# Instruments and Equipment > Builders and Repair >  A5 design detail

## sprucetop1

I'm building a 14fret-to-body f-hole A5 after completing a couple of 12 fret ovalhole mandolins.   I can see that the top minimum thickness in the recurve area goes all the way around the top, but does the recurve continue under the fingerboard extender (just on the bridge side of the flat platform that the extender is glued to), or does the recurve reduce in the area under the extender?  It's a stylistic issue as much as anything, but I haven't found a clear picture that shows this detail.   Advice gratefully received....thanks.....John

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I've seen it done that way before but I think typically the recurve gracefully ends as it approaches the neckblock area. 
Keep in mind that you want extra strength and stiffness in the area of the srting line.

----------


## sprucetop1

Jim...thanks for advice and as well as keeping that area stronger, to my eye, a reducing recurve in that area should look better too.  I'l just have to carve away carefully until it "looks right".....

----------


## sunburst

I don't continue the minimum area all the way around the top, but instead leave some extra thickness along the string line, both at the head block and at the tail piece. Some call that a "spine", and it is a structural feature because there is a lot of string tension on a mandolin.
I've never continued the recurve under the fingerboard extender, but as Jim said, there are those who do. I'm told that mandolins sound different when done that way...who knows...
Builders do it differently, and you are free to also.

----------


## sprucetop1

John...thanks for comments and yes, I definitely left some extra thickness along the string line in both my ovals at the tailblock end....but of course with the fingerboard glued to the top in that design, the recurve query at the headblock end doesn't arise and I didn't think about it on the A5 until carving in that area today.

----------


## Spruce

Looks like the Loar A5 has a bit more meat in that area....

----------


## sprucetop1

Wow!...a thickness chart for the Loar A5......THANKS Spruce.....

----------


## Spruce

> Wow!...a thickness chart for the Loar A5......THANKS Spruce.....


No problem....
And thank the late great John Sullivan...

----------


## Hans

Sprucetop, if you are using those specs, you are going to have to make a 15 fret neck AND use the LoarA5 body. The bridge must sit forward of a normal A5. Notice the pushed forward ff holes AND the bridge must be forward. The grads are also pushed forward. Most A5's built have a shorter neck block, and consequently the bridge must sit back farther.

----------


## Dale Ludewig

Hans is right.  Spruce is right.  John is right.  Make sure the center line right down the top is goosed up a bit in thickness, IMHO.  Especially at the bridge and behind it.  You don't want it to buckle.   :Smile:

----------


## sprucetop1

THANKS to all you professionals for excellent advice.  I'm using the Siminoff A5 plans....so I should have said 15 frets-to-the-body.....John

----------


## Hans

You might want to compare the Siminoff A5 peghead to the peghead on the Archives of the original. I don't know how old your plans are, or if Roger changed them, but I talked to him about it several months ago...seemed to me there was quite a difference. I just scaled up the photo until the tuner post spacing was right.

----------


## sprucetop1

My A5 plans are recent and there's a corrected version of the peghead shape included.....John

----------


## Spruce

> My A5 plans are recent and there's a corrected version of the peghead shape included.....John


Those plans are good to have, but try to get ahold of a _gob_ of pics of the original instrument...

It's simply one of the coolest instruments in existence, sounds great, and has a bunch of interesting quirks that are worth looking at...

----------


## Mike Black

I wonder how many other people snatched that awesome picture up?  I know I immediately saved and printed it off.   :Grin:   Thanks for posting that Bruce!  Also grateful that John took the measurements.

----------


## Tavy

> I wonder how many other people snatched that awesome picture up?  I know I immediately saved and printed it off.    Thanks for posting that Bruce!  Also grateful that John took the measurements.


+1 from me too  :Grin: 

John.

----------


## Spruce

> I wonder how many other people snatched that awesome picture up?  I know I immediately saved and printed it off.    Thanks for posting that Bruce!  Also grateful that John took the measurements.


John had great, but sadly unfulfilled, plans to build copies of the Loar A5.

He was able to live with the instrument for a few days and take extensive measurements and Hacklingers, and I was really looking forward to what he would have come up with...

Not to be...   :Frown: 

So-ooo, I'll be doing the building instead...

I have about 5 sets of wood that he glued up to match the original instrument, and I think I have all the tools ready to roll...

I built 20 or so mandolins back in the 80's, but haven't built one since...

No way will I approach what John would have done, but I think I'm ready to roll...

