# Instruments and Equipment > Builders and Repair >  Why copy errors???

## D.E.Williams

Well, for the first thread I start here on this fantastic forum, I figure I may as well jump in right up to my neck...

So here's what I've been pondering for awhile:

It's no mystery why people make F5 style mandolins, as they are truly beautiful instruments.  But, I'm wondering why people keep reproducing F5 copies including all the obvious inaccuracies and inconsistencies.  For example, the curves on the sides aren't symmetrical.  The section between the point is more bulbous than the other side.  The neck is woefully off-center.  I can't imagine that this was done by design...my guess is that if Gibson and Mr. Loar had access to good a CAD system and good machinery, these instruments would never have had necks attached on a funky angle.  There are also two waist areas, one for the point at the upper bout (to borrow from guitar terminology), and another for the scroll area.  To accommodate the scroll, the neck block has also been modified to be asymmetrical at the neck joint area.  The curve on the scroll side has been pushed inward to allow for the scroll.
So why not redesign the F5 to have all of it's great styling, and yet give it a more balanced and symmetrical look, while retaining the scroll and points?  Is it purely out of tradition that this isn't done?   What gives?  I'm wanting to make an F5, but find that the two sides of my brain are at odds with one another...one side wants it to look like an F5, the other wants it to look "right".  
All thoughts welcome to the conversation.

Thanks!

Don

----------


## JEStanek

I guess someone (hint, nod, wink) will need to make the first one... I wonder who would be bold enough to try it?

There are other builders redoing the F5 in a new and innovative way.  You wouldn't be alone out there ahead of the curve.

Jamie

----------


## Bob Borzelleri

> Well, for the first thread I start here on this fantastic forum, I figure I may as well jump in right up to my neck...
> 
> So here's what I've been pondering for awhile:
> 
> It's no mystery why people make F5 style mandolins, as they are truly beautiful instruments.  But, I'm wondering why people keep reproducing F5 copies including all the obvious inaccuracies and inconsistencies.  For example, the curves on the sides aren't symmetrical.  The section between the point is more bulbous than the other side.  The neck is woefully off-center.  I can't imagine that this was done by design...my guess is that if Gibson and Mr. Loar had access to good a CAD system and good machinery, these instruments would never have had necks attached on a funky angle.  There are also two waist areas, one for the point at the upper bout (to borrow from guitar terminology), and another for the scroll area.  To accommodate the scroll, the neck block has also been modified to be asymmetrical at the neck joint area.  The curve on the scroll side has been pushed inward to allow for the scroll.
> So why not redesign the F5 to have all of it's great styling, and yet give it a more balanced and symmetrical look, while retaining the scroll and points?  Is it purely out of tradition that this isn't done?   What gives?  I'm wanting to make an F5, but find that the two sides of my brain are at odds with one another...one side wants it to look like an F5, the other wants it to look "right".  
> All thoughts welcome to the conversation.
> 
> Thanks!
> ...


Pretty gutsy question you ask.  Not that I have not considered it myself, though not to the level of detail that you note.

There have been several "evolutionary" versions of the F5 made by both small and larger builders, but I'm not sure that the variations address all the issues you point out.  I am also of the impression that many folks don't take these "improved" offerings as seriously as they do the copies that reflect the design quirks you are talking about. My take on this question is that tradition seems to prevail in many fields and perhaps particularly in an area where so much tradition is associated with the music.  I also think that, being made of finely built and finished wood brings additional requirements to be true to the "design" as any deviation can be viewed as reflecting an inability to "get it right".  Them's my thoughts.

This should be an interesting thread.   :Popcorn:

----------


## Joe Mendel

Finding a case that would fit may prove difficult.

----------


## D.E.Williams

A case is a snap.  Ameritage will custom fit an instrument to one of their cases for a reasonable fee.
But it does eliminate using any standard cases made to fit a traditional shaped F5.  The really cool thing about a company like Ameritage is that they will actually create a stock model for a custom instrument if enough people were using the design.  I worked with them to develop the case for a small jumbo guitar, and someone else I know also did the same for a similar instrument that several people have built.  In fact, the plans for his version of a small jumbo is now being sold by StewMac, and the Ameritage case made for it fits like a glove.

----------


## Larry Simonson

"all the obvious inaccuracies and inconsistencies" ????    Now, what is so important about symmetry?

----------


## OzMando

I agree, symmetry doesn't always equal perfection and perhaps it is all those that little things that make the F5 what it is.  If you're really interested in getting a mirror image type instrument why not build an A-style or a symmetrical two pointer or something?  Or you could do what you propose with the F5 design?

----------


## kjell

I'm terribly inexperienced when it comes to fancy mandolins. I rarely play anything other than my tolerable, but run–of–the–mill Fender FM535.

But I find myself thinking—as cool as some of the mandolin designs out there are—if it aint broke, don't fix it.

----------


## delsbrother

I thought it was asymmetrical on purpose.

----------


## man dough nollij

Guys like Hans, BRW, et al aren't replicating the crooked neck of the Loar, are they? I've seen pics of the originals where the neck was visibly crooked, but most F5s (patterned after vintage Gibson F5s) I've seen look like the neck is straight, at least to the naked eye.  :Popcorn:

----------


## F5GRun

Ok...for one I wouldnt call them errors, besides for the crooked neck.  2nd I never meet or knew Mr. Loar so I am not sure he did it on purpose, but I have total faith in his luthier ability and see no reason that he couldnt set a neck dead straight. Third I think the F5 is rather elegant due to its asymmetrical look, and it probably wouldnt look right if it was perfectly symmetrical.  Another thing to take into consideration is the sound. Im no pro luthier but I am sure the asymmetrical styling attrubutes to tonal differances.  Even the tone bars are installed and shaped asymmetric to produce different responses on each side of the sound board, right?  

Im not sure if this all came out right, so anyone out there feel free to correct me.

----------


## j. condino

Change the look and symmetry of a traditional mandolin?????? Keep talking like that and the next thing you know, people will be painting them green and putting funny soundholes all over the place......


j.
www.condino.com

----------


## Bill Halsey

A re-designed F-5 is not an F-5 -- it is something else.  Every detail of this instrument and its predecessors has been worked out to complement the whole.  Very many features of the outline, neck placement, etc. are evident in Orville's original instruments. If we are to understand the genesis of the Gibson artist models, it is helpful to consider that fewer than 30 years had passed between the appearance of OHG's highly original pieces, and the introduction of the full-blown F-5s that bear Loar's signature.

On the 2-point Gibson F-model rib moulds (which indeed were markedly asymmetrical in the absence of the points) there was a scribed centerline that intersects the center of the neck block radius and continues at the tail end, and bisects the body width at the bridge location.  There are locator pin holes on the back side at each end (presumably for neck alignment), the top one drilled about 1/16" off-center toward the scroll, and one at the tail end about the same distance off-center toward the point.  A centerline through these holes also bisects the body width at the bridge location.

In the 1970s this intentional neck offset was confirmed to me by Mr. Gerald Bergeon, an old-timer at the factory, who said that they used to offset those necks toward the scroll.

In truth, the heel of the neck is usually quite close to being on-center with the neck block radius; its actually the fingerboard that is moved closer to the scroll, thereby producing an asymmetrical neck heel.

Its an interesting conundrum, this neck (actually, fingerboard) offset.  If one studies for a moment any of the countless F-5 copies with centered fingerboards and a large gap between scroll and fingerboard, the scroll looks like it's hanging out in space.  Then the rationale for the original Gibson design becomes apparent.

