# General Mandolin Topics > Looking for Information About Mandolins >  Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

## almeriastrings

I am going to do this review in several parts, as there is quite a lot to cover. This first part really just deals with the condition of the mandolin as it arrived, without any proper setup and without any sound files or photos of the comparison instruments, which include the Kentucky KM-1000. 

The LM-700 arrived in a rigid foam case, of similar construction to a 'Travelite':



The case seems adequate for light use. The mandolin had a factory action set extremely high, with the bridge extended fully (and leaning over). There was a protective cover on the strings with a 'QC' label in place:



The first thing I looked at closely was the quality of materials used. The top was quite nice:



Certainly very acceptable on a mandolin at this price point.

This model is described as having an "AAA flamed maple back and sides". On that point, while recognising that such judgements are pretty subjective, I would find it hard to agree. It is certainly "OK", as far as it goes, but there is a lot of runout, with a very uneven grain, and the figure is hardly spectacular, and is not a great match. It is the kind of quality you might see on a better quality student violin. I actually think it looks better in these photos than it does in reality. The neck has very little figure and is rather plain. The neck profile feels quite good to me, however. Neither 'baseball bat' nor too skinny. 





The faceplate of the headstock is quite nice, with well coloured abalone and pearl thin overlays under the lacquer. These are not 'real' inlays as such, however.



Now... we come to a few, actually quite a lot, of cosmetic problems. The most obvious include the following. The lacquer, far from being 'thin' is actually layered on with enthusiasm! This has resulted in quite a lot of 'orange peel' being evident, and in a few places, visible runs and buildup. One such place is on the reverse of the headstock, where there is a buildup on the lower edge of the curl, and just below it, a 'spot' in the finish:



Similar thick buildups of finish are present on the insides of the F-holes (including a few runs internally, not shown here):



The poor finish beneath the fingerboard extension is well known. Here, it is very obvious:



The condition inside the scroll is very similar.

...continued....

----------


## almeriastrings

The other major 'cosmetic' issue involves quite poor work (in my opinion) on the binding. Some of it is quite badly gouged, and other sections are very uneven:





One obvious example is that the area of binding around the heel is 'lop-sided' and uneven:



Now... after all that, I was surprised to find that on this one at least, the frets were not half as bad as I had kind of expected them to be. The nut too, while somewhat roughly worked, was not bad either. Once the bridge was lowered, it was immediately playable. The bridge itself looks and feels very 'average' quality. A proper setup on the frets/nuts, will, I am sure make quite a difference and it should not be difficult to get these into optimum condition. Replacing the bridge is, I think, virtually essential. This one is not properly fitted in any event, with several gaps...

The tuners are smooth, and the ivoroid buttons look good. The issues identified above are really cosmetic. Once tuned up, even with the poor bridge, it sounded really quite 'open' and had plenty of volume. I should have a CA bridge arriving sometime in the next week or so, and I will then be able to give a fair test against some other mandolins. I do not want to seem overly critical, but I do think 'The Loar' have some QC issues with finish, and to a lesser extent, with material grading that they need to address. A quick search of the 'net reveals near identical problems being reported with some of their '700 series' guitars, so I doubt this is a 'one off'. In any event, I am going to be able to check 3 more 'The Loar' mandolins over the next couple of weeks, so it will be interesting to see if they are better/worse/the same with regard to finish QC.  

My initial impression of the sound is that it is more than acceptable. It is really just some finish problems that really let things down. Then again, this is quite a lot of mandolin for the $$$.... at least in terms of general design and sound. It is the detail work where the corners have really been cut, at least going by this example.

----------

DataNick, 

mandograndad, 

Mike Bunting

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

Ivan - great review, and I am really looking forward to the other parts.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## guitarpath

It seems to me that, to meet its desired price-point, something has to be sacrificed at the factory. And that something appears to be fit-and-finish and set-up. 

The Loar seems to represent a very good-sounding mandolin for a very inexpensive price. The 700 is barely above $1000 street and the 600 model (featuring tone bars) is well below that. That is a bargain for a hand-carved solid-wood mandolin. I wouldn't expect it to look like a Collings. 

btw, I have a Loar 600 mandolin in route to me as I type this.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## hedgehog

It really does sound like a second, especially with the excessively thick finish, obvious runs and sloppy heal.  Mine was considered to be a second, but it ceratinly has none of the problems you wrote about.  Mine has some stain spots on the binding in the Florida extension area and a tiny problem with the black sripe in the binding smearing into the white in the curl area.  You have to look hard to see it though.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## almeriastrings

It actually is not a "second".  The case that came with it was specified 'B' grade, however (it has some stitching problems). The mandolin itself was simply an off-the-shelf, normal grade instrument with full warranty. You will note that it had a factory "QC Passed" sticker on it. Now, this is not to say that some national distributors, or individual stores, would not 're-grade' it as such. They might. I would. However, this clearly passed 'The Loar's'  own QC standards, and was shipped out from the factory like this. As I mentioned, near-identical problems have been found on other 'Loar' brand instruments. There has been quite a lot of talk about this issue over on the Acoustic Guitar Forum, for example, with '700 series' guitars documented with exactly these problems, including much lower grade materials than the 'AAA' label would have you believe, plus these finish and binding faults. Some people report excellent finish, others find instruments with these same issues.... bottom line, there is clearly a lack of consistency, and as I said before, I think their factory QC needs overhauling. I will be able to check three further 'Loar' mandolins next week, so should get a better idea on that point.

By way of comparison, I'll shortly put up some photos of a Kentucky KM-1000. As far as finish, detail workmanship and quality of materials goes, this is in a completely different league from 'The Loar'. It also costs quite a bit more, of course. That said, I also have a KM-505 here right now that on those particular criteria also puts 'The Loar' to shame.

Once the new bridge is here, I'll record some comparative test tracks so you can hear what these various mandolins sound like. I do think that the 'Loar' has quite a bit of potential sound-wise. I was picking it last night, and even without a good bridge, or much in the way of final setup, it is impressive for the price. 

Obviously, if buying one, it is most certainly worth going to a specialist dealer who will 'weed out' any with faults, and who will do a really good pre-sale service and setup. Even some of these finish faults could be cleaned up quite a bit... the F-holes, for example. Some work with Stew Mac's micro finishing pads and buffing compound might also take care of some of the other deficiencies. If I had saved up for this, though, and purchased it on the strength of 'The Loar's' promises of "Golden Age craftsmanship updated for the modern era", I would not be a happy camper. I doubt Mr. Loar would be too happy to see his name on it, either. 

I'm not Ivan, by the way... he's a (yikes!) banjo player!!!! I have many defects myself, but banjer playing ain't one of 'em  :Laughing:

----------

mandograndad, 

Mike Bunting

----------


## pdb

Wow.  Those pics are very telling.  Thanks for sharing the pics and the review of the mando.  I think most manufacturers have an oddball one slip out every now and then but the pics you shared shows some serious qc issues.  I would have to say that kentucky and eastman qc appears to be a good bit better at this time although there is incosistency in the eastman sound from mando to mando.  The Kentucky km1000 is not that much more in cost from The Loar 700.  Considering the cost of a good bridge fit like a CA bridge to The Loar reduces the price gap even more since the kentucky bridge is a step up from The Loars and quite acceptable.  Thanks again for sharing.  I had no idea The Loar qc was in this much need of an overhaul.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## almeriastrings

> .  Considering the cost of a good bridge fit like a CA bridge to The Loar reduces the price gap even more since the kentucky bridge is a step up from The Loars and quite acceptable.


Good point. I would agree with you. The KM-1000 bridge (on mine, anyway) is made of very good grade ebony and is nicely finished. I have not felt the need to change it. In fact, even the supplied bridge of the 505 is also far superior in materials and workmanship to that on 'The Loar' 700, which I'd have to class as close to junk. I can see why everyone says an upgrade is necessary.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

> I'm not Ivan, by the way... he's a (yikes!) banjo player!!!! I have many defects myself, but banjer playing ain't one of 'em


almeriastrings - my apologies for getting you and Ivan mixed up - please don't hold that against me  :Smile:  

Really enjoying the measured and thorough review you're putting up here.  I'm definitely looking forward to the sound clip comparison you're planning on doing once you upgrade the bridge on the LM700 to a CA.  Would be interesting to hear how it stacks up against the KM1000.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

> The KM-1000 bridge (on mine, anyway) is made of very good grade ebony and is nicely finished. I have not felt the need to change it.



  I feel the same way. I'm on the fence about a CA bridge for my KM-1000. But seeing as it's a relatively cheap upgrade that can't make it any worse, and it has a really good chance of making it sound better, I'm leaning towards getting one anyway.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## Barry Wilson

I was going to order a Loar, but now thinking a Kentucky is a better investment? or an Eastman? I think I could have done as good a spray job with my cheapo princess auto gravity feed gun I use for doing wheelwells and frame/hitch painting hehe

----------


## almeriastrings

OK... to compare. This is a (Chinese) Kentucky KM-1000. I use this one myself, it is about 3 years old, so there are a few marks. I put those there. There are no actual finish flaws of a significant nature that I can detect.... 

Back, sides & neck





Very nice figure and grain in these, in my opinion. Also nicely matched. I have seen worse on far more expensive mandolins..... no complaints at all here. 

The top is Red spruce, and the quality is really very good indeed. It is sawn well on the quarter, with no significant runout and the grain is nice and even.  The whole mandolin has very clear and 'sharp' lines. The contour carving is also well done, and is nice and clean. 



The headstock has clean lines, with good attention to detail even in the inside parts of the curls. The binding work also appears to be very clean and tidy and everything aligns well. 




There internal parts of the curls are not _perfect_, but far tidier and cleaner than on 'The Loar'. 

The heel area is more than acceptable for an instrument at this price point, I think:





The binding work seems very clean and well done throughout the instrument.

Continued..

----------


## almeriastrings

Onwards...

That tricky fingerboard extension area. Here's how they handle it on the KM-1000.





For a mandolin around the $1500 mark, I truly do not feel able to fault this. To be super-picky, it is not quite as sharp and clean as a $10,000 famous-luthier mandolin I have in the case next to it... but heck, it is not bad at all!

If there is one area where I think they could have done better it is here:



The colour lacquer is uneven on the inner edges of the F-holes. It could have been scraped and touched up (the $10k mandolin has), but this is possibly getting a bit too critical on a $1500 mandolin... it is not perfect, but not horrible either. 

The overall finish is really quite thin. You can see the grain ridges... you can also see the grain through even the darker parts of the 'burst. Kentucky describe this as a nitrocellulose finish, and it does seem to be so, through and through. I have never sanded one of these down, so cannot be absolutely certain, but I see no trace of any poly undercoating. To me, this looks like a "real" nitro finish.



You can also see the inside edges of the scroll there. The finish is a bit rough... not polished or fully matted flat.. though the wood surfaces are pretty clean underneath, and there is no trace of filler (as seen on 'The Loar'). It takes a lot of time to get these cleaned up 100%, so some compromise here is understandable. The work on the KM-1000 is _considerably_ better than on the LM-700, however. 

*Verdict so far*

The KM-1000 is the clear winner, by a mile, in terms of quality of materials and "fit and finish". The LM-700 does have very nice gold tuners and matching tailpiece, however. The bridge on the KM-1000 is also much better than on the LM-700. This is down to preference, but the frets on the Loar are wider than those on the KM-1000, which are quite narrow. Both instruments have comfortable, nicely profiled necks. I have to say that I found the neck and fret size on the LM-700 very pleasant... but it is hard to get over the crude, thick finish and lack of attention to detail seen just about everywhere on the instrument, and personally, I do not think the 'AAA' grade materials description used in the advertising is justified, at least based on this example. That said, I have seen photos of others that appear much nicer, so it may simply be inconsistency.

That pretty much wraps things up from a visual and structural basis. The next stage is to get the LM-700 set up properly, and to record a few sample tracks to compare it with.

----------

DataNick

----------


## almeriastrings

I realised I forgot to include the close-up and inside scroll photos of the LM-700:



There is a very large buildup of lacquer in there, also a lump of what looks like buffing compound. The binding work is really very rough. That is even more obvious on the back side:



Finally... here's the inside scroll against the neck joint area.... it does not really need any comment:



Also should have mentioned that while the external attention to detail on 'The Loar' is very rough-and-ready, the inside assembly work appears clean and tidy. Not much glue squeeze and the surfaces are well finished. It is not quite as clean internally as the Kentucky, but certainly very acceptable.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

> OK... to compare. This is a (Chinese) Kentucky KM-1000. I use this one myself, it is about 3 years old, so there are a few marks. I put those there. There are no actual finish flaws of a significant nature that I can detect.... 
> 
> Back, sides & neck


   THAT is is the back of a KM 1000? That's nicer than most mandolins over and above $10,000. And I've seen lots of KM-1000's. That flame looks like AAA grade from Weber! If you ever get sick of it, let me know!

----------


## Folkmusician.com

Ivan's review seems spot on with my experiences. This LM-700 looks typical to me.  The Loar's do have cosmetic flaws.  This has not translated over to the underlining build quality though. These consistently have the straightest necks of the top imports and the fewest issues regarding things like non-functional truss rods, etc. I do believe they are a bit lax on finish quality and would love to see this improved. I am not so sure the corresponding price increase would make these a better value though. I have to watch what I ask for   :Smile: 




> THAT is the back of a KM 1000? That's nicer than most mandolins over and above $10,000. And I've seen lots of KM-1000's. That flame looks like AAA grade from Weber! If you ever get sick of it, let me know!


Thats what I was thinking!  I sure hope no one orders a KM-1000 from me after seeing Ivan's.  That is an extremely rare 1000 there.  The finish quality on the KM-1000 is excellent, but that level of flame is nowhere close to typical.   :Smile:

----------


## hedgehog

I have to admit this is a bit discouraging news to me as a "The Loar" owner.  I'm sure this thread will stop quite a few potential buyers, much to the benifit of Kentucky.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## almeriastrings

> ...spot on with my experiences. This LM-700 looks typical to me.


I must say that I am very surprised, to put it mildly, by that statement. I have not encountered many of these, in fact, this is the first one I have had a real chance to examine up close and personal. I was kind of hoping it was an exception, a rare aberration.... Evidently not.

Yes, from what I can see the underlying construction is certainly fine. However, in my opinion, the quality of finish is little short of shocking. I am amazed that they feel able to let something like this out of the factory. I would not expect perfection at the price...but neither did I expect anything quite as poor as this. Other manufacturers do seem able to do better, even at similar price points. It is so bad that I'd seriously consider refinishing it. It is a pity they do not offer an option of buying them "in the white" so a decent finish can be applied...

The KM-1000 is indeed quite spectacular. It is a very nice mandolin.  It was just an "off the shelf" purchase, however, sight unseen. I have seen a KM-900 that was extremely nice too. As I recall, that one had a really good "quilt" type figure.  I have a KM-505 here right now, and while the finish on that is not as near-flawless as the KM-1000, it is still more than OK for the price, and the binding work is neat and tidy. Figure-wise, it is much plainer, but nonetheless has a fair amount of well-matched flame. If I can arrange to get my hands on a 'The Loar' LM-300/400 it would be interesting to run a similar direct comparison.

Andrew (not Ivan!  :Smile:  )

----------

DataNick

----------


## guitarpath

> I have to admit this is a bit discouraging news to me as a "The Loar" owner.  I'm sure this thread will stop quite a few potential buyers, much to the benifit of Kentucky.


This thread should not necessarily discourage a Loar owner. If you enjoy your "The Loar", why would a detailed critique of the fit-and-finish of one example diminish your enjoyment?

Look, I see it like this. I bought a Loar 600 mandolin (en route to me) as a starter instrument. I am a guitar player and I want to get into playing the mandolin. I chose The Loar 600 because 1) it has a good reputation in the sub-$1000 category as a good sounding traditional mandolin; 2) it has a thicker neck profile and a wider nut which should make the transition from the guitar somewhat easier; and 3) I did not want to spend a lot of money on a mandolin when I don't even play the instrument yet (buying a Gibson Master Model probably isn't the most prudent idea since I am just beginning my mandolin journey). 

I think my story is fairly typical. I did not buy this to be my dream lifetime mandolin. I bought this to learn on. With experience, time, and practice, hopefully I will learn my own personal mandolin preferences and get proficient enough on the instrument so that I can pursue my ultimate dream mandolin, whatever that may be. 

I expect my Loar 600 to be a well-setup, easy-playing, good-sounding mandolin (I bought it from Robert with the CA bridge upgrade and his capable set-up). I do not expect it to necessarily look like a Collings. 

While certainly interesting and enlightening, I don't think that this thread will diminish my enjoyment of my upcoming Loar 600.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## Bill Snyder

> Ivan's review seems spot on with my experiences. This LM-700 looks typical to me.  The Loar's do have cosmetic flaws.  This has not translated over to the underlining build quality though. These consistently have the straightest necks of the top imports and the fewest issues regarding things like non-functional truss rods, etc. I do believe they are a bit lax on finish quality and would love to see this improved. I am not so sure the corresponding price increase would make these a better value though. I have to watch what I ask for  
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what I was thinking!  I sure hope no one orders a KM-1000 from me after seeing Ivan's.  That is an extremely rare 1000 there.  The finish quality on the KM-1000 is excellent, but that level of flame is nowhere close to typical.


