# General Mandolin Topics > Vintage Instruments >  Very early gibson museum prototype

## thunderfingers

Take a look on Ebay item # 290203136098. Would love to find one like it. Wonder how it sounds. Will try to post pic if I can.

----------


## woodwizard

That's a nice one. I think someone posted a pic of this one on another thread. I too wonder what those early Orville ones sound like ... action etc.

----------


## Mike Buesseler

I would guess if they sounded/played exceptionally well, they wouldn't have changed the design as much as they did. (Still makes you curious, though, don't it?)

----------


## woodwizard

That's very true. But I'm sure in the early stages of changing Orville's desigh was due to making production easier rather than better don't you think? Those had to be very time consuming to build.

----------


## Jim Garber

To make it easier for discussion purposes: Orville mandolin

Price is waaaaay up there, I would think. I know... "try to find another" then again, it is very interesting...



> No label or mark that I can see but anyone who has studied Orvilles work at all, knows who built this mandolin.


I haven't yet checked the archives... is that neck volute common to Orville instruments? Is it possible that someone copied an old Orville some years later and that this is not really by him? Hard to imagine, tho you never know. I wonder what the provenance is.

----------


## Bill Snyder

There's been pictures of that headstock posted in a previous thread a few months back.

----------


## Bill Snyder

Jim you gave this link to Greg Boyd's listing for a mandolin very much like the one being discussed in this thread a few months ago. I think it is the same mandolin.

----------


## J.Albert

I find it interesting that on this very early piece, Orville used a radiused fingerboard.

Of course, at some point, that design feature was dropped. I'm wondering if either Orville (or the "Gibson" makers when they began mass-producing mandolins) went to flat fingerboards simply for efficiencies of manufacturing.

Even today, radiused fingerboards on mandolins are a [somewhat] new and "non-traditional" concept. With the exception of the Bush model (and the limited edition Wayne Benson), Gibson still clings to "traditional" flat fingerboards.

Yet this look back at a historical example turns everything on its head! It appears that Orville - in his quest to modernize the mandolin - "moderinized" the fingerboard, too!

- John

----------


## allenhopkins

Regarding John's post 

I always have heard that Orville G considered the violin to be "the king of instruments," which is why he tried to make his mandolins violin-like -- carved tops and backs, eventually f-holes and raised fingerboards (though I guess those appeared after he left the company). Might that also explain why he would adopt a rounded fingerboard?

----------


## Martin Jonas

Radiused fretboards on mandolins are by no means new: all Emberghers have had them, starting well before Orville's first prototypes.

Martin

----------


## Bob A

I suspect that ol' Orville was a few beers short of a six-pack; it was the business guys wh bought him out and started the Gibson Company to cash in on the mando-boom who are responsible for the instruments we know and love.

Would you REALLY like a mandolin that was carved out of a single chunk of wood, with a hollow neck? 

If the Suits had stuck with the early Gibson designs, history would have been altered beyond recognition. Imagine Big Mon playing a Gibson Lyre Mandolin. Ugly thought, no?

----------


## Tim S

> I suspect that ol' Orville was a few beers short of a six-pack; it was the business guys wh bought him out and started the Gibson Company to cash in on the mando-boom who are responsible for the instruments we know and love.
> If the Suits had stuck with the early Gibson designs, history would have been altered beyond recognition. Imagine Big Mon playing a Gibson Lyre Mandolin. Ugly thought, no?



Theres no doubt Orville was an eccentric and some of his ideas were pretty wild but you obviously need to freshen up on your history lessons. Orville Gibson is solely responsible for the most important factor in the instruments we know and love today, which is the carved top and bottom plates. He is also responsible for the basic design of the A and the F scroll style mandolins as we know them today. These basic designs have not changed in over 100 years. It was Orville Gibsons patent of a newly designed mandolin that actually started the American mandolin boom you speak of in the first place. He sold out because he could not keep up with the demand. Those suits as you call them, bought him out for a reason. If they would have been innovative and skilled enough to come up with their own designs, they certainly wouldnt have bothered to buy his company. They would have started their own company. The fact is, Orville had something they desperately needed, the patent that had revolutionized the mandolin. They also needed him to teach thier workers how to build mandolins since they had no luthier skills. Sure, the mandolins continued to improve after Orville left but that would have happened whether he was there or not. They may have actually improved faster and may have been even better if he had stayed and had control of the company.
 # # # I assume by the mandolin that we know and love today, you are referring to the F5. The F5 that Loar designed marked the end of the mandolin boom. The F5 was an utter failure at the time. The music of that era simply sounded much better on the earlier oval hole instruments designed by Orville. It wasnt until Big Mon invented Bluegrass music that the F5 found a home and became popular. The F5 had the perfect sound for this new style of music. A sound which would not have been obtainable by Loar without, you guessed it, Orvilles innovative and patented carved top and bottom plates. To this day, the best mandolins in the world are built utilizing technics invented and developed by this pioneer of luthiery.

