# Octaves, Zouks, Citterns, Tenors and Electrics > CBOM >  New Gibson K-5C Mandocello

## Bernie Daniel

Who knows the story of this new monster mando?  Looks like mandocello neck on a new L-5C body!   Anyway these images were posted on the Mandocello Enthusiast forum and they inspired me to play mandocello for the whole day -- now my hand is a little sore!  :Smile: 

Anyway great pic of one of my favorite mandolin makers and pickers.

OT:  Mr Dave Harvey what happened to that Buddy Holly bluegrass CD we talked about at Miami University in Ohio a few years ago?    :Smile:

----------


## Dobe

WOW that's pretty. Not lovin' the tailpiece rig though.
 :Popcorn:

----------


## PJ Doland

Gorgeous.

I know the old Gibson mandocellos were built with tailpieces like that, but I've always thought they looked kind of weird. Maybe it's just that I'm used to seeing L-5s, but I think that's a better look.

----------


## Jim Garber

This one shows an original K5. I love the headstock on this one.



I imagine that the OP's pictures of of a custom order. Very cool tho.

----------

Roman Pekar

----------


## Scott Tichenor

OK. Guess the cat is out the bag then. 

Here's a shot someone at Gibson sent me a few days ago but never responded to my inquiry if it was OK to post. Thought that the polite thing to do, to ask first before posting. Here's a hi-res at 600 dpi that's about 1.5MB if you want to view extreme details.

----------


## Jared Heddinger

Whoa...thats stunning! Are these actually available to the public, or was this a sort of special order?

----------


## Cheryl Watson

I heard it played at the Gibson booth at IBMA, jammed with a young multi-instrumentalist on a few tunes with me on a fine Gibson mandolin with special wood that Dave Harvey built.  This mandocello is PERFECTION in fit and finish!  I've never seen an instrument quite as gorgeous as that one. Dave Harvey talked about it with us and it was great to finally meet him in person.  It has a deep, strong, articulate voice.  What a show-stopper that would be on stage!

----------


## crazymandolinist

I'd love to see the orchestra instruments come back. That and the oval hole mandolins.....

----------


## William Smith

That Is very,super duper nasty,killer,,LOVE it,,the coolest one since the 20's. :Grin:

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> OK. Guess the cat is out the bag then. 
> 
> Here's a shot someone at Gibson sent me a few days ago but never responded to my inquiry if it was OK to post. Thought that the polite thing to do, to ask first before posting.


It was not my intention to cause any concerns at Gibson or anywhere else.  I saw those pics posted on another public internet forum and there was no statement saying that they were to be considered confidential.  As noted in my post I have been pretty certain something like this was going on for a while....as I believe a batch of Gibson style adjustable mandocello bridges have been made "somewhere".

----------


## mrmando

Marker at the 9th fret? What were they thinkin'?

(K5 pictured above, #75255, has the same thing going on, but I understand that's because it had been converted to a guitar at some point. Weird. K1, K2 and K4 cellos all had the correct 10th fret marker, and so do some of the other K5's, such as 76981.) 

Looks nice, but I like having 24 frets on my cello.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Marker at the 9th fret? What were they thinkin'?
> 
> (K5 has the same thing going on. Weird.) 
> 
> Looks nice, but I like having 24 frets on my cello.


Dave Harvey obviously stayed very close the the original K-5 specs.  I wondered about the 9th fret marker also.  

The 1950's Epiphone arch top guitar that I converted also had a fret marker at 9.   So I removed it and re-inserted it at 10 so it would be the same as my 1936 K-1 which is marked at frets 5,7 10, 12 & 15.   

Also I'd like to hear the logic for having a shorter neck on a K-5 than a K-1?  

My K-1 is attached at the 15th fret this new K-5C attached at fret 14 like the 1924 Loar model?

(related point of interest H-5 necks are attached at fret 13 unlike F-5's at 15).

Now that I look more closely does that look like a 1.5" nut (like a K-5) or is it a normal 1.75" arch top guitar nut?  That is to say was this built "ground up" as a mandocello or did they take an L-5C in the white and modify it as necessary?  Thoughts?

I'm think it would be so cool to be able to walk over to the bench and pick up a partly completed L-5 and say fix this up please.

----------


## mrmando

> I believe a batch of Gibson style adjustable mandocello bridges have been made "somewhere".


Why not just make them from archtop guitar bridge blanks? That's how I got a new bridge for my K1 way back when.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Why not just make them from archtop guitar bridge blanks? That's how I got a new bridge for my K1 way back when.


You can surely do that -- here is an arch top guitar bridge on my Epiphone K-5 style mandocello -- but the stock Gibson ones are way cool and also traditional I guess! :Smile:

----------


## Tavy

That is one awesome looking instrument.... amazing all round... way to go Gibson!

----------


## Greg Stec

> This one shows an original K5. I love the headstock on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine that the OP's pictures of of a custom order. Very cool tho.


It may be an original, but I would love to see a close up of the finish.  From this distance (camera to object) it appears refinished.  And if it is an original *AND* refinished, IMO that's a $3000 mistake.

----------


## Greg Stec

> Anyway these images were posted on the Mandocello Enthusiast forum and they inspired me to play mandocello for the whole day -- now my hand is a little sore.


That sore-ness is a *GOOD* pain.  Take it from someone who's been playing mandocello since 1990.

----------


## goaty76

> It may be an original, but I would love to see a close up of the finish.  From this distance (camera to object) it appears refinished.  And if it is an original *AND* refinished, IMO that's a $3000 mistake.


Can you go into further detail on what you think looks so off with the finish?

Phil

----------


## Mike Black

The funny thing that I think of when looking at this is...What's with the flowerpot?  Surely Gibson can use the flower pot inlay, and not have to use this knock-off looking version.  Maybe they think that they'd be sued if they used it.   :Smile:

----------


## Marty Henrickson

All this is seriously making me want a mandocello.

----------


## John Gardinsky

A beauty!

----------


## Bernie Daniel

If the measurements a person can make on a photograph are to be trusted -- I am convinced that this new K-5C was made by converting an L-5C.  That is, this was not built from scratch as a mandocello. 

I'm pretty sure that is a standard guitar neck with mandolin tuners and the appropriate bridge and tail piece.  

Not meant in any way to disparage or diminish the new instrument -- just making an observation.  

I believe the original Loar inspired K-5's have a 1.5" nut.  This K-5C has the usual 1.69" (1 11/16") guitar nut -- based on my assessment of the photos.  

Here is an L-5C pic including the block inlay a fret 9!

----------


## goaty76

Just realized that the original K-5 was a 16" instrument and if these are based on the modern L-5 that would make them 17".  Biggest K-5 ever.  Hey why not go all the way and base it on a Super 400 (18").  Super K-5 Mega-cello.

