# Instruments and Equipment > Builders and Repair >  Mandocello Measurements

## Max Girouard

Hi all, I have been scouring the forum for a few hours looking for Gibson mandocello measurements and did find two threads with some measurements but not all the ones required for my future build.  So if any of you have either style A or F, and a ruler I would love to have the following measurements:

Nut width
Width of neck at 12th fret
Length of head stock from tip to the nut
Width of headstock at widest point
length of body
width of body at widest point
body depth
height of carved arches
scale length
inside width of the C,G,D and A courses (how far apart double strings are from each other)
space between the C-G course
space between the G-D course
space between the D-A course
height of bridge
neck angle

Thanks!

Max

----------


## j. condino

Checkout the Guild of American Luthiers article written by Lawrence Smart  on the modern mandolin faimily for those details. Also remember that just because that's the way they built it back in the day doesn't mean that it is the right combination for your personal build. I've played a lot of historic mandocellos that had a huge club of a neck that was difficult to play and then a few modern builders instruments that almsot had a mandola width neck that was a joy to play.

j.
www.condino.com

----------


## Paul Hostetter

I'd like to chime in with my opinion that the Gibson mandocello had a scale much too short to support a C string. Real cellosthe bass of a string quartethave a 27" scale. Gibson's mandocello scale was 24.5" - arguably too short even for an E note, much less a C, and even shorter than their guitars of that era. That scale was/is ideal for octave mandolin, but tepid for cello pitches. Theoretically you can increase the string gauge to compensate for the scale, but the results usually tell you that the thicker string just sounds thuddy.

You don't normally play chords on a mandocelloit's a single note instrument like its violin family relative. If you want the most authoritative sound from a mandocello over the whole range of the four courses, please consider a 27" scale.

This woman plays a 24+"-ish scale, quite close to a Gibson mandocello scale, but tuned (appropriately) GDAE:



Her instrument is known in Europe and environs as a mandole.

And for something else to think about, here's my Greek laouto, a mandocello with a 28.5" scale!



Steel strings, gut frets, hurts like h*ll to play, but what a sound!

----------


## Marcus CA

> I'd like to chime in with my opinion that the Gibson mandocello had a scale much too short to support a C string. Real cellosthe bass of a string quartethave a 27" scale. Gibson's mandocello scale was 24.5" - arguably too short even for an E note, much less a C, and even shorter than their guitars of that era. That scale was/is ideal for octave mandolin, but tepid for cello pitches. Theoretically you can increase the string gauge to compensate for the scale, but the results usually tell you that the thicker string just sounds thuddy.


Although I'm not a builder, I'll second Paul's comment about the C string's sound.  I have a wonderful Weber mandocello, and my ONLY complaint about it is that those C-strings' tone lacks the richness of their three companion sets.  The standard scale length on all Weber m'cellos is 24.75", which is in the old Gibson ballpark, rather than what Paul recommends.

----------


## j. condino

'Gotta agree with what has been said already. I played a Forster octave mandolin earlier this year that had a 25.0 scale length and it worked great. 27.0 for a mandocello sounds a LOT better; the only way I would consider using the original Gibson scale is if that were the treble side for a fanned fretboard. An important thing to consider with a mandocello build is that while it may have similar origins, it really isn't just a big mandolin- it is more like a completely new instrument with similar tuning intervals. Thinking about it like a big mandolin changes your approach to chord construction and playing style and makes a lot of people want a smaller scale length. Once you've played a well made box with a 27.5" scale and .075s strung up on it you'll understand how lush and full that low C really can be and that it is worth the stretch.

As a huge fan of all the larger mandolin family instruments and an upright bass player as well, there is no substitute for a big body volume and long scale length. I know a lot of double bass players who put an extension on their low E string to bring the scale down to around 47+" long for a SERIOUS low C note!

j.
www.condino.com

----------


## Lefty Luthier

I have been experimenting with a mandocello that has a 25 inch scale length and have found that properly tuning a Virzi helps a lot with the lower register. Increasing the scale length would undoubtedly improve C tone but I prefer the shorter neck length from a visual standpoint.

