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? 

[Jody Stecher]

I have never encountered the term "professional frets" before.  Could you please say more about this?  

I have seen and played a good number of early English fretless banjos but never one with a metal fingerboard. This is intriguing.  If this is truly original it might mean that this feature originated in England, just as the "melodic" technique did (in early Joe Morley compositions), once more turning supposition on its head. 

Joel Hooks said:

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) 

[IAN SALTER]

I was surprised to read that the friction pegs were available as early as that. I had supposed that violin type pegs were the only option at that time. 

Your fretless Weaver sounds great on the recordings you made. I don't imagine there are many of those around anymore. I have passed on a few good banjos recently, but if I do come across a decent Weaver, it's more than likely I'll go for it.

[Joel Hooks]

Weaver made a bunch of metal fingerboard banjos (I own two, one has had frets soldered to it).  Evidently a number of these metal fingerboard Weavers were sold via the Bohee brothers.  There are articles discussing these in the BMG, R. Tarrant Bailey even wrote about taking them back to Weaver for "updating" with a ebony fingerboard and frets (I have one of these "updated banjos" too) which was a service he offered and, based on these articles, was done often. 

Why do I use "professional frets" for side dots at every position, SSS used it, but so did others.  SSS was obviously an influence on Weaver as Weaver went from holding his necks on with screws and wooden blocks to the wedge plate that SSS introduced in March of 1881.  The use of the wedge plate is a decent "over and under" for dating Weaver banjos presuming he started using it shorty after SSS did in 1881, but he could not have used it before.  We know that Weaver was using the wedge plate by April of 1886 as Eli Kaufman has a Weaver that was presented to Pony Moore on April 8th 1886 that uses one. 

[Jody Stecher]

Wow. Thanks. It would appear that the understanding of the meaning of the word fret(s) has changed. Or maybe i had it wrong all along. I have thought that the usual meaning for the past 100 years or so is  material inserted laterally across the fingerboard. As such, a dot cannot be a fret.  But further back in time it seems to mean an indicator of where to place a finger.   Internet dictionary definitions specify *inlaid* material. But that is wrong. The frets of the Persian tar and setar, the Arabic buzuq, the Azeri tar, the Indian sitar and surbahar, and European lutes are tied on and movable.   The frets of the Indian Saraswati Vina and early versions of the Rudra Vina are set in wax.   

[Richard William Ineson]

It's a curious thing but despite Weaver banjos being played by all of the leading banjo players during the classic banjo boom say, from around 1870 (this date is debatable) until around 1930 ish (also debatable), including Joe Morley, Charlie Rogers, Tarrant Bailey Jnr. and many more, when Tsumura's monumental banjo work 'One Thousand and One Banjos' was published in 1993, Weaver was not allocated a section of the book devoted to his banjos (for the record, Cammeyer also suffered the same fate). There is only one Weaver banjo illustrated in the book and that is unattributed, but it is one of the 'metal clad fingerboard' models, (this banjo also does not have a metal shield in the peg head), which is why I am drawing your attention to it . Pat Doyle and I were asked to cast our eyes over the book prior to publication and we did draw the attention of the publishers to these, what we considered, serious omissions, but were told that it was too late to make any drastic alterations to the layout of the book, so Weaver and Cammeyer, who many people might consider to be two quite major influences on banjo design in the UK got left out. 
Jody Stecher said:

I have never encountered the term "professional frets" before.  Could you please say more about this?  

I have seen and played a good number of early English fretless banjos but never one with a metal fingerboard. This is intriguing.  If this is truly original it might mean that this feature originated in England, just as the "melodic" technique did (in early Joe Morley compositions), once more turning supposition on its head. 

Joel Hooks said:

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) 

[IAN SALTER]

Richard, how many makers were considered important enough to be included in the book and what is the time span of the banjos featured?

[Richard William Ineson]

It's a big book, it cost $500 in 1993, JAT has one for sale at £600, 904 pages, 3000 pics, celebrated pictorial anthology of Japan’s foremost vintage banjo collector, also includes other fretted delights (mandolins, ukuleles, etc) and related ephemera, loads of historical and technical information, excellent original condition in leather bound case.

Purveyors of Quality Musical Instruments | Publications

John Alvey Turner

https://johnalveyturner.co.uk › publications

[Joel Hooks]

I am under the impression that with the Tsumura book (and also Bollman's "America's Instrument") the focus was not on what was considered good, professional level instruments, but rather, what they thought looked good on their walls.  The focus being banjos with bits of shell, paste jewels, or plastic glued all over them.

I think Weaver banjos are beautiful.  To me, the plainness is similar to that of the Spanish Guitar.  Weaver banjos speak for themselves, they don't need bits glued all over the fingerboard and peghead.

Now that I have calmed down a bit, I'd like to circle back to the OP.  Richard, I'd like to establish a timeline.  You seem to be proposing that with the Metal Hoop Specials, the timeline of production was:

Essex and Cammeyer- built by Weaver

CE Metal Hoop Specials- built by Weaver until 1908 (by Weaver's own claim).

CE Metal Hoop Specials post 1908 until late 1921- Weaver supplied necks for rims made by someone else, despite Weaver claiming he had nothing to do with them and even calling them inferior to his own make. 

CE Metal Hoop Specials after about January 1922-  Possible (and likely) Barnes Brothers.  This is based on the announcement of the Professional (and the Professional tailpiece, as found on MHS that are of the Barnes Brothers construction style). 