I have not seen Ivan post anywhere in this thread. As almeriastrings noted above he is NOT Ivan (and then there was some rant about not being a banjo player.  :Smile:  )

----------

Fiddledust

----------


## hedgehog

I've written this on several occasions.  I have an LM-600 and I like it very much, my opinion will not change.  With that being said, my LM-600 doesn't have the cosmetic issues detailed in this thread and it was sold as a cosmetic second.  The curl needed a little attention, there were a few stain spots on the binding that a couple scrapes with a single sided razor blade and light polish took care of, under the extension the finish was a bit, lets call it, dusty.  Again a little polishing took care of that.  The over all finish has none of the problems found on this mandolin.  If I were doing it over again, this thread would deffinately color my opinion of the entire "The Loar" line of mandolins.  We/I just bought an inexpensive Kentucky for a friends retirement gift and it most certainly did not have the cosmetic problems found on a "The Loar" that cost 3x as much.

----------


## guitarpath

I should be receiving my Loar 600 sometime this week. I will let you all know about the fit-and-finish of it after I give it a good once-over.

----------


## Folkmusician.com

> I have not seen Ivan post anywhere in this thread. As almeriastrings noted above he is NOT Ivan (and then there was some rant about not being a banjo player.


Andrew! My Apologies. I actually knew that you were not Ivan (somewhere in the back of my mind), then ended up side tracked.   :Redface: 





> I must say that I am very surprised, to put it mildly, by that statement. I have not encountered many of these, in fact, this is the first one I have had a real chance to examine up close and personal. I was kind of hoping it was an exception, a rare aberration.... Evidently not.


I believe I have 8 in the shop right now.  I can pretty well guarantee that all will have some degree of the finish issues you mention. I have seen enough that I am basically immune and consider it a “feature” so to speak. I guess it doesn’t seem that bad to me.   :Smile:   I am a big fan of the LM-700, so I sometimes get overly enthused about them. It is not just a sales pitch though. I think these are great values.  

I am looking forward to the rest of your review.   :Mandosmiley: 






> If I were doing it over again, this thread would definitely color my opinion of the entire "The Loar" line of mandolins. We/I just bought an inexpensive Kentucky for a friends retirement gift and it most certainly did not have the cosmetic problems found on a "The Loar" that cost 3x as much.


There are some players that will read all the various posts on The Loar and focus on any mention of cosmetic flaws, but I think most players interested in one will be taking all the posts as a whole and that paints a different picture.

----------


## pdb

I basically look for three things when searching for a new mandolin.  Sound, playability, and fit/finish.  

The Loar 700 meets the requirements of sound and playability.  However,  it misses the mark in the aesthetics department.  The pac rim market is so competitive at this time, it would benefit a potential buyer to check out kentucky, eastman, and The Loar.  I have only played one The Loar mando and the fit and finish was better than the one in this review, although it too was plagued with some of the same issues.  With such little difference in price between The Loar, Kentucky, and Eastman, and from the info in this recent review and Robert,  it sounds like The Loar is not up to the same caliber aesthetically as Kentucky and Eastman at this time.  If the qc issue of poor fit/finish doesn't bother you, play all 3 makes and go by what you hear and like.  I am certainly glad consumers have the choices in the sub $1500 market.  The only pac rim choice we had two decades ago when i started playing was Kentucky and Washburn(the latter being purely a student grade instrument).  The new chinese made Kentucky 1000 and 1500's are better than the three I owned new 15-20 years ago and are a great value in the beginning professional mando market.  I beleive competition has helped manufacturers produce a better product.  We are certainly lucky to have the pac rim choices we have today.  Thank you for your honest and candid review of the 700.

----------

mandograndad

----------


## Darren Bailey

I agree with everything Ivan has said. :Laughing:

----------


## ebeja

When I intended to buy a Loar 700 I knew that optically it would not be comparable with my Weber, Ratliff, Ellis or Gibson (all  A4s). I wanted to have a valuable, good sounding and easy playing mandolin, this time an F5. It should be used mainly for outdoor campfire sessions where the risk of dents and scratches is much higher than indoors and for occasions where I for example never would take my Ellis. 
Knowing the Selling-Plant Thomann (living 50 miles away) I decided to better pay some more funds but get mine  from Robert Fear due to his first class reputation with regard to pro set up and included CA bridge.
I never regret my decision and like and play it as much as my others. 
OK, there are some cosmetical issues already mentioned but they are acceptable for me  some improper binding at the scroll, little bit rough and missing polish under the extention  but the latter I saw also on most Eastmans I had in hands. 
However, as matter of fact the optical issues on my instrument are only known to me, never been realized by any other session participants when handed over the mandolin to have a try.
Undisputed, an improve of those laxly finish issues would increase The Loars´ reputation on the market considerable. Nevertheless, if I should have to choose again the result would be the same, thump up for The Loar.

----------


## Dave Cowles

I opted for the LM-500 and am extremely happy, since I bought it as a workhorse, not a showpiece. It has a fairly heavy poly finish, which was desirable since I use it outdoors in SW Florida during the heat of the summer months, and sweat won't hurt that finish one bit. It did take an extraordinary effort to get that poly finish off the neck, though. I agree with Robert's assessment that finish is not a strong suit where they build these mandolins, but if I'd wanted cosmetic perfection I'd have looked for a Collings. I'm much more focused on tone and feel, and although I don't abuse them, I don't expect my instruments to stay pretty for long once I start playing them regularly. 

Not too long ago, an asian mandolin with all the features and quality found in today's The Loars could only be found in a small handful of Japanese built Iida, Aria, and Ibanez and some Kentucky models, and the good ones among them were even more scarce. We're blessed today with The Loar, Eastman, and higher end Kentucky mandos that run a close race with their pricier brethren when it comes to sound and playability.

----------


## dcoventry

I agree with EBEJA and his comments above. Definitely two thumps up!!

The LM700 I purchased from Robery Fear back in January 2011 was a great sounding mando, was set up within an inch of it's life, had the CA upgrade and played very well.

However, I just couldn't look down at all the cosmetic imperfections and be joyous, happy and free. These issues impeded my serenity. Am I shallow? Well, sometimes, but that has little to do with this. I needed an instruments sounded great and looked it, too. That's just me.

Soooooooo, I got the mando I REALLY wanted and paid 3 times as much. Am I happy? Yes, but that has nothing to do with mandolins. Am I happier with my G5? Oh heck yeah! Am I 3 times happier? Oh heck yeah! But a lot of that has to do with meeting some expectations and the irrational need for something "just right".

I'd buy another LM700, though, I really would, if the occasion or need arose.

----------


## John Kinn

If there are differences between a 5K mando and a 1K mando (and I presume it is), I prefere that all the differnces are in fit and finish rather than sound and playability. That's the right corner to cut. If you buy a pacrim under 1K you can't expect a Ellis...

----------


## hedgehog

It's nice to see support for "the Loar" mandolins.  It only took a little hand work for me to bring it up to the level I needed to feel satisfied.  A bit of hand buffing here, some gentle scraping there and I'm happy.  Since then it took an unfortunate spill on a tile floor chipping, the much thicker finish than expected, to a bothersome degree, which needed a pro to "sorta" repair and this weekend the hard case closed when removing the 600 and of course one of the latches hit the top making a couple dings that can be lived with.  These love taps are inevitable, so the overall quality of the finish becomes less and less important as time moves on with overall playability and sound quality coming to the front as being most important.  My 600 certainly produces in those areas.

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

> If there are differences between a 5K mando and a 1K mando (and I presume it is), I prefere that all the differnces are in fit and finish rather than sound and playability. That's the right corner to cut. If you buy a pacrim under 1K you can't expect a Ellis...


I can't agree with that assessment more, but I also want to mention that almeriastring's review isn't about comparing his new The Loar to an Ellis, or a Gibson.  He was comparing apples to apples in this case - to another Pac Rim instrument costing just a bit more.  The point is - yes we can't expect a chinese made mandolin costing around $1K to look and play like an Ellis. I know that The Loar will always have its supporters and detractors, and they are great sounding mandolins. But as other competition out there shows, you *can* expect more in terms of workmanship and playability as well as tone even in the same price range and from the same continent.

----------


## Markus

> But as other competition out there shows, you *can* expect more in terms of workmanship and playability as well as tone even in the same price range and from the same continent.


If I pointed out something that really would bother me, it's the thick and inconsistent finish. Binding imperfections won't affect tone, but poor finish might.

For that price for an F-style, you can't expect perfect [you can expect better, though]. And, as said above, better imperfect binding than imperfect sound/playability - the end proof is in the playability and the sound once a properly fit bridge is put on there. If we get the report that it sounds like $2,000 and plays above it's price, it's a little less important that it _looks_ below the price.

----------


## almeriastrings

Today, I managed to examine two new LM-220 VS models. What is very strange is that the finish on both of these was considerably better than on the LM-700. It was still rather thick, but even under the fingerboard extension, it was much cleaner. Even stranger was the fact that while the back/sides on one were very plain (as you would probably expect), but on the other there was really nice flame and the overall standard of materials used was far better than you would expect at this price point. That particular one was really a very nice mandolin indeed for around $300. The finish, while not perfect by any means, was very acceptable. In fact, the finish on both of them would be unlikely to disappoint at twice the price.... the bridges appeared to be identical to that on the LM-700. The fret work on both was worse than on the LM-700, however, with quite a few rough fret ends and a others visibly raised.The binding work (body and fingerboard only on these) was also much cleaner and more accurate, though of course, it is also much simpler in an A-style instrument. There is clearly a lot of variability and inconsistency in these mandolins. I don't know what these sounded like, as I as only able to unpack them for a short time. I did get some photos, however. I must say that one of them appeared to be a very impressive instrument for the price. Decent finish and very nice materials.... now, if that had been an LM-700 there would be no reason to complain at all.

----------


## devilsbox

My LM-700 has the same issues, poor finish around scroll and at base of neck on the scroll side, and under the fretboard extension, otherwise the finish is thick but OK. Binding is not bad. The fretboard extension was curled down towards the top making it totally useless and odd looking. One F-hole is considerably closer to the edge of the top than the other. I think it has the sound, but the set-up is terrible and I haven't played it much. I bought it new (not a second) with upgrades to a CA bridge, a James tailpiece, and a complete set-up. It had uneven fret issues from day one, the saddle was jacked up high and it still buzzed.
I think a thorough set-up from a good shop is VERY important on these. I did not have much luck on that.
Sadly it has become an ongoing project for me, I have replaced the poorly cut nut, scooped the fretboard extension, (it straightened out after pulling the frets) remounted the slightly crooked tailpeice and glued a couple of loose frets. Next is a fret dress and maybe tweak the truss rod and the bridge height. Mostly I play my Rover RM-75.
There is a lot of potential in the LM-700, but for me, the dealer experience left a bad taste.

----------


## Big Joe

I have seen a good number of Loar mandolins, and with the exception of a second sold to me with flaws, I have not seen anything more than minor cosmetic issues.  Certainly nothing to fuss about.  I do wish the finish was thinner, and I don't like the sealer coats that thick, but it is still better than most imports.  I have found nothing that was not acceptable....especially when the price point is in view.  The tone, volume, and consistency is still better than any other mandolin anywhere near this price.  

Finish issues can be improved, but at a cost. The Loar company has to make a decision where they want to market this instrument.  It has the quality that a few changes, like finish, could be improved.  The downside is that raises the price above the market they are aiming for.  Many buyers would not be able to get a really quality mandolin if the price were increased enough to deal with those issues.  I an thankful they have a product in their price points.  

There are a number of pros playing the Loar.  It is a stock mandolin and they seem to find the things they want in a road mandolin.  It sounds incredible, plays like they want, respond well to a mic, and is extremely durable.  These have been the least problematic instruments I have seen inan instrument even two or three times as expensive.  Given the choice of less tha absolute perfection in finish vs. all the issues I have seen with the "pretty ones", I will happily stick with the Loar.

The others mentioned are good, but consistency is very important to me.

----------


## hedgehog

Carefull Joe, I belieie this is a bash "the Loar", especially the 700, finish and parise be to Kentucky thread.  We don't want to go against the flow now do we.  I'm sure it will come around the other way though.  Kentucky hasn't gotten a lot of air time of late where "the Loar" has recieved a fairly steady stream of positive comments.  These things balance themselves out in the end.  Both seem to be a great value for the money.  

You might have a handle on this, are there many pro's using Kentucky mandolins on stage?

----------


## ColdBeerGoCubs

How is this a bashing thread? He's giving a review and posting some pics.

----------


## almeriastrings

> Carefull Joe, I belieie this is a bash "the Loar", especially the 700, finish and parise be to Kentucky thread.  We don't want to go against the flow now do we.  I'm sure it will come around the other way though.


It is not about "bashing" anything. I have not even finished the review yet. What I have done is show, using genuine photos from a mandolin I _purchased_, what kind of finish and detail work you might just end up with. Joe says he generally sees nothing more than minor issues. Robert says the problems shown in the photos I posted are very common. So there you have two dealers in stark disagreement. I have no idea, as I have not seen hundreds of them, I have (so far) now been able to inspect only four of them. One was (in my opinion) very poor. The other three (all cheaper models, incidentally), did have a few issues but were much better. I've also read reviews elsewhere highlighting these same issues, and other forum users have also seen the same thing on instruments they purchased. This is not "bashing". This is simply being honest and highlighting what is clearly a lack of consistency and QC in terms of finish. This will not bother some people, but it might bother others. 

In terms of playability and sound, I am trying to be as fair as possible. I am waiting until the LM-700 has a decent bridge installed, for starters. Then I'll record it, along with a few other instruments for comparison. Listen to it and make your own mind up.

For what it is worth, my _initial_ impression is that it does indeed sound far, far better than the price tag might suggest it should. I make no excuses for saying that in my opinion, while the finish and detail work (and the initial setup) is very poor indeed, the playability and sound is very respectable, even without a 'good' bridge and full setup. Once you get any fretting/nut problems sorted out (of the four I have seen, two had quite bad fret work, 2 were OK), the neck also feels good. In that context, yes, a properly set up example would make a good "road" mandolin, or a "party" mandolin, for that matter. They look good (from a distance!), and play and sound good too. If it does get damaged, destroyed, stolen or lost - so what? Get another one.They are cheap enough.  They are not (as someone else said) the kind of mandolin you are likely to form a deep psychological bond with!  As a utility instrument, though, I can certainly see them finding a niche.

This is not about "The Loar" vs "The Kentucky". The only reason I compared these two is because they are the same basic design, they are both popular choices in the sub-$1500 import F-model market, and because I happened to have both of them here at the same time. It is pretty self-evident that the finish and detail work on the Kentucky is superior to that on The Loar. Which is the best buy overall, though,  is down to preference. They are very different. They feel different, and they sound different, as you will hear when I get the sound files uploaded.

----------

DataNick

----------


## d18daddy

I have a Loar LM 600VS and I used to own a Kentucky KM1000 which I traded for a nice telecaster. The Loar was the replacement for the Kentucky. I think sound wise they are both great mandolins, but I must say I do miss the fit and finish of the Kentucky. Wish I could trade back, but it is what it is. I think the Loar is a good working mans mando and is a fine mando for my abilities. it would be nice to see Loar step up their game fit and finish wise. I also have a bit of finish cracking around the neck joint(hope it's just the finish). Loar instructed me to bring it in to my local dealer, but I don't really trust them with mando repairs, so that kinda leaves me in the lurch.

----------


## John Kinn

Looking forward to the sound clips. If you have the opportunity,I'd like to hear a high end mandolin in the same company.
Thanks,
John

----------


## almeriastrings

No problem. I'll include the Silverangel 'F' and the Gibson F5 Fern. Both exceptionally fine mandolins with strong characters of their own. I'll use a pretty good recording chain, Neumann KM184 into an Apogee Ensemble without any EQ or processing to keep everything as even and accurate as possible. 

Just waiting for the CA bridge to arrive.

----------


## Fretbear

The 700 has no tone bars, so this makes the comparison to a Kentucky that does have them more than just about fit and finish. 
These days the fact that you can get a decent F5 style mandolin for $1500 is good news for everyone. While someone who just bought one new is not going to take any comfort from the following, the fact is that these can always be re-fretted and re-bridged and set-up to a player's specifications, to arrive at something real nice for the money. Realistically, you have to adjust your expectations at these prices.

----------


## Dave Cowles

> The 700 has no tone bars, so this makes the comparison to a Kentucky that does have them more than just about fit and finish. 
> These days the fact that you can get a decent F5 style mandolin for $1500 is good news for everyone. While someone who just bought one new is not going to take any comfort from the following, the fact is that these can always be re-fretted and re-bridged and set-up to a player's specifications, to arrive at something real nice for the money. Realistically, you have to adjust your expectations at these prices.


+1 on Fretbear's comment. For comparison, look at Northfield mandolins. They started out as a bargain at under 2K, then "stepped up their game" and now are priced on a par with some Webers. The Loar mandolins are production grade instruments that are a huge step above like-priced imports, and if they sound and play as good as my LM500, it is unfair to judge them using fit and finish standards set by much more costly instruments. I'd hate to see their prices lurch skyward and a waiting list formed because they tried to remedy these typical production fit and finish flaws.

----------


## almeriastrings

> The Loar mandolins are production grade instruments that are a huge step above like-priced imports, and if they sound and play as good as my LM500, it is unfair to judge them using fit and finish standards set by much more costly instruments.


Slightly baffled here... who is judging them "using fit and finish standards set by much more costly instruments"? The main comparison is with a Kentucky KM-1000 which is really not much more. You can pay as much as $1,175.00 for an LM-700 or as little as $1,485.00 for a KM-1000. 