Phil

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Just realized that the original K-5 was a 16" instrument and if these are based on the modern L-5 that would make them 17".  Biggest K-5 ever.  Hey why not go all the way and base it on a Super 400 (18").  Super K-5 Mega-cello.
> Phil


Phil, I agree mostly!  What a mandocello that would be!!!

But have you ever had a chance to pick up one of those big 18" arch tops like a Gibson Super 300 or Super 400 or an an Epiphone Emperor?  These require some adjustment to how you hold and pick on them -- they are just so noticeably bigger to hold and to wrap your arm around.  

The one "flaw" in your plan is have you ever priced an S400!  :Smile:

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

Dennis has one coming to the Mandolin Store. 

I'm not really a fan of guitar bodied CBOM's but I will definitely have to give this one a go!  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## goaty76

Yeah, while I find this really cool if they had made a K-4 I would have really been impressed.  Too tell you the truth if they made a K-1 I still would be impressed.  An actual mandocello as opposed to the a stock guitar that has been "mandocelloed".  I don't want to seem like I am complaining about this, i think the K-5c is great, but it is what it is.

Phil

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Yeah, while I find this really cool if they had made a K-4 I would have really been impressed.  Too tell you the truth if they made a K-1 I still would be impressed.  An actual mandocello as opposed to the a stock guitar that has been "mandocelloed".  I don't want to seem like I am complaining about this, i think the K-5c is great, but it is what it is.Phil


Certainly a K-4 looks cool.  But you know the cavity of a must be significantly larger.  I've never made a measurement but if you suggest the like mandolins a K-1 and a K-4 have the same dimensions (e.g., A-4 vs F-4) then I know it is so because my Jumbo guitar based (16" bout) mandocello (the same as a K-5) is noticeably larger than my K-1.  So there is that advantage -- not sure how important it is however. (see pic)

But the neck is another story.  I wish Greg Stec would chime back in on this string.  He commented a couple of times earlier - -but is the only person I know to have actually played a Loar K-5.  He played a Loar K-5 for several years and so I'd like to have him describe the neck (e.g., nut width, contour etc.) on it.  I've never touched on only seen one behind a window.

But that is what puzzles me about this K-5C -- why didn't Gibson just make a mandocello neck for it while they were at it?  I'm sure they probably made these on a shoe string but it would have been a real plus I think.  My K-1 (obviously) has mandocello neck the nut is 1.5" -- the K-5 style I have has a typical arch top guitar nut -- 1 11/16" -- I am here to tell you it makes a difference.  I've adapted but I'll do it different this time.

Please don't tell anyone but I recently purchase a mint condition 1950 Gibson L-50.  This will be converted, professionally, to a K-5 this time I am having the neck slimmed down to 1.5".

----------


## Greg Stec

> Can you go into further detail on what you think looks so off with the finish?
> 
> Phil


Look at this one for what I mean.
http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?275
This is the one I was playing for 20 years.

----------


## Greg Stec

> Certainly a K-4 looks cool.  But you know the cavity of a must be significantly larger.  I've never made a measurement but if you suggest the like mandolins a K-1 and a K-4 have the same dimensions (e.g., A-4 vs F-4) then I know it is so because my Jumbo guitar based (16" bout) mandocello (the same as a K-5) is noticeably larger than my K-1.  So there is that advantage -- not sure how important it is however. (see pic)
> 
> But the neck is another story.  I wish Greg Stec would chime back in on this string.  He commented a couple of times earlier - -but is the only person I know to have actually played a Loar K-5.  He played a Loar K-5 for several years and so I'd like to have him describe the neck (e.g., nut width, contour etc.) on it.  I've never touched on only seen one behind a window.
> 
> But that is what puzzles me about this K-5C -- why didn't Gibson just make a mandocello neck for it while they were at it?  I'm sure they probably made these on a shoe string but it would have been a real plus I think.  My K-1 (obviously) has mandocello neck the nut is 1.5" -- the K-5 style I have has a typical arch top guitar nut -- 1 11/16" -- I am here to tell you it makes a difference.  I've adapted but I'll do it different this time.
> 
> Please don't tell anyone but I recently purchase a mint condition 1950 Gibson L-50.  This will be converted, professionally, to a K-5 this time I am having the neck slimmed down to 1.5".


Hi, Guys!

It has been my opinion the 1924 K-5 I played is a 1924 L-5 redone. Nothing more, nothing less.  It could have easily been an L-5 guitar, but it wouldn't have drawn the same attention, especially these last few years. 

As most of you know, I'm now the proud owner of a Ratliff copy of a K-4.  And I love it.  Great sound, action is IMO great.  Audie did a great job.  The copy's neck width is similar to either a period K-1 or 2.  I've had the opportunity to play both over the years.  The set up on mine is superior to the period instruments, but I believe luthiers have learned a thing or two since the early 1900's.  Comparing the nut width of my copy to the K-5 (I mean putting them touching each other) the K-5 was narrower than the copy.  We didn't measure the difference, but K-5 was visually narrower than the copy.  My copy's neck has the 'feel' of a period K-1 or 2, but the 'action' is much better than either of them.   A friend of mine as a K-2 that is in very good shape, but still has the period nut.  And the action is not ridiculously high, but high nonetheless.  If the nut was shaved down, it would be more easy to play.  But he keeps it the way it because HE likes it that way.

The K-5s neck IMO is a log.  I mean, it's wide for me, fretboard to thumb.  Some people like it.  I didn't, but I had to get used to it.  It wasn't mine.  The K-5 has a truss rod.  My copy has a truss also, but the copy's neck is more modern guitar-like.  It's almost like a Fender Strat feel.  IMO, the reason the K-5s neck is 'so' wide and has a truss rod is either Gibson wasn't really set on the idea of truss rods for the larger instruments as for the mandolins and mandolas, or it had old L-5 necks sitting around and 'just' installed truss rods in them.  But that's my opinion.

I hope I've answered some the questions, and I feel more coming.  If you're at the CMSA convetion in Baltimore, I'm bringing my Ratliff today, and possibly tomorrow to play on during down times.

And Bern, good luck with the L-50.  I know someone who bought one already converted to m'cello and it was a good one.

Later y'all!

----------


## Jim Garber

Interesting this talk of the necks on the mandocelli. I have a 1937 Gibson K1 (I think). Very late for these. The neck is very slim and similar to a guitar neck which is what I believe it to be. It is much slimmer than teens or twenties mandocelli I have played. 

BTW I did play a Loar K-5 -- on that Mandolin Brothers had -- but it was quite a few years ago and I can't recall any details. It was a nice instrument tho and I believe it was all original.

I would love to see your Ratliff, Greg. I will be at CMSA tomorrow afternoon thru Sunday. I think today's luthiers can make excellent playable mandocelli.