So, why not simply center the fingerboard and move the scroll toward it to satisfy the left-brainers?  I invite anyone still struggling with his left hemisphere to try it.  It simply wont work without either modifying the entire area of the neck joint or changing the radius of the neck block, which leaves us once again with something other than an F-5.

The offset fingerboard was something Gibson always did as part of the genesis of the post-Orville Artist models, and I am satisfied with my understanding of the reason for it.  Placing the straight line of the fingerboard closer to the edge of the scroll helps to relieve the innate clumsiness of the very notion that a scroll even belongs there.  It compacts the appearance and helps to alleviate the look of an awkwardly contrived accessory, and gives purpose, grace, proportion and integrity to the whole.  Gibsons elegant resolution of this problem takes advantage of the established precept of asymmetry, which presents an especially revealing window into not only the design and manufacture of the old Gibson mandolins, but how such considerations in general were approached (i.e., thinking out of the box).

Amongst the attempts I have seen by makers who would resolve this and other issues of symmetry through change, Ive yet to see one that works well enough to genuinely capture the feeling and intent of the original design.

----------


## Michael Lewis

I encourage anyone that wants to "fix" the F5 design to go for it.  Get out the drawing materials and equipment and try your eye at improving the lines.  There are numerous examples of slight deviations from the design, odd curves in the rim, uneven scroll work, etc. that even occur in Gibsons from time to time.  But the over all design is a difficult one to change much.  I have tried to make the F5 better for many years and keep coming back to the basic design with a few subtle "improvements".

There are some makers that have "massaged" some areas to bring an added element of elegance but have not really changed the design.  Michael Heiden, Jamie Wiens, and Tom Ellis readily come to mind, and take a good look at Hans Brentrup's Loar models.  Nugget, Gilchrist, Dude, . . . . 

If you can put it on paper you can make it.   :Coffee:

----------


## HoGo

"If you can put it on paper you can make it."
Well, I put it on paper more than once and I can tell you that not all of the weirdness and assymetry can be considered as errors... Some of them were intentional, some needed to be done because of technology used to make them. I'll try to elaborate it in my new plans (haven't put it on paper yet).
Bill had a very good take on it. I'll just add something from my own experience.
When I drew my own plans for F5 style mandolin I wanted the body to be as symetric as possible. I started with blank paper with scribed centerline and perpendicular lines at bridge and 15th fret positions. I knew I want body width of 10" and lenght 12" (to the 15th fret) which are basicly Loar numbers. I also wanted the rib between the points to be symetric curve (like old bows). I didn't use any blown up photograph to trace around I just looked at pics that looked good to my eye and slowly drew the lines. I worn 5 sheets of fine drafting by erasing lines and moving a bit at time but at the end I had outline that was perfectly symmetric and with nice flowing smooth curves (even the upper point was exactly oposite of the scroll beginning) but whenever I looked it it still didn't look good enough... The upper point looked too high on the body so I decided to move it down a bit and it looked whole lot better (more balanced) then I noticed that the bass side curve looks somewhat stiff.... so I tried to loosen its flow and voila I moved the apex of the bass side back towards tailpiece... I didn't do anything with the 15th fret area as I drew it with scroll close enough to f/b and reduced treble side to make that part symmetric.
Now if you look at Loar you see the same things: bass side apex moved down, upper corner lower than scroll beginning on opposite side. It's all because the two points and scroll throw all the symmetry of body out od window and the whole shape has to be re-thought again to look good and BALANCED.
Just my $.02

----------


## grandmainger

Oriental rug makers intentionally make small imperfections in their carpets, because they believe only God can create perfection.

Maybe Mr Loar did the same  :Wink:

----------


## John McGann

> Change the look and symmetry of a traditional mandolin?????? Keep talking like that and the next thing you know, people will be painting them green and putting funny soundholes all over the place......
> 
> 
> j.
> www.condino.com


Gosh, that'd be like adding new notes to tunes!  :Disbelief:

----------


## D.E.Williams

That's just the sort of commentary I was hoping for.  Just so you folks don't think I'm a certifiable wacko, I usually have a method to my madness when asking a question I know will elicit strong responses.  People are often very passionate about what they like and why, and that seems magnified further when it comes to "traditional" instrument styles.

I've actually already drawn a more symmetrical version of the F5 in my cad system based on the Siminoff drawings.  I also found that doing so changed the look of the instrument, no matter how subtle the change.  I'm not saying it's better or worse, or more or less in balance than the original outline, just different.  Which I guess is part of the issue.  As Adrian said, when you change one thing, you find that you want to change another to give it more of a sense of balance.
As to calling the subtle differences "errors", well...perhaps that was a poor assumption.  Guilty as charged.  I have to agree also that if you change it too much to try to improve those things, it does seem to no longer look like an F5.  It's very difficult achieve those changes and retain the look of an F5.

Bill, that's some fantastic insight into why they did what they did at Gibson, and eloquently stated.  That's the sort of commentary I was hoping to see.  Thanks...

----------


## Timbofood

Isn't the assymitry attributable to the fact that it speaks of "Artistry?"  How many things in nature that we find the epitome of beauty are symmetrical?  I heard someone once tell me "Only man makes straight lines."
Interesting topic.

----------


## Ted Eschliman

> Change the look and symmetry of a traditional mandolin?????? Keep talking like that and the next thing you know, people will be painting them green and putting funny soundholes all over the place......


Nah, it'll never happen.

As far as "symmetry," I just looked at _myself_ in a mirror:
Yup. Asymmetrical. Guess God was in "error" with me, too.

----------


## sunburst

My F5 shape is a symmetrical A5 shape with points and scroll added. The neck is centered, the outline is not skewed anywhere. Like Adrian, I started with the dimensions of an F5 and re-drew the whole thing from there. Also like Adrian, I erased and moved lines a bunch of times. I hung the drawing on the kitchen wall so I would see it every day, and if something didn't look right I changed it until it did. Same thing for the peghead and scroll; before doing the full size drawing I drew them on pieces of paper and moved lines around until they looked right to me, but they ended up changing again when I put them in context on the full outline. I've made small changes two or three times since I've started using that outline, and in fact I moved one line about 1/32" about 3 mandolins ago. It's not chiseled in stone, and if I see something that doesn't look exactly right to me as I look at my completed mandolins I may change things again.

----------


## D.E.Williams

> As far as "symmetry," I just looked at _myself_ in a mirror:
> Yup. Asymmetrical. Guess God was in "error" with me, too.


Oh no!  :Disbelief:  Me too...

 :Smile: 

Hey, I didn't say that being asymmetrical was a bad thing!  I just assumed that they would have wanted it symmetrical except for the points and the scroll.  (I'll admit to being wrong in that assumption.)  I figured there must be a way to retain most of the shape of the F5 and yet have the neck aligned with the actual centerline of the body, and also have the to sides be more symmetrical.  I guess I've been looking to do what Sunburst has done, and that's to make it work for my eye, and also to make the neck joint a bit easier for me.

----------


## D.E.Williams

One other thought came to mind.

With guitars, a dovetail joint is essentially a two-way dovetail.  It tapers internally, as does the mandolin dovetail, but also it tapers down the neck block in that V shape.  I'm curious why a straight dovetail was used, rather than one like on a guitar neck joint.  Anyone have thoughts on that?  Could it be due to the size of the instrument and the minimal amount of wood in that area?

----------


## sunburst

Loars had straight dovetails?
I've never pulled a neck out of a Loar, but if they had straight dovetails they changed them to a taper by 1933.
Some people like a straight dovetail so they can "adjust" the height of the overstand by sliding the neck to their preferred position and gluing it there during construction. Many of us use tapered dovetails.
(By overstand I mean the height of the fingerboard surface of the neck above the top of the mandolin.)