The truth is, without ol'Orville Gibson there would be no Loars and Big Mon would have played a flat-top taterbug.

----------


## Red Henry

After that item appeared on eBay, I sent the link to some experts for evaluation. Consensus is that the instrument is probably authentic. (In answre to the question, Yes, the neck construction and volute are consistent with other Gibson instruments of the period). One correspondent had seen another very old Gibson with a custom tailpiece featuring its owner's initials. 

Apparently the Gibson company went through several quick years of design changes for practical production reasons, with the design of A, F, and H-models stabilizing (to my eyes) in 1912 with shorter scales and somewhat simplified outlines and carving. But the early-to-mid 'teens designs are really classic, and you might say that Gibson achieved its artistic peak in mandolin design at that time.

(It may be heresy to suggest that the F-5 was not as beautiful as the F-4, but after all, the F-4 was designed all in one piece, and did not have things such as the F-5's longer neck, changed soundholes, and re-positioned bridge superimposed on an earlier design. In mandolins-as-art, it's hard to beat a mid-teens F-4.)

This is a pretty cool mandolin, but may not bring the $40,000 asked to start.

Red.

----------


## Eugene

> Radiused fretboards on mandolins are by no means new: all Emberghers have had them, starting well before Orville's first prototypes.


...and Maldura and de Santis before him.

----------


## Dave Reiner

Just for comparison, here are photos of an A model that Orville Gibson made and signed in 1901, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The Gibson company began the next year, in 1902. This one is thicker than the early factory models, and has a beautiful inlaid pickguard that would work for both right and left handed pickers. The tailpiece is later, from 1904-5. This has a pleasant and resonant tone, similar to a 1905 A but not as complex as a teens A. 

Dave

----------


## Eugene

> Just for comparison, here are photos of an A model that Orville Gibson made and signed in 1901, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. #The Gibson company began the next year, in 1902. #This one is thicker than the early factory models, and has a beautiful inlaid pickguard that would work for both right and left handed pickers.


Such a pickguard/scratchplate, of course, isn't remotely out of the ordinary at the time. It's really of the type standard to wire-strung mandolins since their first appearance in the mid 1700s.

----------


## Bob A

I have to note that Orville's instrments did not start the American mandolin boom, which had been going on since the 1890s. Further, Gruhn (if memory serves) notes that his patent was not for carved tops/backs, but for constructing the neck and sides from a single piece of timber.

While Orville had many "interesting" ideas, I don't think he had many that would have had a strong effect towards improving the Gibson mandolins of the teens, which were far superior to those made by Orville or the early Gibson company.

And no, I'm not referring to the F5; for my money, the teens and early 20s instruments seem to me to be more versatile and attractive; my personal fave is my F4. It's amusing to note that the patent info for the trussrod stipulates that a major benefit of the design was to permit use of cheaper, thinner chunks of wood for the neck. The bean-counters seem to have stumbled onto an "improvement" while looking to cut costs. (Again, I prefer the thicker pre-trussrod necks). It's not fair to say the F5 was a failure; by the time of its introduction, the mandolin boom was pretty much over. It's amusing to think that the Suits would have been better served by firing Loar, or redirecting his interest toward banjos and guitars, which were the Next New Thing. Poor Lloyd was caught between the dying mandolin era and the rise of electric instruments; too late for one, too early for the other. Little wonder that he sought solace in his musical saw.

----------


## Bob A

Here's some information on Orville Gibson's only patent.

----------


## Tim S

> Gruhn (if memory serves) notes that his patent was not for carved tops/backs, but for constructing the neck and sides from a single piece of timber.


I have a copy of the original 3-page document. Actually, carved tops and backs were absolutely part of his patent. Orville not only illustrates this in his drawings on page 3, it is very specifically stated a couple times in the document itself, that the top "sounding board" and the "backboard" are to be carved in a somewhat convex form. He later even talks about the degree of graduation of the thickness of the parts.

----------


## Jim Garber

> It was Orville Gibsons patent of a newly designed mandolin that actually started the American mandolin boom you speak of in the first place.