Sorry to hijack the thread, but I'll be asking some similar questions about A5  design details here pretty soon too....   :Wink:

----------


## sprucetop1

Look forward to your queries and progress reports Spruce..........John (UK)

----------


## Ben Milne

That's a really cool plot...  i assume it is an outside view, not an inside view? 
Even if it only ends up as one of desktop backgrounds every now and then...  
thanks I look forward to the Progress reports.

i guess anything other that these grads would make it only kind-of-A5-ish then wouldn't it?

----------


## Mike Black

> John had great, but sadly unfulfilled, plans to build copies of the Loar A5.
> 
> He was able to live with the instrument for a few days and take extensive measurements and Hacklingers, and I was really looking forward to what he would have come up with...


So Bruce...  Do you have anything else that you can post to let us all see behind the curtain of the awe inspiring A5 Loar?   :Whistling:  

Personally, I think more builders should use the Loar A5 design. Only a small handful actually do.  It's definitely my favorite.  :Mandosmiley:

----------


## sprucetop1

Another query re. the Loar A5 design.....the sideways drawing from Mr. Siminoff shows that the bridge location is forward of the apex of the soundboard curve, due to the A5's longer body when compared with the standard F5.  The bridge is shown to be located on the downslope of the soundboard.  Was the original instrument arranged like this, and if so, do contemporary builders reproduce this detail?....thanks.....John

----------


## Spruce

> So Bruce...  Do you have anything else that you can post to let us all see behind the curtain of the awe inspiring A5 Loar?


Not really...
I have John's Hacklinger of the back...

I have a whole collection of pics, but I think I probably got most of them from this site...

They are _essential_ for getting those quirks right...

Can someone comment on the accuracy of the Siminoff plans??

----------


## Hans

[QUOTE=sprucetop1;734334]Another query re. the Loar A5 design.....the sideways drawing from Mr. Siminoff shows that the bridge location is forward of the apex of the soundboard curve, due to the A5's longer body when compared with the standard F5.  The bridge is shown to be located on the downslope of the soundboard.  Was the original instrument arranged like this, and if so, do contemporary builders reproduce this detail?....thanks.....John[/QUOTE

Why yes...


[IMG]http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww234/ivoroid/A5C-5.jpg[/IMG

----------


## sgarrity

That looks as if Hans bought the Loar A5, removed the headplate, and replaced it with one of his own!  :Wink:    Does it get much closer??  WOW!!  I've seen pics of it before and would love to see it in person some day.

I'm a big fan of the Loar A5 design as well and wish more people would use it as a template.  There are pics of a recently completed Duff A5 that bears strong resemblance and my Heiden A5 has some elements of the design but Mr. Heiden certainly wasn't going for historical accuracy in his design.  The Red Diamond A5s are similar as well.  Mark Taylor did his series of copies a few years ago.  I'm sure I'm forgetting a few.....

----------


## sprucetop1

Hans....that is a wonderful mandolin and THANKS for posting the pix......they give me a goal to try to aim for.....John

----------


## Michael Lewis

Kinda crowds the "sweet spot". :Wink:

----------


## j. condino

Another reason why Spruce Bruce is the man!!! 

Thanks for posting John's notes for the top. Since you brought it up, post the back for us now! I bet he had that in the shop when I used to live just a few blocks away from him, and never said a word about it. I've had access to that mandolin in the past too; pretty cool.The fret job and setup were a bit rough when I saw it. I never had a second thought about not having a scroll...

Anyone picking around the Asheville area might run into a pretty good forgery of that one out working the trenches. Some days it gets a little confusing when the fake is holding strong right next to a real Loar F5.

j.
www.condino.com

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

The original A5 has the bridge on the downslope.  The one(s) that Gail Hester built does too.  The bridge on the original Loar A5 is actually "jacked up" a bit as the neck was apparently set for "X" height above the apex of the top

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

There is also little if any off centerness to the neck installation.  Note that the top of the f-holes essentially align with the tip of the fingerboard

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

This is the only picture I know of showing the original pickguard.  I kinda blew it on the ones I made for Mark Taylor, Prodigal 5.  My pattern is just a tad short (does not quite come close enough to the bridge)

The pickguard is not attached in that photo.  It is resting canted up on the binding

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

The peghead binding has only one miter at the tip and is the only Loar triple bound on the face of the peghead in ivoroid.  The normal run of trip on the face started in Feb 24 with white celluloid