----------


## Steve Ostrander

Symmetry and balance are two diffrent concepts. An A model mando is both symmetrical and balanced equally along the centerline or axis of the neck. An F5 is balanced yet asymmetrical in it's design.

Sometimes to create balance, a designer must alter or exagerate the symmetry of a design to achieve balance. An example of this is the point on the lower bout of the F5. Besides performing a function, which is to keep the instrument from slipping on your leg when sitting down, it also adds visual balance to the design by adding weight or visual impact to the right side of the design (as viewed from the front). 

Perhaps some of the asymmetry of the original F5 design was done to create balance in the visual aspect of the design, or even to create balance in the functional design?

----------


## sunburst

I think the lower point balances the shorter neck designs (where it originated, look at an F2 or F4), but not the F5 with the longer neck. I moved the lower point on mine to improve that balance to my eye.

----------


## David Newton

I think Don's questions are as much philosophical as practical, so.....

I'll never forget in the first (I think) "Foxfire Book" back in the hippie days. If you don't remember, it was a book of folksy mountain lore, old people picking herbs and remedies, making lye soap, and, wonder of wonders, an ancient guy making "banjars" (fretless banjos) using nothing but a pocket knife and broken glass.

He told of a young person asking about his banjos, and making criticisms of his old timey methods, why it took him so long to finish one, and such. The young man told him he could build one in a weekend with modern tools. The old man said "that was a couple of years ago, I don't recall he's finished ONE yet."

I built 7 instruments last year. I've built quite a few in my 30-something years of working on instruments, but I haven't built an F-5. If I took the best set of F-5 plans out there and "straightened them up" then built one, it would have many more defects than the traditional one, until I built maybe 10 of them.

I think you are trying to "fix" things that you can't fix until you know better than to fix them.

----------


## Nolan

There was a recording floating around here for a while from one of the Loarfests that Charlie Derrington was one of the experts on the panel.  I remember he talked about these same issues and basically said a lot of people think these "errors" were mistakes but that they were intentional.   Anyone have a link to those interviews?  I think Spruce may have also been on that panel... Mike K... Gilchrist too if my memory is correct.

** Edit - from the Co-Mando interview
Charlie Derrington -
"There are also some assymetrical aspects of Loars that some folks thought were errors in the originals. They are not.
....I am a Loar NUT and believe every mandolin should be exactly like them. Seriously, I'm pretty deranged about this stuff."

And this one was interesting too...
Questions - 
" - In his Loar F-5 notes, Darryl Wolfe points out .....

"Most builders do not recognize that the neck is not square to the centerline of the instrument, nor is it square to the plane of the rim set. The neck is installed left of center toward the scroll. It is then cocked at an angle toward the tailpiece that causes the centerline of the neck to cross the bridge area mid-way between the f-holes. This angularity also has a bearing on placement of the f-holes. In order for the bridge/f-hole relationship to look right, one f-hole must be placed slightly lower on the body. Additionally, the neck is installed in a "twisted" manner that results in the fingerboard being lower on the treble side. This is why Loar bridges are thinner on the treble side."

I wonder if you could shed some light on the degree to which you embraced this off-center / tilted feature on the present Master Models and also your feelings on it being an intentional design feature of the Original Loars. I've heard a few folks comment on the off center neck of the present Master Models thinking it was fudged at the factory rather than being intentional replication of the originals.

Answer - This off-center design aspect of the Loars was intentional. (it is actually not very much off-center it just appears that way because of the scroll design) and the necks do tilt towards the tailpiece to help allay this feature. They are also higher on the bass side as Darryl says. In other words, he is exactly correct. I'll disagree with him on the bass f-hole being lower. I say the treble f-hole is higher and believe it was to alleviate the tilting, visual aspect of the bridge to compensate for correct intonation.

Yes, we do the same on the Master Models, and it is deliberate."

----------


## testore

Why do you call them errors? Design is an art form. The current F5 model is about the most interesting and beautiful man made designs in the world. Also, when you look at the most prized violins in the world none of them are symmetrical.NONE! I have seen tracings from about 40 Strads. The most symmetrical ones are still several millimeters off. Most of them are more than several millimeters. The ones that are symmetrical are always the far less desirable German made instruments. I find the funkiness to be SOOO appealing and the eye is drawn to those traits more so than symmetry.

----------


## D.E.Williams

> I think Don's questions are as much philosophical as practical, so.....I think you are trying to "fix" things that you can't fix until you know better than to fix them.


Bingo.
I've a lot to learn, which is the purpose of this thread.  One can look at something without the historical background and see one thing, but then once that history is added, it sheds new light on it and you see the same object differently.  Wouldn't it be great to have the history of these things in print somewhere from original sources?  That would be a good read.

Testore - I've admitted that calling them "errors" was an error on _my_ part.  Poor choice of words, said in ignorance.  
I agree about design being an art form, or rather that the two are both often a part of one another.  Some design is purely technical, and follows no form other than utility.  Form follows function, and all that...

I'd love to hear that recording Nolan mentioned...that sounds very interesting.

----------


## sunburst

There are several things about the F5 design that confused me for a long time until I looked at older designs like F4, F2, and the earlier Gibson company and Orville Gibson mandolins. Some of the features that don't make sense to me on F5s do make sense to me on F4s, so I think they were adapted to the F5, not designed for it.
To me it seems that the Gibson F styling gradually became the teens and twenties F2/F4 shape, then rapidly took on the elevated fingerboard extender first, then the F-holes and long neck to become the F5. In the process, some of the design elements lost some of their context and weren't adjusted to the new shape.
I think there is a lot to learn about the F5 design from studying earlier F designs, and I recommend doing that. From outward appearance, they basically took an F4, changed to F-holes and a longer neck and stopped there.

----------


## CES

From the practical side of things...copy the F5 because it SELLS!  Even those builders here on the Cafe who are brilliant in their skills/craftsmanship and unique designs (which I'll admit I tend to gravitate towards) typically offer an F5 model or "Loar Specs Copy."  We're a niche instrument, and I would think it difficult to make a living (at least until your rep is established) with a niche of the niche, or something like that...

Don, all joking aside, your kind of thinking is what brings about innovation...I'm often torn between enjoying/finding comfort in tradition and wondering, "Why the heck do we still do it that way?"

----------


## Bill Halsey

> One other thought came to mind.
> 
> With guitars, a dovetail joint is essentially a two-way dovetail.  It tapers internally, as does the mandolin dovetail, but also it tapers down the neck block in that V shape.  I'm curious why a straight dovetail was used, rather than one like on a guitar neck joint.  Anyone have thoughts on that?  Could it be due to the size of the instrument and the minimal amount of wood in that area?



All the old Gibson mandolins I've worked on in that area did indeed have tapered dovetail neck joints.

When hand-fitting a neck joint, the tapered d/t gives me the control I need to bring the neck and body into correct alignment in no fewer than six different modes.  These would include longitudinal (scale length), rotational, lateral angular (alignment with bridge position), vertical angular (pitch), lateral parallelism (offset), and vertical parallelism (overstand).  The tapered d/t has the additional advantage of tightening into place without scraping the glue from the joint.

----------


## Bill Halsey

> There are several things about the F5 design that confused me for a long time until I looked at older designs like F4, F2, and the earlier Gibson company and Orville Gibson mandolins. Some of the features that don't make sense to me on F5s do make sense to me on F4s, so I think they were adapted to the F5, not designed for it.
> To me it seems that the Gibson F styling gradually became the teens and twenties F2/F4 shape, then rapidly took on the elevated fingerboard extender first, then the F-holes and long neck to become the F5. In the process, some of the design elements lost some of their context and weren't adjusted to the new shape.
> I think there is a lot to learn about the F5 design from studying earlier F designs, and I recommend doing that. From outward appearance, they basically took an F4, changed to F-holes and a longer neck and stopped there.