Arguable... the mandolin boom started close to 20 years before that in about 1880. Lyon & Healy was likely the first of the American makers to cash in on the boom with Martin and dozens of others following in hot pursuit. Granted they were not carved top instruments but they were mandolins also. 

Also, bear in mind that in Europe there was a parallel mandolin "boom" with many makers from Italy, Germany and France. Some of those were imported before the Americans got their mandolin-building act together.

My take on it is not that Gibson (the company) started the boom but likely rode it out and encouraged the fad to continue thru the teens with quality instruments and great marketing skills. However, given the number of original Orville instruments that were built, I doubt that he personally started any craze at all. Tho his genius should be recognized, we may never have seen few of the fruits of his labors and designs had it not been for the "suits".

----------


## Jim Garber

Tim is correct that Orville's 1898 patent does indicate carving the plates. Here is an excerpt from the patent.

----------


## Jim Garber

Here is the diagram from the patent.

----------


## Red Henry

How many times Mr. Gibson achieved an integral back-side-neck instrument I have not heard. This eBay mandolin appears to have at least a separate back, from the seam visible in a neck-joint-region closeup.

I am impressed, though, by the graceful shape of this instrument's neck-volute-headstock curve. Along with his maverick mandolin ideas, Gibson had some artistry in him.

Red

----------


## Tim S

You really need to read the entire document to fully understand it. In a nutshell.... The neck, peghead and rim is stated to be carved of one piece of wood. It states that the back and top are seperately carved and attatched to each side of the rim. A total of 3 pieces of wood besides the fretboard. He actually explains that he would prefer that the entire mandolin be of one piece of wood but he arrived as nearly to this as is practical to manufacture the instrument.

----------


## Eugene

Of course, that single-piece carved soundbox building technique is absolutely ancient. It was pretty standard to medieval plucked strings, and still common to middle eastern ones. It was largely abandoned in favor of bent ribs because of grain runout at the ends of the soundbox.

----------


## brunello97

'Tis a pity that these conversations always devolve into a version of "Gibson/Monroe/F5 invented/discovered/created/theGreatest vs. Embergher/Classical/WayBetter/OfCourseSomebodyYouDon'tKnow did it first". Bunk and De-bunk and then Re-bunk.

Everybody's got a little light under the sun.

Mick

----------


## Jim Garber

> You really need to read the entire document to fully understand it.


Here ya go... page 1.

----------


## Jim Garber

page 2

----------


## Tim S

> While Orville had many "interesting" ideas, I don't think he had many that would have had a strong effect towards improving the Gibson mandolins of the teens,
> 
> And no, I'm not referring to the F5; for my money, the teens and early 20s instruments seem to me to be more versatile and attractive; my personal fave is my F4.


Bob,
 # I would like to know more about this favorite F4 you have that Orville had no effect on. This could be a rare one of a kind. I have seen alot of F4s but I obviously haven't seen one like yours. Let's see, it obviously doesn't have that great shape like most of them with the large bass side scroll and treble side points, because that was Orville's design. It must not have the usual headstock design with the small curl on the left,a straight slant up and then a larger scroll on the right because that was Orville's design. It couldn't have a carved top or a carved back since those are also Orville's innovations. You really should post a picture of this unique Gibson F4 with no scrolls,no points,flat top, and a beetleback.

----------


## Eugene

Ah, Tim, I believe you've either misinterpreted or misrepresented our goodly Bob's intent.

I find Orville's quirkier design aesthetic a bit garish. For me, there's precious little appeal in the F styles at all. The 3-point versions of Orville himself are far and away the least appealing to me personally. The post-Orville, oval-holed F models appeal to me most of that lineage. To echo what I believe to be Bob's point, my favorites of Gibson's output all came comfortably after Orville had given up the firm: the early F-holed archtop guitars, the pre-1908 A styles with the inlaid scratchplates and low bridges, and the snakehead A styles. Personally, of archtop mandolins, I am much more attracted to the Lyon & Healy models, especially their asymmetric style A (and no, that designation has nothing at all to do with what Gibson named their A styles) or even the oval-holed styles 20 and 30 of Martin. My real preference for mandolins falls in the Neapolitan types (or "beetlebacks", if you must). Your taste may differ without shame, and I won't even tease you if it does.

...But now we've wandered too far from the specific interesting instrument to have launched this thread.

----------


## Eugene

> Everybody's got a little light under the sun.


Indeed. I think the real point of being aware of precedent is to avoid wasting time through reinventing the proverbial wheel.