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

I played the Hans A5 at Loarfest.  Yes it is a remarkable build on his part.  In fact I have the Gail Hester A5 in my possession in an effort to more fully shake these details out.  It too is a very nice tribute

I really do not think there was alot of extra effort put into the A5 from a design aspect.  I spent some time with it in 2002  I believe the back to be carved on the standard A-model form and graduated to the "style 5 dimensions on the spec sheet and I believe the top to be carved mostly on the F5 form and then a simple "wing it" to work it out.  This resulted in the downslope aspect and displaced bridge and F-holes.  If you will note, the reference crosspiece and fingerboard are placed in relation to the end of the body (F5 style) instead of in relation to the center of the body.  This fact, along with the A-model body being longer accounts for all of the anomolies

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Here is a crude attempt to illustrate what I meant by the crosspiece

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Let's try this again a bit less crude

----------


## HoGo

Thanks Bruce (and John) for the grads!
Darryl, are you sure that the body shape is the same on the two mandolins?
It seems like the A4 has a bit longer body at the neck joint (disregarding position of crosspiece). I remember Gail H. mentioned two different lengths of A model with approx. 1/4" difference.
Regarding the arching... you should also consider that the arch behind bridge bulges outward when string tension is applied. With this position of bridge the effect may be exagerrated and in long term this can be permanent (even on some Loar F5's the apex migrated considerably back towards tailpiece). You can see similar effect on most cheaper Kentucky A5's with pressed top.
So, the question is what did the arch look like when the mandolin was new? The grads are quite thin for such large area behind bridge...

----------


## Mike Black

Here are the back graduations that John Sullivan took that Bruce sent me the other day.  I hope that you don't mind that I post them.  

The thing that I noticed is that the back is thinner than the top.  :Confused:

----------


## Spruce

> Darryl, are you sure that the body shape is the same on the two mandolins?
> It seems like the A4 has a bit longer body at the neck joint (disregarding position of crosspiece). I remember Gail H. mentioned two different lengths of A model with approx. 1/4" difference.


I've heard from some sources that the Loar A is the _same_ body shape as an A4 from the same period...

_And_, I've heard from other sources that it is different, especially around the neck area...

Love some input on this one...   :Wink: 

PS...
When are your Loar A5 plans coming out, Adrian??   :Wink:

----------


## sunburst

> I really do not think there was alot of extra effort put into the A5 from a design aspect...  I believe the back to be carved on the standard A-model form and graduated to the "style 5 dimensions on the spec sheet and I believe the top to be carved mostly on the F5 form and then a simple "wing it" to work it out...


That's always been my impression of this mandolin, as well as a lot of other things that Gibson did in those days.
I can understand the desire to study and understand this mando and make a "bench copy" or two, put to me it seems that there are so many ways to improve the design that I don't understand why anyone would want to produce them. It's like they decided to make a "Loar" without points and scrolls, and rather than sit down and design one they just 'used what they had' in the production shop 'tradition'.

----------


## Mike Black

> It seems like the A4 has a bit longer body at the neck joint (disregarding position of crosspiece). I remember Gail H. mentioned two different lengths of A model with approx. 1/4" difference.


I believe that the neck joint that Gail was mentioning was the difference between the paddlehead and the snakehead.  It's shown in this thread.

----------


## Spruce

> I can understand the desire to study and understand this mando and make a "bench copy" or two, put to me it seems that there are so many ways to improve the design that I don't understand why anyone would want to produce them. .


Well, half-assed design or not, it's probably the best sounding Loar I've ever played...

Or was I hallucinating?   :Wink:

----------


## Gail Hester

> Well, half-assed design or not, it's probably the best sounding Loar I've ever played...


It is very loud and it will peal paint but not necessarily in a good way at least to my ears (although I have trouble with telecasters on the bridge pickup running through a twin reverb on ten also). :Laughing:  

I think those graduations were really whacky and did not try to duplicate them nor have I tried to copy the Loar A5 exactly.  I graduate my A5s like I would an F5.  As Michael mentions, the sweet spot shifts a ways up the neck but everyone seems to get used to that quickly.

----------

pheffernan

----------


## Spruce

> ...although I have trouble with telecasters on the bridge pickup running through a twin reverb on ten also...



Ahhh, _that's_ why I liked that mandolin...

----------


## sprucetop1

As the OP I stand back in awe at the resultant discussion....

So I'm thicknessing the top tomorrow.....advice on grads please........John

----------


## sunburst

> ...advice on grads please...