Spot on, John.  There was no known original assembly drawing for the F-5.  When the "New Style F-5" was finally formalized enough to appear in the manufacturing spec. book, its rims were referenced: "Dimensions and designs the same as F-4".  The back and top were both referenced: "Dimensions the same as F-4".  The caveat for tops and backs was: "Carved on special F-5 carving form."

There was obviously some struggling with the change from flush to raised fingerboard, with the fingerboard support penciled in as an afterthought (apparently not in Loar's hand, as has been surmised).

There was a special drawing for the F-5 head veneer, which is narrower at its waist than the F-2/F-4.  This demonstrates Gibson's awareness that an F-4 headstock would appear out-of-proportion on an F-5, with its 1-1/8" longer neck and narrower fretboard.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Don, I bet you've been looking at Lynn D's photo journal. He deliberately decided to use a straight dovetail instead of tapered.
About the idea that the neck is shifted toward the scroll and the whole neck is tilted so the treble side is lower... I'm confused.
If it was tilted so the treble side was higher it would make sense in that it would bring the heel into line with the center so it all worked correctly at the junction with the back. But to tilt it so the treble side is lower... moving the heel nearer to the scroll, it seems to compound the problem of heel-body alignment.
Someone set me straight.

----------


## Bill Halsey

Jim, I don't think Gibson intended to tilt the neck or fingerboard per se; the fingerboard was simply shifted toward the scroll in a lateral plane while leaving the back button on-center.

----------


## D.E.Williams

> Don, I bet you've been looking at Lynn D's photo journal. He deliberately decided to use a straight dovetail instead of tapered.


I've been spending a lot of time studying that in fact.  It's a terrific resource.  But the place I got the idea about the sliding dovetail was from the Siminoff plans.  He shows the sliding dovetail as the original method, and also his pinned M&T joint as an alternative.  I did notice it in Lynn's journal too, and it got me thinking...




> Don, all joking aside, your kind of thinking is what brings about innovation...I'm often torn between enjoying/finding comfort in tradition and wondering, "Why the heck do we still do it that way?"


I think I started this thread because I felt there must be other folks besides me who tend to question "Why was this done this way?" about things.  It's part of my nature to analyze things, to take them apart, put them back together again, and learn to understand how and why they work, or why they don't work.  I'm always looking for a different way, hoping perhaps to find a better way.  I find the fun in the "looking" more than the "finding" though.  The finding is the ice cream on the pie, though, so there's always the hope of finding the better way.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I had copied the above photo from the F-5 Journal as a reference to another thread about neck joints. It seemed relevant to this topic.
So I just took a closer look and does anyone else notice that the heel does appear to be further to the treble side, another assymetric detail of a Loar?

----------


## D.E.Williams

The whole heel block area is asymmetrical, which one wouldn't expect.  As a result of that, the neck heel appears shifted more than perhaps it actually is.  Make a .pdf scan of a drawing, and then convert to a .dwg file or something where you can start editing it in a cad system, and you'll start finding all this stuff that I have found.  It's a real eye-opener!

----------


## David Newton

I find myself in this situation too often, that of apologizing for my words and tone, in my response to Don Williams.
No use in trying to explain my state of mind when I wrote. I am as uninformed as I accused you of being, Don. I see that you are not a first-time nubie, and build beautiful guitars.

Maybe my stupid mistake will cause others to look at your website.
I truly apologize.

----------


## ApK

> Oriental rug makers intentionally make small imperfections in their carpets, because they believe only God can create perfection.


Wow...how full of themselves did those rug makers have to be to think that unless they INTENTIONALLY included an error, they would achieve God-like perfection!?!

Reminds me of when Patrick Swayze supposedly said that he held back his moves in 'Dirty Dancing' because his character wasn't supposed to be a real pro dancer....  :Frown: 

Anyway, on the topic, for the thread title to be appropriate, you'd first have to build a mando without the factors being discussed and show it to be as good or better than a Loar in order to say that those things are 'errors,' right?

ApK

----------


## sunburst

I noticed the offset appearance of the heel, but the camera angle could do that. It also looks like the heel has more curve/concavity on the scroll side. I'd have to turn it and look it over to decide if it is really like that. I wouldn't be surprised either way though, because those heels were shaped and those dovetails were set by hand, and when I do that I sometimes end up with a slightly skewed neck heel for one reason or another. I can assure you that it is not an intentional design feature when I do it, and I doubt it was when they did it.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

That shot seems pretty straight on, but I see what your saying, John. But we're told that ALL Loars are shifted toward the scroll and that leads to having to do something to align the heel with the back. 
This is one of the questions that has kept me from attempting the shift.

----------


## D.E.Williams

> I find myself in this situation too often, that of apologizing for my words and tone, in my response to Don Williams.
> No use in trying to explain my state of mind when I wrote. I am as uninformed as I accused you of being, Don. I see that you are not a first-time nubie, and build beautiful guitars.
> 
> Maybe my stupid mistake will cause others to look at your website.
> I truly apologize.


David, I took no offense, and in fact I feel like I did learn something from your post.  I take everything here that is written as being offered as constructive conversation.  Mandolins are a "new" thing to me, and I'm finding they are a very different beast from guitars.  And if I say something out of line, I expect to have folks set me straight.  I'm old enough to know that I don't know it all, and learning new things is a real gas for me.  (I guess that expression shows my age, eh?)  Anyway, I may have built a bunch of guitars, but a mando is a very different beast than a flat-top guitar.  I have a slight edge on the learning curve I suppose, but not by any means experienced with building a mandolin.

It's all good my friend!

 :Mandosmiley: 

Wow!  Speaking of nice guitars...I was just at YOUR website.  Very nice stuff indeed!

----------


## Michael Cameron

> I've been spending a lot of time studying that in fact.  It's a terrific resource.  But the place I got the idea about the sliding dovetail was from the Siminoff plans.  He shows the sliding dovetail as the original method, and also his pinned M&T joint as an alternative.  I did notice it in Lynn's journal too, and it got me thinking...
> 
> I think I started this thread because I felt there must be other folks besides me who tend to question "Why was this done this way?" about things.  It's part of my nature to analyze things, to take them apart, put them back together again, and learn to understand how and why they work, or why they don't work.  I'm always looking for a different way, hoping perhaps to find a better way.  I find the fun in the "looking" more than the "finding" though.  The finding is the ice cream on the pie, though, so there's always the hope of finding the better way.


Good discussion! It may be prudent to mention that Mr. Loar,whose name is always mentioned in conncetion to the F5,among other innovative instruments,was definitely not alone in the transformation of the Gibson mandolin.

I can't recall all the names;but,Mr. Hart (?) was the instigator along with a couple other men (help?) that brought about F5 mandolins. 

Got to wonder how many folks can do a neck re-set on a M&T joint? I saw a highly-experienced luthier get ugly doing one of these on a Gurian guitar!    :Whistling:   I didn't let him reset the neck on MY Gurian. Nor would I attempt it myself.

Nothing wrong with ignorance. One has to know what one doesn't know to escape it.  OK,maybe that didn't make sense.

Close to 20 years ago,when I got my first F5,a Gilchrist,I was so in love with  everything about it,I never noticed these "errors"/asymmetry. I didn't know anything about F5s except that I realy liked them.