----------


## Bob A

What Eugene said. Once the company had settled on basic design (yes, using Orville's patented carved top and back) there was little that ol' Orv could have added toward improvement; in fact, I doubt he'd have approved of ther changes in his basic concept. Of course, it would have been terribly expensive to adopt his concept of one-chunk-of-wood construction, and this was certainly not the intention of the Suits, who were looking for profit thru mass production techniques.

And I echo Euge in his respect of the L&H carved instruments, which are delightful. And of course the Gibson-slandered "Tater-bug".

----------


## woodwizard

You guys can keep your tator bugs and I'll keep my Gibsons any day. My all time farorite Orville design is a 3 point F model. They are American made & beautiful. IMHO

----------


## brunello97

Thanks, Jim for posting the Gibson patent in its entirety. Great to read through. #I'm not sure how many people on the planet would find this good reading, but most of them are probably associated with the MC. 

I'm no expert on the trajectory of Gibson mandolins, but I thought I did read somewhere that Orville did remain involved in the company in a design/research capacity even after he had sold his 'invention' to the Kalamazoo concern that bears his name. #I understood he was involved with the development of 00 and teen era Gibson design to some extent. #Others with more knowledge might correct me. #

The devolution of these discussions into the kind of tensions exhibited in some posts above seems to come out of insisting on the idea of 'invention' or 'discovery' or whatever, that I believe is a trope courtesy our ways of understanding things. #(Henry Ford 'invented' the automobile. #Columbus 'discovered' America. #'Freedom loving' Texans seceded from Mexico.)

I kind of disagree with your post here, Eugene, in a fraternally Loyal Order way. #I don't think of the mandolin (or its design particulars) as a 'wheel' at all, to be invented or discovered, but rather a very complex device that has undergone a range of modifications. #(I have no doubt you share this view.) #

Orville's adaptations, modifications, tinkerations merely pushed the design along another tangent. #(I don't think it would take much of a 'genius' to come up with the idea of a radius-ed fretboard, whether he was aware of previous incarnations or not. #It seems likely any bright person who plays a bit might think of such a thing....) #As a sum total of a range of these modifications Orville's mandolin was substantially different (in toto, that is) from what was going on elsewhere in standard practice (again in toto.) # At least enough for him to get a patent on it. #(For whatever measure of uniqueness that may or may not provide.)

I think the useful discussions break down when well-intentioned folks insist on a version of the 'great man' theory and ascribe essentialist acts of creation when a many-handed evolution is probably more accurate. #My 1917 A was neither made of clay nor of an Embergher-a rib.

That sermon aside for a Sunday morning, and to turn the spit on the ribs a bit, I offer the following for comparison in their relative quirkiness. (Sound not being a factor here....) 

Like Bob, I prefer the F4 design to the later F5. #All its design quirks seem well integrated-though I've never been a fan of these headstocks. As much of a bowlman as I am, I find the Bis headstock design truly weird and awkward, whatever its historical lineage, and prefer the slotted headstock styles by far-which to my eye works far nicer with the elegant Embergher curvatures. #The L+H A is in the middle for hopefully transparent reasons. #

These are obviously just my opinions and shouldn't be viewed as encroaching on anyone else's which I would enjoy hearing.

Mick

----------


## Bob A

I like my American Gibsons too, along with my American-made L&H, Stahl, Vega and Martin Bowlbacks. Nice thing about mandolins is there's so many different flavors. And I don't at all mind tasting something Italian.

----------


## Tim S

> #The post-Orville, oval-holed F models appeal to me most of that lineage. #To echo what I believe to be Bob's point, my favorites of Gibson's output all came comfortably after Orville had given up the firm


Point taken and understood. What you obviously fail to understand is the fact that the design of the post-Orville oval-holed F models came directly from Orville's workshop long before he sold the company. He gave up the firm but the firm certainly didn't give up his designs. Here we are over 100 years later and his designs and innovations are is still being used today on almost every mandolin built, whether it is the Gibson Company or the numerous private builders out there. Bottom line...If you have a mandolin that has a florentine body and/or a carved top & back, you have a mandolin with innovations and designs originally created by the mind and hands of Orville H. Gibson. That's the simple truth. That's quite a legacy left by this small builder in Kalamazoo.

----------


## markishandsome

I'd always heard that the mandolin boom was triggered by the "Spanish Students" who played flat-backed instruments.

I believe the Shutt company was producing carved top/back mandolins before Orville filed his application. I think Orville's instruments are cool looking and would like to play one and revel in its history, but you could buy a dozen equally historic instruments with that money.