Is that really "much more expensive"? I don't think so.

Those are the *only* comparisons that have been made and illustrated. If the "fit and finish" comparison was Loar LM-700 vs Gibson F5 Fern, then you would of course be right, but it isn't.

----------


## ebeja

@almeriastrings, don´t get annoyed, please continue with your individual review. In my opinion this is a very interesting thread.

----------


## P.D. Kirby

Since both Big Joe and Robert Fear seem to be watching this thread I would like to pose a question that is what I consider to be the real "Last Word" on how much the LM 700 VS finish flaws matter to the customers. In short since we are trying to say a $1400.00 Mandolin and an $1100.00 Mandolin are the same ( I completely disagree with that because if The Loar put the extra $300 in finishing there wouldn't even be a need to discuss this) ok it wasn't short. 

Question: Which Mandolin- KM 1000 or LM 700 do you sell the most of and how many returns do you have for either model for finish flaws? 
I realize my opinion is tainted as I am a BIG fan of The Loar Mandolins and have owned or own the LM 400, LM 520, LM 600, and play my buddies LM 700 quite a bit. I would put my LM 400 up against every F-model under $1000 regardless of builder for tone and playability and maybe I got lucky but none of my current Loars have any of the flaws you describe, short of the support under the Fla. which is butt ugly. I think The Loar has the best Mandolins out there for any Price point south of $2000..
 I also have a hunch the LM-700 out sells the KM-1000 by a bunch and that is all that really matters. Sorry Guy's, too much coffee this morning.  :Coffee:   :Mandosmiley:

----------


## samwell

Woah guys. These seems like a "lets bash Almeriastrings party". 

Listen everyone he is just being helpful and honest and here everyone is blasting away at him.
Maybe we should just sit back and wait till he's done before throwing out judgement on him!
After all think about how helpful this really will be. It is a fully comprehensible review of a mandolin as-is.

This will be a phenomenal resource for beginners or for people looking to upgrade.

Thank you Almeriastrings. I appreciate what you're doing.

----------

DataNick

----------


## robert.najlis

I appreciate the review as well, and look forward to more.  
It does not seem to be bashing.  

Also, if the The Loar company decides to pay attention, it may help them to decide if they want to address these concerns or not (as previously mentioned, it may or may not make sense for them).

----------


## Dave Cowles

> Those are the *only* comparisons that have been made and illustrated. If the "fit and finish" comparison was Loar LM-700 vs Gibson F5 Fern, then you would of course be right, but it isn't.


Sorry if misunderstood, but my only point is that a lower priced instrument (in the $1k range) should probably be expected to have the kinds of cosmetic deficits you've described in the LM700, and if it doesn't it's an even better bargain.

----------


## almeriastrings

> I also have a hunch the LM-700 out sells the KM-1000 by a bunch and that is all that really matters.


Well, it does not matter to me... and to be honest, I cannot see how it matters to anyone else buying one either, with the obvious exceptions of those who own the company or their distributors/dealers. By that logic, I am 100% sure that The Loar LM-700 outsells Gibsons and Collings  by a mile.. but not really clear what relevance that would have either. By volume (amount not dB!) cheaper instruments will always tend to notch up the sales over more costly ones, even if the difference is not that great. I'd have liked to be able to compare to at least one other mandolin in the same general price bracket, an Eastman, preferably, but unfortunately don't have access to one of those.

As for sub-$1K instruments should be expected to have defects like this, I am afraid I simply do not agree with that. A $200 mandolin - very possibly, yes. Once you get into that $750-$1K range though, I really do think you should expect better than this. Consistently better than this.

----------

DataNick

----------


## pdb

- The Loar 700 w/ needed ca bridge upgrade =  1175.00 range
   The Kentucky km1000 = 1350.00 - 1400.00 range( have seen for 1300.00 recently)
   The Eastman 515 = 1000.00 range, 815v 1350.00 - 1400.00 range

- Fit and finish quality imho = Kentucky km1000, Eastman, The Loar (in this order)

- Sound/tone quality=  toss up, depends on subjectively what you like.  I happen to like all three although the eastman and kentucky's have a more focused tighter sound than The Loar which has a more open sound (probably due to tone bars vs no tone bars).

All three makes are clearly in the sub 1500.00 range (1175.00 - 1400.00 range).  This price range should appeal to the same buyer.  The Loar is one of the best values going.  Is it better than kentucky and eastman?  I don't think so especially if fit/finish is important to you (although I have seen some sloppy eastmans,however kentucky and eastmans overall have better qc in the fit/finish deparment).

Almeriastrings,  again, thanks for the honest and candid review.  I knew there would be some resistance to your review...it's just the nature of internet forums.  Your analysis is very much spot on and like mine on these makes/models.  I don't see where you have said anything negative about the tone/sound of The Loar.  Your pictures of fit/finish are worth a thousand words.

One more thing.  I see no logic in comparing quality of an instrument by the number of sales that particular model has had as one poster has suggested.  The Loar's have a very attractive price point...nuff said.

----------

DataNick

----------


## metamando

"Once you get into that $750-$1K range though, I really do think you should expect better than this. Consistently better than this."

I agree, some flaws are acceptable, but nothing like you describe. Can't wait to hear it though, this is the one I didn't get to play before buying one.

----------


## almeriastrings

The CA bridge has now arrived, so I will get that fitted today. In fact, I am going to give this mandolin its first real outing when I'll use it at a gig tonight to see how it mics up. I'll also get the other mandolins that will be used in the sound files fitted up with new sets of J74's today. Try to keep everything as consistent as possible... give them a couple of days to settle in, then hopefully... this weekend we can get the final part of the comparison done.

----------


## Big Joe

I don't care to bash anyone or their product.  To address Blueridgeron's question, manufacturers don't generally accept returns due to finish issues.  They grade them in their process and if flaws are obvious they will grade them as seconds and sell them off at a discount and sometimes without warranty.  If you paid less than map price it was probably a second sold to the dealer with these flaws.  If the dealer does not disclose this then that is a problem.

I've only handled one second.  The finish was obviously flawed.  I sold it locally and both discounted it and disclosed it.  I have not bought any other seconds.  I have received two instruments in the last several years.  The fit and finish wad fine, but I felt the wood was not as described.  They sent replacements even before they sent the return authorization.  That was on the Loar instruments.  I have had one warranty repair due to a bent tuner shaft.

I have had a greater amount of Kentucky KM 1000 for repairs of various kinds.  Not a lot, but several.  Eastman has had a higher rate of needed repairs such as loose glue joints, etc..  None of these brands are bad.  Just different.

One last comment.  The Kentucky KM 1000 is about 35-40% more expensive than thr Loar LM 700.  That is a big difference and puts these two instruments into different market segments.  Most who buy the Loar cannot or don't want to go that much more for the Kentucky.  It is not apples for apples.  Thank you, and no controversy with me.  Both good, just different.

----------


## guitarpath

I just received my Loar 600 (with CA bridge). Here is my initial take of the fit-and-finish after a quick review

It is not nearly as bad as what the OP described and pictured above. The flaws/imperfections I see include:

1. The inside of the scroll (facing the neck) is a bit rough and unfinished. 
2. The inside edge of the F-holes (especially the treble-side one) are a bit rough. 
3. The back doesn't have great flame and does not appear optimally book-mached. 

Thats about it. Otherwise, the finish is really fine. I have seen thicker nitrocellulose finishes on new Martin guitars. It is honestly not bad at all IMO.  

IIRC, the OP bought his 700 discounted. Perhaps Joe is right and it represents a factory second.

----------


## pdb

Before anyone receives the wrong impression that the kentucky km1000 is more problematic and   represents a higher rate of repair than The Loar 700, please consider the kentucky has been made since the mid 80's.  It stands to reason if one mandolin has been made for 25+ years and the other mandolin has been made for only 2-3 years,  you are going to have more of the former in for repair work.  To suggest otherwise is an unfair comparison at best.

----------


## guitarpath

Some other things as I have been playing the Loar 600 for the past few hours. 

1. The area beneath the fretboard extension isn't finished very well (as the OP pointed out on his 700). 

2. Its really a nice mandolin. With the CA bridge, top-notch set-up by Robert, and a Tone Gard, it has nice volume and a strong chop. 

Honestly, fit-and-finish issues aside (which, while certainly far from perfect, aren't that bad on this individual example), to be able to buy an solid wood, hand-carved F5-style mandolin of this caliber for under $1000 is really remarkable IMHO.

----------


## hedgehog

I don't believe Joe is comparing the number of KM-1000's repaired over 25 years with the number of LM-600 and LM-700's repaired in the last 3 years.

On the subject of a quality finish.  I've got a couple Ibanez electric guitars (an AS-93 and an AF-75), all in all they are considered to be great guitars but cost under $500 each and a Goldstar GF-85 Banjo have as close to a perfect finish as anyone could ask for, my great old Takamine Dread is the same.  My Epiphone Riviera electric guitar has the worst finish and that is because the red finish stain blead over on the binding, other than that it is smooth and even.  So, if they can be produced at a great price point, why is it so difficult to make a mandolin with a similar quality finish?

----------


## Big Joe

Actually I was referring to the last 5 years.  The KM1000 currently built (last five years or so) is different from earlier eras, and better in my opinion.  I just wish they were more consistent.  I have played a couple that were absolutely outstanding.  The rest were not as good.  I would not buy a Kentucky I had not played in person.  I would with the Loar because the consistency has been there.  I know what is coming when I order it and have no concern about the product.  They both can be great, but I can deal with finish issues more than I can mediocrity in output.  Given a choice between appearance and tone I will always chose tone.  I rally have no complaints with the finish on the Loar either.  I would love a varnish option, but if I really want that I can do it.  Oh... That's right.  We did that for a friend.  Not much will stand up to that Loar LM700 .

----------


## almeriastrings

> IIRC, the OP bought his 700 discounted. Perhaps Joe is right and it represents a factory second.


I can assure you categorically that it is not and was not ever categorised as a "factory second".  Do please refer back to the comment by Robert (Folkmusician.com) who stated "_This LM-700 looks typical to me_".  I would also point out that it carried a factory QC "passed" sticker, exactly the same as three others I examined recently. In fact, signed by the same QC examiner.

I also double checked with the supplier. It was discounted for two reasons:

1. The case was damaged (there is a small knife cut that apparently occurred when a carton was being opened)
2. They are no longer going to carry 'The Loar' line (guitars too).

There is also a thread on the Acoustic Guitar Forum involving an archtop guitar with near-identical problems to this mandolin. What appears to be the case is that their QC on finish is very unpredictable and variable. I have now seen four of them. One was really pretty good, one was "OK" , one was "pretty bad" and the LM-700 is....well... you can see. If I was in their QC department I would have rejected both of them. So, you might get lucky.... you might not. It probably also depends how critical you are, and whether finish is important to you.

Sound-wise..... used it last night for the first time. It does indeed sound very good. This is purely subjective, of course, but I was very impressed by how it sounded, especially for the price. It miked up well, and has good volume and "cutting power". It is perhaps a bit less focused than a tone-bar mandolin, but I think makes up for that by being very "open" sounding with quite a nice low end. It has a good "chop". Again... getting very subjective, it does not "feel" (to me) as alive as (even a very new) Gibson F5 Fern, but then, there really is a huge price difference there. The Fern is very three-dimensional with a lot more "going on". You would expect that... I used "The Loar" then switched to the Gibson. I did a quick poll after with people in the audience I spoke to and no-one could tell me for sure which was the most expensive mandolin..... so there you go, very positive feedback on it in the sound department. Just to clarify, I can certainly tell the difference! However, over a PA and to an audience, they may well not. A audience of Cafe members probably could! My opinion at this point is that it is a very serviceable "road" instrument, and while not as sophisticated and subtle as a far more expensive instrument, gets the job done. 

I think it would be an ideal instrument to use with a pickup. 

Honestly, while I continue to believe that they should do something about their QC (not only finish, but fret work, materials and factory setup), once a bit of work had been done  this LM-700 acquitted itself very well in a real, live performance situation. In my opinion, it is an almost ideal second, or stand-in mandolin. It_ looks_ very close to a certain well-known model (!), and it sounds very, very acceptable (with a new bridge). Playablity is also fine once it is properly set up. It is good enough to use seriously, yet cheap enough not to have to worry too much about it. That has definite advantages "on the road" these days.

That is my take so far, anyway.

----------

DataNick

----------


## almeriastrings

> 1. The inside of the scroll (facing the neck) is a bit rough and unfinished. 
> 2. The inside edge of the F-holes (especially the treble-side one) are a bit rough. 
> 3. The back doesn't have great flame and does not appear optimally book-mached.


I just think there is very little consistency with 'The Loar' mandolins. Here you go... two LM-220 VS from the same factory batch:




One is really nice for a mandolin at that point. The other is nothing much. This seems to apply to all model levels from what I can see (and have seen reported).

You might also get a really quite clean extension, as on this LM-300 VS:



Which really poses the question, if they can do it on an LM-300 why not on an LM-600 or LM-700?

Binding too _can_ be pretty neat:



There does seem to be a very frequent problem with the binding around the heel, though:



The frets and nut on my LM-700 were actually quite reasonable... but look at this LM-200 VS!



The bridges on all four I have seen are like this before setup...



So, if you are buying one, and are not experienced at setup yourself, it is near essential to use a dealer who is going to sort any such problems out for you.

----------


## guitarpath

Excellent posts, Almeriastrings. This is really a very interesting read.  

How would you compare the tone of your 700 versus your km1000 (obviously taking into account the lack of tone bars in the 700)?

----------


## Folkmusician.com

The Loar models with the Poly finish are much cleaner than the Nitro versions. An LM-700 will have more finish flaws than an LM-520. 

Just droppin in real quick, running behind on setups.   :Smile:

----------


## almeriastrings

> How would you compare the tone of your 700 versus your km1000 (obviously taking into account the lack of tone bars in the 700)?


Different. It is not only the tone bars, but the KM-1000 has a red spruce top. It has a lot of "pop"  and good headroom but is not as "warm" as sitka or englemann. It also takes more playing in and "warming up". It is definitely more focussed... but whether you prefer it is very much down to your tastes/needs. In a full BG band, I think the KM-1000 would be excellent, though the 700 would handle things pretty well too, I suspect. If guitar + mando, the added "richness/openness" of the 700 _might_ just win though. In short, they are different, and in terms of sound only, I do not feel there is a clear "winner". They both sound very nice in their own way. I'll get them recorded soon, anyway, so see what you think. One thing for sure, both exceptionally nice sounding instruments for not an awful lot more than you could pay for just a high end vintage case... to put this in context.

----------

DataNick

----------


## tr6drvr

I owned a new LM-700 wiht a CA bridge and slightly used KM-1000 ( blacktop) also with a CA bridge for most of last year. I have since sold the Km-1000. The KM-1000 was head and shoulders over the LM-700 in fit an finish-cleaner edges, finer shaping and the finish almost seemed as thin as varnish-the ridges in the top wood were clearly evedent. The LM-700 finish, while deep and glossy and 3D and pretty, is that way because it is incredibly thick. I gave it a speed neck ( and that was not easy)  and the thickness of the finish where it now ends is really evident-I could put a micrometer on it and read out a noticeable difference; easily 1/32".  I recall one owner had Big Jim remove all the finish and re-do it with a stressed thin finish and reported a remarkable improvement in sound.

That being said, the sound quality of the LM-700 had it all over the KM-1000. It is deeper and far more resonant than the KM-1000 which I found thin and whispy sounding ( both with J-75's). The playability of each is far differnet, with the LM-700 neck as thick as the KM-1000 neck is thin. The big frets on the LM-700 lend themselves to much easier playing than the ultra-traditional frets on teh KM-1000, but that is clearly a matter of preference. One caveat-I found that the LM-700 opened up to a point and then sort of stopped. It makes me wonder if that is the effect of no tone bars-open sound from day 1 but does not mature much after that. I also wonder if that Louisville Slugger neck gives some depth to the tone as well.

So in my case, playability and sound won out over fit and finish.YMMV of course and you get what you pay for. These are both relatively inespensive mando's in the grand scheme of things and IMHO probably the two best choices in the $1,000-$1,500 (new) range. BTW I had an Eastman 915 briefly then as well and although georgeosly made and finished, it was a complete non-starter sound-wise.

I have since added a Northfield Big Mon (awful finish, awesome sound) and a well-used Gibson Fern to treat my MAS. While I now play these two the most, I always reach for the LM-700 to play fiddle tunes if I have it near me. Something about the tone, the setup and the neck feel mates this mando up to fiddle tunes perfectly. To complete that thought, I find the Gibson Fern is best for big honking driving bluegrass tunes and the Northfield is at its best in open, harmonic waltzes and "wide-strumming" kinds of tunes.

----------

RustyMadd

----------


## mandopaul

Thanks for the review, very interesting so far....

But no one has mentioned the effect that a poly under / nitro top finished (the Loar)
(which is why you don't see any finish sink in the grain on the "nitro" models, because underneath there is a layer of poly.  Yes, i'm afraid that even the upper end Loar's have poly undercoat. Just because they spray the top nitro doesn't make it a nitro finish.) will age as compared to an all nitro thin finish. 
This may be the reason for the less alive feeling as compared to the Fern. 
Don't  know if the Kentucky has the nitro on top of the poly undercoat?  Would be interesting to see if the Kentucky if all nitro, has more of an "alive" feeling when played.