I believe that Jonathan Jensen of the BMO has a converted Gibson L model guitar and it sounds wonderful.

----------


## Gary Hedrick

For what this info is worth, Larry Wexer has a '29 K5 on his web site for sale.

----------


## zookster

I also had the opportunity to play the K5  that was at Mandolin Brothers. That was in the 80s, and it was a signed Loar. I just remember the wonderful tone, very lush, and as I recall the neck was not thin but comfortable to play.  It was pretty close to mint condition. I owned a '14  K1  for a number of years, and although it had a good tone, I finally gave up on that huge neck.  Playing above the first position was nearly impossible.  I am now playing  a  '14  Vega cylinderback, whose neck has a very nice, more guitar-like profile.  The sound is a bit more "cittern" than the Gibson.   Still, if a 20s  K4 came around............

----------


## Jim Garber

> For what this info is worth, Larry Wexer has a '29 K5 on his web site for sale.


Nice... I wonder what he is asking for it?

----------


## Gary Hedrick

Gulp!!!    It says he is asking $50k

----------


## Gary Hedrick

how in the world do all of you play these things with the size of everything....I have tried and all of the double and triple stops that I play are impossible for my hands......

----------


## Jim Garber

> how in the world do all of you play these things


I am no virtuoso on the MC, but it is a different beast altogether. Mandolin or even mandola technique does not apply. When I did play mine in a group I often played bass lines or contra-melodies and rarely chords. Works nicely for drones at times as well.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I am no virtuoso on the MC, but it is a different beast altogether. Mandolin or even mandola technique does not apply. When I did play mine in a group I often played bass lines or contra-melodies and rarely chords. Works nicely for drones at times as well.


Jim that is the right answer -- at least from my perspective.  Totally different world from the mandolin or mandola -- even and octave feels "small" after a mandocello.  If you have a '37 K-1 it is probably very similar to my '36 K-1 -- i.e., with the truss rod and so the neck is nice and slim and the nut is only 1.5" and the fretboard is 1.9" wide at fret 12.   This results in a neck that is pretty easy to reach across and down to form 3 finger chords or even bar for the closed chords.

The converted Epiphone Jumbo guitar that I have now has the guitar neck so the nut is 1.69" (1 11/16") and the fret board is 2.1" at fret 12.  

This small difference in width seems to make a significant difference in playability and in the required effort -- IMO.  

For example, on the Gibson K-1 with the 1.5" nut the average inter-course distance is 0.25" and the average inter-string distance is 0.14".  

But on the Epiphone (1.69" nut) the inter-course distance is 0.33" and the inter-string distance is 0.16.    

This disparity is larger up the neck at the 12th fret.  So the farther up the neck you go the relative difficulty increases between the two mandocellos.

On the Gibson the distance between the first "C" string and the last "A" string at the nut, fret 12, and bridge is: 1.36", 1.66" and 1.95" respectively. 

On the Epiphone the same distances are: 1.51", 1.77 and 2.10"

Since this seems so important to playability, I am surprised by the choice of neck on the new Gibson L-5C.   I'd still like to have it though!   :Smile: 

Regarding Gary and zookster comments -- yes for sure the neck on the pre-truss rod mandocellos was indeed huge.  I had a 07' K-1 for a while and there was no comparison much more awkward to fret.  Will Kimble saw my '36 K-1 a few weeks ago and was amazed he had never seen a later Gibson mandocello with a truss rod heretofore.

Thanks for filling in on the K-5 Greg.  For some reason I was thinking you had borrowed an original Loar K-5 -- but if you had a redone L-5 then it must have had the neck replaced or at least shaved down because an original L-5 neck would have a wide nut (1 11/16").  So not have been even narrower than your new Ratliff, which by your description, is on the order of 1.5".

I'd like to find a K-5 that I can measure or find the specs on it because when I convert the Gibson L-50 to a K-5 I am going all the way this time and actually have the neck replaced with new K-5 neck.  I have a friend here in Cincinnati who builds arch top guitars and uses a dove tail joint so he is good for it.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Hi, Guys!
> 
> It has been my opinion the 1924 K-5 I played is a 1924 L-5 redone. Nothing more, nothing less.  It could have easily been an L-5 guitar, but it wouldn't have drawn the same attention, especially these last few years. 
> 
> And Bern, good luck with the L-50.  I know someone who bought one already converted to m'cello and it was a good one.........Later y'all!


Greg I looked close at the pics on the archive link you gave (to Loar mandocello #76981) if that is the one you played?  If so I am wondering why you think it was a converted from a L-5?   It looks very much like from the "ground up" K-5 to me.  But I am only looking at pics of course.  

I think (and I do mean think) that most of the K-5's had the "standard" Gibson mandocello neck -- as noted in previous post with a 1.5" nut and corresponding taper down to 1.9 - 2.0" at around fret 12.  In the pics at least that mandocello sure looks like a "standard" mandocello neck to me -- i.e., noticeably slimmer than an L-5.  

It always seemed counter-intuitive to me that an 8 string mandocello would have a narrower neck than a 6 string guitar but obviously the answer is 5 inter-string spaces (equivalent to a mando course) whereas the mandocello only has 3 comparable inter-course and 4 smaller inter-string differences.

Where is "your" Loar now that you are playing your Ratliff?  

Thanks for the encouragement on the L-50 conversion!  I don't go out of my way to discuss it as there are some here and elsewhere who get upset about taking down a vintage Gibson instrument - -of any kind.  But mostly they don't read the CBOM section!   :Laughing: 

Besides I am having it professionally converted to another Gibson instrument that is even rarer!!!

----------


## Greg Stec

> Thanks for filling in on the K-5 Greg.  For some reason I was thinking you had borrowed an original Loar K-5 -- but if you had a redone L-5 then it must have had the neck replaced or at least shaved down because an original L-5 neck would have a wide nut (1 11/16").  So not have been even narrower than your new Ratliff, which by your description, is on the order of 1.5".
> 
> I'd like to find a K-5 that I can measure or find the specs on it because when I convert the Gibson L-50 to a K-5 I am going all the way this time and actually have the neck replaced with new K-5 neck.  I have a friend here in Cincinnati who builds arch top guitars and uses a dove tail joint so he is good for it.


Bern, the K-5 I play was a loaner, but it was loaned to me for 20 years!!  IMO, the K-5 COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN an L-5.  It instrument is a blank, basically, before you put a nut, a set of tuners, bridge and trapeze on it.  People are converting guitars to mandocellos today because the length and dimensions are the same, generally.  One of Grisman's Tone Poems discs (II?) has a mandocello on one of the trax.  The link below said it started life as  a m'cello, then was converted to a guitar, then back to m'cello. The original m'cello bridge and trapeze (tail piece) were in its case.
http://www.mandozine.com/instruments...ello_1924.html

BTW, the K-5 is SUPPOSED TO BE at the CMSA convention today (10/14/2011).  I have no control over it anymore;the current 'user' is planning to bring it in.  And I will be there again with my Ratliff in tow.  I had the privilege of playing a vintage K-4 (1913) yesterday at the convention.  And it's owner, Dave Betz (unsure of spelling), played on mine.  I had never played an original K-4 until then.  The K-5 and LOTS of K-1s and 2s, but never a K-4. We liked each other's instrument, but no trade was made.