Sure Orville came up with the F style, but its ubiquity today has a lot more to do with Bill and Lloyd.

----------


## Tim S

> Sure Orville came up with the F style, but its ubiquity today has a lot more to do with Bill and Lloyd.


I totally agree with you Mark,as long as you don't attempt to take Orville out of the equation as some posts above suggest. There can be no ubiquity if it doesn't exist. No Orville Gibson = no Loars. Nobody can change that fact unless they have a time machine.

----------


## Bob A

Nothing gives me more satisfaction than beating dead equines, so I'll toss another stick onto the flames.

I don't see that anyone tried to remove Orville from the picture. Stating that he was a few beers short of a sixpack merely refers to the fact that he was fairly unstable mentally, and did in fact end his days in a series of institutions.

Meanwhile, Mr & Mrs Loar bear more responsibility for Lloyd than Orville could claim. Again, it was the Suits that hired him, the Suits that made the Gibson company into a mandolin powerhouse, the Suits who produced all those charming megalomanic catalogs and sold vast numbers of instruments thru their brilliant marketing strategies.

We all thank Orville for his idea of carved tops and backs. But he didn't come down from on high in a fiery chariot, nor did he return via that route. And if left to his own devices, I seriously doubt that the world would be well-supplied with 90 year old Gibson mandolins. 

The heck of it is, I generally really dislike Suits. But credit must be given where it is due. Without those guys, we wouldn't have anything to discuss, except how much we love our bowlbacks.

I'd be interested to read more about the Shutt instruments.

----------


## Bob A

Roger Siminoff has a site with some interesting tidbits about Orville. Anyone who hasn't seen the picture of him in his, ah, interesting costume ought to check him out. About halfway down the page here.

Strange, I seem to be growing a thick hide, my nails are turning into claws, and I have an urge to hide under bridges and get peoples' goats. Tim, you're turning me into a Troll. This must stop.

----------


## steadypluckinaway

This might be an ignorant statement but don't those strings seem to be awfully honkin' large for an old instrument? I know the neck joints on early Gibbies are very strong but man I'd be puckered up bringing a set of J74's (or whatever those are in the ebay pics) up to tune. I am generally quite puckered bringing new strings up to pitch anyhow, but on an old jewel like that I think it would be pretty stressful. No? Am I just paranoid?

----------


## markishandsome

[QUOTE]Here is a thread that discusses Shutt and some others.

----------


## Bob A

Thanks, Mark.

Regarding string gauges, I'm of the opinion that less is more on older instruments, at least the oval-hole models. They seem to respond well to medium gauge strings, and I have no need for banjo-killer mandolins at this time. I suspect f-hole instruments can take a bit more pressure.

----------


## brunello97

Wow. Say what one might about the relative demerits of Embergher or Gibson headstocks, that is an amazing outfit-and a fine headstock ensemble. And regarding 'suits', I think I actually look pretty good in one, but have nothing sartorial to even hold a candle to Mr. Gibson.

Mick

----------


## Bob A

Indeed, Mick, Orville ain't nothin' to play with. Lacking only spats and a horn with a rubber bulb, we can be thankful that he took the time to comb the straws from his hair.

----------


## brunello97

Bob, Orville is decades ahead of both Piet Mondrian and ZZ Top. Something that our friend Martin's folks labeled Gesamstkunstwerk.

Every girl's crazy about a sharp dressed man. I have just the pair of boots that would be perfect with that suit.

Mick

----------


## markishandsome

> No Orville Gibson = no Loars. Nobody can change that fact unless they have a time machine.


I just re-read that and don't think it's necessarily true. The suits who bought Orville's designs would most likely have bought some other sharp-dressed genius's designs if he hadn't been doing the right thing at the right time. They would have employed the same marketing strategies, just with a different body shape and construction. Would they have been as successful? No way to know of course. But they may have. And when Lloyd got out of music school and needed a job he may have hooked up with the same suits and produced some nice instruments. Would they look/sound the same? Probably not. Would a hillbilly bandleader buy one used at a barber shop 20 years later and rise to prominence on its high lonesome sound? Maybe not. Maybe we'd all be gonzo for ukuleles today and Lloyd would be forgotten like all the other crackpots of that era, but saying "No Orville Gibson = no Loars" is pretty speculative. 