----------


## almeriastrings

The Kentucky seems to be nitro all the way. The Loar definitly has poly undercoat. Joe has said that "recently" this has changed, and now The Loar's are all nitro too. Mine is not one of them, however.... just to comment on the "alive" thing, my experience is that this is not directly due to finish, but simply that some mandolins have it - others don't. Its much more likely to be due to either the carving or the materials of the top/back. You can have several 'identical' mandolins, same maker, same model, and some are just, well... better than others. 

Now ready to do the first recordings. I had to change to identical strings on all three mandolins and play them all in a little bit.

One other thing that did emerge while re-stringing and fitting the new bridge is that the tailpiece fixing on the LM700 was absolutely terrible. The metal underside of the front was in direct contact with the rise of the top. Actually pressing down (hard) on the wood. So much so, it had left an indent in the finish. Meanwhile, the sliding cover (because of the extreme break angle created) was pressing down onto and into the emerging strings. Not good. Furthermore, it made them all ring like bells, creating all kinds of sympathetic overtones... If you have a "The Loar", it might be worth double checking to make sure they have the tailpiece fitted properly. I took some photographs of this which I'll add in shortly. 

I must say that the poor QC of "The Loar" range, from finish to fretting, to setup and stuff like this atrociously installed tailpiece really has me curious as to why, it seems, the basic woodworking should be any different? OK, there are some problems there (mis-positioned F-holes, for example), but nothing as consistently bad as the "fit and finish" issue. So... you have "hand carved" tops? Hmm.... I'd like to know more about that. Are they really? Or are they like the much hyped "nitrocellulose" finish? I do not have a clue, but I am certainly curious. 

It just strikes me as very strange, really. They clearly cut an awful lot of corners in production/assembly. Poor bridge. Badly fitted tailpiece. Awful setup. Terrible finish. That does not totally gell with a huge amount of time/care being taken over hand carving tops/backs. Are they CNC roughed out and then given a bit of hand carving to finish? Nothing wrong with that, of course, it actually makes sense... but might not be what many people think they are getting... it would be nice to have an answer on this. 

I should have the first recordings up in the next 24 hours now.

----------

DataNick

----------


## almeriastrings

Correctly installed tailpiece:



Tailpiece on Loar LM-700:







As a quick fix I had to bend up the cover plate to avoid it pressing hard into the strings. It is very soft metal and pretty flimsy. It is not a great tailpiece (even if it had been fitted right). I am sure is is functional, though, when properly fitted. Personally, I think I'll put on something a bit better.

----------


## tr6drvr

Yep, that was the first thing I had to do to mine when I got it-bend the tailpiece up and install silencers on the emerging strings.

----------


## Big Joe

There is one issue we have not discussed.  Almerastrings is located in Spain.  That means the LM700 he got was sent from China to its distributor that handles Europe.  It does not go through the same process for inspection or setup that it would have if it were purchased in the USA.  Whether it was a first or second would not be indicated by the inspection noted by Almera.  That would indicate it passed the manufacturing inspection in China.  Whether it was touched by anyone after that or just delivered as it was from the factory, which is usually the case with international shipments not in the USA.  It was purchased through a dealer that is dropping the line for whatever reason.  The point is that this would have been sold in the USA as a second after going through the inspection in California.  That does not detract from the tone of the instrument by any means.  It is just cosmetic and while there are some cosmetic issues that are not considered an issue, this mandolin would have been graded a second here.

In addition, there was a period when the base coats were poly (not unusual, and many who spray nitro or varnish still use a poly undercoat or sanding sealer to help fill grain...even some very high end builders).  The new ones are supposed to be fully nitro.  It is easy to test, but you don't want to do that with your instrument.  While one can find out very quickly, it will ruin the finish to find out for sure.  Please don't do that  :Smile:  .  

In another post one was comparing the cost of the LM700 with a CA bridge with a Kentucky KM1000.  However, to be apples to apples comparison one needs to put the CA bridge on the KM1000 as well.  The bridge put on the Kentucky mandolins is not better than the ones on the Loar mandolins.  Still one of the places they can save a bit of money and labor.  Eastman is the same.  If you want to compare them as original that is fine and a fair comparison, but to compare one price wise with alterations to others stock it is a bit unequal.  The CA bridge will help any of these mandolins and to a noticeable degree if properly installed for that mandolin.

Each of these three brands  make reasonable instruments.  They each look for a particular market and build the instruments for that market.  If you want a good mandolin you can chose any of them.  However, there is a real difference in tone from these instruments.  Playability can be easily adjusted with a setup and any of these brands need a pro setup from the get go to really see what they can do.  Each come from the same part of the world.  Each is designed to meet a particular segment of the market.  The LM700 is priced for a different market from the KM1000.  While some may not think a few hundred dollars is much, it is to the one who can buy the LM700 but cannot buy the KM1000 and in todays world, that is a pretty good number of people.

If I were going to purchase I would chose the LM700.  That is my personal choice.  I don't have one, and I never had.  I have sold some and set them up, but never owned one.  I have also not owned a KM1000.  I do like the neck on them.  Other than that I have not been impressed that highly with them.  I have played two that could compete with any other mandolin period.  Unfortunately, the rest were pretty mundane.  I have sold a good number, and set them up and worked on them.  The same with Eastman.  I want to like them, but the tone is just not what I really like.  I have owned a couple Eastman's over the years and sold several.  I have no real complaint with them with the exception of a few having issues with glue coming loose and having to repair those.  That is not unusual with instruments, just seemed premature.  I have setup a good number of these.  

Again, each of these are good mandolins.  Your taste or reason for picking your instrument is a really personal one.  Just because I like one brand over the others does not mean the others are inferior.  They each have issues that may make one less than 100% satisfied if you do not know what to expect when you get your instrument.  Since I have to work on these instruments on a regular basis I would chose the best sounding of the group for what I want to play.  Then I would look at which one seems to perform with consistent outputs, then tone, and finally finish.  I have the ability to take any of these, and if they are basically solid, can do whatever I wish to them to make them what I want.  Not many have that ability.  I do understand that.

I have always had incredible and immediate help from The Loar people when I have a question or issue.  Kentucky was reasonable as well, though not quite as responsive or willing to work with me, but still took care of the problem.  I have not had opportunity to work with Eastman with any issues.  I would suspect they too would handle issues very well.  Well, that is enough rambling from me this morning.  Have a Great Day!

----------


## guitarpath

Thank you for your input, Joe. Great stuff. 

A couple of questions:

1. You mentioned that some high-end builders use a poly undercoat to help fill grain. Is Collings one of these builders? I know that they use a poly undercoat under a nitro finish on their guitars. 

2. My Loar 600 is dated July 2011 on the label. Do you think this would likely be all nitrocellulose?

Thanks again.

----------


## almeriastrings

> There is one issue we have not discussed.  Almerastrings is located in Spain.  That means the LM700 he got was sent from China to its distributor that handles Europe.  It does not go through the same process for inspection or setup that it would have if it were purchased in the USA.  Whether it was a first or second would not be indicated by the inspection noted by Almera.  That would indicate it passed the manufacturing inspection in China.  Whether it was touched by anyone after that or just delivered as it was from the factory, which is usually the case with international shipments not in the USA.  It was purchased through a dealer that is dropping the line for whatever reason.  The point is that this would have been sold in the USA as a second after going through the inspection in California.  That does not detract from the tone of the instrument by any means.  It is just cosmetic and while there are some cosmetic issues that are not considered an issue, this mandolin would have been graded a second here.


That is quite correct - however, you will not see this indicated anywhere on "The Loar" website, will you? Which is hardly fair to purchasers OUTSIDE of the US. We do exist, you know... if I could, respectfully, paraphrase you here... "If you buy a Loar brand mandolin in the US it will have been given an extra inspection.  Inferior examples we will happily sell as first quality elsewhere, we will call a "second" here and reject it. If you live outside the US, you might get an inferior instrument. Not our problem!".

I do not see that kind of approach from Martin, Collings, Gibson or any other respectable brand. I do not see it with studio and audio equipment, or with cameras. Why is it OK with mandolins and guitars?

If this is how it is, then non-US buyers of "The Loar" brand need to be made aware of it. Actually, If I had been aware of it I would not have purchased this instrument, purely on principle. I did not mention this earlier, because I had no first-hand knowledge to verify it, but "sources" tell me that the reason Europe's largest retailer of this brand has ceased carrying them is due to the unacceptable level of complaints and returns due to poor quality.  Your comments seem to back that up.

PS: Had I been a 'typical' buyer, I would have returned this for a refund too. As it is, I have collected, built and repaired instruments for nearly 40 years, on and off,  and now I'm (almost) retired, getting back into it again (now I have my workshop together at last). I quite like how it sounds, even though the fit and finish is beyond dire. It will be quite a fun mandolin to experiment on. I'm probably not your typical LM-700 buyer, though....I doubt many have the experience or resources to deal with what they might receive.

----------

DataNick

----------


## hedgehog

The only other instrument company I have experience with is Ibanez.  Over on the Ibanez board they are constantly griping about the different importers to the different markets.  The one in Canada does things differently from the one in the USA, some countries in Europe don't have importers specifically for them, other have their own importers, all seem to do business differently from the other and the whole arrangement upsets people.  From what I read from Big Joe is that our "The Loar" importer inspects instruments, possibly others do as well, but the one you used may have different standards or doesn't inspect at all.  We, the general buying public has no control over any of this.  

I do find exception to this, *"Martin, Collings, Gibson or any other respectable brand."*.  We are not talking about instruments that cost several thousand dollars, we are talking about instruments that cost $1,500 and under.  A far different market to say the least, even in this market you find similar complaints though.  Imperfect finish under an F-5 curl is a prime example.

With that being said, I wish it were a different situation for all of us.  Music Link branches, especially those with Greg Rich in the chain, and I speak specificaly about "The Loar" and "Recording King" make some increadable instruments as related to the money spent, but they also seem to produce and sell quite a few seconds.  I haven't looked lately, but for a very long time it was easy to find Recording King Banjo's sold as seconds on Ebay, as it's easy to find "The Loar" seconds today.  All great values as was my LM-600, as written before, a cosmetic/finish second with far fewer issues that the LM-700 your working with.  But I must say that I didn't mind spending the few minutes it took to correct a few finish flaws considering the money saved.  Some scraping here, a bit of polishing compound there, some black instrument lacquer on a Q-tip for the finish in the F-holes, a strip of felt glued under the tail piece cover, inside the curl needed and still could use some clean up, a fret and the nut needed some attention by a basic set-up guy.  None of it took any real time, most of the work was accomplished as normal cleanup at the first string change.  But I am a Banjo guy, working a bit on an instrument is expected with a Banjo, I do find that the average mandolin owner seems to be far more timid when it comes to working on their instrument.  For me it's a labor of love rather than a chore.

----------


## Big Joe

Nearly all manufacturers have different policies for international sales as they do for domestic.  Gibson and Martin certainly do as well as most other.  Most companies warranties only apply to domestic sales and any other warranty for other nations are the responsibility of the international distributor if they wish to offer one.  Gibson warranty from the factory is only for domestic sales from an authorized dealer.  If you live outside the USA and bought it outside the USA you will have to deal with the distributor for that country, and not Gibson.  They have nothing to do with it from that standpoint.

I talked to Greg Rich today.  He clearly stated your mandolin would have been a second had it come through the TML warehouse in California.  He advised you to send it back for replacement.  He would.  Of course, the proof is in the tone more than anything.  If you are not satisfied, then just return it and have it replaced.  They are constantly working with the factory in China to improve things.  They are better now that a couple years ago.  The instrument you present is not certainly a typical presentation no matter what Robert said.  No negatives about Robert, just that I have not seen what you or he express.  Anyway, I have no idea to argue with you about anything, but if you are not pleased with what you have then just return it for replacement.  You would likely get a much better instrument.  You will find out in a hurry at that point if it is a second.  Oh... they are not usually marked second. 

Anyway, TML has always worked hard to put out a great product for the money.  No one else puts out a comparable product at that price point.  Secondly, my experience has been that customer service is excellent.  Here the guy who designs them talks to me and tells me to have you return it.  That seems to be pretty good backing from the factory side.  Any maker can make a less than stellar example of a product.  The point is whether they will get behind it.  In this example the factory jumped in as soon as they knew of an issue and it was not contacted by the customer.  Not many companies speak out to the customer before anyone has contacted them.  I can assure you everyone in the management line up to the CEO of the company is now aware of this instrument and wants the customer satisfied.  You certainly have the option of keeping it, but the company is encouraging you to return it since you are not pleased with the purchase and wants to ensure you get a good one.   Just thought you might want to know.  

Anyway, we will all be interested if you wish to return your instrument for a better one.  I don't think you will find any other company getting out in front of an issue before they are even contacted about an issue.  Now it is up to you.  Whatever you do is fine, but we and the company want to ensure you that we do all we can to help our customers and friends no matter the problem.  Thank you and I hope you do whatever you think will serve you best.

----------


## almeriastrings

Clearly, the ideal solution would be to improve the primary QC in China. I don't entirely agree that instruments in the $1000 range should have a "get out of jail free" card in this respect, neither is it the case that  all Martins cost "several thousand dollars". They don't. They make quite a number that cost_ less_ than the Loar LM-700. You can get an all solid wood D-16GT in that same price range for example. Taylor also produce nice quality instruments in the same price range. Yamaha (among many others) also manage to make some well made, nicely finished instruments at lower prices than The Loar. It is a basic factory QC issue.I seems pretty obvious that factory QC with 'The Loar' is incredibly poor.

I would certainly like to speak to the European Distributor about it. Who are they exactly? 

The store would give a refund, but cannot replace it as they no longer deal with the line.

----------


## Folkmusician.com

I need to be setting up mandolins..... I knew I shouldn't have opened the MandolinCafe!  I am just scanning through the posts here, so no specific quotes or references. Let me try to clear up my perception of The Loar's. Specifically the LM-700.

I sell a BIG portion of the entire output from The Loar shop. Right now, more than I can setup (which is why I need to close the Café and get back to work!  hehe). I like the line a lot. In my opinion, The Loar has quickly taken over the lower price points. The LM-700 has its fair share of what I consider, minor cosmetic issues. I realize that what I consider minor may bother other people which is why I make no effort to defend their finish quality and try not to use "minor" as a descriptive term even if that is how I see it.  It is what it is and I accept it. I want my customers to realize that the finish will not be perfect. It will be rough inside the scroll, up under the fingerboard and if they go over it closely, they will find minor flaws.  I do get some complaints about the finish. I offer a very liberal return policy (14 days from delivery to post marked return, for a full refund, shipping to the customer is free even if returned). I have only had a couple of these returned ever. This includes customers that were not real thrilled with the finish quality. They do like the mandolins and end up keeping them.  The point here is that I have an extremely high satisfaction rate on these mandolins despite less than perfect finish quality. So when I point out the flaws and say "yep, I see that all the time", I am just stating the facts and not really meaning it as a negative toward the mandolins. I like the mandolins. I recommend them every day. I am quite enthusiastic about them!  :Smile: 

I am constantly rejecting mandolins. The Loars have the fewest serious issues of the imports I deal with. By serious I mean bowed necks (single most common reason I reject mandolins), non functioning truss rods, collapsing tops, etc. Despite the finish imperfections the underlying build quality has been very good on The Loars.

And yes, the vast majority of PacRim mandolins sold abroad will never see US quality control. The freight costs would only be a portion of the concern. You are now importing to the US, then exporting as well. It would not be cost effective. It is logical to think that overall The US mandolins (for US owned brands) released to dealers/consumers would be of higher quality.

Back to work for me.   :Smile:

----------


## pdb

I think it's great that Greg is striving to make a customer happy by offering to replace the instrument.  I have only heard great things about TML customer service.  However, their customer service I don't believe is being questioned here at all.  It's the chinese manufacturers QC that is in question.  Joe,  you state GR is willing to replace this mandolin even before he is being contacted about it;  this is right after you admit you have made contact with him about this mandolin...so I am more than a little confused by that statement. I think we all understand that TML is a great company to deal with, they make a good product for the money, and they strive to do what's right by the customer.  I don't believe these things are in question...only QC has been the issue from what I can tell in this thread. 
Also, I have found the kentucky km1000 and km1500 bridges to be of higher quality than The Loar bridges and therefore would not need a necessary bridge replacement that The Loar mandolins do.

----------


## Fstpicker

I would be curious what the manufacturing date/serial number on your 700 is? My guess is that it is one of the earlier-made models when the QC wasn't as good as it is now. Could be wrong...this is just a hunch.


Jeff

----------


## devilsbox

I am glad to see these issues brought up for discussion.  There may be a few of us out here.

----------


## almeriastrings

> I would be curious what the manufacturing date/serial number on your 700 is? My guess is that it is one of the earlier-made models when the QC wasn't as good as it is now. Could be wrong...this is just a hunch.


A11030470

Which I believe makes it a March 2011 build. 

Allowing time for shipping from China, import and distribution, and this one did not hang around the store very long.