----------


## Greg Stec

> Greg I looked close at the pics on the archive link you gave (to Loar mandocello #76981) if that is the one you played?  If so I am wondering why you think it was a converted from a L-5?   It looks very much like from the "ground up" K-5 to me.  But I am only looking at pics of course.  
> 
> I think (and I do mean think) that most of the K-5's had the "standard" Gibson mandocello neck -- as noted in previous post with a 1.5" nut and corresponding taper down to 1.9 - 2.0" at around fret 12.  In the pics at least that mandocello sure looks like a "standard" mandocello neck to me -- i.e., noticeably slimmer than an L-5.  
> 
> It always seemed counter-intuitive to me that an 8 string mandocello would have a narrower neck than a 6 string guitar but obviously the answer is 5 inter-string spaces (equivalent to a mando course) whereas the mandocello only has 3 comparable inter-course and 4 smaller inter-string differences.
> 
> Where is "your" Loar now that you are playing your Ratliff?  
> 
> Thanks for the encouragement on the L-50 conversion!  I don't go out of my way to discuss it as there are some here and elsewhere who get upset about taking down a vintage Gibson instrument - -of any kind.  But mostly they don't read the CBOM section!  
> ...


What is needed is a comparison of a 1924 L-5 (or 2 or 3) to the 1924 K-5.  I mean dimensions, fret spacing, size of the nut, fretboard width and length, etc., side by side.  Gibsons we handmade then, therefore I can assume there will be small variances on all accounts.  However, IMO, they would be twins, almost.

I heard a tale that Toni Williamson had a broken late-40s L-5 years ago (late 1980's?).  The one playing the BMO's K-5 at the time took it to either an early CMSA convention or a FIGA convention.  Toni was there too and got to play it.  He was so impressed he converted that L-5 to a m'cello.  If it's true, that act might be 'ground zero' for the business of converting guitars to mandocellos.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> What is needed is a comparison of a 1924 L-5 (or 2 or 3) to the 1924 K-5.  I mean dimensions, fret spacing, size of the nut, fretboard width and length, etc., side by side.  Gibsons we handmade then, therefore I can assume there will be small variances on all accounts.  However, IMO, they would be twins, almost.
> 
> I heard a tale that Toni Williamson had a broken late-40s L-5 years ago (late 1980's?).  The one playing the BMO's K-5 at the time took it to either an early CMSA convention or a FIGA convention.  Toni was there too and got to play it.  He was so impressed he converted that L-5 to a m'cello.  If it's true, that act might be 'ground zero' for the business of converting guitars to mandocellos.


On your first point the side-by-side comparo -- YES!  I have been "muttering" about that very thing for a long time - - but it will not happen soon I guess especially since "real K-5's" are a pretty rare thing.  I THINK one of the guys here on the forum who knows these things -- like Dan Beimborn (perhaps?) mentioned once that Gibson made perhaps only 20 - 30 (max) K-5's.  And of course Loar signed L-5's are not exactly common either.

Great story about Tony Williamson --- thanks for that.  Yes indeed, ground zero!  I have his email address so I might just query him about that before I proceed with my project!

I just looked up CMSA and must confess I was not very knowledgeable about it -- it reminds me a bit of the FIGA (Fretted Instrument Guild of America) that I used to belong too.  For sure I am going to join and attend the next convention.  I'd like to get some experienced mandocello players such as yourself to try and evaluate the Epiphone K-5 style (see pic above)  that I made and get advice on it before -- pros and cons I proceed with the Gibson conversion.  Will Kimble looked at it and played it and thought it was pretty good so that was a good sign. But the slimmer neck is a much desired aspect (IMO) that this one does not have.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Another comment on the Loar K-5 posted by Jim (#4 above and again in #16) -- by chance I discovered that this is #75255 (Loar signed February 11, 1924).  Ironically this mandocello was converted to a guitar at one point and then converted back again here is the link to the relevant page on mandolin archieve.

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?163.

Here also is a close of picture of the headstock -- you still can see where the holes for the guitar tuners!

Also of interest the nut on that mandocello appears to be on the *short* side of 1.5" based on comparing nut width to the distance between the nut and fret #1 on the photo.  This kind of measurement on an image can have angle and parallax issues but certainly at least we can see int is a narrow nut for a mandocello.

----------


## Greg Stec

Bern,
The 2012 CMSA convention is in Minneapolis.  And I can certainly say there will be many mandocellists there.  I can't say 'my' K-5 will be there, but perhaps it will. 
That doesn't help you on your project NOW, but there it is.

----------


## mrmando

I heard CMSA 2012 was going to be in Regina, Saskatchewan.

----------


## Greg Stec

> I heard CMSA 2012 was going to be in Regina, Saskatchewan.


I asked that question at a CMSA meeting the day this year's convention opened and learned it was Minneapolis, MN in 2012 and
Regina, Saskatchewan in 2013.
I'll wait for the dust to settle from CMSA 2011 before I ask again.

----------


## Greg Stec

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...MSA-Convention

----------


## Rob Sharer

> If the measurements a person can make on a photograph are to be trusted -- I am convinced that this new K-5C was made by converting an L-5C.  That is, this was not built from scratch as a mandocello. 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that is a standard guitar neck with mandolin tuners and the appropriate bridge and tail piece.  
> 
> Not meant in any way to disparage or diminish the new instrument -- just making an observation.


Of course the original K5 was also a re-purposed guitar, so nothing new there.

Meanwhile, we can only hope they used an L-5 neck with the proper L-5 scale.  That would have to be an improvement over the too-short, traditional Gibson Mandocello scale, especially where the C string is concerned.


Rob

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Of course the original K5 was also a re-purposed guitar, so nothing new there.
> 
> Meanwhile, we can only hope they used an L-5 neck with the proper L-5 scale.  That would have to be an improvement over the too-short, traditional Gibson Mandocello scale, especially where the C string is concerned. Rob


The body clearly was the same on the two.  Even the top graduations were also apparently the same.  But I think both the L-K and K-5 started the same year, 1922, so it may not be correct to say the body "belongs" to either the mandocello or the guitar?   

But the necks were different as you point out -- I think the scale length was only about 1/2" difference though (L-5 = 24.25 and K-5 = 24.75")?  The biggest neck difference as far as I am concerned is the width.  (at the nut L-5 = 1 11/16" and K-5 = 1 1/2").