I used to have this same argument with my friends when I was younger. I'd say "No Elvis Presley = no rock and roll" and they'd say "maybe, maybe not, but if there were no rock and roll we'd probably be just as happy with whatever else happened to come along". History gave us Orville and Lloyd and Bill and Elvis and we should give them credit, but we could have been given a different cast and we would almost certainly be just as moved by whatever legacy those hypothetical musicmakers had left us.

----------


## Eugene

> Point taken and understood. What you obviously fail to understand is the fact that the design of the post-Orville oval-holed F models came directly from Orville's workshop long before he sold the company.


I don't know why you believe I have failed to understand that.

Regarding Neapolitan types, in most of the world, they are still favored for the styles of music I prefer to play, I think there's good reason for that, I like their tone quality in that context, and there's nothing at all wrong with that. Your taste may differ without shame.

----------


## Eugene

> I kind of disagree with your post here, Eugene, in a fraternally Loyal Order way. #I don't think of the mandolin (or its design particulars) as a 'wheel' at all, to be invented or discovered, but rather a very complex device that has undergone a range of modifications. #(I have no doubt you share this view.)


Of course. I'd better clarify a little about what I'd meant about reinventing the wheel. I was mostly referring to specific facets of any mandolin design. I don't think we'd find many people in favor of carving ribs and neck of a single block any more. If Orville had been aware of the precedent in instruments with carved ribs and carved arched backs of the medieval era, and why those building techniques were abandoned, we might have moved to a more mature archtop manodlin design a little earlier.

----------


## Tim S

> #History gave us Orville and Lloyd and Bill and Elvis and we should give them credit, but we could have been given a different cast and we would almost certainly be just as moved by whatever legacy those hypothetical musicmakers had left us.


Your right Mark, that was speculative on my part. I think your quote above was very well said. Thanks for your post.

----------


## markishandsome

Oh my pleasure. Thanks for chatting with me.

----------


## brunello97

All ribbing aside, I would be very interested to know more about the transition from Orville Gibson's designs into the "Gibson Co.' process of construction.  The tenor here has tended to brand the entrepreneurs as 'suits' and to apply thinly veiled descriptions of a high production process as perhaps unseemly. This is unfortunate and perhaps unfair to the reality of the fluidity and flexibility of early 20c US industrialization-even at this scale-which much of such industry was. Was Gibson the Eastman of its day?--I doubt it.

I admit to a certain wonkishness when it comes to industrial tooling, and I would guess the decision to move away from the 'one-piece neck and body' did stem more from the availability and cost of suitable wood as well as current pattern cutting jiggery than it did from any concerns over grain run out. (Perhaps there was time to judge Orville's prototypes on those merits--I would be interested to find out.) I do sincerely doubt that Mr. Gibson's knowledge of early instrument one-piece construction methods (or lack thereof) either hindered or advanced the trajectory of carved arch tops.  (This was all happening faster than Microsoft has been able to get a workable new operating system on line.) As my fellow Irishman/Charangista Bill would confirm, the one-piece neck and bowl tradition is alive and well.  The Orville bashing seems as ill tempered as the Orville hagiography. Who knows what some dumpster diving behind Luigi E's workshop would have turned up? Perhaps something more than silly drawings of dragons. 

Still, the Gibson patent thing has me a bit unclear. L+Hs archtop models obviously didn't infringe on the Gibson patent, so the purchase of Orville's rights and designs wouldn't have given anyone exclusive privilege to the carved-top/back aspect of his work. The 'suits' as they have been unfortunately labeled, must have been clear about what they really wanted.  

And from wherever it came, my '17 pumpkintop A is sublime. In design and in sound. Oh, and the headstock is just right.

Hopefully we can keep this discussion afloat (either through laughs or chest-butting) until those more knowledgeable about the intricacies of early Gibson production--or perhaps current builders--can shed some further light.

Mick

----------


## woodwizard

This thread has gotten a little silly. Too much dreaming about how Orville wasn't that great and how the suits would have found someone else if not Orville and Lore would have did something great with them and on & on & on. We need to stick to the facts and stop dreaming. The fact is with out Orville Gibson there wouldn't be any Gibsons. Plain and simple. No F4's no F5's #etc. Infact we probably wouldn't even know Lloyd Lore. In a way we could probably say the same thing about the suits. But the fact remains that Orville started it all and shouldn't be belittled. People use to dress up silly like that picture of Orville for shows ... that was a pretty commom thing to do back then.

----------


## brunello97

Mike, please don't get me wrong. I LIKE the suit he is wearing. (And I love my Gibsons.) GP's Nudie suit has nothing on Orville's. And that's a fact.