----------


## allenhopkins

Here's what I get off my '20's vintage K-1:




> Nut width  *1.5 inches*
> Width of neck at 12th fret  *2.0 inches*
> Length of head stock from tip to the nut  *6.75 inches*
> Width of headstock at widest point  *2.75 inches*
> length of body  *18.25 inches*
> width of body at widest point  *14.25 inches*
> body depth  *3.25 inches*
> height of carved arches  *hard to tell on mine, since the top's flattened a bit; maybe 1/3 inch*
> scale length  *24.75 inches*
> ...


So this is what's on my "ham sandwich," and I leave it to others to advise you to construct a "tuna salad on rye" instead....  My C strings are quite adequate in terms of volume and resonance, but YMMV.

----------


## Max Girouard

Thanks!!!!!  That is exactly what I was looking for.  Maybe I'll try making two, one with the old scale and one with a 27 inch to compare.  Thanks!

Max

----------


## hank

After reading this I wonder if H5 Master Model (old & new build) owners with it's 15 5/8" Scale length find it's C tension satisfactory?  Is setup affected much from the extra slop of a shorter scale length or is this all about tone?  What's the most common distance that 5 course fanned fretboard open up to on the c course?

----------


## Walt

Does anyone have any thoughts on nut width? I've heard that 'cellos can range from guitar neck width, to more narrow than the traditional gibson 'cellos.
Would a more narrow nut make the 27" scale more manageable?

----------


## Joe Mendel

This evening I had the opportunity to play a K-2, it is a good sounding instrument, but the C string was pretty thuddy sounding and there was quite a bit of buzzing with the action at a reasonable height. 
 Walt decided to go with the 27" on the 'cello I'm building for him and I think it is the right way to go. I will also be reinforcing the neck with CF which will help to reduce the neck to a more comfortable size, and I will be making it a bit more narrow, also.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Paul Hostetter: I'd like to chime in with my opinion that the Gibson mandocello had a scale much too short to support a C string. Real cellosthe bass of a string quartethave a 27" scale. Gibson's mandocello scale was 24.5" - arguably too short even for an E note, much less a C, and even shorter than their guitars of that era. That scale was/is ideal for octave mandolin, but tepid for cello pitches. Theoretically you can increase the string gauge to compensate for the scale, but the results usually tell you that the thicker string just sounds thuddy.


I own a 1936 K-1 and I like it but I would have to agree with Paul. Although until he mentioned it I had never thought about it before.  

For sure the standard mandocello C-string is a monster (0.074") so I would could not imagine wanting to play an even heavier gauge.  

I think the suggestion is right -- a longer scale and a lighter guage C-string would be an improvement.  I wonder if it would be harder to play however.

Also I have often felt that the body of a Gibson mandocello (K-1, K-2 or K-4)is too small compared to a mandolin/mandola.  But I've never done math so maybe not.  But a cello seems much larger relative to a violin --than the mandolin is the the mandocello.  Is this true? Certainly the cello has a much deeper body than the mandocello.

Also it sure seems to me that the body K-5 was somewhat larger than a K-4?  I think if I were the OP I would go for a K-5 copy with the longer neck that Paul recommends.  :Smile:

----------


## zookster

I own a '14  K1 that I've had for about 12 years.   Yes, the bottom C tends to be thuddy.  I've tried various gauges and have settled on the standard .074s.  Also, the neck is pretty large since there is no truss rod.  I like the scale, but I find the whole notion of longer scale/lighter strings to make quite a lot of sense.  Even with a longer scale, if you could thin down the neck it would play a LOT faster.

 I had the good fortune to play a Loar-signed K5  a number of years ago.  What a tone!  Probably the combination of the bigger body, F holes, and longer scale.  VERY playable neck as well.   Since Gibson based it on their guitar design,  it leaned more toward a 12 string sound, but still  hands down an improvement over the previous K series.  Now if I only had the money to have bought it...........

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> zookster: I own a '14 K1 that I've had for about 12 years. Yes, the bottom C tends to be thuddy. I've tried various gauges and have settled on the standard .074s. Also, the neck is pretty large since there is no truss rod.