----------


## Greg Stec

This link does NOT appear to have been posted.  More pictures and info on the Gibson K-5C mandocello.
Awesome looking and I bet the sound is one to behold.
http://www.themusiczoo.com/cgi-bin/c...AID=1063892153

----------


## Bernie Daniel

What a great advertisement -- that would be a lovely piece to own.  Still think the nut is wider than ideal but what a beauty.

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

Hmmm... Looking forward to trying this one out. The price tag is a bit rich for me. We'll see! 

http://www.themandolinstore.com/scri...idProduct=9487

----------


## Eddie Sheehy

Don't do it... What if you like it?

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

I'm pretty sure I'll like it, but I also like the current version of my life. If I bought this that would change. My wife would see to that... :-)

----------


## sgarrity

I'd need to be able to play like Mike Marshall to spend that much dough on a 'cello.  But if mandocello is your primary instrument, I guess it would be a welcome addition to a very niche market!

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Finally!  Some specs on this instrument.  As I suggested earlier they made this mandocello by putting mandocello hardware on an L-5C.  Still pretty cool though!

----------


## Jim Garber

I doubt that they will be cranking these out but there are at least two of them -- the other at a store out on Long Island, NY. I have a friend looking and he will test drive that one.

----------


## Ken_P

> I doubt that they will be cranking these out but there are at least two of them -- the other at a store out on Long Island, NY. I have a friend looking and he will test drive that one.


I didn't know there were any stores on LI that would stock something like that. I figured Mandolin Bros. maybe, though even they don't stock 'cellos most of the time. Where is it?

----------


## Jim Garber

I didn't know of any either, but then this one showed up. I think that may be list price but it is more than the one in AZ.

----------


## Ken_P

> I didn't know of any either, but then this one showed up. I think that may be list price but it is more than the one in AZ.


Very cool. That's right on my way home from work - I think I may swing by this evening and see if I can try it out. I'll report back later  :Smile:

----------


## Jim Garber

Hi Ken... Just don't have $16K in your pocket.  :Smile:   Looking fwd to your review. It is certainly interesting that a store like that would take on a mandocello. I wonder if someone there is a mandophile.

----------


## Ken_P

If I ever have that kind of money to spend on a mandocello (I'm not holding my breath), I'll go farther east and knock on John Monteleone's door  :Smile:  Until then, I'm happy just to visit one every once in a while  :Smile:

----------


## Jim Garber

Ken: That may be just the downpayment for a Monteleone mandocello. i would imagine that he is getting more than $40K for one -- I think his guitars are even higher than that.

----------


## MandoSquirrel

Hey, for your 16K, they'll ship it free! What more could you ask? :Grin:

----------


## Ken_P

> Ken: That may be just the downpayment for a Monteleone mandocello. i would imagine that he is getting more than $40K for one -- I think his guitars are even higher than that.


Yeah, but we're talking imaginary money anyway, so the amount isn't important :D

So I managed to get to the store last night, and I'm glad I did. First, let me say that this may be the best built and finished instrument I've ever seen from Gibson - it was absolutely stunning to look at and hold. Whoever built this really took their job very seriously, and it shows. I'm also quite convinced that guitar style body is the right way to go for a 'cello. It's far more comfortable to play than the giant mandolin that most makers put out. 

As for the sound, I wasn't disappointed, but it still wasn't quite what I expected. I will say the listening environment wasn't the best, and I'm sure it sounded much better out in front (f-holes, after all), but I really wanted more response from the bottom end. I've played cellos where the low C could rattle your chest and this one didn't really do that. Beyond that, though, the mid and upper registers were beautiful. They had that distinctive snap and richness that only a mandocello can achieve. I was playing some tremolo double stops on the G and D strings that really seemed to fill up the room. I played the end of the Prelude to Bach's first cello suite (would have played the whole thing but I can't do it all from memory anymore), and the parts where you're playing scales against an open drone sounded really magnificent.

I don't have much else to say, I only had about 20 minutes to try it out, but it was fun. The store owner said it was nice to hear someone who could actually play it! I don't think anybody else there knows what to do with it. If anybody is in the area, go check it out!

----------


## Greg Stec

Sounds like I need to make a road trip.  What's the name of the store on Long Island?

----------


## Jim Garber

> Sounds like I need to make a road trip.  What's the name of the store on Long Island?


Greg... see my post above for the link to their site. If you are in the area, LMK. I am an hour or so from there.

----------


## pfox14

All that's missing off the K-5C is a really nice pickguard. Other than that, it's a stunning instrument.

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

I played the new K5 Mandocello at The Mandolin Store yesterday.... Wow! It's definitely a professional level instrument.

I am not a fan of guitar-bodied mandolin family instruments, but this thing is just mesmerizing. 

I have a ton of pics in the camera, but I am currently in SoCal visiting family. I will post them when I get home early next week. 

If you're interested, I recorded the sound sample file Brian put up on the TMS webpage yesterday. Sorry for the sloppy playing, but I play mandocello as well as I play golf.... I won't go there!  :Laughing:

----------


## Bernie Daniel

Fantastic!  Looks like they have not uploaded it yet though.    Oh sorry I went to the Mandolin Store YouTube channel.  I'll look on the web site now............OK had to load the Quicktime player but I got there.

Good sound file.  Nothing wrong with your playing at all and the mandocello sounds huge.  

Seemed to me to be a little bit of buzz on the C-course when you thumped it?  Near the end of the mp3.  But the voice is obviously huge.  When giant mandolins roamed the earth.......

Can you comment on the neck -- it looks like a standard guitar neck with a mandocello nut and bridge?

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

Hi Bernie,

Yes, it is quite a pronounced tone. Not exactly loud, but very rich and deep. A very warm, and as I said earlier, mesmerizing tone. 

As for the buzz on the C course; That little ditty I played at the end of the sample is a little riff that came out the very first time I played a mandola... for whatever reason. The last section where I hammer on the chord has the tendency to overdrive just about any instrument I play it on. The longer the scale the more percussive effect. As crazy as it sounds, I kind of go for that when playing it. Not necessarily rattling the daylights out the instrument  :Mandosmiley:  , but the string/finger action on the board producing a desired percussive affect. I gave it a pretty good whack this time around and got a little more string action than I normally do. Anyway, I wouldn't let my playing detract from your view on the instrument.  :Wink: 

The neck is very comfortable. If it is modeled after a guitar neck, it's a small-profiled version. After I played this one I immediately played an Eastman Cello they have there at the shop and it's fingerboard was considerably wider, and more of a chore to play. I'd definitely say the Eastman was much more the standard guitar neck with a Cello nut/bridge.

I took a few pictures of neck joints, FB, Tuners, etc. More views than just your standard front/back/headstock, etc. I'll try to get them posted this evening. 