It is quite true that the store in question (Thomann in Germany) do absolutely nothing in the way of setup, and their own "QC" is limited to a) Open the box and check the mandolin, guitar or whatever is in there and b) check for obvious major damage. That's it. They do nothing else. I knew that when I bought it, of course. That is why I have always advised people, where possible, to buy from a specialist dealer who will provide pre-sale service. Unfortunately, in the whole of Europe, I know of no really specialist dealer who does this with this brand. So, anyone buying in Europe (27 countries) is pretty much on their own in this respect.  You can find a number of dealers of Kentucky, Eastman, etc., but there are (now) very, very few places that stock 'The Loar' mandolin range. There may be one small store in Ireland that I heard had an LM400, LM600 and LM700 recently. 

I'd add that I do not agree (at all) with the statement that bridges on the Kentucky mandolins are the same poor quality as on all four 'The Loar' models I have now checked. On 'The Loar' the workmanship on the bridges is rough and ready. The wood feels of low density. On one, the adjustment screws were poorly fitted and loose. On both 'Kentucky' mandolins I have here right now (even a lowly KM-505) the bridges are really quite good. Nicely finished off and the density of the ebony feels good. I've been using the stock bridge on my KM-1000 quite happily for some time... I would not even contemplate that with the bridge supplied on the LM-700.

----------


## Folkmusician.com

> I'd add that I do not agree (at all) with the statement that bridges on the Kentucky mandolins are the same poor quality as on all four 'The Loar' models I have now checked. On 'The Loar' the workmanship on the bridges is rough and ready. The wood feels of low density. On one, the adjustment screws were poorly fitted and loose. On both 'Kentucky' mandolins I have here right now (even a lowly KM-505) the bridges are really quite good. Nicely finished off and the density of the ebony feels good. I've been using the stock bridge on my KM-1000 quite happily for some time... I would not even contemplate that with the bridge supplied on the LM-700.


I agree here.  While a CA bridge is a worthy upgrade, there is nothing wrong with the KM-900, 1000, 1500 bridges assuming they are fit correctly.  The lower model Kentucky's do have poor quality bridges.  The Eastman bridges are better than those on The Loar and all of the Kentucky models below the 900, but would benefit from an upgrade as well.

----------


## Big Joe

I did not contact Greg.  He contacted me.  He wanted to be sure that this customer was aware of the differences in how international versus domestic US sales and warranty and set up are handled.  Just as with Martin and Gibson and most other manufacturers, there is a difference in the way international sales and domestic sales are handled in these areas.  It is not unusual for international customer to be very upset when they realize the USA warranty and service is not the same.  This may be unfortunate, but it is the way it is.  

The factory in China does try to get things right concerning finish and setup.  Like any company, not all are as good as we may wish.  The factory, like all factories, have numbers they have to hit.  The distributor recieves them and has the option of accepting or rejecting the instruments.  The distributor for your area of the world is responsible for quality control.  Remember these are made in a factory, shipped in the belly of a ship in a container packed in a box.  Temperature and humidity will affect the way the setup and quality is when they arrive in the port of destination.  In some cases, the mandolins may not be as good as they should. 

In the USA it arrives, goes to the warehouse, is checked out and graded by the guys at TML.  They reject those with finish flaws that would be beyond what they feel and most of their dealers feel is acceptable.  In several years of seeing all these mandolins I sent back two LM600's because I did not feel the backs had a reasonable enough flame.  No damage to the finish and the necks, frets, etc. were good.  They exchanged them without question before they even sent a call tag for return shipping.  In addition to the grading at the warehouse, if they are shipped to the other warehouse for the East coast, the inspect them again before shipment and attempt to clean up the setups a bit.  When they arrive to the dealer they are again inspected.  We always do a professional grade setup before we ship.  We do that with anything that is sold in our shop of any brand, age, quality, or kind of instrument.  We ensure it is the best it can be and will put our final product up against anyone else's.  Then, and only then, will we ship to the customer.  Should there be an issue with the instrument, we will immediately take care of it.  We have had one.  It was with a bent tuner shaft.  We don't know if that happened before the purchaser got it, or after.  It was a few weeks before it was brought to our attention.  We had him return it, TML sent us a new set of tuners, we installed them and sent it back to the owner.  He was very happy and it was a very nice mandolin.

I would not say the finish is up to the standards we had at Gibson, but even those were rough in the scrolls and under the fingerboard extension.  Even the original Lloyd Loars were like that as well.  Many manufacturers are.  As in any product, the builder has to chose what is important, and what is not.  The cost to the end purchaser would be substantial if more time were spent on those minor cosmetic issues.  Would it be worth it?  Well, that depends.  If you want to spend more money on the product that structurally and tonally is already there, then it would be.  Most purchasers are on a budget and often stretch to get the LM700.  If it were priced  higher, then it would not be available to a good share of its market.  

The factory COULD decide to stress finish work more than tone or structure, but that was not the way they wanted to go.  They wanted to produce the best mandolin in tone and volume and with a reasonable finish.  Given the choices they faced, they made what they felt was the right choice.  There are other manufacturers who chose "pretty" over quality.  That was the choice they made, and they have sold a lot of mandolins.  Is that a bad choice?  Well, as a mandolin player who expects a very high standard of quality in tone and structure, it may be.  However, they built to a price point and have sold tons of them.  

As for this particular mandolin that is in discussion, I am sure I can get information on how to return it for a replacement.  I will talk to Greg in the next day or so and get you that information.  Again, I did not contact the factory, but Greg happened across this thread and contacted me.  TML does go out of their way to ensure the customer is happy.  They do watch many of the forums and try to deal with issues as best they can before they become major issues.  

Please understand that no builder is perfect any or all of the time.  I don't care who built your instrument or what you paid for it or what you may think of it, I can guarantee you I would find something that is not perfect.  I have never seen one yet that was flawless in some area.  That covers thousands of mandolins over forty plus years of messing with these things.  Not one that was flawless.  I have worked on some VERY expensive and high dollar instruments.  The same goes with guitars and banjos and dobros, etc. etc. etc.  You may not see the flaws, but I will.  That is my job to find problems.  That does not mean the instrument is inferior by any means, just not flawless.  That goes for the most expensive to the least expensive.  What flaws can you live with and which ones can you not live with?  That is ultimately the question.  Everything that has ever been built is a compromise in some area.  

Watches have always been a particular passion of mine.  Especially automatic movements.  In many cases, a quartz watch will be more accurate than an automatic watch over a period of time.  That is as long as the battery is good and the electronics work right.  Still, I hate quartz watches.  Most of you may not know that an automatic wrist watch is the most accurate mechanical machine ever made by man.  In spite of that it is not quite as perfect at keeping time as the quartz watch may be.  That means I have to compromise something to wear a nice automatic watch.  I could get a watch for under one hundred dollars (maybe less than ten)that will keep better time than expensive watches.  Does that make the quartz watch that cost ten dollars better?  No.  It means the cheapy is only better at one very small part of the whole equation.  It keeps very good time.  That may be the real purpose of a watch, but the slight difference in accuracy is not that much.  I prefer the other aesthetic and functional issues I gain with my automatic watch.  What I am trying to say is that perfection is never perfect in this world.  We have to chose what compromises we with to accept or reject.  That applies to watches, mandolins, food, etc. etc. etc.  Thank you.

----------


## almeriastrings

When you happen to be in contact with Greg Rich next, you might like to let him know that one of his very early handbuilt Recording King banjos (this is the one he made for Herb Pedersen) around the Rich and Taylor era is now living happily with us here in Spain. It is a very fine instrument indeed. I believe Pat Cloud and Sonny Osborne also had examples of these. There were only a few ever made. 

I _will_ get the sound files up shortly...it has taken a bit longer than expected to get the comparison instruments (4 of them) all set up as equally as possible with new strings, etc.

----------


## almeriastrings

Sorry for delay in getting some sound files up, but here are some to start with. I'll add the 'chop' test shortly. Starting off with four mandolins, all with the same brand/type of strings (J74's) all fitted on the same day and all played in for (roughly) the same number of hours. I used the same pick on all tests. I took a simple fiddle tune (8th of January) and tried to play it exactly the same on each instrument. It uses quite a lot of open strings and some fairly quick picking, so you can hear quite well how each instrument responds in this context. I recorded them one after another without moving the mics or the instrument positions. No EQ or compression was used. 

http://soundcloud.com/almeria-string...mandolin-tests

The instruments (not necessarily in order):

Kentucky KM1000
Gibson F5 Fern
The Loar LM700
Silverangel Distressed F

Given the vast price difference it should be easy to tell them apart..... or maybe not.

----------

DataNick, 

Volker M

----------


## Malcolm G.

Thanks for the considerable care and attention you've taken with this apples to apples to apples to apples comparison.

I'm certainly no expert and my sound system sucks, but I do hear tone and volume differences.

Oddly enough, I tend to like the quieter mandolin. But that's just me, I'm not a Bluegrasser and gravitate to the mellower sounds.

Well played, by the way - I doubt that I could nail four takes in a row as well as you have.

You've got some dandy instruments there.

----------


## ebeja

Thanks for your comparison, Great picking!

----------


## jambalaya

thanks for the comparison. nice pickin' btw. are you gonna list which is which at some point?

----------


## almeriastrings

Yes, I will reveal which is which. I didn't want to do that right at the start though, because knowing that almost invariably colors people's perceptions... I did similar little test some years back with a couple of "low end" Martin guitars vs. some "high end" recent models, and even threw in a pre-war.... strangely enough, those with advance knowledge of which was which could "easily" hear differences that made the expensive ones better (!) but those without such knowledge had quite a hard time differentiating them, some even thinking that the cheapest one on test was in fact, the rarest and most valuable... Dick Boak and Chris Martin were quite tickled by the results, that's for sure.

So, always best to start off using ears alone, not preconceptions, in my opinion!

I will say that _I_ think "The Loar" does really very well indeed in terms of how it sounds. Putting aside finish, setup and other QC issues, the darn thing can be made to play and sound far, far better than you'd ever believe possible from the price tag. It kind of reminds me of the situation with some 'repro' electric guitars. The basic construction can be very good, and they can prove a super basis for 'hot rodding' and customization. New wiring, new pickups, etc. With 'The Loar', the tuners are fine, but the bridge (and tail-piece) is really poor... once changed, though... with proper setup... it can really perform. I'd like to hear one after the thick finish has gone....

----------


## Fstpicker

I don't have the "experienced" ears of many of you, but to me they all sound very good. I'd be hard pressed to make any determination of which is which. My rough guess is that the Fern is the 3rd or 4th one in the group. 
Thanks for going to the trouble of posting these clips!
Jeff

----------


## houseworker

Very impressed with your picking.  I've only listened on my laptop, but the one recording that stood out for me was track 3, which was the one I liked the least.

My regular instrument is a '20 F4 btw.

----------


## mandopaul

My ears say:  1. Kentucky 1000
                   2. SilverAngel
                   3. Loar 700
                   4. Gibson Fern

----------


## Ron McMillan

A couple of months ago I also had a bad experience with a brand new The Loar (an LM 400) that had come to me straight from China. Or at least, it went from China to the USA already destined for the Thailand store that requested it for me.

I was not unhappy with its cosmetic condition, but that was partly because I was so focussed on more pressing issues to do with terrible quality control. A longish thread covered the subject already, but in brief, it arrived with the neck badly in need of a truss rod adjustment (so bad that it was impossible to play ANY chord that sounded remotely in tune); many of the fret ends were sitting tall, needing seated properly to even them out; the nut was a country mile too high, making action in the early frets a bad joke; and the bridge was wrongly placed (destroying intonation) and wound up incredibly high to boot.

I made a lot of noise on the forum and sent emails and messages to the USA that led to polite concern and offers of advice from there, but consistently I came up against the caveat that I didn't get a 'normal' quality instrument, because I only got one that came from China and had not had the setting up done to it that all American market instruments automatically obtain.

The obvious thing wrong with that state of affairs is that ALL the instruments bear the name of the (American) parent company brand. So why on earth are poorly set up (and, it seems according to almeriastrings' measured report sometimes just as poorly finished) The Loars being sent out in such bad condition to other parts of the world, never mind the damage they might do to the all-important brand?

It is great that American consumers are being taken care of so carefully, but quite difficult to comprehend that the rest of the world might actually be being treated like second-class citizen consumers.

ron

----------


## John Kinn

I'm probably making a fool of myself, but here goes:

1.Kentucky
2.Silverangel
3.Gibson
4.The Loar

----------


## Rayne

This is a great discussion!  I played 5 or 6 Loars when I was looking for my mandolin.  I just could not get over the finish issues.  The Eastman and Kentucky models were just so much better in fit and finish.  I went back and forth between Kentucky and Eastman before I bought my Eastman 815V.  Why should I spend close to the same amount of money for the Loar when I could not get around those QC issues?  I also felt the sound was much more to my liking in the Eastman and Kentucky line.  If you are a company selling The Loar, then I understand your defensive posture.  As a buyer, I felt there were other choices that gave me more for my dollar in overall quality control.   I have since played a few Loar archtop guitars that did nothing for me either.  As a brand, "The Loar" does not bang my shoes off.

----------


## almeriastrings

Some 'Chops' on an A chord on each mandolin, random order.

http://soundcloud.com/almeria-strings/mando-chops

Certainly brings out a few differences....

Structurally, these are all quite different mandolins:

Silverangel F model with X-brace
The Loar LM700 with no bracing
KM1000 (Red spruce top) and Gibson Fern (Sitka top) with tone bars

----------


## houseworker

Again, number 3 stands out for me as the one I like the least.  Are these the same order as the earlier recordings, or a new random sequence?

----------


## Schlegel

> It is great that American consumers are being taken care of so carefully, but quite difficult to comprehend that the rest of the world might actually be being treated like second-class citizen consumers.
> 
> ron


But isn't the setup work and final QC just being done by the American retailers and not the factory? Steve and Robert are not employees of The Loar, for example. They are independent businessmen.  The extra care is because the retailer is willing to invest the extra work.  Every non-US case of complaint I've seen on the forum, it seems the retailer basically just acted as a shipper.

----------


## Big Joe

Each of the mandolins get a basic setup in China.  While it is not anywhere near where we could expect, we have to remember they do not play mandolin in China.  Finding luthiers who are great at setup is quite hard.  Secondly, factory setups are very generic no matter where they are made.  From China to about anywhere in the world the mandolin goes into a container in the belly of some ship.  Then they spend some time before the container is opened.  It may be weeks, but often is quite a few months.  They have to clear customs in the country where they arrive.  The distributor in that country then makes them available to the dealers.  The distributors usually have no one who plays or knows mandolins.  They take the box out of the container and send it to the retailer when they are ordered.

The retailer in most countries do not have a lot of experience with mandolins.  They don't often have master luthiers who are on staff to set these up for optimal performance.  Most retailers (domestic and international) just put the box in the mail and it goes to the end consumer.  It is not because they don't care, they don't even think about it.  If you think it is bad for  mandolins, try banjos!!!

In the USA the distributor has a luthier who has the responsibility to inspect and setup each instrument and grade them for the proper grade.  They then ship them to retailers.  While not all retailers do a good setup for mandolins, the goal of the factory is to have dealers who can do a proper setup.  Some retailers do not wish to put that much work into the instrument.  Contrary to public opinion, there is not a lot of profit in lower priced mandolins.  Some dealers refuse to spend the labor to get them right.  I do not say that is the right thing, but it is reality.

There are a few of us who are more concerned about the instrument being right when it gets to the end consumer than some profit.  In our shop we setup anything before it ships no matter the price.  We also offer bridge or tailpiece exchanges if the buyer wishes.  We see the mandolins and see the ones for the artists as well.  The artist mandolins are no different from any others.  They are not hand picked, they are just shipped.  They get the same treatment you do.  

One of the things that has amazed me about the Loar products is the artists that have asked to be a part of the Loar family of artists.  They endorse the instrument because they like it.  I don't see an artists line up for the other products in the price point.  We are talking about A list players and not someone beginning or hoping to make it some day.  These guys are legends and have asked to endorse the product.  That says something about the product.  

Each person has their taste and find what they want in any level of instrument.  In addition, our tastes will change over time and experience.  If everyone wanted a Loar, they could not get one.  They could not produce that many.  It is good to have a choice between the Loar, Kentucky, and Eastman.  Each will have different strengths and weaknesses inherent in them.  Then again, so do the 25,000 dollar mandolins.  That is a good part of the joy of the journey in mandolins (and guns) to find the ONE that suits us for now.  Maybe for life, but at least for now.  It is certainly no different for handguns either.  There are a lot of good ones out there, but each shooter has his/ her preference.  I guess it is just like mandolins!

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

1. Kentucky
2. The Loar
3. Gibson
4. Silver Angel

                                                                    I think................3 sounds the best though.

----------


## Ron McMillan

> *But isn't the setup work and final QC just being done by the American retailers and not the factory?* Steve and Robert are not employees of The Loar, for example. They are independent businessmen.  The extra care is because the retailer is willing to invest the extra work.  Every non-US case of complaint I've seen on the forum, it seems the retailer basically just acted as a shipper.


(My bold highlights above)

*EXACTLY* my point. Why only make sure that instruments destined for the American market are properly (or even basically) set up, when all the duds sent out around the world are damaging the brand they are working so hard to promote?

----------


## almeriastrings

> The obvious thing wrong with that state of affairs is that ALL the instruments bear the name of the (American) parent company brand.


Unless I have the corporate structure completely wrong, I think it is the other way around. The 'parent company' is AXL Instruments based in China:

http://www.scmna-axlusa.com/english/e_sponsor.htm

"With its _main headquarters_ in Shanghai China, and factories throughout China, AXL Musical Instruments manufactures a wide range of high-value musical instruments and electronics for its own brands and many international OEM clients as well. AXL's U.S. office is in Hayward California."