Agreed -- at one time I had three mandocellos -- a very early 1907 K1, one that I think was a 1914 (or 1915?) K2 and the 1936 K1 model.  The neck on the '36 with a truss rod is much nicer.  I sold off the two older ones but I hated to part with the K2.  

Couple of years ago I converted an old 6-string square shouldered dreadnought into a mandocello -- the conversion was pretty easy and the resulting mandocello has a thundering voice but the guitar neck is not ideal and much harder to play on then my Gibson mandocello --- the guitar nut/fingerboard is just too wide for my taste.

The mandocello has two more strings but only 3 "large" spacings(between courses) and 4 small spacings (between strings) -- where as the guitar has 5 large spacings.

The more I think about it the more I think that a K5 with the longer neck -- as suggested -- would be the ideal mandocello.

----------


## Rob Gerety

What is the mandocello that Sarah Jarosz is playing in this clip?  Or is it something other than a mandocello?

----------


## Larry S Sherman

Pretty sure that's an octave. Here's a quote from a previous thread:




> This is made by fletcher brock. she calls it a bouzouki because the bottom strings are tuned in octaves. hope this helps.

----------


## zookster

I'd be interested in any results you builders have had with converting an old arch top to a mandocello.  You'd still have a guitar scale length to contend with  (versus longer)  and you'd probably want to slim down the neck so the nut width is in the 1 5/8" to 1  9/16" range, as well as slimming the neck profile.  

  You'd also have to alter the peghead. But.......that body size seems to be ideal for the low registers.  Any successes out there?   

 Now if I could just find a blueprint for that K5............

----------


## Paul Hostetter

Look to the left side:



It still had the short scale, but there is a precedent.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Gibson's mandocello scale was 24.5" - arguably too short even for an E note, much less a C, and even shorter than their guitars of that era. That scale was/is ideal for octave mandolin, but tepid for cello pitches. Theoretically you can increase the string gauge to compensate for the scale, but the results usually tell you that the thicker string just sounds thuddy.


Paul, following up on that thought I am thinking of just restringing my K1 to with:

G = 0.048" 
D = 0.032"
A = 0.022"
E = 0.016"

The first three are standard mandocello strings (from J-78s')-- but based on your comments would you go to with a tad heavier guage all the way across?

I don't know why I did not think of this a long time ago........... :Smile:

----------


## j. condino

Not to sideline this very good thread, but are you sure that the low "C" and a mandocello setup is the right thing for you? As much as I like the larger scale and feel of the low C note when I'm playing alone, when I'm with others, I'd much rather have an longer scale octave mandolin. No new thinking process, just jump into it with what I already know and then go full out an octave lower. The mandocello tunings always throw me off a little. Even on a double bass with an extension, I rarely use the low "C"....

I  got a chance to play the Weber #1 full scroll mandocello prototype over at Dream Guitars (www.dreamguitars.com) for a few hours this month- pretty cool instrument with a huge low end. Playing it in a huge room full of custom guitars worth abouth $two million + all resonating while you play was a blast! Anyone looking for a nice mandocello should check it out. ( no financial interest here, just a mandocello geek...)

j.
www.condino.com

----------


## Paul Hostetter

> Paul, following up on that thought I am thinking of just restringing my K1 to with:
> 
> G = 0.048" 
> D = 0.032"
> A = 0.022"
> E = 0.016"
> 
> The first three are standard mandocello strings (from J-78s')-- but based on your comments would you go to with a tad heavier gauge all the way across.


That seems like a good and well-reasoned place to start, and certainly will do no harm. Seems like the E might be too heavy though. The K-1 has a right stout neck which can take it, certainly, but I have a hunch an .014 might sound better. Give either one a try.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Paul:  Thanks.

grandcanyonminstrel:  Not sure if your comment is directed toward me or the OP but I essentially agree with you.

Max3:  I hope you post a pic of you new mandocello when you get it.

----------


## Max Girouard

I'm still in the process of finalizing some plans.  I should be putting in an order for some wood from Spruce in a few weeks.  Maybe I'll post some photos in the mandolins in progress page when I get started.  At this point I will be going with the 27 inch scale and perhaps a smaller nut length.  I also am going to go with the K-4 body style.  I will try a guitar body in the future, but right now I think it would be cool to have a giant mando!  Thanks all for the info and making this a great thread!