The K5 is very comfortable to play and well-proportioned to get around on with the left hand.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> ...The neck is very comfortable. If it is modeled after a guitar neck, it's a small-profiled version. After I played this one I immediately played an Eastman Cello they have there at the shop and it's fingerboard was considerably wider, and more of a chore to play. I'd definitely say the Eastman was much more the standard guitar neck with a Cello nut/bridge...the [new] K5 is very comfortable to play and well-proportioned to get around on with the left hand.


This is good.  IMO, it is an important feature on a mandocello.   Over the last 6 months I have converted two arch  top guitars to mandocellos. I left one with an unmodified guitar neck and made a new mandocello fret board and nut, re-contoured the neck  for the other. 

The difference in playability is pronounced -- particularly when it comes to doing anything with the G- and C-courses.  

The comparison between the Gibson and Eastman cellos was a good one.  

The Eastman is a great comparison -- it has a full up guitar nut & fingerboard.

Kudos for Dave Harvey for making that instrument -- especially in these hard times.

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

Sorry it took so long, but alas, pics from my TMS visit last week:

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Sorry it took so long, but alas, pics from my TMS visit last week:


Thanks for the pics.  Beautiful instrument.   

The nut does look to me to be close to 2" wide (using a ratio with the truss rod cover screws -- which should be about 1.92" apart).   I think the slim neck is maybe what helps to make it comfortable to play?

The bridge looks exactly like the one on my K-1 because I think Steve Smith used my mandocello bridge as a template so that's kind of cool...I'll have to ask Steve if that is indeed what happened -- but I do know Harvey saw my mandocello bridge when it was at Cumberland Acoustics for some repair.

The price of $12.5 K seems on the high side?  I'm not sure about if you can even buy a new acoustic L-5C but a new L-5 from Gibson will cost about $7K.    That's a pretty big difference -- but I'll bet it sells anyway....

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

Yes, it is very nice. That coming from a guy who doesn't favor guitar-bodied mandolin family instruments. 

The neck was very comfortable, and although I don't know the specs on it, I generally prefer smaller necks. That Weber 5-course Cittern in the background of one of the pics sounds nice, but the neck is a baseball bat. 

The bridge is the same design as my Circa 25' Gibson A Jr. mandolin, so I imagine this had an influence on the original K5's. I think Bruce used the original K5 design as a rule for this build. I heard that along the grapevine and wouldn't be able to substantiate it, just for the record. 

This K5 really surprised me by just how good it did sound and the smaller neck made finger-picking quite easy. Again, not being a GOM-type guy (even tho' I own one!) I was kinda biased coming in to the whole thing. This Cello induced some polarity shift on that bias. 

I most definitely wouldn't pay the $12.5K sticker price. Remember though, that is MAP. I am fairly certain the sell price is well below that.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> ....The bridge is the same design as my Circa 25' Gibson A Jr. mandolin, so I imagine this had an influence on the original K5's. I think Bruce used the original K5 design as a rule for this build. I heard that along the grapevine and wouldn't be able to substantiate it, just for the record.....


Yes the Gibson mandocello bridge after the shift to the master models (F-,H-,K- & L-) in 1922 were essentially larger versions of the F-5 -- i.e., adjustable two piece base and saddle.  Anyway a year and a half ago the bridge for my 1936 K-1 was down at the Cumberland Acoustic shop for Steve to consider a fix for the saddle that had broken in the middle (I think they were under designed -- too thin).  At any rate, it was a back-burner request so I had called Steve to check on it and he mentioned he had just started to take a look at it as Dave Harvey had come by the shop and notice my mandocello bridge laying there -- he asked Steve "to make a few".   Now we know why!  :Smile:

----------


## mrmando

Mandolin Store now has another one. 

When is Gibson going to make one of these with a correct 10th-fret marker?

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

> Mandolin Store now has another one. 
> 
> When is Gibson going to make one of these with a correct 10th-fret marker?


It's the same one. Hasn't sold yet. Just sits there tormenting me! 

I imagine when they make a 10th fret marker it will be the correct one.  :Grin:

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> It's the same one. Hasn't sold yet. Just sits there tormenting me! 
> 
> I imagine when they make a 10th fret marker it will be the correct one.


What would you do with it, play fiddle tunes?  :Smile: 
Maybe not.

I agree with Martin, the dot on the 9th fret IS a pain.  I had to deal with it on two arch tops that I converted to mcellos and of course you have to convert the side binding markers too.

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

> What would you do with it, play fiddle tunes? 
> Maybe not.


Haven't gotten over that yet, huh? Have faith. You'll make it through, eventually. 




> I agree with Martin, the dot on the 9th fret IS a pain.  I had to deal with it on two arch tops that I converted to mcellos and of course you have to convert the side binding markers too.


Seriously? I mean, a fret mark? Seriously? I thought Martin was joking.

----------


## mrmando

No, I am not joking. You can tell this is a guitar fretboard because it has a marker at the 9th fret. A mandocello fretboard should have a marker at the 10th fret instead. For what the instrument costs you'd think you could jolly well have the correct board put on it.

While the K-5C looks nice, I think I prefer this James DeCava cello that's for sale in Connecticut. It certainly looks like a bargain next to the Gibson, although I don't know what it sounds like. No markers except at the 12th fret, but that's easier to deal with than having one in the wrong place. Looks like the neck has tortoise binding with white markers.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/James-DeCava...item19cf6cb823

----------


## Jim Garber

I know Jim DeCava. He has done a bunch of work for me over the years, he does make some nice instruments and has been concentrating on archtop guitars over the last decade or so. That mandocello does look rather nice and the price is reasonable.

This one has only 7 strings at the moment. I wonder if the previous owner had removed it to avoid the jangling of the c strings. I know that some folks do that.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Haven't gotten over that yet, huh? Have faith. You'll make it through, eventually. 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? I mean, a fret mark? Seriously? I thought Martin was joking.


As to fiddle tunes - not much to get over really --  I'm having good fun playing them on my mandocellos.  Check out the videos of Dave Harvey and Tim May playing fiddle tunes as a mandocello duet.  Sounds awesome.  Also Tony Williamson and Mike Marshall have been known to play them as well.  I especially like playing jigs, hornpipes, and reels on the mandocello I think its a great learning experience.  Not only do you have to transpose the tune but you also have to work your little finger really hard -- builds it up.

As to the dots -like Martin says its on the wrong fret for a mandocello.  

I do not know where the tradition started but most arch top guitars have it at fret 9 (that is not true for flat tops -- go figure).  It only becomes a problem when you quickly slide down to those fret -- don't want to have to think about it.  

