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? 

[Richard William Ineson]

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]

I've seen many banjos that were clearly inspired by Weaver's designs.  Think Gold Star Masterclones and not Frank Neat counterfeits.

By this I mean that the basic overall "style" was similar.  The peghead shape, general proportions of the neck, heel, inlay pattern, and like.  But there was no direct attempt to deceive or defraud. 

In fact, I own one.  It is a Clifford Essex Metal Hoop Special from the teens.  In days past, one might have thought it was a Weaver.  The neck is shaped like a Weaver, the aesthetics are very similar.  But it was not made by Weaver.  My CEMHS predates the Barnes Brothers banjos. 

Likewise, I've seen Weaver styled banjos by other makers.  But, again, none were specially made to deceive. 

[Richard William Ineson]

As I said, Weaver banjos made for the CE Co, are normally designated as the CE 'Special' model, but don't bear Weaver's name. The model, which in my opinion was made by the Barnes Brothers was the 'Professional' model.
Joel Hooks said:

I've seen many banjos that were clearly inspired by Weaver's designs.  Think Gold Star Masterclones and not Frank Neat counterfeits.

By this I mean that the basic overall "style" was similar.  The peghead shape, general proportions of the neck, heel, inlay pattern, and like.  But there was no direct attempt to deceive or defraud. 

In fact, I own one.  It is a Clifford Essex Metal Hoop Special from the teens.  In days past, one might have thought it was a Weaver.  The neck is shaped like a Weaver, the aesthetics are very similar.  But it was not made by Weaver.  My CEMHS predates the Barnes Brothers banjos. 

Likewise, I've seen Weaver styled banjos by other makers.  But, again, none were specially made to deceive. 

[Joel Hooks]

Hi Richard,

This banjo is the one I own:

https://www.banjobuyer.com/banjo/69669

It was NOT made by Weaver.  I've held and played over a dozen Weaver banjos and currently own 4. This is not one of those. 

[Joel Hooks]

Here is another like mine, not Weaver.  This one is in maple.

https://reverb.com/uk/item/29534540-clifford-essex-ce-special-5-str...

[Richard William Ineson]

This banjo is  stamped 'CE Special'.  As I said, "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)" In the case of the banjo which you illustrate, the neck and the tailpiece, certainly look to have been made by Weaver, whilst the 'hoop', 'pot' whatever, was definitely made by some other maker.
Joel Hooks said:

Hi Richard,

This banjo is the one I own:

https://www.banjobuyer.com/banjo/69669

It was NOT made by Weaver.  I've held and played over a dozen Weaver banjos and currently own 4. This is not one of those. 

[Richard William Ineson]

Again, this maple banjo is stamped 'CE Special' and again the neck and tailpiece look to be made by Weaver but the 'hoop', 'pot' look to be by another maker. 

Joel Hooks said:

Here is another like mine, not Weaver.  This one is in maple.

https://reverb.com/uk/item/29534540-clifford-essex-ce-special-5-str...

[Joel Hooks]

Richard, these were in no part made by Weaver.  They are not his work.  These banjos were also made after he stopped making banjos for CE.  The ideal that Weaver made necks but not rims is a bit silly.

Additionally, I HAVE seen several CE Specials that were marked with Weaver's stamp (usually on the top of the dowel and not readily seen).

Abbott also made "Weaver" styled banjos, yet they were clearly Abbott banjos. 

[Richard William Ineson]

Please accept my apologies for making these 'silly' remarks. I'll find something to comment upon which is more suited to my limited intellectual capacity. 

Joel Hooks said:

Richard, these were in no part made by Weaver.  They are not his work.  These banjos were also made after he stopped making banjos for CE.  The ideal that Weaver made necks but not rims is a bit silly.

Additionally, I HAVE seen several CE Specials that were marked with Weaver's stamp (usually on the top of the dowel and not readily seen).

Abbott also made "Weaver" styled banjos, yet they were clearly Abbott banjos. 

[Joel Hooks]

Sorry if that came off as rude, but the concept of Weaver made necks on a mid teens CE with rims made by someone else seems to be a bit of a reach.  Why would that happen?

Did Weaver make and ship a bunch of necks to CE that they had lying around after he stopped making banjos for them?

[IAN SALTER]

Thank you for the information. I've recently become interested in Weaver's banjos and intrigued by the high esteem in which they are held. I am always on the lookout for banjos in auctions and knowing more about what would differentiate an original Weaver from a copy, was the reason I was asking.

If I have understood correctly, first and foremost, any banjo stamped A Weaver, is very likely to be by him. It is the Grover friction pegs that I meant, rather than the metal ones that I previously asked about. So, he used both those and metal tailpieces, as well as the violin type pegs and wooden, floating tailpieces. The photos that I have seen of different examples of his work, show either 22 or 24 hooks which I assume, depends on the diameter of the spun over hoop. The fingerboard inlays, whilst always being only dots, do vary in their size and which frets they are placed at. It appears that he always had the shield on the peg head. It is good to know that there doesn't seem to have been any attempts to deceive.

[Joel Hooks]

I own three early Weaver banjos that do not have, nor did they ever have, shields on the peghead.

Two were fretless, now fretted.  One remains in original fretless condition with a metal fingerboard and professional frets (side dots) 

Regarding positions, did Weaver deviate from 10th and 14th?  Are there examples of 9th or 15th position markings?  I suppose he might have made these for the US market.

I am not sure when A. D Grover got involved with the Champion Tuners which were granted a patent in 1888.  These were being advertised as much as a year before the patent.  I don't remember what year Grover wandered into the pharmacy that George Lansing was working at, which is how Grover started playing banjo, but it would have been around that time.  Grover was a engineer (of the designing type, not the train driving type).

Here is the patent for the pegs https://patents.google.com/patent/US382465A/  SSS was selling them as early as October of 1887.

IAN SALTER said:

Thank you for the information. I've recently become interested in Weaver's banjos and intrigued by the high esteem in which they are held. I am always on the lookout for banjos in auctions and knowing more about what would differentiate an original Weaver from a copy, was the reason I was asking.

If I have understood correctly, first and foremost, any banjo stamped A Weaver, is very likely to be by him. It is the Grover friction pegs that I meant, rather than the metal ones that I previously asked about. So, he used both those and metal tailpieces, as well as the violin type pegs and wooden, floating tailpieces. The photos that I have seen of different examples of his work, show either 22 or 24 hooks which I assume, depends on the diameter of the spun over hoop. The fingerboard inlays, whilst always being only dots, do vary in their size and which frets they are placed at. It appears that he always had the shield on the peg head. It is good to know that there doesn't seem to have been any attempts to deceive.