A few years later I got a Red Diamond F5;and,had read some about "Loar" dimensions,I did notice the exact Loarish funkiness in RD #61. I plugged the end-pin hole and re-drilled it at a "more-perfect" 6 o'clock. I just thought Don had a bad day or something.        :Chicken: 

 For whatever reasons,I let go of two Gilchrists Fs and a Nugget F. Still have the RD. I now can see these features we are discussing in the '04 Derrington MM;and,I can appreciate them for what they are.(tautology?)

Mr. Williams,thanks for being bold enough to bring this up. I've learned a bunch on this forum and others,like Co-Mando. 

"Better to keep my mouth shut ,and be thought a fool,than to open my mouth and prove it."  I don't believe that.

----------

John Ellington

----------


## TomTyrrell

I've never considered any of Loar's work to be accidental. Evolutionary but not accidental. At Gibson he was making highest-end mandolins and staying within the lines of what the high-end Gibsons were. Visually, the F5 looks enough like an F4 to be recognizable as a Gibson mandolin (at least in the 1920s it was recognizable as a Gibson).

The assymetrical elements of the F5 were not for appearance, they were for _sound_. Loar was much more focused on sound than appearance.

----------


## grandmainger

> Wow...how full of themselves did those rug makers have to be to think that unless they INTENTIONALLY included an error, they would achieve God-like perfection!?!


That's not really the way they think (still today). Making a rug that looks perfect to the eye is quite easy, especially if one sticks to strict symmetry. These are deeply religious people who wouldn't ever dream of achieving God-like perfection. But they want to make sure they don't even do something that would look perfect. Their intentional mistakes are quite big, and clearly visible.
The point here is that the "mistakes" add to the beauty of the rugs  :Smile:

----------


## Michael Cameron

> I've never considered any of Loar's work to be accidental. Evolutionary but not accidental. At Gibson he was making highest-end mandolins and staying within the lines of what the high-end Gibsons were. Visually, the F5 looks enough like an F4 to be recognizable as a Gibson mandolin (at least in the 1920s it was recognizable as a Gibson).
> 
> The assymetrical elements of the F5 were not for appearance, they were for _sound_. Loar was much more focused on sound than appearance.


I don't aim to beat the horse when he is already dead;but, do you think Lloyd A. Loar did any actual designing of the F5? I don't know.

Have you seen the shoes he wore?  Fashion-wise he was REALLY in-line with Orville,yes?

----------


## Nolan

> I can't recall all the names;but,Mr. Hart (?) was the instigator along with a couple other men (help?) that brought about F5 mandolins.


Guy Hart and Ted McHugh?

----------


## Gerard Dick

The ancient Greeks built temples with curved walls, out of square corners and off vertical columns.  Mistakes?   Not really.  They had insight into how distance distorts images and they wanted the temple  to look perfect from accross the valley when you got your first glimpse of it.  The sring line and the plumb bob were not new and they were quite capable of creating a square corner. Pythagoras showed them how. 
 By the same token Mr Loar & associates were quite capable of  making a symmetrical instrument had that been their intent.   I would hesitate to call their design an error.

----------


## Michael Cameron

> Guy Hart and Ted McHugh?


Yes. Those guys.

----------


## D.E.Williams

Ok, here's a couple screen shot images to compare...just for kicks.  I'm curious which people like better.  Hopefully, these images will be viewable...

----------


## man dough nollij

What are the differences? The blue (right) one seems to have a slightly deeper dip below the neck on the left side, but that's the only thing I can see.  :Confused:

----------


## D.E.Williams

There are differences.  That's all I will say right now.  I'm more interested in what people find pleasing to their eye, and why, or what they don't like and why.  This should be a good experiment.

----------


## John Hill

I prefer the smaller (looking) top point in the first one but I'd be more interested in how comfortable it is in the lap.

----------


## ApK

I like the blue one.  I don't know why.

----------


## sunburst

F-holes or oval hole? Short neck (F4/F2) or long neck (F5)?
Without the context of the other design features I can't know which I would prefer.

As they are, I don't have a strong preference, they both display some of the things I think aren't quite right with the F5 shape, but I slightly prefer the red one on the left, though somewhere in between the two would probably suit me better.

----------


## delsbrother

The blue one looks _less_ like an A shape with the points and scroll added on because it isn't perfectly symmetrical. I don't know if that necessarily makes me "prefer" it... The red one seems more "modern" to me, FWIW.

Isn't the L&H Style A also asymmetrical?

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

They seem VERY similar to me,with the exception that the top point on the blue profile is 'pointier' that the top point of the red one.That's maybe why the blue one appears to have more of a 'waist' than the red one ?. Both are pleasing to my eye,
                                                                 Saska :Cool:

----------


## Tavy

I too had to look at them several times before I could discern any differences, but I prefer the red one... slightly...

John.

----------


## D.E.Williams

You all seem to have found one of the differences, but not perhaps the biggest one.

John, this is the back view!  One wouldn't see the f holes on the back...
 :Wink: 

Actually, I left them off intentionally so folks could concentrate purely on the outline, but f holes are appropriate here.

----------


## D.E.Williams

This is for those who want to see the f holes.

----------


## Hans

Frankly, with the number of misshapen scrolls, points, lopsided outlines, and just plain individuality I see in F5 mandolins, it doesn't matter. Those that insist on "Loar" perfection" such as which way the binding overlays or whether the peghead veneer is dyed pearwood or not are just a bit too fanatical for my taste, but who am I to say what is right. 
I guess what is most important is tone...  :Popcorn:

----------


## Phil Goodson

Yesterday I liked the red one better, but today the slimmer waist and medial shifted scroll & narrower area at the neck look a little more sleek and attractive to me.  Or am I just imagining things? 
Tomorrow,.... who knows? :Smile:

----------


## TomTyrrell

I like the look of the blue one better, the red one looks fat. How do they sound?

----------


## D.E.Williams

> I like the look of the blue one better, the red one looks fat. How do they sound?


Right now, they sound exactly the same.

 :Grin: 

I'll be posting one more image soon just to add another subtle change, and then we'll see if folks think.

----------


## sunburst

OK, I still prefer the red one a little bit. The outline encroaches on the treble f-hole a little bit in the blue one. That may or may not be noticeable with an oval hole. An outline needs to work from the front _and_ the back.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I did exactly what your talking about on all of the mandolins I made since the turn of the century. I took the bass side shape from McRostie's plan and matched it on the treble side to give it that fuller more symetric look.
But since I got Adian's print I made a new mold and now I'm making them much closer to the Loar shape.

----------


## D.E.Williams

Ok, let's add a third option just to make things interesting.

So now what do you folks think?
I'll wait until this afternoon to explain exactly what the differences are, and to give folks a chance to chime in if they so desire.

----------


## Hans

Green is my favorite color... :Laughing: 
Other than that I'd say that from 5' no one will know the difference.

----------


## wannabethile

I like the blue one best.  It looks more even from side to side to me.  

Sheesh.

----------


## sunburst

I still don't really like any of them, but still like the red one best.
Rather than "spill the beans" by commenting on the differences I see, I'll just say that the reasons I don't like them, and the reasons I like the red one better are not closely related to what I think you're trying to find out. I've drawn and re-drawn the F5 shape for years, and moving one line 1/32" or less can change everything and require a lot of adjustments elsewhere to compensate, and even then the context of neck length is left out of the equation.

----------


## D.E.Williams

This is getting interesting...

----------


## Gail Hester

I love the traditional F5 design which is actually identical to the body shape and a logical extension of the F4 design.