I have 4 mandocellos and the two I converterd from arch top guitars had the dot 9 while the other two--  like my Gibson K-1 -- have the dot on 10 --so it is, at a minimum a distraction --for me at least.
 :Smile:

----------


## mrmando

> This one has only 7 strings at the moment. I wonder if the previous owner had removed it to avoid the jangling of the c strings. I know that some folks do that.


Hm. I kind of got the impression it was a new instrument and had no "previous owner" as such. I've heard of removing one of the C's but not found it necessary on my Andersen. 

I'm afraid the Andersen's 24-fret neck has also spoiled me. The DeCava has 21, although there's certainly room for a few more. BTW, Steve did mess up on one of my cello's side dots ... 15th fret IIRC. You can see where he originally punched a hole in the binding at the wrong fret, then filled it and punched at the correct one.

----------


## Gerry Cassidy

> No, I am not joking. You can tell this is a guitar fretboard because it has a marker at the 9th fret. A mandocello fretboard should have a marker at the 10th fret instead. For what the instrument costs you'd think you could jolly well have the correct board put on it.


Where is the standard that says they have to put it on the 10th fret? Hmmm... I guess it just doesn't matter that much to me. I have played fretless instruments all my life and haven't ever visually memorized the fretboard. It's always been repetition and muscle memory. 

Also, if this is a guitar fretboard as you say, then it is one of the smallest guitar fretboards I have ever played.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Where is the standard that says they have to put it on the 10th fret? Hmmm... I guess it just doesn't matter that much to me. I have played fretless instruments all my life and haven't ever visually memorized the fretboard. It's always been repetition and muscle memory. 
> 
> Also, if this is a guitar fretboard as you say, then it is one of the smallest guitar fretboards I have ever played.


I'm not sure there is a "rule", so to speak, but I think you will find *most* mandolins are made with markers at the 3rd, 5th, 
7th, 10th, 12th (double dot), & 15th frets?  So by extension -- an mandocello being part of the mandolin family is the arguement I guess.

Actually its kind of interesting in this particular case because certainly Gibson might be considered the "standard" for mandocellos in the US and all Gibson mandocellos I have ever seen or owned were marked with the pattern I mentioned except the early oval holes (including F-2's and F-4's ) that did not have a dot for fret 3.   In fact I even think some Gibson F-5's do not have a 3rd fret marker.

If you are over at the Mandolin Store again sometime try to see if the nut on that monster is 1.5" or 1.69" (1 11/16").

----------


## mrmando

Well, yeah, if you want to know where the "standard" comes from, it comes from every other mandolin-family instrument Gibson has made in the past 122 years. 

There is one surviving K5 that has the 9th-fret marker ... because it had been converted to a guitar and Grisman converted it back, or something like that. Why the K-5C's fretboard is based on that one instrument, and not on the standard set by all the other Gibson mandocellos in existence, is something I can't begin to fathom.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Well, yeah, if you want to know where the "standard" comes from, it comes from every other mandolin-family instrument Gibson has made in the past 122 years. 
> 
> There is one surviving K5 that has the 9th-fret marker ... because it had been converted to a guitar and Grisman converted it back, or something like that. Why the K-5C's fretboard is based on that one instrument, and not on the standard set by all the other Gibson mandocellos in existence, is something I can't begin to fathom.



Let me take a shot at that.  Something like two years (or so) ago I sent the the adjustable bridge from my '36 K-1 down to Steve Smith at Cumberland Acoustics -- (the saddle had failed -- they are too thin for an m'cello IMO).  

Anyway Steve was really busy supplying bridges to some of his buyers and I was not really using the K-1 anyway so it was a back burner thing.  So after about 8 months or so I gave him a call one afternoon and he noted that he had just kind of pulled my bridge backup on the bench because Dave Harvey had been in the shop, saw my bridge laying there, and said he might have use for a few of them.  

OK fast foward about one year and all at once we have two new Gibson K-5C's.  

So I hypothesize Dave walk in one morning and handed some of the luthiers two new mandocello bridges and said take two L-5C's and make me a couple of K-5C's.  So they started life with a guitar neck and hence a 9th fret dot.   When you are Dave Harvey there are lots of things you can do!  :Smile: 

That's why I'd like someone to put a ruler on the nut of the m'cello -- I'll bet it is 1 11/16" and I'll bet the scale is 24.75 just like a Gibson guitar.

----------


## mrmando

The only thing wrong with that scenario is that it makes Dave Harvey look as though he doesn't care about details like this. I don't know Dave but I would not care to attribute that kind of indifference to him if I wasn't certain about it.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> The only thing wrong with that scenario is that it makes Dave Harvey look as though he doesn't care about details like this. I don't know Dave but I would not care to attribute that kind of indifference to him if I wasn't certain about it.


Well I wonder.  He is primarily a mandolin player?  

So if he was not really into arch top guitars I suppose it might be something that could have escaped his attention?  For example, I first "found out" about it when I converted a 1951 Epiphone arch top to a mandocello.   It was *after* I started playing it that I realized the fret marker discrepency.   

But I do take your point they should have spent an hour of bench time and addressed the issue considering the $$ they are asking for it.

----------


## mrmando

Maybe this is the problem ... they just don't have any spare boards. 

The 1958 Rickenbacker electric mandolins had this problem ... because Rickenbacker hadn't made any mandolins since the '30s, I guess ... then the first batch of recent reissues also had the problem ... because mistakes repeat themselves, I guess ... finally, the latest batch of Ricks have correct boards. I could be wrong, but I believe Fender, for example, has always gotten this detail correct on its mandolins, even though the company has gone for a couple of good stretches without making any. I sometimes see the problem show up when guitar builders decide to get into mandolin building, but they usually learn that there's a difference and then fix it on subsequent mandolins if they make any. I'm just disappointed to see this mistake happening at the company that, more than any other, defined what American mandolin-family instruments are expected to look like.

----------


## mrmando

Ah, here is another mandocello with a 9th-fret marker: 

That's a Santa Cruz Southerner, of course. This one's at Gruhn's for, I must say, a very attractive price considering the MSRP, which I recall being well north of $4K. 

Other photos of Santa Cruz mandocellos also show the 9th-fret marker. But this Southerner appears not to have a dot at either 9 or 10. Looks like it skips from 7 to 12: 



Not really a characteristic mandocello sound there. More like (surprise!) a guitar.

I clearly remember meeting Richard Hoover at Wintergrass shortly after the Southerner was introduced, and playing the demo model he'd brought to the festival. I don't remember if I talked to him about the fret markers. Maybe, since Santa Cruz is a guitar company, they're trying to market their mandocellos primarily to guitar players, who will be more familiar with a neck that has a 9th-fret marker. 

