy, Alan Middleton, Alf Brimble, Sally and John Murrell, and  the Torrences (In January this year, I called on Rob MacKillop, who had just come out of hospital, in Edinburgh) etc. ( I also wrote, with much help from Anthony Peabody, the Joe Morley biography) as being 'SILLY". Incidentally, I hope that you enjoyed reading the copy of 'Plectrum Playing for Modern Banjoists' which I took the trouble to send to you, in another fit of silliness.

how I was confused.  In your initial post it seems like you are saying that these banjos did not exist.  Careful reading of your post tells me that you were likely saying that there were no counterfeit Weaver banjos, and I agree.  But it seems that many British makers made a model of banjo that were very similar or “inspired by” Weaver.  This is what I feel the OP was about, “copies”

I would call these (and the other “inspired” models) copies of Weaver.  Are they exact counterfeits?  No.  But it is pretty clear what they were supposed to be.

The exception would be CE MHS made in the era of mine.  Mine is a pretty good copy of a Weaver and no doubt has fooled many people into thinking these were made by Weaver.  But were you to have it in hand you would know instantly that it was not made by him.  I would call my MHS a “copy” Weaver.

I would call the Barnes Brothers MHS and Professionals “copies” of Weaver banjos even though they are different.  But it is clear what they are “inspired” by.

Richard William Ineson said:

I wonder what you would have said if I had posted these photographs and claimed that these banjos were 'much inspired by Weaver'?

I'v never seen an old copy of a Weaver banjo and I've never seen an illustration of a Weaver copy offered for sale by any maker until John Alvey Turner bought the remaining Weaver stock and the right to use the name, when Weaver retired in 1938. I've seen a few 'wood hoop' Weaver banjos made for JAT and sold in the 1950s but I've never seen a JAT Weaver banjo with a 'spun over ' rim. The Clifford Essex 'Professional' models (which I have owned, played or seen, over the years) had the square nuts on the tension hooks, some of these CE 'Professional' banjos bore no maker or retailer marks (I believe that this CE model was made by the Barnes Brothers, but I could be wrong) but most bear the CE label on the perch pole. Other than the square nuts, none of the CE 'Professional' banjos which I have owned, seen or played, bear any resemblance to a genuine Weaver banjo. I've never seen any metal pegs on a Weaver banjo. Weaver did install metal tailpieces on some of his banjos, and in particular, four stringed Banjolins, this was probably to accommodate the fashion for metal strings post WW1. Weaver's name does not appear (in my experience) on any of the banjos made by him for the CE Co, and and which are normally designated as the 'Special' model (the 'Special' appellation was also attached to banjos made for the CE Co, by other makers, and whilst all of the 'Special' model banjos will be excellent banjos, not all of them will have been made by Weaver) Weaver did not make any banjos for anybody other than himself after 1906. Some banjos have been offered as Weaver copies in recent years, again, of the ones which I have seen,  these bear no resemblance to the genuine article.

[Joel Hooks]

And yet, I have posted images of 4 banjos that are clearly copies of Weaver’s work?  Hence my confusion.  You say you have never seen any, I post examples, you still say you have never seen any.

I have never doubted your credentials.  I will apologize, I am sorry I engaged with you on this subject.  I never intended to upset you.

My “silly” comment was in reference to the idea that there are extant examples of CE banjos with Weaver necks and non Weaver rims.  To me, this would mean that Weaver was supplying necks to CE considering that this was not an anomaly but evident with many examples.  How else could I interpret this?  Should I conclude that all of these are cobbled together parts banjos (that have matching Roman numeral lot numbers)?  That would be silly of me.

It is “silly” because that would make Weaver a liar.  I called it a “reach” because it was a “reach” in logic.  Sort of like how people claim that all unmarked banjos made in the US are “Buckbee” when there is clear evidence to the contrary.

I am also sorry if there is a cultural difference across the pond that makes “silly” an insult, I was not using it to insult.

At any rate, now you have seen 4 examples of Weaver copies and I will start to collect images of them as they turn up (JAT has sold a handful of them by different makers recently).