Not too thin.
I'd have to have my hands on the wood you have to get some idea of how I might graduate it, but I wouldn't go under 3mm around the edge of the top while leaving the previously mentioned thicker areas in the string line. The center thickness could be anywhere from less than 4mm to over 5mm depending on the wood and the sound you want. Probably somewhere between 4mm and 5mm. The back can be thinner, but there is even more variation in back wood stiffness and density than top wood, so that's about all I can say. I've carved stiff hard maple backs to slightly under 2mm around the edge, but that's rare, they're usually thicker than that.

----------


## Ivan Kelsall

Purely as an (very)  interested bystander to this discussion,which my friend John, 'sprucetop', began,i can't help feeling that there's something 'not quite right' in this A-5 design,& that Gibson have (sucessfully mind you), cobbled together a longer scale Mandolin based on a shorter scale body.The result being,that the bridge no longer sits at the apex of the top,but back towards the neck,in an area of lessened vibration. ( If i'm talking BS - please tell me,i can take it.)
   Do all builders of their own design A-5 style instruments,place the bridge in this position,or do they try to place it on the apex of the top contoured area ?.
   Taking my reasoning to it's ultimate,ludicrous conclusion,if they'd made the scale so long,that the bridge was now up against the neck,you'd have a traversty of an instrument !.
    I'm playing 'devil's advocate' here to an extent,in an effort to try to understand the quirky bridge placement on the Loar A-5.  Please don't send the guys in black suits around just yet,i'm trying to learn something,
                                  Ivan :Confused:

----------


## HoGo

> When are your Loar A5 plans coming out, Adrian??


Well Bruce, give me the mandolin for a week or a CT scan of that thing and some time.... :D
I do have some simple drawings of it at home, but without having enough direct measurements it's PITA.

Darryl, could you elaborate about the binding, please? I'm not much into dating or chronology of Loars, but there are those IBW top-bound headstocks... where do they fit in timeline? Of course I could have a look into the archive but are there any generalizations?

I wouldn't generalize about shape of body and era or model since G likely used several A body moulds and they were not exactly same. They were made of aluminum and were used for years. The only known original F mould doesn't perfectly fit all Loar F5's in some areas (though nowhere as much as 1/4").

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

HOGO  yes there were IBW bindings that mostly showed up with the first Fern Loars.  The later instruments in the Feb 18, 24 batch had a mix of IBW and WBW on the face of the peghead.  Prior to that point most every May 29, 23, July 9, 23, Dec 11, 23 and earlier Feb 18, 24 were triple bound on the side of the PH in IBI.  The A5 is simply bound on the face with that same binding.  Prior to May 29, 23 they were single and double bound in I or IB on the side

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

Have I specifically measured the A5? No.  But I have held the A5 in one hand and a '23 A4 in the other.  I see no difference in the rim set other than the 1-3/8 vice 1-1/2 tall deal.  If you look closely at the comparative picture I posted, you can see the same assymetry on both mandolins.  The right hand upper bout dives lower and faster than the left and has a less graceful radius where the head block portion transitions into the main body.  This cannot happen by chance.  It happens by building them both in the same form.

----------


## Hans

Keep in mind that Loars were pretty thick compared to some mandolins being made today. Modern builders have had to take into account the idea that many customers want instant gratification in a mandolin, and it's been my experience that you can't have both a Loar sound and a fantastic sounding mandolin right away. Instruments built to Loar specs are very stiff to start and take a lot of pounding to break in. They are not that resonant to begin with. It comes through playing.
Now, you can build an instrument for instant gratification that will be very resonant, sound excellent right out of the box, but will never sound like a Loar. The choice is yours.
 Let me also say that you are safer building a thicker instrument. It'll hold together. Builders making "IG" mandolins are close to the edge of collapse, but know through experience how far to go.
John is also right that the wood will tell you how far you can go. I know that sounds a lot like "Figure it out for yourself!" but it's actually called experience.
I'd stick close to the grads given to you. Use red spruce and red maple.

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

I could not agree more with that post by Hans

----------


## Jim Hilburn

I've seen the grads for Grismans Loar and the A-5 seems a bit thicker in general. Grismans is 4.3 at the bridge and is under 4 nearly everywhere on the top. There's an pretty large area between the treble f-hole and the bridge that measures 2.5
I don't know who the modern builders are who are going thinner than this but it would seem this Loar is approaching the breaking point. I'd have to be making it for myself to even think of carving that thin.