The latest mandocellos to come from Santa Cruz are cutaways based on their "F model" guitar. Still with 9th-fret markers.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> Ah, here is another mandocello with a 9th-fret marker: 
> That's a Santa Cruz Southerner, of course. This one's at Gruhn's for, I must say, a very attractive price considering the MSRP, which I recall being well north of $4K. 
> 
> Other photos of Santa Cruz mandocellos also show the 9th-fret marker. But this Southerner appears not to have a dot at either 9 or 10. Looks like it skips from 7 to 12
> 
> Not really a characteristic mandocello sound there. More like (surprise!) a guitar.
> 
> I clearly remember meeting Richard Hoover at Wintergrass shortly after the Southerner was introduced, and playing the demo model he'd brought to the festival. I don't remember if I talked to him about the fret markers. Maybe, since Santa Cruz is a guitar company, they're trying to market their mandocellos primarily to guitar players, who will be more familiar with a neck that has a 9th-fret marker. 
> 
> The latest mandocellos to come from Santa Cruz are cutaways based on their "F model" guitar. Still with 9th-fret markers.


Interesting.  I think all this kind of confirms what we've been speculating.  All these mandocellos made from guitars have lead to some "sloppiness".  

Mandocellos may readily be made from guitar bodies (both f-hole or oval) but they "should" have (IMO) a narrower nut and have a fret marker at the 10th fret not 9th.  

As you note Santa Cruz folks are primarily guitar makers so perhaps they are ill-informed about mandolin fret boards.  But they do put a real mandocello neck on that thing -- i.e., it has narrower nut and fretboard than the guitars.

Eastman OTOH also makes an oval hole mandocello from a dreadnought body and they just use the standard 1 11/16"  6-string guitar nut/neck -- they do not put any fretboard markers on it.

I think it is important matter because if you switch from mandolin to octave or mandocello you kind of expect the fretboard arrangement to be the same and I found it a nusicance to have the dot on the 9th frets for mandocello.

I suppose someone who only plays guitar and mandocello would not be bothered by it.

I do agree that oval hole mandocellos sound guitar like -- but sometimes its handy.  For example an oval hole mandocello could make a great instrument to accompany a singer.  Lots of sustain.

----------


## allenhopkins

> ...Eastman OTOH also makes an oval hole mandocello from a dreadnought body and they just use the standard 1 11/16"  6-string guitar nut/neck -- they do not put any fretboard markers on it.  I think it is important matter because if you switch from mandolin to octave or mandocello you kind of expect the fretboard arrangement to be the same and I found it a nuisance to have the dot on the 9th frets for mandocello...


I _think_ that the oval-hole Eastman mandocelli are specially made for the Mandolin Store; all the ones I've seen, other than in MS ads, have been the f-hole models.  While they don't have fretboard markers, the side dots in the neck binding have a dot at the 9th fret.

----------


## Bernie Daniel

> I _think_ that the oval-hole Eastman mandocelli are specially made for the Mandolin Store; all the ones I've seen, other than in MS ads, have been the f-hole models.  While they don't have fretboard markers, the side dots in the neck binding have a dot at the 9th fret.


Interesting! I wonder how we could push back a bit and notify some of these builders about this discrepancy?   I have changed the position of both fret board markers (top and side binding) on a couple of mandocellos and it not such a big thing to do.  OTOH it is not such a big thing to have it come right from the builder either!

I wonder if Dennis has been reading this string?  He reads a lot of stuff here and this story started with "his" mandocello.  I suppose he could mention this to Eastman but it might result in an increased price from Eastman.

But I think if Gibson decides to make more of these beasts they really ought to try to match it up to their historical versions.  (IMO).

----------


## Beanzy

I'm sure I'll never get the difinitive answer on this one about the fret-markers. I was always under the impression that the fret markers were originally there as a guide to where the whole note rows were stacked. That seemed to make sense across the whole mandolin family and explained why on the older instruments you don't get the 3rd fret marked. That all made sense to me as it seems to be later on that the 3rd fret marker came in. Which makes the guitar 9th fret marking all the more weird for me, I think the 5th 10th and 12th frets are about the only place on a guitar where you get whole-note rows. Are the guitar ones done on some other priority like chord positions?

----------


## mrmando

Vas ist ein "whole note row"?

----------


## Beanzy

Where the notes are just plain old notes in a row of 5ths(no sharps etc) ie: GDAE, CGDA, DAEB, FCGB etc
People used to use them as a quick-start way to learn the fingerboard then fill in the gaps(I did it that way too)

----------


## Beanzy

> ie: GDAE, CGDA, DAEB, FCGD etc


Oops! - rushing again.

----------


## mrmando

Interesting ... well, the correct term for a note that's neither sharped nor flatted is "natural." "Whole note" refers to a note that's held for four beats. On a mandocello, neither the 9th nor the 10th fret would yield a complete series of naturals ... you'd have an F# at the 9th and a Bb at the 10th. 

I always figured the fret markers were there to help with shifting and position playing, but apart from that I'm really not sure. They're common on 20th-century American instruments, starting with Orville Gibson and Raphael Ciani ... 19th-century instruments seem to be more hit or miss.

I bought an inexpensive mandolin once that had fret markers in the wrong place. Paul the luthier popped out the bad markers, filled the holes and put markers on the right frets. Cost about $70; I could have paid more for cosmetic perfection but I didn't want to. That job was about half what I paid for the mandolin ... but then I was able to sell it for enough to break even. If you're going to pay twelve large, though ... you have a right to expect it to be dealt with first.

----------


## Beanzy

Yes by 'whole note row' I really meant a whole row of natural notes. You'd think I'd get the hang of the jargon by now.
The fret-marker is probably one of those ideas that was useful for people learning, and then they expected it on all their other instruments. I think I'd probably forget about them and just have a 12th fret side-marker if I commissioned a mandocello. 

Like I said the natural note stacks was just how I used them to learn moving about the fretboard. I prefer your idea that they are related to position shifts. 

I'm only familiar with where we have shifts on the violoncello, perhaps someone could say if it's different for the mandolin family.

So when I shift my index finger from 1st to 2nd position it is on the C (on a mandocello located at the 3rd fret). 
Similarly 3rd position gives the 5th fret D for the index finger, 7th fret E for 4th. 
However the next cello finger position is 5th position on the F & that's only a semi-tone up at the 8th fret, which never gets marked from any instruments I've seen. 
I need to jump to the 10th fret to get the G for 7th position and the 12th fret for the A again at 8th position, with that also being where the thumb goes at the 'thumb position' to get around the instrument size and carry on up. I've not learned anything beyond that on the cello as I'm not good enough  :Redface: 

So if my assumption that the violoncello position shifts hold for the mandocello, the dot markers would seem to tally more with classical position shifts for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th/thumb positions than anything else.
Would any classical guitarists be able to shed light on how this relates to the guitar and the 9th fret?

I think there seems to be no reason for it on 9th fret on a member of the mandolin family & I'd be annoyed by one there, especially given the money spent as you point out.

----------