BTW did Bill M ever get fitted? (Somehow it doesn't seem his style, but here's hoping.)

Mick

----------


## Jim Garber

Yes, it is so true that the Gibson Company (or one bearing his name at any rate) would never have existed without Orville. I don't belittle his contribution. However, I do believe that the final result of his designs would not have been accepted as the teens and twenties instruments are today if it were not for the other folks on the engineering staff (George D. Laurian, Ted McHugh and Lloyd Loar) who contributed to the *refinement* of these designs back in those days.

Of course, all of this is conjecture: what might have occurred if Orville never happened on the scene? But who is to say that it would not have occurred to someone else to produce fretted instruments with violin-style construction?

On the other hand, more of us would be eagerly paying Tim's price* for the rarity if Orville's instruments were so desirable in terms of playability.

*Hey, I just noticed that the price went up another $10k!!

----------


## woodwizard

I'm not laughing at you Jim (the one above you. Guess your right ... who's to say

----------


## Jim Garber

That is all right... I have been laughed at before

----------


## markishandsome

What's wrong with a little conjecture? We're not writing a textbook, we're just a few mandorks chewin the fat.

----------


## Bob A

A look into Julius Bellson's book, "The Gibson Story", did little to add to my knowledge of how the company actually designed and assembled the mandolins of the teens and twenties, though it did mention that they rented the building they used as a factory for $65 per month. A mention of their hiring all available craftsmen, and a photo of a dozen or so of these men, was about it. There were a few fuzzy photos of the factory floor, and dozens of photos of the sainted Orville, and then broad coverage of the various products thru the 1960s made up the rest of the book.

A look into a catalog from the Loar era was interesting; while it depicted the various snakehead A=style instruments, the A2Z was not noted by name. It was simply the A2, even though it had the proper A2Z appliances.

Perhaps not surprisingly given the time, the folks who actually did the production were pretty much ignored, and sadly they're all dead now, so details will have to await the unearthing of contemporary documentation, assuming there is any.

FWIW, when I acquired my A2Z some years ago, I had occasion to call Bellson regarding the hype that surrounds that mandolin model. (ATT information in Kalamazoo had his listing). He claimed that there was nothing particularly different regarding the model, and stated that he preferred his own A4.

Anyone else have info from the period in question?

----------


## Bill Snyder

> ...On the other hand, more of us would be eagerly paying Tim's price* for the rarity if Orville's instruments were so desirable in terms of playability.
> 
> *Hey, I just noticed that the price went up another $10k!!


I guess I missed the fact that Tim is the seller of this mandolin.
Is it the same one that had been at Greg Boyd's?

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Another sad thing I've heard was that when the company had been acquired by Norlin and the move to Nashville took place large amounts of historical tooling, equipment, jigs and documentation were thrown out.

----------


## Bob A

Interestingly enough, I believe that a lot of the stuff that was going to be tossed out went to John Bernunzio, who probably still has it in his garage.

----------


## Jim Garber

I believe that Walter Carter had access to all of Gibson's papers. His book is pretty thorough on the early period as well.

----------


## Tim S

I have always felt that Orville Gibson never really got the respect that he deserves for his pioneering luthier work. I guess that is why I was so drawn to this piece in the first place. I admit that some of his unique concepts and construction techniques he set forth in his patent are definitely out in left field but I think history has proven to be very kind to Orville Gibson if you have the itellect to recognize his incomparable and lasting contibutions to acoustic instruments. 
#Here are a few quotes from George Gruhn about Orville Gibson that shed some more light on the subject... 
 (QUOTES)
His instruments feature carved tops and backs, which was a radical departure from previous guitar and mandolin building techniques.

While the Gibson Company abandoned many of Orville's structural concepts early in the history of the company, it is very clear that Orville's designs laid the foundation for the company's products. The concept of the carved mandolin and guitar appear to originate with Orville Gibson rather than to have been an evolutionary concept built upon designs of previous guitar or mandolin builders. 

Although Orville's total personal output of instruments was very low, it would appear that he was one of the most innovative luthiers in history. For a maker who produced only a few instruments over a span of as little as 12 years, his influence on the industry is entirely out of proportion to his personal output. Modern jazz guitars and carved model mandolins are still produced today with designs that can be clearly traced straight back to Orville's work. 
 Since playable examples of Orville's work are extremely scarce, it is entirely possible that had he not been successful in selling his design concept to a group of Kalamazoo businessmen who incorporated the Gibson company, his instruments might be virtually forgotten today. Any surviving example of Orville Gibson's work is an extremely important historical artifact. 
(END QUOTES)

----------


## markishandsome

What are you talking about?!! People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for instruments with Gibson one the peghead. Hundreds of luthiers have spent their lives copying his designs. The Gibson company still cranks out what some consider to be amongst the finest new mandolins made. How much more respect would you like people to show him? 