This is a pretty huge, multi-national operation, which "owns" a large number of familiar "brands" including Johnson, Recording King, AXL guitars and cases, Guardian cases, Paris Swing instruments, Lucida and Antonio Hermosa classic guitars,  as well as "The Loar" guitars and mandolins.

----------


## Schlegel

> (My bold highlights above)
> 
> *EXACTLY* my point. Why only make sure that instruments destined for the American market are properly (or even basically) set up, when all the duds sent out around the world are damaging the brand they are working so hard to promote?


Huh? The manufacturer isn't making sure they're properly set up in the US. The individual conscientious retailers like Joe, Steve, and Robert do this on their own.  I can assure you that there are cheapo retailers in the US who will ship you a box they've never even looked inside, just like everywhere else in the world.

----------


## houseworker

> *EXACTLY* my point. Why only make sure that instruments destined for the American market are properly (or even basically) set up, when all the duds sent out around the world are damaging the brand they are working so hard to promote?


Ron, I've now read your original thread on this (previously I'd simply seen your Facebook comments).  You seem to be missing the point.  It is not possible to set up mandolins, violins or other such wooden string instruments ahead of shipping vast distances with any certainty that the set up will survive the journey.  Shipping to a humid environment such as yours only compounds the problems the instrument faces.  If anyone is to blame, it is the Thai dealer who imported the instrument for you, since he should have done the set up work.

But I suspect that he doesn't handle too many mandolins, and in doing his job for him you have learnt a useful skill.  Nothing you have said here or in the original thread suggests you were sent a 'dud', merely an instrument that needed a normal level of dealer set up.

Setting up instruments in the factory is uneconomic, and pretty pointless given that shipping invariable undoes the work.  Be thankful that you got a nice instrument for a good price and accept that one of the downsides of life in Thailand is the need to do your own routine maintenance on any mandolins you import.

----------


## almeriastrings

> One of the things that has amazed me about the Loar products is the artists that have asked to be a part of the Loar family of artists.  They endorse the instrument because they like it.  I don't see an artists line up for the other products in the price point.  We are talking about A list players and not someone beginning or hoping to make it some day.  These guys are legends and have asked to endorse the product.  That says something about the product.


The problem is... I'm not completely sure _what_ it says. I doubt it says "this is the best mandolin I have ever played in my entire life", as I kind of suspect that Ronnie Reno and Jesse McReynolds might just have picked on a few good ones in their time, or "what spectacular craftsmanship and attention to detail!"

I have no idea. It could say anything from "what a great endorsement deal" to "this mandolin sounds and plays well enough to use on stage and not have to worry about theft or baggage handlers". 

From what is on 'The Loar' website, detail in that regard is lacking. People endorse things for all kinds of reasons, and unless they spell out those reasons in sufficient detail, they are - in my book - to be taken with a pinch of salt. Just saying "so and so uses one" is, of itself, not very meaningful without knowing their reasons for doing so. 

I can see why they do make a very decent "road" instrument. Would not disagree with that at all. They can be set up to play well, and they mic up very nicely too. They are an ideal candidate for pickup installation. They look good (especially from a distance, as I have commented previously) and they are in a price range where travelling with them is pretty much stress-free. That has advantages these days. Sound-wise, I understand they are very consistent, so if the worst happens, they are easy to replace.

----------

DataNick

----------


## Mike Bunting

> Setting up instruments in the factory is uneconomic, and pretty pointless given that shipping invariable undoes the work.  Be thankful that you got a nice instrument for a good price and accept that one of the downsides of life in Thailand is the need to do your own routine maintenance on any mandolins you import.


And add to that  the fact that no luthier can set up my mandolin exactly the way I like it without my being there to let him know how I like it set up. The most one can and should expect is a basic set up, something more than The Loar apparently send out.

----------


## almeriastrings

> Setting up instruments in the factory is uneconomic, and pretty pointless given that shipping invariable undoes the work.


If it really is so pointless, why does Gibson ship out mandolins with an individual QC checklist? It even details the 12th and 1st fret action...

I'm looking at one right now. Binding, nut, buzzing, intonation.. all checked.

Obviously, the economics are different, but quite a few mid-range manufacturers also seem able to get at least a decent 'in the ballpark' setup done. Some of 'The Loar' instruments I have seen (including those in the $1k+ range) have been really shocking and incredibly inconsistent...I have seen a fair number of other brands in the same price range that seem to achieve a consistently better result in that regard. This is not to denigrate how they can sound, or play once set up properly, but it does seem to me that they way they leave the factory (after a QC check, no less!) is really sub-par, even for the price point. Sure, a good specialist dealer/distributor can weed these out and sort out most of the "issues", but unfortunately, in many parts of the world you will be hard pressed to find such.

----------


## Ron McMillan

None of the responses above deal with what *still* surprises me: that there exists a distribution channel that allows delivery of terribly unprepared instruments that, as they arrive at some customers' homes, are simply not fit for purpose. Totally unplayable.

Somewhere in the corporate structure of AXL, this policy is being approved, never mind the frustrations it delivers to customers, the amount of justifiable bitching and moaning that thrives on fora like this one, or the clear damage such complaints do to the brand. THAT is corporate madness.

----------


## John Kinn

Chops:

1.Gibson
2.Loar
3.Kentucky
4.Silverangle

Probably all wrong, but chop nr three was weaker than the others...

----------


## Big Joe

First, the mother company is The Music Link and AXL is only one of the brands under that.  Not that it makes any difference.  The issue is not that they are not setup over seas, it is that they don't get the same care as a good, caring dealer provides.  That is true no matter the brand.  Just having a check list with the dimensions when it leaves the factory (as does Gibson) assure it will be the same when it arrives at the dealer some time down the road.  There are still a LOT of issues to go over to determine if it is really that well setup.  None of these companies can provide a great setup person in your store to provide the best outcome possible.  That is what dealers are for, and hopefully they will go over the instrument and ensure it is right before it gets out of the shop.

The setup in China will vary depending upon who is doing the work.  However, these setups are very generic and would not suit many players that I know.  Unfortunately the world as a whole is not a highly mandolin savvy community.  There are pockets here and there, but in most places they don't have the experience, skill, or desire to care about an instrument they rarely see or sell and certainly don't understand the instrument.  We see that even here in the US.  Most guitar dealers think they may be cool, but useless and don't understand they are not little guitars and attempt to set them up accordingly... if they try at all.

It does not matter who the manufacturer is, they all have problems with setup.  Remember, on a mandolin especially, setups can change very fast due to numerous conditions including temperature and humidity changes.  When they leave the factory the instrument may be setup reasonably.  However, they go into a box, into a warehouse until a cargo container is ready to be filled, then into a boat in China.  From there they go to a distributors warehouse.  It is hoped this distributor will have a crew to do setup and instrument grading.  Most do not (I am talking about nearly every brand, not just loar).  The instrument is warehoused there until and order from a dealer comes in.  The mandolin is then shipped to the dealer.

When the dealer gets it he is supposed to do setup work as needed and prepare the instrument for shipment.  He is supposed to ensure this is a good instrument, and if not get a different one for the purchaser.  However, reality is that most dealers don't know or understand mandolins and often don't even open the box to ensure it is a decent product.  They may not even know what to look for and just pass it on.  That is true in international (outside US) more than domestic, but it occurs all too often with any brand in the US.

A good many sales of instruments in this price range go to beginners on the mandolin who have no idea what it is supposed to fell like.  They don't realize for some time that the setup needs attention.  On nearly any instrument sent from a manufacturer the nuts are too high, the bridges may not be all that well fit, and they are often not set to the proper string height.  These are all issues that are dealt with in final setup.  The setup at the factory is a pretty generic setup.  It is left so the adjustments can be made at the point of sale.  They realize many dealers do not do setup work.  They realize the process to get from factory to purchaser is a long trip and the setup is going to change... often substantially .... before it arrives at its final destination.  If they set things too low, the instrument may not be playable at all when it is sold.  They can set things up a bit high, and it may be difficult to play, but it can be played and it can be setup for the purchaser.  This is thought to be better than setting them up too low.  In a perfect world the dealer is supposed to do the final setup.  In fact, it is in many manufacturers contract with the dealer that they are expected to do this setup work and inspection and that is why they get the profit percentage they do.  In reality, that is not what usually happens.

I am talking about manufacturers across the spectrum of nations, brands, price points, or any other criteria you wish to put there.  I have done this long enough to realize nothing has changed much in many years.  I have seen different companies attempt to do better, but the problems they get from being too closely setup are greater than having them setup a bit too high and letting the dealer or purchasers luthier take care of the setup.

It is not desired by any manufacturer (domestic or international) to have product released that is less that what it is intended to be.  However, this is not a perfect world and no company will ever be 100% perfect on QC.  It all goes back to people.  How well trained or experienced they are can make a great difference.  What mood is the inspector in, what problems is he facing, or what has management required him to do today.  Sometimes the work load is too heavy to give as detailed a look as they may wish to do.  Believe me, in most factories the numbers they are required to do are more important than much else.  

In the end, this story is not about any particular brand.  It is about the way products are produced.  If they were automobiles it would be no different.  If it were dishwashers it would be no different.  Different materials are easier to deal with, and wood products are one of the more difficult because of the way the expand and contract.  Our desire for perfection is a great thing, but not very realistic.  There is not a single brand of mandolin you can name that has not had issues of some kind in the years.  Sometimes because the builder did not have every skill required developed to perfection.  Sometimes it is a shipping issue, sometimes it is unrealistic expectations by the purchaser, sometimes it is just life.  In the end, most issues can be taken care of quite fast and life goes on and everyone is happy.  Hopefully you can understand this is not just an issue with TML, or Loar or any other brand and price itself does not reflect perfection, but if you want the closest you can to perfection the you can buy it from a very small builder and pay 25,000 dollars.  Of course, when it arrives you will often see little things that may not exude perfection.  After all, it is wood we are working with and it is hard to make it perfect in every way every time.

----------


## Rayne

Spin spin spin my head is spinning with all of this spin!   :Disbelief:

----------


## Mike Bunting

Think I'll stick with a Kimble as my next choice for a mandolin.

----------


## almeriastrings

Dishwashers?  :Confused:

----------


## joni24

OK, Almeria Strings, I'm dying to know the true identity of both the tune & chops instruments...  I have my favorites, but I just ordered a KM-1000 so I'm hoping that it stacks up in sound to what I picked in your blind testing!

----------


## extremescene

It's funny to me getting so caught up in a perfect finish... when I ordered my LM-700 from FolkMusician I specifically said to pick the best sounding example, that I didn't care what the finish looked like.  To me, that is the single most important thing.  Robert actually said that most people request the opposite... they want the best fit and finish possible.  I say who cares!  If you play it at all there will be flaws eventually anyway.

----------


## jambalaya

what he said

----------


## houseworker

> OK, Almeria Strings, I'm dying to know the true identity of both the tune & chops instruments...  I have my favorites, but I just ordered a KM-1000 so I'm hoping that it stacks up in sound to what I picked in your blind testing!


Me too!

----------


## almeriastrings

I'll give it a little more time, then reveal all. Interesting that a lot of people have listened to those tracks, but very, very few have dared to say what they think they are. This is the world's no.1 mandolin forum, and yet the confidence level in identifying a $1K Pac-rim import from a $7.5K Gibson is incredibly low.... there's hesitation in even describing the sounds of the different instruments. I suspect it would be very different if I had identified them up front!

Back to the value of endorsements for a moment. In a related thread on "Strings for the Loar" an interesting comment has emerged:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...s-for-The-Loar

After stressing how important it is that top name players endorse "The Loar", Joe then says this:
_
It is also the most sough after and used by professionals (or the EXP 74's). Many have endorsement by other brands, but trade them out for D'Addario. I certainly will never name names, but it is a fact._ 

Which puts the whole murky area of artist endorsements in context far better than I ever could.

It is a marketing tool. Nothing more, nothing less. If you allow yourself to be swayed one way or the other by advertising or by endorsements, you really must be pretty gullible. If I am looking to buy anything, about the only thing I pay any attention to are genuine, independent reviews and reports by genuine current owners/users with no connection to the manufacturer or retailer. Not product announcements, adverts, or endorsements. Magazine reviews need to be treated with caution... as murky stuff goes on there too, regularly. I've seen it first hand.

----------


## KarlM

> I'll give it a little more time, then reveal all. Interesting that a lot of people have listened to those tracks, but very, very few have dared to say what they think they are. This is the world's no.1 mandolin forum, and yet the confidence level in identifying a $1K Pac-rim import from a $7.5K Gibson is incredibly low.... there's hesitation in even describing the sounds of the different instruments. I suspect it would be very different if I had identified them up front!


Okay, if you're not going to satisfy us, I'll bite.  #1 of the picking and #3 of the strumming lineups sounded significantly different from the others, with a lot less bass.  I'm guessing those were the Kentucky.  The others had much more complex, deeper sounds that were subtly different from each other, but it's hard to say from a short clip which is the best.

----------


## almeriastrings

It is not easy, is it? 

If I didn't know, I would be hard pressed to tell too. It is not much easier on a long clip as a matter of fact. Even harder against other instruments on a backing track. Tony Rice used an Ovation (of all things) on some tracks on certain CD's - if you don't know already, can _you_ tell which ones? 

I think the mere fact that 'The Loar' and indeed, the 'Kentucky' clearly do not sound _bad_ in terms of overall sound against far more expensive instruments is quite impressive. Well, it impresses me more than any number of celebrity endorsements, anyway! 

I'll list which mandolins were used on which tracks tomorrow. I still find the 'fit and finish' of 'The Loar' seriously disappointing, but really cannot complain about how it sounds.

----------


## KarlM

When I said #1 sounded different, I meant "worse".  Though really, it sounds fine until you listen to how the others sound, so it's hardly bad.  It's a more simple, single-tone sound, where the others have it echoing around in the body more to make it more complex.  Not sure that's the real explanation but that's how it sounds.

----------


## Big Joe

Just a note about celebrity endorsements on mandolins.  They don't get paid to play those instruments.  They may get them at artist price, and some may get an instrument at no cost, but that is the end of the deal.  No big payday.  No great deal.  If they don't like the instrument they don't play it... period.  The same for strings.  They don't get paid for string endorsements.  They get strings at an artist price.  It is much lower than what you pay, but remember, they change strings a LOT more often than you will.  They don't get a big payday for endorsements of these kinds.  

There is always a lot of people saying they get big money for endorsements, but that is just not the case.  They are thankful to get what they do, but they are not getting rich by any means.  They just get product at a reduced rate or free in rare cases.

----------


## ColdBeerGoCubs

I'll Play. I have no horse in this race so why not. 

I'm going to say one is the Km1000
Two is the Loar
Three is the Silverangel
Four is the Gibson. 

I thought 1 was pretty well balanced, good, clear sound, decent note separation.
2 seemed kind of muted to me at times and some of the notes seemed to just die away almost too fast. Notes seemed jumbled together at times.
3 and 4 were nice. 3 was pretty clear, nice overall sound. 4 seemed to have it all, clear separation, nice roll-off of the notes. Clean I guess I could say. 

Just a guess (most likely a poor one), a guess done with limited experience and no experience of the instruments at hand. I did listen to this through my computer, so thats a bottleneck, maybe later I'll crank it through some real equipment.

----------


## JeffD

> Spin spin spin my head is spinning with all of this spin!


If by spin you mean that someone(s) are trying to portray a situation to their particular bias, I don't think so. All concerned have brought up some really interesting and good points.

I think that, legitimately, the topic is a lot more complicated that it at first appears. A lot more complicated than I had at first thought. I am glad it has gone on so many pages, as I would have missed some of it.

It sure is an over-simplification to say "here is one of these, and here is one of those, and look at the difference and hear the difference, and make a decision about the manufacturer of these and the manufacturer of those."  

Things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.

----------


## JeffD

> I suspect it would be very different if I had identified them up front!


That may be. But I also think that it would be different if this were a live accoustic mandolin tasting, where we could hear the actual instrument - not the computer speaker's rendition of the recorder's rendition of the microphones rendition of the mandolin.

----------


## JeffD

In a scientific sound test, you would play three cuts, two of one and one of another, and have us identify which one sounded different. Not which sounded like what, but which sounded different from the other two. By clever combinations of cuts you would be able to sort out the information you were seeking.

But keep going, this is too much fun.

----------


## Schlegel

I know from doing my own mandolins that recordings make for tough comparisons- nothings beats live in person.
But I'm willing to say which sounded better on my speakers- most favorite is first.

melodic recording my preference is 2, 4, 3, 1.  
Chops it's 4, 1, 2, 3.

----------


## almeriastrings

Yes, obviously tracks like these have limitations. Fully recognise that. One of the 'biggies' is that people hear them on different systems, from really poor computer speakers upwards. The actual recordings were made using Neumann KM184's, into an Apogee Ensemble (which has really clean, very neutral preamps) and they were checked on Dynaudio professional speakers. They are  not 'optimised' recordings... which normally, you would do, working to make each instrument sound its absolute best by means of mic selection, placement, and post processing. I'd normally even use different string sets on these.... accuracy and consistency was the aim (as far as practically possible). Definitely hearing them 'live' behind an acoustically transparent but optically opaque screen would be the ideal, however, as would more randomisation...

Despite the limitations, though, I think some differences come through well.

----------


## houseworker

> It is not easy, is it?
> 
> I'll list which mandolins were used on which tracks tomorrow.