What defies logic to me is the years of 1908 to late 1921.  Why would Weaver do this?

A little more about my example MHS.  It did not come with a wood Weaver style tailpiece, it came with the lyre style metal tailpiece found on CE banjos from the teens (and pictured in the BMG, this is NOT the "professional" tailpiece that screws to the stretcher hoop).  That was changed to the ebony Weaver style replica by the person that sold the banjo to John Cohen. After John traded it to me (for an early Weaver) I obtained the original metal TP from the person that changed it.  It currently has the original tailpiece on it. 

I recently purchased a Wood Hoop Special from the same period (mid teens).  This WHS has the earlier ebony fingerboard (before they started using rosewood) and the same metal tailpiece.  Comparing the WHS (which were not made by Weaver) to the MHS, it is very clear that they were produced by the same workshop, of not the same hands.  Everything from the hardware to the way the neck is shaped, to the finish work is the same.

[IAN SALTER]

Accepting that are a lot of variables to consider, what would be a fair price to pay at this moment in time, for an all original Weaver in average condition? All things being equal, would a metal hoop CE be a better choice?

[Richard William Ineson]

This is what you said,

"Now that I have calmed down a bit, I'd like to circle back to the OP.  Richard, I'd like to establish a timeline.  You seem to be proposing that with the Metal Hoop Specials, the timeline of production was:

Essex and Cammeyer- built by Weaver

CE Metal Hoop Specials- built by Weaver until 1908 (by Weaver's own claim).

CE Metal Hoop Specials post 1908 until late 1921- Weaver supplied necks for rims made by someone else, despite Weaver claiming he had nothing to do with them and even calling them inferior to his own make. 

CE Metal Hoop Specials after about January 1922-  Possible (and likely) Barnes Brothers.  This is based on the announcement of the Professional (and the Professional tailpiece, as found on MHS that are of the Barnes Brothers construction style)."

I made no such proposals, these proposals are all yours. I did suggest that the Barnes Brothers may have made the CE 'Professional' model, as follows:- "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.
Joel Hooks said:

I am under the impression that with the Tsumura book (and also Bollman's "America's Instrument") the focus was not on what was considered good, professional level instruments, but rather, what they thought looked good on their walls.  The focus being banjos with bits of shell, paste jewels, or plastic glued all over them.

I think Weaver banjos are beautiful.  To me, the plainness is similar to that of the Spanish Guitar.  Weaver banjos speak for themselves, they don't need bits glued all over the fingerboard and peghead.

Now that I have calmed down a bit, I'd like to circle back to the OP.  Richard, I'd like to establish a timeline.  You seem to be proposing that with the Metal Hoop Specials, the timeline of production was:

Essex and Cammeyer- built by Weaver

CE Metal Hoop Specials- built by Weaver until 1908 (by Weaver's own claim).

CE Metal Hoop Specials post 1908 until late 1921- Weaver supplied necks for rims made by someone else, despite Weaver claiming he had nothing to do with them and even calling them inferior to his own make. 

CE Metal Hoop Specials after about January 1922-  Possible (and likely) Barnes Brothers.  This is based on the announcement of the Professional (and the Professional tailpiece, as found on MHS that are of the Barnes Brothers construction style). 

What defies logic to me is the years of 1908 to late 1921.  Why would Weaver do this?

A little more about my example MHS.  It did not come with a wood Weaver style tailpiece, it came with the lyre style metal tailpiece found on CE banjos from the teens (and pictured in the BMG, this is NOT the "professional" tailpiece that screws to the stretcher hoop).  That was changed to the ebony Weaver style replica by the person that sold the banjo to John Cohen. After John traded it to me (for an early Weaver) I obtained the original metal TP from the person that changed it.  It currently has the original tailpiece on it. 

I recently purchased a Wood Hoop Special from the same period (mid teens).  This WHS has the earlier ebony fingerboard (before they started using rosewood) and the same metal tailpiece.  Comparing the WHS (which were not made by Weaver) to the MHS, it is very clear that they were produced by the same workshop, of not the same hands.  Everything from the hardware to the way the neck is shaped, to the finish work is the same.

[Richard William Ineson]

There are a lot of banjo manufacturers featured in this monumental book, too many to list here, In addition there are photographs of many banjos which are not attributed to any maker. Clifford Essex is represented by a section devoted to 'Paragon' banjos which we know was a CE model not a manufacturer, Weaver and Cammeyer are not represented at all (There is one illustration of a Weaver banjo but it is not attributed to him). These very minor points aside, it's a wonderful book full of interest for any banjo fan.

IAN SALTER said:

Richard, how many makers were considered important enough to be included in the book and what is the time span of the banjos featured?

[John Cohen]

There is a Cammeyer New Era Deluxe in one of Tsumura's books. 

As far as Weaver is concerned, I have never in all of my years studying and collecting these banjos seen a Weaver neck affixed to another maker's pot. I have seen plenty of copies of Weavers Made by other makers. These were not made to deceive (they are not marked as Weavers), but they do feature Weaver's peghead shapes, inlays, spoon heel, etc. From even a short distance, they'd be indistinguishable from the real thing to all but the most discerning Weaver aficionados. Examined in-hand, the differences in construction become apparent. 

Like Joel said, there are some Essex & Cammeyer metal hoop specials that are marked as Weavers. Like Richard said, there are C.E. metal hoop specials made by Weaver that are only marked with the metal C.E. plate. There are also C.E. metal hoop specials made by other makers that look very similar to the banjos made by Weaver. Joel has one such banjo.