I don't think anyone here lacks the intellect to "recognize his incomparable and lasting contibutions", but he couldn't have had such a big impact in a vacuum. I'll agree that no Orville = no Loars only if you agree that no Lloyd = no Bill = no suits = no Spanish Students = no Stradivari = no Loars.

----------


## Tim S

> People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for instruments with Gibson one the peghead. #Hundreds of luthiers have spent their lives copying his designs. #


Exactly.

And I certainly didn't convey that the majority of people here don't respect his work because I believe that the vast majority do but it still amazes me when I see some of the belittling comments made about the man and his work.

----------


## Bill Snyder

What does one's opinion of him have to do with his work? I have yet to read any comments in this thread that I thought took anything away from his work anyway.

----------


## markishandsome

I think it's possible to critique someone's work (and wardrobe) respectfully. For example: the great Italian fiddle makers often attached the neck to an instrument with nails (NAILS!). That practice has obviously been abandoned long ago and would be looked down upon if a modern builder tried it. Similarly I could say I don't like Orville's peghead design without that being disrespectful. I just don't like it. It may have been copied on thousands of instruments since or never used again (such as the one on ebay). 

I do agree that calling him a few cards short of a deck or whatever when he was in fact a mental patient is in poor taste.

----------


## Timbofood

Orville's suit (and many like it) were often seen in photographs of the day. #I agree, no sillier than some of Mr. Nudie's designs. Fashion changes, so does the manufacture of instruments, everyone here has enjoyed the benefit of so many others work to learn from.
As to the loss of material and tooling from the shop, (Being a Kalamazooan)There was a significant amount that found homes "elsewhere" through sale or other forms of "aquisition." #I have it on good authority that some interesting pieces are still in there. #Unfortunately, he says nothing mandolin related, shucks!

----------


## brunello97

I want to go clearly on record that I like Orville's outfit posted previously. No tongue in cheek, no disrespect intended. It is a good looking suit IMHO. #I would happily wear that if I could get the jacket in a 42R. #Even the hat looks better to me than the typical black Stetsons that have been so popular from George Strait on up to Cletus Firmjaw. #(I know I am on shakey ground there, but a good hat is a good hat.)

Likewise, while I'm not an inhaler, GP's Nudie would look good with my python boots. On me that is, though I'm hoping that the fabric has some relationship at least to virgin oil, if not virgin cellulose. #(I like Pete Kleinow's golden pteradactyl a bit more, but it seemed more casual than the other Burritos', and since I'm the only guy standing up for the 'suits' around here, I figure I ought to opt for one.)

Tim (the Kalamazoid Tim), is the Heritage Guitar Co still in the old Gibson factory? #Did they retain any of the old equipment, records, etc.? #I am long remiss in not making a trip over your way to visit the hallowed ground. #

Mick

----------


## Jim Garber

> Tim (the Kalamazoid Tim), is the Heritage Guitar Co still in the old Gibson factory? Did they retain any of the old equipment, records, etc.? I am long remiss in not making a trip over your way to visit the hallowed ground.


Not to take this too far afield from the original post... but there is a seller on eBay currently offering NOS parts ostensibly from the Parsons St factory.

----------


## Timbofood

That would actually be KalamazooAN (oid seems...unseemly)
Mick, yes Heritage is still there, some "stuff" is still there but not much from what my source tells me. #I will see him this evening and grill him a bit. #Maybe more info by tomorrow. Let me know if you head over, maybe we can stand outside and just stare at the chimney! #I do know a tailor capable of fitting you for a duplicate of the famous suit! Maybe we could get a group rate?
Jim, I would have to imagine there are suitcases of that kind of material in and around this part of the state. #Everybody and his brother knew someone that worked there. #I know probably 10 people that were there over the years. #I was lucky enough to meet Julius Bellson once or twice! #What a classy gentleman.

----------


## Timbofood

Well, I talked with my friend last evening and he said there are some neck blanks and some backs kicking around the Parsons St. building but he has no idea of age. #I would suspect they are what got left behind from the Nashville exodus so, early 80's. #I have not seen any of them but I don't seem to remember anything really spectacular from that time frame. #Who knows, might be a real beauty in there...or not.

----------