Tomorrow's been and gone, please put us out of our misery!

This past week I've ordered and now received a Kentucky KM-1000 Blackface from Amazon in the US - they had a very good deal on offer.  Obviously they sent it with no final set up, in a Saga box as I imagine it gets sent to dealers.  It was loosely strung but the bridge wasn't fitted.  But as soon as I positioned the bridge and tuned up the instrument was entirely playable, and no further set up is going to be needed.

The workmanship and finish is superb, the only slight disappointment is the back's rather poor flame, but I rather expected that with the black front.

----------


## almeriastrings

OK!

Track One: The Loar LM700

Track Two: Kentucky KM1000

Track Three: Silverangel Distressed F

Track Four: Gibson F5 Fern

CHOPS IN THIS ORDER:

1) The Loar
2) Silverangel
3) KM-1000
4) Gibson F5 Fern

A couple of points... I had not played the KM-1000 for a while, and being Red spruce, it does tend to need 'waking up' after a break. It is a very punchy and clean sounding mandolin. The F5 is very new, only left the factory a month ago. It too needs a bit of playing in, but is a very, very nice mandolin already. Loads of punch and great balance. Give it time... the Silverangel is about 18 months old. It is a very rich instrument with a lot of low end. Very different, but suits some things perfectly. Great on old-time stuff.  The Loar I thought did very well in this company. It certainly did not disgrace itself. Excellent value in terms of sound, if you can accept the obvious issues with finish/setup.

----------


## John Kinn

Well I'm glad I didn't put my December wages into the bet :Grin: But i have to say:That Silverangle is a very nice mandolin...

----------


## John Kinn

Come to think of it, they all are! :Smile:

----------


## joni24

> This past week I've ordered and now received a Kentucky KM-1000 Blackface from Amazon in the US.


I, too, just ordered a Kentucky KM-1000 (used, from one of the Mandolin Cafe classified ads).  Haven't received it yet, though, so I'm really itching to hear how it sounds.  This thread was fun and a real eye-opener as to how Kentuckys and Loars can hold their own against the big fellows.  I must admit that I thought the KM-1000 did great in the melody test, but fell a little short in the chops.  Hopefully with more warmup it can produce a deeper richer tone...

almeriastrings, thanks so much for putting all this together, very interesting!

----------


## Schlegel

Thanks, that was quite an interesting test. Turns out that for me the Gibson had the best combined score. The Silverangel was for me just a little better in the melodic test, though.  I think my belief that this is really a Golden Age for affordable mandolins remains true- you can do pretty well on a budget these days.

----------


## almeriastrings

They (KM-1000) are certainly a very nice instrument.. I doubt you will be disappointed.... they veer more in the "Loar-like" (Lloyd, that is) direction than some others. Quite powerful and 'dry' sounding, at least, those I have heard and played tend to. Fit and finish on those (and the KM-900 and 1500) is outstandingly fine, and consistently so, according to the examples I have had a chance to check out. Newer instruments with Red spruce tops really do take some playing in often... same with guitars. We have a custom martin OM-42 from 1999, and it was quite 'glassy' for a long while... in these last 2-3 years, though, it sounds totally different. All the punch and headroom of Red spruce, but with some warmth too... that one took quite a while to 'get there', but it was worth the wait! You get a bit more instant gratification with Sitka and Englemann, I think.... I like all three, in fact. Just different flavors, so to speak. If I get a bit of spare time over the holidays, I might re-run this experiment with three very similar (on paper) instruments, the Gibson F5, the Jim Triggs '23  and the KM-1000 again....maybe a Monroe tune and a nice ribbon mic would be a good match there  :Smile:

----------


## houseworker

I must add my thanks for a very informative (and entertaining) thread.  There doesn't seem to be a great deal of distance between your own conclusions and those of Joe and Robert as far as The Loar goes.

joni24, will be watching out for your report on your KM-10000.  Hope it's as good as mine.

----------


## KarlM

Very interesting...1 in the melody and 3 in the chop sounded like they had the same kind of tone to me, distinct from the others, so it was surprising to see they were different!  Just goes to show how playing style affects the sound of certain instruments.

----------


## Big Joe

I am not sure Kentucky KM1000 have "Red" spruce or Adirondak spruce tops.  The Kentucky website says it is American spruce.  That leaves a lot of room for interpretation.  Most likely Sitka and that is what they sound more like.  I certainly will not argue the issue, but if it is not advertised by the manufacturer as Red spruce, then it is not likely to be.  Sitka is far more prevalent and would be more like what was used in the late 20's which is the mandolin they are attempting to emulate with this model.  

I don't know that it makes much difference to anything, but unless there was some real way to determine it is red spruce as opposed to some other spruce it is most likely not red spruce.  Why would Saga or Kentucky not advertise it as red spruce?  The concept of "American Spruce" is interesting.  They do indicate the maple is from northern Michigan, but make no reference to the species or specific location where the spruce comes from.  Just from America.  That does not mean much and can cover several types of spruce.

----------


## almeriastrings

This was the specification when the one I have was purchased:

Kentucky KM1000 All Solid Mandolin 
Solid, hand-carved and graduated select red spruce top 
Solid, flat-sawn, hand-carved select highly flamed maple back and sides from Northern Michigan 
One-piece maple neck with dovetail neck/body joint at the 15th fret 
Nitro-cellulose finish in a traditional 1920s sunburst 
Ebony fingerboard with M.O.P. dot position markers and 29 fret extension over the body 
Ivoroid binding on all edges 
Rosewood peghead overlay with Kentucky script and original-design Flower Pot inlaid in pearl 
Vintage-style bridge with small adjustment wheels 
Traditional 2-screw truss rod cover plate 
Perfectly shaped M.O.P. nut 
Highly polished nickel-silver frets 
Silver-plated, engraved tail-piece with leather insert 
High-quality, nickel-plated Gotoh tuners with engraved plate and removable buttons .

I do note that the current web description differs. I have no idea when that changed.
Here is an old web page from around the same time:

http://www.12fret.com/new/Kentucky_K...ndolin_pg.html

----------


## almeriastrings

Interesting.... it looks like there has been an unannounced and recent spec (or just wording?) change at Kentucky. From what I can tell, this seems to have happened around the time the KM-5000 appeared. Previously, the two "top models" (the KM-1000 and KM-1500) were described in Saga literature as having Red spruce tops, now, the KM-1000 is said to have an "American spruce" top, which as Joe rightly points out could mean anything, but typically would be Sitka.  The KM-1500 and the KM-5000 are still currently listed with Red spruce tops... and many retailers continue to use the previous wording when listing the KM-1000:

http://www.elderly.com/new_instruments/items/KM1000.htm

http://www.fiddlersgreenmusicshop.co.../kentucky.html

http://www.folkmusician.com/Kentucky...nfo/KM%2D1000/

Has there really been a change, or have they merely changed the wording?

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

You could always contact Rich Ferris at Saga. He posted in this thread  about the KM-5000.

My KM-1000 was made before the wording change, so I remain hopeful.

----------


## Rob Meldrum

Fantastic thread!  I wish the sound samples could be posted with a poll so you had to guess which was which before being shown the results.  I think you would find very few people would be able to reliably separate the least expensive from the most expensive mandolins.  And very nice playing, by the way.  Rob

----------


## Clement Barrera-Ng

> Interesting.... it looks like there has been an unannounced and recent spec (or just wording?) change at Kentucky


The same thing happened with KM-900 also. When it was first announced in December '09 all of the literature specifically mentioned red spruce as being used as the top wood.  See this announcement on the cafe: 

http://www.mandolincafe.com/news/pub...s_001163.shtml

But then some time in 2010, Kentucky had changed the description to Select Spruce, which prompted the following thread in December '10: 
http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...M-900-top-wood

It may be impossible to determine when the change was made, and whether the change took place for both KM900 and KM1000 at the same time.  Does anyone know approximately when the description was changed for KM1000?

----------


## almeriastrings

It was definitely pretty recent in terms of the KM-1000. Seems to have happened about the time the KM-5000 appeared from what I can tell. It is likely they only have so much Red spruce available, and reserve it for what they regard as their "best" models... at the time. It is unfortunate, though, that specs just get changed like this. Many dealers (as above) still list the KM-1000 with Red/Adirondack spruce. I am as certain (as I can be) that mine does have Red spruce, as it a) looks like it, b) behaves like it and c) sounds like it. It is also a few years old now when that was the current description. Not that I think a sitka or englemann topped mode would be "inferior", I think they can sound great - but it would be nice to have a bit more clarity with what you might get if ordering one.

----------


## houseworker

The current 2011 Saga catalogue (downloadable from their website) still shows the KM-1000 as being made from "Solid, handcarved and graduated select Adirondack spruce top.  Solid, flat-sawn, handcarved select highly flamed maple back and sides from northern Michigan."  It's found on page 69 of both the counter and the musical instrument catalogues.  They don't make the same claim for the KM-900 which is listed on page 74.

There is however the usual disclaimer "Specifications are subject to change without notice".

----------


## Big Joe

I did not download the catalogue.  I just listed what they post on the website, which is more accurate and up to date than the catalogue.  The catalogues are usually only updated every year to two years.  I don't make any claim to which is right, but the website would be more accurate most often.  The little statement you found that says "Specifications are subject to change without notice" is true for most companies.  Even at the Big G we had that clearly on everything.  That way when something was not just quite right, they have an out.  It was not an issue with mandolins, but more so with banjos.  If it called for a particular tone ring but that one was not available, they would substitute for another.  It was still a Gibson proprietary tone ring, but not always the one specified in the catalogue.  

I don't know what they do now, but they are also not producing any banjos yet so that is not an issue.  Every manufacturer will build according to what parts they can get and that is just the way it is.  The biggest problem we had was actually getting the tuners we wanted for a particular model.  The MM's were supposed to have Waverlies installed.  We did not substitute even though there may be times when we could not get them for long periods of time.  We would have to wait until they produced another batch to get them.  That was one reason why the MM production was so slow.  It was a hard to build mandolin, but getting everything together for it was not that easy at times.

----------


## houseworker

Here is the current listing for the KM-1000 on the Saga website.  It still says that it is made from "Solid, hand-carved and graduated select red spruce top. Solid, flat-sawn, hand-carved select flamed maple back and sides from Northern Michigan."

----------


## Aisha

> A11030470
> 
> Which I believe makes it a March 2011 build. 
> 
> Allowing time for shipping from China, import and distribution, and this one did not hang around the store very long.
> 
> It is quite true that the store in question (Thomann in Germany) do absolutely nothing in the way of setup, and their own "QC" is limited to a) Open the box and check the mandolin, guitar or whatever is in there and b) check for obvious major damage. That's it. They do nothing else. I knew that when I bought it, of course. That is why I have always advised people, where possible, to buy from a specialist dealer who will provide pre-sale service. Unfortunately, in the whole of Europe, I know of no really specialist dealer who does this with this brand. So, anyone buying in Europe (27 countries) is pretty much on their own in this respect.  You can find a number of dealers of Kentucky, Eastman, etc., but there are (now) very, very few places that stock 'The Loar' mandolin range. There may be one small store in Ireland that I heard had an LM400, LM600 and LM700 recently. 
> .


Hello everyone (que tal Andrew  :Smile: ?),

I am definitely not an expert so take this for what it's worth... I want to answer because  reading this interesting thread makes me wonder if I have been particularly lucky (or if I'm deaf and blind but I don't think so  :Wink: ).

I'm also in Europe and bought my LM 700 at Thomann in May 2010 (I wrote about it in other threads). Concerning the purchase itself I encountered the same problems as Andrew (no specialized dealer), add to that I can't do 'lutherie' myself apart from changing the strings, and know no luthier for mandolins in my country (Belgium) or even not too far from the borders...

As for The Loar 700 I purchased at Thomann: the finish is similar to what was already described here, not perfectly perfect but not as Andrew's description either. Before buying it I had requested a minimum set-up from Thomann but it was refused. If I wanted a proper set-up ok but then I had to go to Germany and pick up the mando in their shop (+/- 6 hours driving from my place...). I bought it anyway because for 30 days I could return it if I wasn't happy no matter the reason, other than that I agree with ' better see it and try it before'. 

When I received it the strings were old and one was slightly buzzing on one note but the bridge wasn't at a weird place like on Andrew's pics and the sound was very good after strings change (I listened to many other mandos on CD and online; I have less comparison 'live'). 

Only very recently I discovered a shop in Brussels where they sell guitars and Kentucky mandolins and seem to know something about mandolins. I took my mando there to check if there was any 'maintenance' to be made, and the retailer just adjusted the bridge very slightly (moved it like 0.3mm -sorry I don't know in inches, anyway, it is not much  :Wink: ). He said it was a 'good mandolin' without insisting but with a 'serious' face (translation: did not enjoy admitting it was a good choice because bought on Internet) and what struck me is how he talked about the unfair competition made by online shops. Well, my conclusion is that this retailer doesn't have the level of expertise of some of you who post on this forum (not specialized in mandolins), but knows nevertheless what he's talking about. 

I enjoyed the opportunity to try 2 Kentucky he was selling. One A style (don't remember which one) I didn't like at all and the other one it's the 1000KM if I remember well (same as on the pics and costs around 1100EUR in that shop -around 1400USD). I thought it sounded very good too and was quite easy to play as well but I still prefer The Loar's sound and neck. Had I had the choice between the 2 at that shop, I think I'd have bought The Loar anyway. I can live with the cosmetic imperfections comparing with the sound of the Kentucky which I like too but not as much as The Loar's and which is more expensive.

Anyway, I enjoy reading about different experiences and opinions, and it's good to know that instruments coming from Thomann are not consistent and hardly checked, that's the least that can be said...

----------


## almeriastrings

I would add a few further notes on the Loar LM-700 discussed here. Since doing the initial tests, I have done quite a lot of work on this mandolin. It has had a fingerboard extension scoop and been given a 'speed neck' (huge improvement). The very thick neck has also been thinned down a bit, and that also makes it MUCH better and nicer to play.

Some observations you may find useful:

1) The fret slots are cut incredibly deep, so be VERY careful when 'scooping'. I think it is best to fill the slots, then scoop.

2) The fretwire is very soft. I can already see some wear on the first three frets...

3) Careful examination of the stock bridge revealed that the screw threads were not installed properly, and were out of the vertical. This was causing the saddle to 'bind' when adjustments were made. The CA bridge was a huge improvement all round.

4) The finish is incredibly thick. Next on the agenda (when I have more time) is to work on the top finish... it has to sound even better when some of that has gone away. I have seen bar tops with less polyurethane! They may as well have dipped it. 

The LM-700 is now sounding (and playing) very well. Despite all the defects and flaws, at the price, it is a good buy - provided you are prepared to spend more $ (and especially time) to refine it.  So far, I have spent around 14 hours working on it...with more to come. This is not a mandolin you can just take out of the box and expect to be in playable condition or sound its best. It most definitely needs a lot of work. If you do that, though, it is a good mandolin!

If it is the case that prices of the KM-1000 have gone right up (to $2,995), the LM-700 is an ever better deal right now. 

Next.. I have a 'The Loar' LM-300 for comparison to a 'Kentucky KM-505'!! Then... two 'identical' KM-1000's....

----------


## John Kinn

I love these comparisons..keep'em comin! :Smile:

----------


## pickinNgrinnin

My wife has been telling me for years that all Mandolins sound the same. Perhaps that explains why more people did not venture a guess on the audio files  :Laughing: 

I do though, miss the days when Big Joe would talk about Master Models, Ferns, etc. Interesting thread. 

It's also interesting to note how lower priced Mandolins have evolved. Years ago, the buzz was about Kentuckys, then Michael Kelly's, then Eastman, and now the Loars. Ive not had the chance to play a Loar or a KM 1000 but after reading this thread, I would like to check them out.

----------


## tburcham

> 1. Kentucky
> 2. The Loar
> 3. Gibson
> 4. Silver Angel
> 
>                                                                     I think................3 sounds the best though.


I agree with Andrew.  I've owned all four of these instruments at one time or another.  Still have my Silverangel and love it.  Mandos three and four sound the best to me with the edge in overall volume going to No. 3.

----------


## tburcham

Ok, now I've looked at the results.  I'm even more proud of the Silverangel.  My first inclination was to go Silverangel on No. 3, but I didn't think it would be louder than the Gibson.  Wow.  Both 3 & 4 sound excellent, they are smoother and more refined that the Ken and Loar, but it's a really subtle difference.  

Good work on this review!

----------


## Perry Babasin

Subtle difference is right, before I knew I thought they all sounded great. In fact if anything I thought #4 wasn't as rich sounding as some of the others. Maybe it's the great picking!...

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

If you suspect the finish is sub par on The Loar, do as this classifieds ad is doing.... :Grin:    NFI

----------


## almeriastrings

I noticed that... would be nice to see pictures. Hint. Hint.

----------


## Andrew B. Carlson

Bought it 9 days ago new. Selling today as antiqued. Quick turn around.

----------


## mee

> OK!
> 
> Track One: The Loar LM700
> 
> Track Two: Kentucky KM1000
> 
> Track Three: Silverangel Distressed F
> 
> Track Four: Gibson F5 Fern
> ...