Nice research thread.  It took experts hundreds of posts in the "Loar Of The Day" threads to bring out this much information.  :Smile:

----------


## TomTyrrell

I still like the blue one best. Green second, red last. Something about the scroll I think.

----------


## D.E.Williams

Hint:  The scrolls themselves on all three are identical...sort of.  Mostly.

Check back around 4:00 EST, and I'll spill all the beans.

----------


## herbsandspices

With the right software, the differences are glaringly obvious!  :Whistling: 

This thread has been very fun to follow - it's great to see so many differing opinions there are, yet everyone's playing so nice!  :Mandosmiley:  I love me some Mandolin Cafe!

john

----------


## mandroid

John Montelone's Grand Artist designs look just fine to my eye. 
The strap hanger is there, as are the lap points .
after working on a number of F5s and  making a few lookalikes ,
he has made a fine design of his own,

 ...  they Have a decent Resale Value too, apparently.

 :Popcorn: 

 allow no Blue notes in Building?

----------


## D.E.Williams

Well, here goes...

All three of these images are taken from a scan of the Siminoff plans, scaled properly and turned into a .dwg file which I imported into my CAD system.

The Red.
The body lines of the red image are completely symmetrical, except for the points and the scroll.  They have the same exact waist area, and same curve in the waist.  The lower point has not been changed, but the upper point has been moved to fit onto the symmetrical side.  Also, the scroll has been shifted to the left a bit, in order to accommodate a perfectly centered neck on the neck block and body centerline.  No 1/8" offset here.  To me, this has an appearance of being more long and narrow than the original F5 outline.

The Blue.
The Blue image is a scanned and CAD drawn image of a Loar F5 as per the Siminoff Plans, unmodified.  If you don't like it, then maybe you don't like the real F5!  To me, the exagerated side between the points gives this body shape a shorter, more squat look to it than the red one.  Reminds me of a baked beans pot.  It appears that way, because the upper point has been pushed in past the point of symmetry, caving that area in a bit, and then causing a slight bulge in the side between the points.

The Green.
Here we have a combination of the Red and Blue outlines.  The scroll is also shifted over to accommodate an perfectly centered neck, and yet the points and side between the points remains original to the Siminoff drawing.

Below is a combination drawing, showing the Red and the Blue, so that you can see exactly what has been modified to get the Red.

Any surprises?  Some of you knew exactly what you were seeing...others, not so much perhaps.
 :Smile: 

Here's the comparative image:

----------


## sunburst

Yep, I pretty much knew that's what was going on, and here are the problems I see:

None of those outlines look like accurate Loar F5 outlines. On the one that is supposed to be, the upper point is too sharp, long, and "pointy". It doesn't match the lower point. If you look at a Loar (or earlier) the upper point looks wider and matches the lower point better. The S-curve from the point of the upper point to the neck heel on the Loars is more like the red outline, a little flatter, curves not as sharp as the blue (that's the most recent "improvement" I've made on my own outline, straightening that curve a little). There are other things, but those are the most obvious to me.

The red would look better to me with the "waist" offset a little more, more like the others, and with the scroll refined some. The lower point position would depend on whether the neck was long or short.

Loars vary a little bit in their outline because they were hand bent and assembled, but there are several places where the Siminoff drawings are inaccurate, notably the F-holes, so I don't consider it as a true representation of a Loar.

----------


## D.E.Williams

Good points, John.  I was unaware that the more recent Siminoff plans (which is supposedly what I have) were that inaccurate, at least as far as the body outline was concerned.
I didn't think there was any degradation of the outline during the scan, and placing the plan on my computer monitor showed the outline to be a virtual perfect match.  Hmm...interesting.
What I don't like about the scroll on the Blue version is the way the curve just inward before it heads into the waist area.  That just looks all wrong to me, and I suspect it may be a spline generation issue.  The points also seem a bit small to me compared to pictures of old F5's that I've seen.

----------


## Gail Hester

John, can you be more specifica as to how these differ?  Don, is your red outline from Roger's Pro plans and not the book?

----------


## Joel Thomas

Quite late in the thread, but...

"Only mediocre work needs to be perfect; good work can be considerably flawed." -Anthony Guidice

----------


## sunburst

Gail, here's the easiest way to explain it. This is the outline superimposed upon Bill's mando. Notice the position and shape of the F-holes and the different outline especially at the upper point and also below the scroll.

----------


## TomTyrrell

Well, that explains why I think the red one looks fat. It would be interesting to find out how the wider waist would affect the tone.

Why relocate the f-holes?

----------


## sunburst

> Why relocate the f-holes?


I dunno...Hans, why relocate the f-holes?  :Wink:

----------


## Gail Hester

Awesome John, great and informative picture.  Thank you for doing that, I couldn't figure out how to do it. :Smile: 

I have what I consider to be a set of perfect (very old) plates verified over and over against the real deal.  I get exactly what your picture shows as far as the outline difference in Roger's Pro-plans.  It's real close though as plans go.    

The crosspiece does not line up with the 15th fret on Monroe's F5, curious.  I locate my F-holes in relation to the crosspiece/15th fret based on the scale length so that the bridge lies on the line at the F-hole points.  The location on the plans does not come into play for me.

----------


## D.E.Williams

Gail, the red outline is modified by me from the drawing in the book, and not the original from the plan.  The scroll is shifted right, and the upper point is not in the same position.  The waist is a tad wider than the other as a result.  The blue outline is the unmodified outline.  

John, I'd love to see that one superimposed against that mando if you have the time...

Amazing that the f holes are THAT far off.... dang, that's not good.  You sure that's a real Loar?
(joking)

Thanks.

----------


## Paul Hostetter

I see them as pretty different. The scrolls are quite different, the upper points way different, the neckblock is symmetrical on one but not the other. And the blue one is altogether a bit larger than the red, by a couple of percent anyway. But as Hans said, given the amount of variation from instrument to instrument in actual production, there's probably not a great deal to obsess about. It's interesting though to see people's visceral reactions to subtly different renderings of the same design.

----------


## Paul Hostetter

Here are the two backs superimposed:

----------


## Gail Hester

We need the Loar over the blue one or better yet compared to Roger's Pro Plans (sheet form) which are more acurate for doing Loar comparisons.






> there's probably not a great deal to obsess about


I agree Paul but then why does this stuff wake me up in the middle of the night to go tripple check some goofy dimension? :Laughing:

----------


## sunburst

> The blue outline is the unmodified outline.  
> 
> John, I'd love to see that one superimposed against that mando if you have the time...


...

----------


## delsbrother

I'd say the blue one is close enough to the outside shape - especially since the photo is probably ever-so-slightly off-square. Though what's up with the endpin/tp cover?

How much variation is there in Loars themselves? I'm assuming they were built in outside forms, but I suppose there must've been more than one of those...

----------


## D.E.Williams

Paul, any difference in scale is due to my cropping in Photoshop.  Both images are a part of the same drawing in different layers.  I had to do a "Print Screen" in order to get the image from the CAD software to PhotoShop.  

John, thanks for the blue version.  I'm astounded that the f-holes are that far from an original.  Are they all different, or is this one an exception to the rule?  Even the shape of the f-holes isn't right in the drawing compared to that photograph.

----------


## delsbrother

If you're using AutoCAD you can use SAVEIMG or plot to a raster image plotter to get jpgs out to Photoshop. I prefer the latter because you can specifiy the area and resolution of the plot/image.

You can also plot to EPS and go into Illustrator instead (vector to vector instead of vector to raster).

----------


## sunburst

> Even the shape of the f-holes isn't right in the drawing compared to that photograph.