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> max3: At this point I will be going with the 27 inch scale and perhaps a smaller nut length. I also am going to go with the K-4 body style. I will try a guitar body in the future, but right now I think it would be cool to have a giant mando!


Yes, I fully agree it will be amazing and wonderful to have.  

I was wondering one thing -- will you have to carve the top differently because your are going for a longer scale?   
That is I am assuming the the bridge placement will move toward the neck and above the middle of the F-holes?  

At least that is what would happen if you just put a longer neck on a K4?

I'm not sure about this but what made me ask is the thought of having a longer mandocello neck constructed to fitted to a 40's period Gibson L-48 that has broken headstock. (i.e., instead of fixing the guitar headstock I'd just replace the neck?)

----------


## Paul Hostetter

If you're lengthening the scale, that's all you do. It's the same as taking a capo off the third fret and playing the strings open.



Same string gauges, same string tension, same top graduation.

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Paul: If you're lengthening the scale, that's all you do. It's the same as taking a capo off the third fret and playing the strings open.


Thanks for the clarification --- I think you exposed a blind spot (vaccant spot?) in my neuron arrary.  

I was thinking of F7 vs F5 -- but that is not a valid comparison here is it?

That is a case of puting on a longer neck on the mandolin but keeping the scale length the same -- i.e., not changing the scale length.

BTW great pic --what are those two insturments?

OK never mind -- I just went back and looked closer -- its the same insturment isn't it? Cool!

----------


## Paul Hostetter

Photoshop to the rescue.

I think an F-7 vs F-5 is analogous:



And not unlike the comparison of an F-4 and and F-5:



All have the same scale, of course.

----------


## Rob Sharer

Good Lord!  I have dreams that look something like this.  I agree with your scale-length assessment and salute your Photoshop chops!  Cheers,

Rob




> If you're lengthening the scale, that's all you do. It's the same as taking a capo off the third fret and playing the strings open.
> 
> 
> 
> Same string gauges, same string tension, same top graduation.

----------


## Michael Lewis

Longer scale with same string gauges will have more tension. :Wink:

----------


## mrmando

Is that the Pete Seeger model?

----------


## Paul Hostetter

> Longer scale with same string gauges will have more tension.


Right, because of the added string mass. I didn't make my point very well. Tuning a 27" scale to CGDA (cello notes) yields a certain tension for the set. Capoing then at the 2nd or 3rd fret does not lower the tensionit just shortens the scale and raises the pitch of the strings. 

BTW, off a 27" scale, the second fret describes a scale just over 24", so there's not a clear analog between Gibson's 24.75 scale and the 27" of a cello. I was thinking banjos. 27" is about a fret-and-a-half longer than Gibson mandocello's scale. Doesn't seem like a lot, does it?

27" fret scale  	
 fret............. from nut   		  
1.................1.515"
2................ 2.946"  		
3.................4.296"  		
4................ 5.570"
5.................6.773"
6.................7.908"
7.................8.980"
8.................9.991"
9.................10.946"
 10...............11.847"
 11...............12.697"
 12...............13.500"
 13...............14.258"
 14...............14.973"
 15...............15.648"
 16...............16.285"
 17...............16.886"
 18...............17.454"
 19...............17.990" 
 20...............18.496"
 21...............18.973"
 22...............19.423"
 23...............19.849"
 24...............20.250"

Check the strap:

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Paul thanks for those fret positions.  

This is a follow-up on the idea of creating a better mandocello.  I sent an email last night to see if I can still get my hands (for a price) on the Gibson L-48 that had the crushed headstock and cracked neck (there is some minor body damage too but I hope that is also fixable).  

My plan is to follow-up on your idea and have a luthier I know remove the original neck then make & install a mandocello neck.  I had thought about doing this a few years ago but did not follow up.  

Based on this thread if I can still get the guitar I will request a new neck that will support a 27 in scale.

But my only question is has anyone ever done this already and if so how was the playability?

I ask this because looking at your measurements I notice the distance from the nut to the 5th fret on the 27" neck will be almost 6.8" -- whereas on the K1 that I have now it is more like 6.3".  That seems like a big difference?