I am just reading this thread for the first time as I was trying to learn more about "the Loar" brand, I knew that Gibson was #3 or #4 when I heard it in the first round! Although the first two were clean and crisp, there is no mistaking that Gibson sound. But PLEASE don't anyone take me wrong, I don't get opportunity to hear different mandolins, only heard Gibson, Eastman, Davis (Larry Stephenson plays) and a couple other handmade mandos.
I have never heard any of the other mandolins previously. I appreciate this review, I have never had the opportunity to see or play the Loar, would have had to order it. However, I have played and heard a few Eastmans which have had very good finish for the same price range.  I am not saying I would not consider a Loar if I had the opportunity to walk into a store and see/handle and play one, but that has not been the case. Thanks again, your review seemed to put the facts out there without being biased.  :Mandosmiley:

----------

RustyMadd

----------


## Loubrava

> This thread should not necessarily discourage a Loar owner. If you enjoy your "The Loar", why would a detailed critique of the fit-and-finish of one example diminish your enjoyment?
> 
> Look, I see it like this. I bought a Loar 600 mandolin (en route to me) as a starter instrument. I am a guitar player and I want to get into playing the mandolin. I chose The Loar 600 because 1) it has a good reputation in the sub-$1000 category as a good sounding traditional mandolin; 2) it has a thicker neck profile and a wider nut which should make the transition from the guitar somewhat easier; and 3) I did not want to spend a lot of money on a mandolin when I don't even play the instrument yet (buying a Gibson Master Model probably isn't the most prudent idea since I am just beginning my mandolin journey). 
> 
> I think my story is fairly typical. I did not buy this to be my dream lifetime mandolin. I bought this to learn on. With experience, time, and practice, hopefully I will learn my own personal mandolin preferences and get proficient enough on the instrument so that I can pursue my ultimate dream mandolin, whatever that may be. 
> 
> I expect my Loar 600 to be a well-setup, easy-playing, good-sounding mandolin (I bought it from Robert with the CA bridge upgrade and his capable set-up). I do not expect it to necessarily look like a Collings. 
> 
> While certainly interesting and enlightening, I don't think that this thread will diminish my enjoyment of my upcoming Loar 600.


You will enjoy it very much I played a 600 for about a year and got more than few complements on its tone and build from some seasond players. I sold it to upgrade to 4K mando. But I wish I would have kept it as back up the 600 is a nice sounding mando and after set up a great playing instrument good intonation, stays in tune, had low action no fret buzz. Have fun with it and you be the judge on what you think of it.
Lou

----------


## almeriastrings

To be fair, the latest ones (The Loar) I have seen have been a definite improvement in 'fit and finish' over the ones I was seeing about 3 years ago. Still rather heavy on the lacquer, but not as 'agricultural' in other details. I still feel the higher end KM's win out, but I have not seen any _really_ rough 'The Loars' for a while.

----------

mee

----------


## Folkmusician.com

Agreed QC is way up from the past.  There have also been several minor changes over the years.

----------

mee

----------


## Peterrhys17

Loar LM 700 - collapsed!! 6 weeks ago I bought a beauty from a chap via EBay. Hed bought it from a Bluegrass instrument shop (on line) in the USA a couple of years ago. Excellent condition, well maintained. Now its worthless & unplayable because the top has caved in. Luthier has said its obvious this will happen as there is no bracing!! Devastated!!!

----------


## piccard

The top collapsed because of no bracing! Ive read enough negative about the Loar 700 that tomorrow Im canceling my order. Think Ill put the money towards a used American guitar because I cant afford an American Mandolin.

This is certainly a great thread. Ive learned a lot about mandolins

----------


## RustyMadd

> Some 'Chops' on an A chord on each mandolin, random order.
> 
> http://soundcloud.com/almeria-strings/mando-chops
> 
> Certainly brings out a few differences....
> 
> Structurally, these are all quite different mandolins:
> 
> Silverangel F model with X-brace
> ...


Those weren't all the same chord shapes, specifically the third sample. Apples to oranges. You can also hear inconsistency in timing which may belie a desired outcome. Thanks for sharing though, because even still you can hear very clear differences in voicing. Blessings

----------


## Lefty665

> To be fair, the latest ones (The Loar) I have seen have been a definite improvement in 'fit and finish' over the ones I was seeing about 3 years ago. Still rather heavy on the lacquer, but not as 'agricultural' in other details. I still feel the higher end KM's win out, but I have not seen any _really_ rough 'The Loars' for a while.


Thanks for the update on the Loar cosmetics. It's at least a left handed compliment.  :Wink: 

Something that's curious:

The Loar cosmetic defects provided at a discount = Bad/Horrid
Distressed SilverAngel cosmetic defects at a premium = Good

Cognitive dissonance is funny stuff.

ps. Mandolin #3 sounded better than the rest to me - later identified as the SilverAngel

----------


## almeriastrings

> Something that's curious:
> 
> The Loar cosmetic defects provided at a discount = Bad/Horrid
> Distressed SilverAngel cosmetic defects at a premium = Good
> 
> Cognitive dissonance is funny stuff.


Violin 'distressing' has a long history. There's also a vast, vast difference between a high quality hand-made instrument with a quality finish that has been carefully 'aged' and a much cheaper 'factory' mass-produced instrument with a thick finish that has actual defects such as lacquer runs and poor detail work (bad sanding, rough binding, poorly fitted tuners, frets, etc.).

----------

Johnny60

----------


## Lefty665

> Violin 'distressing' has a long history. There's also a vast, vast difference between a high quality hand-made instrument with a quality finish that has been carefully 'aged' and a much cheaper 'factory' mass-produced instrument with a thick finish that has actual defects such as lacquer runs and poor detail work (bad sanding, rough binding, poorly fitted tuners, frets, etc.).


Q: When is a defect not a defect? A: When it is "a high quality hand-made instrument with a quality finish that has been carefully 'aged'" Oh, too, too funny. Thank you, I needed a good laugh.  :Laughing:  The illusion provided by fake "aging" salves the fragile ego. :Wink: 

But, again thank you for the audio comparison. It did show the similarities and differences among the mandolins. The SilverAngel (carefully 'aged') did appeal to me, perhaps because I'm really a guitar player and have a fondness for the sound of X bracing. The other 3 were remarkably similar, although #4 (F5) did have a marginal edge in clarity and tone. 

That seems to confirm the comments of the genuine luthiers that appear throughout the thread. As low end instruments get better the cost of that last couple of percent of sound keeps getting higher.

----------


## almeriastrings

> Q: When is a defect not a defect? A: When it is "a high quality hand-made instrument with a quality finish that has been carefully 'aged'" Oh, too, too funny. Thank you, I needed a good laugh.  The illusion provided by fake "aging" salves the fragile ego.


It has nothing to do with 'egos'. Some people simply like that look, just as you might prefer a reddish or a brown sunburst or a natural finish. It's an option. If you like it - fine. If not - don't buy one. Same with the recent 'Monroe' Master Model. No-one is 'conned' into believing it is Monroe's mandolin, but if you like that, and can afford it, why not? Not to my person taste (and overall I would never buy any instrument on the basis of looks), but I do respect that people have wildly differing preferences and see no problem at all in luthiers offering instruments that those buyers will find attractive.

It is the underlying sound and 'feel' of an instrument that really counts, and in that respect, I can only suggest you take a couple of examples of 'The Loar' and then pick up an Ellis, Gilchrist, Heiden or similar....

----------


## Johnny60

I’ve got instruments that were pristine when new, and I’ve also bought a couple of used guitars a few years back that were well and truly pre-owned.  All good, and they all have their own look, feel and individual character.

What I do hate, though, is when you get a brand new instrument that has thick runs in the poly finish - one of them big enough to produce a 1/4 inch “growth” on the edge of an f hole.  Despite being drowned in lacquer, it also had unfinished areas, for some strange reason.  A bad paint job where the paint covered the binding in a couple of places, and a fretboard extension that was drooping down towards the top of the mandolin.  What was it?  A The Loar 400 bought online from a proper dealer who’d set it up really well, but there was no mention of it being a blem when it was bought. Once we pointed out the issues, we were offered a refund or a discount.   Sounded OK so took a pretty hefty discount.

Kept it for a few months, then moved it on.

I personally am not that keen on artificially relic’d instruments - if I was buying it brand new as a commission, I think I’d probably want it to look pristine (then I can provide my own relicing over the years!).

But a reliced instrument that’s built with care and attention from a proven builder with a great track record, is a world away from a slap-dash muppet who doesn’t know one end of a paint brush from the other!

----------

almeriastrings

----------


## Lefty665

> It has nothing to do with 'egos'. Some people simply like that look, just as you might prefer a reddish or a brown sunburst or a natural finish. It's an option. If you like it - fine. If not - don't buy one. Same with the recent 'Monroe' Master Model. No-one is 'conned' into believing it is Monroe's mandolin, but if you like that, and can afford it, why not? Not to my person taste (and overall I would never buy any instrument on the basis of looks), but I do respect that people have wildly differing preferences and see no problem at all in luthiers offering instruments that those buyers will find attractive.
> 
> It is the underlying sound and 'feel' of an instrument that really counts, and in that respect, I can only suggest you take a couple of examples of 'The Loar' and then pick up an Ellis, Gilchrist, Heiden or similar....


Think there's any truth to the rumors that the follow up to the "distressed" model will be an "Authentic" model "aged" with a fireplace poker like Ol' Bill's was? 

I never argued that The Loar was a high class mandolin, only that on the one hand you dripped acid on it for mostly minor defects while having paid big money for an instrument with defects added by the maker.  Apparently you're a fan of defects if they're expensive. As I noted before that created cognitive dissonance.

FWIW, the Loar I ordered showed up today. It came from an ad here. The Mandolin Store folks were nice, knowledgeable, easy to deal with, and set it up well. It's an LM 700 VS, listed as blemished, mfd in November 2016, and it was inexpensive. 

It sounds much like the Loar and Kentucky you tested, perhaps somewhat better tone because it has had a couple of years to settle down and open up. We'll see what it does when it's been played for awhile. The back is very nicely flamed and impeccably bookmatched. The sides and neck are also nicely flamed. The face has remarkably tight grain. The finish, while not thin, is well applied with no drips or sags. The edges of the f holes are finished. From what I can see inside it is neatly assembled, no glue slop or rough joinery.

On the down side, the finish under the fingerboard extension is rough. On the back the binding around the scroll is a little uneven as it is around the heel. There is one very small ding in the center of the back, and a couple of small very light scratches that look like they may have come from a shirt button. None are things that would be apparent or disturbing in normal use. The fit, finish and most of the materials are better than the '37 Gibson A-00 I have that was made in Kalamazoo. Not bad for a "blem".


 I like the neck, but I'm a guitar player so dunno how that translates to you mandolin pickers. It will do what I got it for just fine. Thumbs up for The Loar. :Smile:

----------

J Mangio

----------


## Jeff Mando

Congrats on the new mandolin!  Enjoy!

----------

Lefty665

----------


## Lefty665

The other Loar arrived today, thought I'd do a quick comparison. This mandolin is an LM-600 dated January '18, used off Ebay. Initial impression on sound is that it is between the LM-700 and the Kentucky in the OP's sound files. 

It has none of the blemishes found on the "Blem" 700, although, while far better, the finish under the fingerboard extension is not perfect. The finish looks a little thinner, and all the binding is impeccable. The couple of minor indications of play wear would never qualify as "distressed". The wood is generally not quite as pretty as the AAA on the 700, but the neck has nicer flame. 

All in all these pac-rim instruments seem a remarkable value. From the OP's sound files, to my guitar pickers ears, they have upwards of 90% of the sound of the F5 at 10-20% of the price. From the samples I have it appears that Loar has pretty much addressed the cosmetic issues that distressed the OP in his original postings, although another recent poster had one with finish issues. Inexpensive instruments will display more sample variance than expensive ones. Look before you buy, get a generous return policy if you can't, or take your chances if the price is right. 

Now for me, which mando goes to which son... :Smile:

----------

J Mangio

----------


## almeriastrings

> I never argued that The Loar was a high class mandolin, only that on the one hand you dripped acid on it for mostly minor defects while having paid big money for an instrument with defects added by the maker.  Apparently you're a fan of defects if they're expensive. As I noted before that created cognitive dissonance.


Ludicrous conclusion. No - I'm not. I own instruments based upon sound primarily, and 'feel' secondly. I own a Silverangel because (as most on here recognise) they have a very unique tonal signature. No other reason. The 'distressing' was entirely incidental (I purchased it used and no, it was not 'big money' either). That said - I don't have a closed mind on the issue and I do have some respect for the 'art' of distressing convincingly. It has a long history in the violin world. Personally, I can 'take it or leave it' and as long as the instrument sounds great and plays well then that is all that really matters. I have only ever owed one single 'distressed' instrument in more than 40 years of playing... so I hardly think that qualifies me as a "fan"! The rest of my instruments are either genuinely aged vintage examples or more or less pristine....

----------

Johnny60

----------


## Lefty665

"I do have some respect for the 'art' of distressing convincingly"  :Smile:  Thank you for bringing some lightness to what has been for me a difficult couple of weeks. 

Adding defects to a well finished instrument as art is a concept that had never occurred to me. Thank you for broadening my horizons. As with any art form I suppose it has its own vocabulary. For example, is scraping the front known as "defacing", marring near the end pin and around where the strings attach "detailing", or scratching the back as with a belt buckle known as "rationalizing" (which serves double duty as a description for the appreciation of the art form itself)?

Your appreciation of "distressing" after the manufacturing fact as 'art' and your distain for the application of imperfections by the artisan during manufacture caused me cognitive dissonance. Perhaps that is the tension between the traditional concept of instrument as canvas to be marked on, contrasted with the more modern concept of "the medium is the message". To that end you have inspired me to take another look at the "blem" Loar I recently received. The roughness under the fingerboard extension now appears to be a symbolic expression of the ascent of mankind from the hidden dark recesses of the past into the shiny sunburst light of modernity. The subtle unevenness of the binding around the rear scroll as the artisan's expression of revolt against the rigid mathematical formula of the Fibonacci curve of the scroll and the equally rigid placement of the frets and bridge.

You make me rethink the relative value of the gradual accumulation of nicks, dings and scratches over time commonly known as 'mojo' compared to the artificial distressing of a new instrument perhaps known as 'pho(ny)jo'. You also make me re-examine the relationship of defects incorporated during construction versus those expressed later. For example, Duffy built a neck for his F12 (I think that's what it was) with the 3rd fret misplaced. He perhaps used the dissonance that caused artistically as heard in the sometimes brutal ends to his breaks. Monroe performed for some time with the scroll broken off the headstock as an expression of his anger at Gibson. I recollect that at one point he even picked the "Gibson" inlay out of the headstock. Under your formulation Bill's expression was art, and Duffy's was not. That is food for thought to compliment whisky before breakfast and the bright sweet light of spring sunshine making a blackberry blossom.

In conclusion, I truly do appreciate the time and effort you took to produce and post the sound files that are the substance of this thread. For me they were enlightening. They highlighted the similarities and differences among the mandolins. Three of them had much in common, while the fourth, the Silverangel, was distinctive, and to my ear, most pleasing. I hope you thoroughly enjoy it over many years as its distress merges with natural aging. :Wink:

----------


## almeriastrings

> "I do have some respect for the 'art' of distressing convincingly"  Thank you for bringing some lightness to what has been for me a difficult couple of weeks. 
> 
> Adding defects to a well finished instrument as art is a concept that had never occurred to me. Thank you for broadening my horizons.


You're welcome. It is _extremely_ difficult to do well, and is a very specialist skill. While I would not (myself) commission an instrument like that, I do recognise the challenge and difficulties of the work required. There are different view on this. Some approve, some don't. As long as it sounds right, I really don't care.

----------


## Bubby

Couldn't help but comment on this old tread.... I purchased a 2010 Loar 700. I love it. I have a CA bridge, new frets, speed neck, and removed alot of the thick finish. Been trying different strings and found with the GHS Bright Bronze this baby sings!!!  As mentioned before it does have a darker and woodier tone anyway. I have kept this Loar 700 and prefer its tone over the following mandos I've had. Eastman 315,515 Kentucky 620,650 and a custom built mandolin.  Im very happy with it. I can over look the finish issues long as it sounds good. All you Loar 700 folks definitely try the GHS Bright Bronze strings.

----------


## Panama_Red

> Loar LM 700 - collapsed!! 6 weeks ago I bought a beauty from a chap via EBay. He’d bought it from a Bluegrass instrument shop (on line) in the USA a couple of years ago. Excellent condition, well maintained. Now it’s worthless & unplayable because the top has caved in. Luthier has said it’s obvious this will happen as there is no bracing!! Devastated!!!


Do you have pictures of the collapsed top? Would be interested to see where the collapse happened.

----------


## J Mangio

My 2020 is a cannon; fit, finish, and tone do it for me.
I've owned plain with the '02 F9, average look with the KM 1000, and sold them off for the LM700...love the gold bling as well.

----------


## jimmy powells

I've owned 3 LM 700s and played another one. All were different. A 2010 one had big chunky neck and massive sound. I played it a lot for 4 years in preference to a 1984 Flatiron F5 Artist (which was a lovely mandolin). I had then had two later ones, neither of which had the same punch and pop. They were a bit heavier on the lacquer.  Three or four years ago I got a new one for a friend (from Thomman) and it is a lovely mandolin and has definitely opened up in three years. Not a hoss but a really good and beautiful mandolin for the price then (around £630).

I'd have no hesitation in buying a Loar LM 700.  I think, considering the look, finish, sound etc it is the best  F5 mandolin at the current price level.

----------