The photo has typical Loar F-holes. The drawing is obviously drawn with drafting tools using the basic shape and size of the original f-holes. It's amazing to me how many mandolins I see with those F-holes. A lot of us started building using the first Siminoff book, and many still use that f-hole.
I don't know why the drawn F-holes ended up where they are, I guess nobody thought accurate placement in the drawing was important.
Normally, the points of the F-holes line up at the bridge position, and that is normally at the midpoint of the top from the tail end to the "cross piece", but normally the 15th fret is very close to the "cross piece".

I think it's interesting how similar the drawn (blue) upper point is to the real one. It looked much to sharp and thin to me, but it's only slightly longer and hardly thinner at all. As I said, 1/32" or less can change everything.

----------


## HoGo

"I think it's interesting how similar the drawn (blue) upper point is to the real one. It looked much to sharp and thin to me, but it's only slightly longer and hardly thinner at all. As I said, 1/32" or less can change everything. "

That's very true. Some details look very different once f/b , binding scroll ridge etc. get into the picture... When I was drawing I always had the bridge, f/b and f holes drawn and did the outline with inside binding edge. The scroll ridge can throw whole scroll out of whack when it's not in th eright position. On the other hand it can make even not perfect scroll look OK when it's placed in order to fix the outline (this is case of many Loars).
I compared the Siminoff plans to Loar mould and the outline wa slightly larger than mould in the places visible on John's comparison. (I think he should have blown the outline a tiny bit more) Most Loars have scroll slightly smaller than mould. The Soundholes on Siminoff's plans are way off. You can see it even on his comparison on siminoff.net when zoomed in.
The f holes on my plans are rather small, most Loars have holes slightly enlarged here or there (due tochipout during manufacture?) I superimposed several typical Loar f holes and used that for the shape. I just compared Mike Marshall's f-hole to my plans and it fits. It's noticeably larger in some places.
The photo looks good enough to have minimal distortion in it, I photoshopped (free transformations) much worse pics of Loars to fit the mould just fine.

----------


## P Josey

Great thread. It would be interesting to see the MacRostie plan the same way.

----------


## D.E.Williams

The MacRosite plan looks much more like photos of a real Loar to me.  His f-holes align with the bridge as John describes it.
Anyway, I'd like to not get into a conversation about why the Siminoff plans have shortcomings vs someone else's plans.  (Although, when it comes to using them for building an F-5, it might be appropriate to the thread title...) 

My original assumptions about the neck being off center were based on having built enough guitars to know that it's easy to not get a neck aligned to a centerline properly, and I've seen it done on a number of factory instruments.  I've seen bridges way off-center on a body to accommodate a bad neck set.  Also, I think we have to remember that Gibson mandolins were built in a factory environment, as mass-produced as any instrument of that day.  So my assumption was that the neck was set improperly - perhaps on whichever prototype instrument was used to make the subsequent instruments, or a gradual shift along the way.  Either that or when people made drawings to replicate them, they used an instrument with a defect to make the plans.  Things like that can and do happen.  Which lead to my question, "why copy an error?"  It sounds like there is sufficient evidence to claim that they intended to offset the neck by an eighth inch or so, and if that is the case, my assumption was incorrect.
I think we've all learned here that what may look right or good to one person, may not be the next person's cup of tea.  That's somewhat refreshing, as it leaves room for some artistic interpretation and feeds innovation.

----------


## sunburst

> I think we've all learned here that what may look right or good to one person, may not be the next person's cup of tea.  That's somewhat refreshing, as it leaves room for some artistic interpretation and feeds innovation.


I agree. I departed from the Loar outline years ago (actually the F2 F4 outline, they kept that shape for the F5) because my eye thought it needed improvement. In a one man shop like mine I'm free to tweek my outline to my taste whenever I want to. At a shop like Gibson in the 20s, with body forms and procedures in place, that's not an easy thing to do. The F5 went into production pretty quickly after the design was born, and when a design goes into production it tends to get locked where it is; changes are much more difficult once the production tooling is in place. Perhaps the F5 design would have evolved if it wasn't a production instrument to smooth out some of these things? (looks up and prepares to dodge lightning bolts). They did change the position of the tuner holes in 1922, and gave up the laminated neck, so they weren't completely locked in stone.

While I think the F5 design is and should be open to interpretation by modern builders, I think it should remain rooted in the original F5 design, if an F5 is what the builder chooses to build. I think of the Loar design as a point of departure for the modern builder to personalize to his/her tastes. Studying examples of Loar mandolins is the best way to become familiar with the shapes, but that's not something everyone can do easily. Studying F2 and F4 mandolins is very valuable, and they are much more plentiful. Working from two dimensional drawings, even very accurate ones, gives us much less information. I have Adrian's drawing but I don't build from it, I have it more for a reference and just to look at because it is so well done and attractive. I recommend that drawing as the best, in my opinion, to get a mandolin builder started with an F5 design, but by all means examine every old Gibson F2, F4, F5 that you can.

----------


## buddyellis

I like the blue one too.  It's the lower point

----------


## Michael Lewis

The blue one doesn't show up well enough to see the shape on my computer, it blends into the black background.  Other than that I don't see any difference in those little pics.  You would need to fill the screen for me to see what you are doing here.

----------


## D.E.Williams

Michael, you should be able to click on the images and bring them up larger, click on them again, and they open up and you can then select them with the + cursor to enlarge them further.  The blue outline was from the Siminoff plans, scanned, loaded into Illustrator, then turned into a .dwg file and loaded into my cad software.  Here's the same image with black lines on a white background.

----------


## Timbofood

"Beauty is in the eye of the behloder" comes to mind!  Wouldn't it be a boring world if we all looked alike?

----------


## TomTyrrell

In comparing the Loar-era Gibson mandolin body shapes it strikes me that the F4 body of the time was more symmetrical than the F5. I think it is safe to assume that Loar was working from the standpoint of applying his ideas to the existing Gibson body of work so wouldn't it make sense for a modern F5 "redesign" to start with the F4? 

Whatever sound Loar was trying to achieve, it required the Virzi. Since the modern opinion of the desired tone for an F5 does not include the Virzi perhaps there are some improvements that could be made to the evolutionary process that turned the F4 into the F5.

In any case, a mandolin is not a piece of furniture so I believe the appearance should always be of secondary importance.

----------


## Gail Hester

> In comparing the Loar-era Gibson mandolin body shapes it strikes me that the F4 body of the time was more symmetrical than the F5.


Other than the obvious difference in the top for the neck attachment and the oval hole, F2, F4 and F5 bodies are exactly the same.

----------


## TomTyrrell

> Other than the obvious difference in the top for the neck attachment and the oval hole, F2, F4 and F5 bodies are exactly the same.


Well, that's what I thought too. But when I compared F4 number 73505 from 1923 to F5 number 72055 from 1923 I was more than a bit surprised.

----------


## Bill Halsey

Gibson had a number of rib moulds for the F-4/F-5, perhaps a half-dozen or more, cast in an aluminum alloy.  The interior surfaces of the rough castings were spindle-sanded, which introduced minor variations in the rib outline, and there were greater variations in the way the points were finished out by hand-filing where the spindle sander could not reach.

Photography has its shortcomings in archival interpretations.  I don't pretend to understand the half of it, but the camera angle is critical, as is its proximity to the subject.  In the photos above, I'm seeing the F-4 tipped a bit more forward, and closer to the camera than the F-5, which gives it a larger scroll and smaller tailpiece cover.  When enlarging the foreshortened body to full length, the points will be displaced somewhat.

Adrian knows how to correct for some of these anomalies on the computer; perhaps he could add to this thread... HoGo?