Wondering if anyone here has ever tried to play a mandocello with a 27" scale?  Maybe there is a reason Gibson went to the 24.75" scale?

----------


## Paul Hostetter

> I notice the distance from the nut to the 5th fret on the 27" neck will be almost 6.8" -- whereas on the K1 that I have now it is more like 6.3".  That seems like a big difference?


A half an inch can be felt in 1st position. The most common baritone guitar scale these days is 27" - borrow one or visit one in a shop and try it out.




> Wondering if anyone here has ever tried to play a mandocello with a 27" scale?  Maybe there is a reason Gibson went to the 24.75" scale?


I've pondered this for quite some time, including the fact that Lloyd Loar, who could have changed it, didn't. The overly-long mandolin scale and the rather short mandola and mandocello scales were set in place long before LL arrived on the scene. Was it possibly because most of the mandolin players then were women?

Vega made mandocellos with a 27" scale, and I've only had a change to play a few over the years, but loved them. Martin also made a handful of 000-18P plectrums guitars in the early '30's that had a 27" scale on the OM body. Loooooong skinny neck, huge sound. Not a market success, I gather. I think they've all been converted to 6-strings. 27" is also a fairly common banjo scale, which is where that was coming from. 

If you have to play 1st position chords on a mandocello, the 27" isn't probably going to work. But if you want it to be a cello, have that sonic authority, and are willing to refine your playing technique to bring out what that instrument logically offers (and confine your chording and doublestops to a little farther up the neck!), it might be the ticket.

----------


## Graham McDonald

Replacing a neck on a archtop guitar can be a simple way to go to get a mandocello or a bouzouki. I have done a couple of bouzouki conversions on old German archtops with broken necks and they worked very well using a 26" scale. A slightly longer scale with 'cello tuning should be fine if you work out the tensions to be around the same as a jazz guitar set

cheers

----------


## delsbrother

Note the omitted low string..

----------


## Paul Hostetter

Did it break?

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Well -- referring back to post #24 in the string:  The L-48 with the damaged neck is no longer for sale it is getting an new guitar neck.  

So going to plan B... I see a number of Gibson L series guitars for sale on places like eBay.  The vintage L-5's are too expensive and valuable for this project.  While L-48's to L-50's can be found for sometimes under a grand it still seems like a shame to decommission a perfectly good vintage Gibson archtop guitar for this. 

The L-30's L-37's, L-47's are the smaller body -- so I'm not interested in them -- but the same thing would apply.   The Gretsh archtops are nice but also too nice.

I see an bunch of Harmony, Singerland, May Bell, and Kay vintage archtops for sale also but the quality and condition vary -- I'd like to find one that needs a neck reset anyway but usually on those the rest of the body is also beat up to death. Plan B is still viable but I'm still looking....

Plan C... A very good friend --retired physician --here in town has built a beautiful shop his basement and just completed his second 16" Benadetto-style archtop -- this one mahogony.  He has already carved out a maple back and a spruce top for his next 16 or 17" archtop and I'm thinking of commissioning him to build it into a mandocello instead -- I'd be his first customer. Probably one he did not plan on.  The only downside is it could be more than a year before I see it -- he is very meticulous and is not full time in the shop.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Re: post #35 & 36 above:  

I don't think the string broke -- no wire in the empty shaft  -- I think she finds pressing down a pair of 0.078" strings with a little finger no more pleasant than the rest of us!   :Smile:

----------


## delsbrother

Sometimes the big fat strings buzz against one another.

----------


## s1m0n

> Couple of years ago I converted an old 6-string square shouldered dreadnought into a mandocello -- the conversion was pretty easy and the resulting mandocello has a thundering voice but the guitar neck is not ideal and much harder to play on then my Gibson.


I'm right in the midst of turning an archtop guitar into a m'cello, and one of the things I'm pondering is narrowing the neck. Can you take a wild guess at a width (at the nut & 12th fret) that would suit you better?