----------


## Dale Ludewig

It all depends on the particular piece (s) of wood, as John said.  And as Hans said "experience".  I think most builders pushing the edge will inevitably go over it at least once and then rethink.  Ah, Hans.  What a reminder that picture you've posted of the fireplace filled with plates aflame!  I don't have a fireplace, but a couple of other friends do.

----------


## Spruce

> I could not agree more with that post by Hans


Including this?




> Use red spruce and red maple.


I was under the impression that most folks who were chasing the Loar tone were using hard maple??

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> Including this?
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that most folks who were chasing the Loar tone were using hard maple??



Well actually no...I was referring to the thicker and instant gratification angle, not the very last sentence per se'

----------


## HoGo

Thanks Darryl.
Hans, I wonder who are the builders going that thin? I don't live in the US so I don't have access to all makes that you have.
Of all mandolins I laid my hands on Loars were thinnest. Most modern builders were influenced by Siminoffs first book or the Stew-Mac blueprint and went with top grads approaching 1/4" at center perhaps with thinner recurve but many Loars were close or below to 2.5mm at top recurve. Today with greater availability of first-hand info on Loars folks are going that direction.
I feel that the Loar specs are quite close to limit of what the wood can stand under load. Especially under tailpiece.
Of course different arch shape may allow to go a bit thinner but the tone will be affected as well.

----------


## Hans

Apparently Charlie was adamant that it be red maple...
A certain someone related to me that he had once brought a lovely chunk of sugar maple to Charlie and wanted a MM built from it. Charlie basically told him "Get that maple out of here! We don't use it on MM's." Far as I'm concerned sugar is too edgy for Loar sound. Like a drawer full of silverware tossed down a flight of stairs...
As far as who is building with what dimensions, I'm not going to say (I'm not nuts!), but I know I've seen some that are too thin at the ff holes, and I've seen some caving in. 
I can tell you this: When I started building mandolins, my instruments were thick 5-5.2mm in the center. My instruments have always taken longer to break in except the IG ones that I make for those folks I mentioned earlier. The thicker instruments have always sounded fatter, the thinner more resonant, and frankly less meaty. I'm not saying I'm at 5mm now, but what I am saying is 3.8 is dang thin, 2.5 tween the bridge and ff hole is crazy. 
Now a loooong time ago in a faraway F5 Journal or Gal article I remember Darryl saying Loars were built thick. I have the Reichmann grads and while it is less than 4 under the bridge it is in the realm of 4mm. Two point five mm is not where I have the recurve. To me that is a thin Loar. I have taken and have other measurements that are thicker than that.
If you can get a Loar tone out of a thinly built instrument, more power to you. I get it out of a thick instrument.

----------


## sunburst

Hans and I have had this conversation before, but I like sugar maple for bluegrass-sounding mandolins. Notice I didn't say Loar-sounding. I use red maple too, but I think I get more sheer power from a sugar maple mandolin than any other maple I've used, and I don't hear any silverware.  :Smile:

----------


## Rob Grant

I'm in agreement with Hans on top grads. The difference between a dangerously thin top and an extra mm isn't worth the warrenty call back. 

On the last F5 I produced I actually found myself adding a bit more "meat" to what I considered the critical areas of the top in the form of thin, neatly shaped and formed cross grain patches of the top timber glued to the inside of the top (in this case spruce). This didn't seem to affect the volume and tone in any noticeable way. I also found it a lot easier to sleep at night!<G>

----------


## Kent Martin

Great thread -- there's an A5 in my near future too. I'm with Spruce -- love the sound of that Loar. I'm listening to Tone Poems as I write. Now, do I go with the Indiana maple slab cut one piece back, or get some Big Leaf?

----------


## sprucetop1

Thanks to Sunburst and Hans (and all other contributors) for excellent thicknessing advice which I am taking....my top recurve minimum dimension should end up in the 3.2-3.5 mm. range and much of the rest of the top circa 4-5 mm. range.  Regarding materials....this mandolin is being made from viola sets from a UK bowed inst. woods supplier.  My best guess is that I have European maple and European spruce.  That's what it is sold as at least.......John