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Tom, it looks like there's some angular issues with that overlayed photo. The tailpieces should line up otherwise. 
It looks like the F-4 shot was taken from above instead of straight on. You can see the side of the point in the photo.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Bill wrote it first and wrote it best.
Something I did yesterday was to cruise the Mandolin Archive for photo's to reveal the off-center neck. I did both F-4's and F-5's trying to see if they also did the ovals or just the 5's.
This shot of 72211 is one of the best I found. Like the superimposed photo Tom posted, it's difficult to measure what's going on because of the perspective of the camera. It's apparently only shifted by about a 16th" and it's nearly imperceptable.
But I wanted to see how they dealt with the centering of the heel and it appears they just carved it so it did line up instead of tilting a symetric neck.

----------


## Gail Hester

You have to be careful working with photos.  I've had enough of them in hand to have a strong opinion that they are the same.  Right now I have a 1917, 1921, 1924 and a 1927 on the bench along with a set of vintage Gibson plates (Loar identical) and all match perfectly.  That's not to say that they are all carved the same or have the same arching or that the inside of the scrolls where cut out the same but the body shapes are of one design.

----------


## TomTyrrell

OK, I'm wrong. Sorry about that.

Could somebody now explain why the folks at Gibson could make an A model with a centered neck and tailpiece but couldn't accomplish the same feat with the F5s?

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I'd say that if it was a mistake, then it was because there was totally different forms and tooling for the F than for the A.
If it was on purpose which is one scenario that has been put forward... then it was on purpose.

----------


## Gail Hester

> Could somebody now explain why the folks at Gibson could make an A model with a centered neck and tailpiece but couldn't accomplish the same feat with the F5s?


A lot of those were off center as well.  Here's a shot of the Loar A5.

----------


## Bill Halsey

> Could somebody now explain why the folks at Gibson could make an A model with a centered neck and tailpiece but couldn't accomplish the same feat with the F5s?


This is the perennial question, and it has to do with the layout and radius of the neck block, and the vertical relationship of the neck block to the scroll.

It really goes back to Orville.  The earlier 3-pt. Gibbys had the apex of the smaller neck heel radius quite a bit higher than the later ones.  In this example from c. 1900, we see that OHG was already at odds with the carving of the margin around the back, abandoning it on the scroll side of the neck intersection, apparently to bring the substance of the raised back closer to the scroll.



As the one-pc. neck/rib assy. gave way to the more conventional neck and block arrangement, the neck block radius was increased to provide a broader platform for fitting a separate dovetailed neck.  At the same time, the larger radius appears more in harmony with the curves of the upswept point and larger scroll of the new 2-pt. design.  The apex of the neck block radius was lowered to about mid-scroll; however, in spite of this change, the new wider neck block pushed the scroll away from its former proximity to the neck.  If the neck block were lowered (or if the scroll were raised) any further, the thumb would hit the scroll when playing in the higher positions.  We can see that the scroll cutout already breaches the curve of the neck block radius (this cutout was traced from a separate template onto the assembled body and it was sawed out as one).  Here's a fairly dramatic example in a 1914 F-2:



So, the long & short of it is that the only thing left to do was to push the fingerboard over next to the scroll to close the gap to a visually acceptable proportion.

----------


## TomTyrrell

<< So, the long & short of it is that the only thing left to do was to push the fingerboard over next to the scroll to close the gap to a visually acceptable proportion. >>

<<Here's a shot of the Loar A5. >>

Now see. That's my problem with the whole "unintentional" idea. Why not make the neck correctly and just "move" the scroll? 

BUT, no scroll on the Loar A5 and the neck still isn't on center.

I really do think it is that way on purpose.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

There was only one A-5 Loar and I assume it wasn't made with the oval A jigs. Any examples of oval A's off center?

----------


## ellisppi

Great thread, very different than going thru all this by myself 30 yrs ago. I decided then that it was simply that the bass side of the headblock was cut in deeper to keep the scroll in position. The F2 back pic of Bill's shows this to me but Jim's earlier F5 back pic does make me wonder again. If you draw a traditional F5 outline but make the headblock symmetrical, it can't be done. The scroll will be too small or pushed too far out. Also photos shot with a wide angle lense can be deceptive cause they will be distorted.

----------


## Bill Halsey

> BUT, no scroll on the Loar A5 and the neck still isn't on center.
> I really do think it is that way on purpose.


I would argue that the neck on the A-5 #74003 is on-center, within normal factory tolerances.  Again, the camera is not giving us the whole story.  There is a slight rotation of the instrument to the left in the image above, giving the appearance of neck offset in that direction.

Here's a detail of that same instrument rotated slightly in the opposite direction, which gives the appearance of a slight offset to the _right_:


If we look at the back view, we again see a slight rotation that makes the button appear off-center.  However, the fingerboard edges intersect the neck block radius at about the same height, which indicates a centered neck.


On purpose.   :Wink:

----------


## Paul Hostetter

I think neck joints have always been sketchy. This is a 3-point F-4:

----------


## Gail Hester

> There was only one A-5 Loar and I assume it wasn't made with the oval A jigs. Any examples of oval A's off center?


Jim, the Loar A5 is just an A4 with F-holes and a long neck, crosspiece moved North, 1/8 inch thiner, same jig...really.





> I would argue that the neck on the A-5 #74003 is on-center


Bill, it's somewhat common knowledge to those who have seen it that the Loar A5 neck is off center as pictured.

----------


## Paul Hostetter

I'm glad Bill Halsey brought up photographic technique. Since most CAD imagery starts with photos, and knowing that the photos can be sooooo misleading, maybe it's a good idea to cultivate one's eye rather than relying on graphic templates of any kind. 

That said, here's a link to a rather old page of advice on photographing instruments for the purpose of using the images as templates for making. It's by Michael Darnton who has done such documentation on thousands of rare violins (he worked for Bein and Fushi in this capacity for a number of years). Never mind the talk about types of film (he does digital now himself). The real issue is to get a great lens, and get back as far as possible from the instrument - at least ten feet, preferably much farther - and take any measure necessary to avoid tilt of any kind. Lenses (and inept photographers) tend to distort things tremendously. What the camera sees is not necessarily what you see or even what is there, which is why I mention learning to use your eyes rather than relying on drawings.

_The Strad_ has long offered posters with full-size images that are photographed properly and are therefore archivally valuable. Many's the violin built directly from those posters. Likewise the Bein and Fushi annual calendar is loaded with them as well. It can be done, but snapshots are never going to cut it.

----------


## Bill Halsey

> Bill, it's somewhat common knowledge to those who have seen it that the Loar A5 neck is off center as pictured.


Gail, thanks for the input -- this is really interesting.  I haven't seen that instrument since Tut acquired it and showed it at Mon's festival sometime in the late '60's or early '70s.  Is the neck offset to the left (G side), and is it enough to appear intentional (i.e., a greater amount than the usual tolerances that we see in A models)?

----------


## sunburst

> If you draw a traditional F5 outline but make the headblock symmetrical, it can't be done.


I'm relatively happy with mine, drawn symmetrically. I've pretty much concluded that there's nothing I'll be able to do to get that shape to look completely "right" to me, but I like my symmetrical one better than anything else I've tried.

----------


## sunburst

I'm revisiting this thread after seeing this mandolin last week. I only got to shoot these snap shots with flash, so they're not very high quality, but this is a Sept. 18 1924 mandolin, lacquer finish, gold hardware, fern inlay. The back/heel area is pretty symmetrical. Maybe they were tweeking things in the later Loars?

----------


## D.E.Williams

By golly, the neck block _does_ look more symmetrical.  The neck still appears shifted though, but it could be the camera angle.

----------