----------


## Paul Hostetter

Allen's measurements seem like a good template:

Nut width 1.5 inches
Width of neck at 12th fret 2.0 inches

Or if you have a 12-string you like, work from what that neck would be like if it only had four courses. A standard guitar neck is too wide for comfort (I've tried it too). Some of the tag-end Kalamazoo Gibson acoustics had a 1-5/8" neck, which makes items like one of those real late J-45s with the plastic bridge a good candidate. But narrower feels better. Check this photo again:

----------


## s1m0n

> Allen's measurements seem like a good template:
> 
> Nut width 1.5 inches
> Width of neck at 12th fret 2.0 inches
> 
> Or if you have a 12-string you like, work from what that neck would be like if it only had four courses. A standard guitar neck is too wide for comfort (I've tried it too). Some of the tag-end Kalamazoo Gibson acoustics had a 1-5/8" neck, which makes items like one of those real late J-45s with the plastic bridge a good candidate. But narrower feels better. Check this photo again:


Thanks!

----------


## man dough nollij

Anybody know the scale of Mike Marshall's MC? It'a Monteleone, right? I don't think anyone would say that one has a weak C string.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Regarding S1m0n's and Paul's comments from above.  I have often pondered the thought of triming the 1 11/16" (at the nut) neck on the guitar that I converted to a mandocello 1 1/2".

Would anyone (who knows what he/she is doing that is  :Laughing: ) attempt to carry out this trim down operation while the neck is still afixed the the body?   

I'd like to slim-down the neck by by taking 3/32" (at the nut) off each side and then recontouring it to match?  Options:

1) doing it with the fingerboard and frets in place? 

2) alternatively, removing the fingerboard, shaving down the neck and then trimming down the fingerboard and re-gluing it?

I suppose the tuners would have to be relocated closer to the center too?

The more I think about it the more I think the answer to both the questions above will be "no".  

So maybe just having a new neck made up is the ticket?

----------


## Paul Hostetter

I've thinned necks while still on the body. You of course cannot thin it at the body join, but just at the nut. This is surprisingly effective, if not perfect. You don't need to change anything about the headstock.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Really!  
Thanks for the information Paul!!  

BTW take a look a the other string on "mandocello plans" in this section.  Some things are starting to come together.   :Smile: 

I might try to PM you about how you cut those necks down.

----------


## Paul Hostetter



----------


## Bernie Daniel

One picture speaks a thousand words!

 Thanks -- its a beautiful transition!  Very impressive!!  

I love the middle shot -- did you use some kind of circular saw to trim the edges? It looks like you filled in the the bottom of the headstock?

----------


## Tavy

> One picture speaks a thousand words!
> 
>  Thanks -- its a beautiful transition!  Very impressive!!  
> 
> I love the middle shot -- did you use some kind of circular saw to trim the edges? It looks like you filled in the the bottom of the headstock?


Looks more like photoshop than circular saw to me  :Grin:   I could certainly be wrong though... John.

----------


## Paul Hostetter

Of course it's photoshop! But not having really documented the process, this got the idea across. 

In fact, I do it with a chainsaw.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

OK LOL.

Actually the thought that the middle one could be altered image -- that did cross my mind.  

My assumption was that image 1 and 3 were real and the middle one was created from the other two and that the cut was included to provide a clue as to how you did it -- which is why I asked about a circular saw.

Still if the images are close to scale its instructive.

Two things is that correct the image on the left is guitar you started with and one on the right the finished mandocello, i.e., these are real photos? and 

But I'm still interested in how you trim off the material from the neck when it is still attached to the body.  I assume you used some kind of cutting tool and not a rasp or plane?

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Just noticed on re-look that the strings end mysteriously at the nut on both cellos images  :Laughing:  

So only one real pic then -- but it still begs the question -- how does one best cut down the neck?  Thanks.

----------


## Paul Hostetter

> Two things is that correct the image on the left is guitar you started with and one on the right the finished mandocello, i.e., these are real photos?


One real photo, amended with Photoshop.




> But I'm still interested in how you trim off the material from the neck when it is still attached to the body. I assume you used some kind of cutting tool and not a rasp or plane?


Rasps and files, and sanding blocks, etc. Not much material really comes off.

You can get big double-cut machine files that are nearly as coarse as a rasp that really don't care about frets. You define the nut width first, draw a line from the body join to the outsides of the ideal new nut width, and do the edges first, with the big files. Once youre past the metal, you can use nice rasps and so on to refine the rest of it. 

I have never photographed my own rig for doing this, but it's not much different than shaping a new neck. You clamp the neck to a support which, in my usual scenario, is attached to and extends out from a big stable work table. Unlike a new neck, it has the whole guitar still attached, so you have to generate some gentle support for that. Basically it's something like this:



...but projecting out from a table so I can get at it from all sides. Like this:



You go from rasps to finer rasps, then to sanding blocks, using finer and finer abrasives, and then you refinish the neck. 

It's axiomatic that you draw a line and cut to it. This really means, in this particular case, that you draw the line and abrade _close_ to it. Planes and shapers and shaves are not very suitable. 

The finish sanding always takes away material, so work carefully. Otherwise you risk having it be smaller at the end of the line than you intended.

----------


## mandomania7923

when i said that, i wasn't very clear, it is tuned CGDA, but the bottom  2 sets are octaves, so the C is a 'cello c for the bottom one and instead of being tuned in unison, it has a 'dola c to match it. idk if i'm explaining that right, but it's pretty cool. i played this at grey fox and IBMA, the instrument is outstanding and Fletcher did an outstanding job on it.



> Pretty sure that's an octave. Here's a quote from a previous thread:

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Paul -- great how to post!   Thanks for the info -- I'm sure it took some considerable time to construct it.

I don't this I have the right clamping jig at my house but I know who does here in town.  This is something, with this much info., I'm sure I could do.

But these kind of issues always seem to have another road leading away to another possible plan.

The thought occurs -- if I am going to all the trouble of slimming down that neck I'll probably really like the conversion as it sounds really good the playability was the only drawback.  

So maybe I ought also consider removing the neck -- cutting it down and then re-setting it with some extra reinforcement in consideration of the fact that the neck and bridge now will have 8 strings instead of the four that it was designed for?

Anyway the mission is, on way or another, to trim that nut and fingerboard down to Gibson mandocello dimensions.

Thanks again.

----------


## Dobe

> I've thinned necks while still on the body. You of course cannot thin it at the body join, but just at the nut. This is surprisingly effective, if not perfect. You don't need to change anything about the headstock.


I converted a 60's Gibson B-12 that way. Simply started w/the sanding belt to get it close to specs from a teens Gib Cello & then feathered it in at the body & headstock. It wasn't the most valuable box to start with so I went all the way: chopped off the extra 4 tuner holes & re-attached the headstock (don't cringe it woked really well !) and of course removed the back to eliminate the excess X bracing (and scallop). Tweaked up the bridgepin holes, some tounge oil & voila ! I loved  it as an octive but eventually sold it as a cello to a very satified customer. Didn't really like the Low C but I'm thinking of trying again with a cheap 6-string. Think I got bit by the Cello bug !  :Popcorn:

----------


## Paul Hostetter

Those Gibson 12s had a rather short scale. No wonder the C was a disappointment.

----------


## Michael Lewis

The Monteleone mandocello of Mike Marshall's has a 25" scale.

----------

Marty Jacobson

----------


## ollaimh

> I'd like to chime in with my opinion that the Gibson mandocello had a scale much too short to support a C string. Real cellosthe bass of a string quartethave a 27" scale. Gibson's mandocello scale was 24.5" - arguably too short even for an E note, much less a C, and even shorter than their guitars of that era. That scale was/is ideal for octave mandolin, but tepid for cello pitches. Theoretically you can increase the string gauge to compensate for the scale, but the results usually tell you that the thicker string just sounds thuddy.
> 
> You don't normally play chords on a mandocelloit's a single note instrument like its violin family relative. If you want the most authoritative sound from a mandocello over the whole range of the four courses, please consider a 27" scale.
> 
> This woman plays a 24+"-ish scale, quite close to a Gibson mandocello scale, but tuned (appropriately) GDAE:
> 
> 
> 
> Her instrument is known in Europe and environs as a mandole.
> ...


that's a great looking greek laoto, looks like it might be made by anastasios stathoupoulo. is it? i have one by  a. stathoupoulo

----------


## Paul Hostetter

Mine was made in 1953 by Yiorgos Grachis. In San Mateo, California. It's a beauty.

----------


## ollaimh

> Mine was made in 1953 by Yiorgos Grachis. In San Mateo, California. It's a beauty.


what is the scale length? i am tunning up my stathoupoulo and busted a string about ten minutes ago.  i previously played alarger cretan laouto.  and where do you get strings?

yours looks very much like he was influenced by stathoupoulo.  i thought the bridge and rosette and the head lionwere very similar

----------


## Paul Hostetter

My Grachis has a scale of 28.5"longer than most, which is why I said it hurt to play. String gauges are light: 10s on top, the wound ones are a 25 and a 40. I tune it like a mandocello sometimes: CGDA, or for Greek rhythm with the low course tuned up a step: DGDA, rather than the reëntrant tuning (low D up a full octave) often used. I make the set from singles. I have never broken a string.

Both Stathopoulo and Grachis came from similar backgrounds. You see those details, such as the gilded beast's head and so on, on laoutos by many makers back then. 

Here's a photo of Grachis (holding the violin, at right) in his father's Chicago shop in 1910. The old man also had a shop in Athens at the same time. When young Yiorgos finished his apprenticeship with his father, he was told to go forth and find his own territory, so he chose California, which was (and is) crawling with Greeks who love music. He thrived here for many years. His instruments were very much like his father's. They made violins, bouzoukia, ouds, laoutos, santouria, mandolins, bows, you name it. The shop also sold accordions, brass instruments and so on. But they made all their string instruments.

----------

MikeEdgerton, 

Tom Haywood

----------


## Paul Hostetter

And here's a shot of a Greek picnic in about 1920, taken in Davenport, CA, about five miles from my house:



Who made those laoutos? Where are they now?

These images will be much larger if you open them in their own tab, BTW.

----------

MikeEdgerton

----------


## Walt

It's my first time visiting the builders forum in a long time, so I was pleasantly surprised to see this thread at the top of the list. I've been playing the 27" scale mandocello for several years now. And, yes, the low C sounds great with the long scale. It doesn't have the characteristic buzzing that you get from the traditional scale. Also, harmonics sound great on the 27" scale. I have been very happy with the longer scale, but there is an obvious drawback that players should consider--it's a stretch. It hurts. If you are contemplating a 27" scale, my advice would be to go play a 25" scale for an hour. If it feels comfortable, then maybe think about going for a 27" scale. If 25" feels like a stretch, don't even think about 27". Honestly, the buzzing that comes from the traditional scale isn't the worst thing in the world. 
The other thing to think about with the longer scale is string gauges. For my tastes, the standard gauges do not work well with the 27" scale. There is just too much string tension. I have done a lot of experimenting with string gauges over the last six years, but unfortunately I didn't really keep track of everything. I think I landed on .070, .044, .030, .018. This felt much better, but I ran into problems with the wound .018 strings, which broke after a few minutes of playing. I then switched to .018 plain steel for the high A, which worked well. I also experimented some with single strings. If memory serves me correctly, the video below is the lighter gauges, the plain steel high A, and single strings. FYI, I'm back to 8 strings.

----------

Bernie Daniel, 

j. condino, 

Paul Hostetter, 

tonydxn

----------


## Bernie Daniel

That is terrific music. Do you have other video with 8 strings?   I really like to hear how that mandocello that way also. 
How big is that lower bout and who made that instrument --its a beauty.  I am a little surprised that you say the "standard set" (meaning D'Addario J78s?) is too tight at 27" because most say they are too loose at 25"?

----------


## Walt

Thank you, Bernie. It was built by Joe Mendel. A great guy and a great luthier. I have a video of it with eight strings somewhere. I'll post when I find it. I don't know the lower bout dimensions, but I'll break out the tape measure and find out. 
I might have misspoke (mistyped) above. The standard gauges are too TIGHT on the 27" scale. When I did have the D'Addario strings on there, I did experiment with tuning the mandocello down to Bb, F, C, G. It was pretty cool having a low Bb note.

----------

Paul Hostetter

----------