----------


## Hans

Sprucetop John, with Euro/Euro, you will likely end up with a richer, more complex tone than a Loar sound. It makes a very fine sounding mandolin and I have folks that play bluegrass with German/Bosnian maple and love the tone. German spruce carved properly is very powerful. It has a POP that even red spruce can't get.
John and I have had that conversation, and Will and I have had the same. I can't get that certain slight warmth out of sugar that I feel Loars have. To me it's a cold, icy sound when combined with red spruce. Works well with German or Italian, but those spruces have a warm tone to begin with.
Rob, I'm not concerned with my IG instruments collapsing as I never go "that" far, but having two F5C's, one with the Loar tone and the other IG, I have watched folks try each. Most love the IG immediately, but sitting on the receiving end of the sound, I can hear that when they pick up the Loar tone F5C, it's fatter, meatier, more solid sounding. I have someone with my A5C on loan right now that started out wanting the IG tone, and slowly as he's played the A5C, he's come around to hear the difference and wants the Loar type tone. I guess I just prefer a FAT tone to my instruments, and that's what I get out of thicker top. A very well known player many years ago after playing my F5C said in a thick southern drawl "That's FAT!", and I never forgot that.

----------


## Fretbear

> With Euro/Euro, you will likely end up with a richer, more complex tone than a Loar sound. It makes a very fine sounding mandolin and I have folks that play bluegrass with German/Bosnian maple and love the tone. 
> German spruce carved properly is very powerful. It has a POP that even red spruce can't get.
> I guess I just prefer a FAT tone to my instruments, and that's what I get out of a thicker top.


Great post; As the owner of a German (Euro) topped instrument, carved a little bit thicker than standard Loar grads, I must agree. Personal experience also verifies that the breaking-in process is a very real phenomena. Good things come to those who wait (and play the snot out of their mandolins). 
While the Loar-signed instruments are of course the holy-grail of the vintage pre-war production-built mandolins, and thereby set "a" standard, I believe that many of the new mandolins built by the modern masters like Hans (and far too many others to mention) with their great depth of experience, may equal or even surpass some of them over time.

----------


## Bill Halsey

Ditto, Hans.  I hear plenty of loud, woody new mandos nowadays, but precious few with that core "Loar" fullness in the mids.

Voicing may take a while, but I'm stickin' with Lloyd.

Great thread.

----------


## Jim Hilburn

Now the Grisman Loar is not at 2.5 all around, it's mostly at 3+ in the recurve area. From these and other grads I've seen it's clear that they weren't always consistent and symetric with their carving. Grisman's seems to have a bit of a thin spot near the treble f-hole.
I've had close encounters with this mandolin at both of the Symposiums I attended and something that's quite apparent is the way the top has bulged behind the bridge which is an indicator that your about as far as you can go. Yet it's made it for 87 years. And if you can find a mandolin that sounds better then you've really found something.
I had my camera on video while Steve Gilchrist was playing it. We were in an echo chamber of a workshop and the mic on the camera isn't a Neumann but when Steve starts doing chop A chords the expresion on his face is priceless. He says " it's like having a big snare drum".

----------


## Spruce

> I can't get that certain slight warmth out of sugar that I feel Loars have.


So-ooo, we don't think that some of the Loars are made out of sugar??

Some of those backs sure _look_ like sugar...
(Not that _that_ means anything)...   :Wink: 

Ya know, determining what species of maple are in the Loars would be an easy thing to ascertain...

This, from Bruce Hoadley:

_"When a saturated water solution of ferrous sulfate is applied to red maple, a deep blue-black color develops;  when the same solution is applied to sugar maple, a greenish color results."_

So, pop the endpin on a Loar, and Q-tip a bit of ferrous sulfate on the exposed maple surface...

Yeah, that would only tell us what species the sides were milled from, but the odds that Gibson made the sides from one species and the backs from another seems remote, no??

It would be nice to know what those puppies were _really_ made from, no??   :Wink: 




> Now, do I go with the Indiana maple slab cut one piece back, or get some Big Leaf?


The former...
And the original was two-piece....

----------


## sunburst

> ...the odds that Gibson made the sides from one species and the backs from another seems remote, no??


It wouldn't surprise me a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if they milled sides from "eastern maple" and mixed red and sugar from time to time. If they broke a side while bending, the replacement from the top of the pile(?) might have been sugar while the broken one was red. Who knows?

My 1920 F4 has sides that look like red maple, except for one piece; the one that goes from point to point; and that one sure looks like silver, with that blister figure. 

I suspect they used red maple and sugar maple in the Loars, or at least I wouldn't be surprised if they did, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that they mixed them sometimes. I've mixed them; red maple sides with sugar maple backs, why not(?), I figure.

----------


## hank

Amazing thread. The power of attention to detail and experience from one individual's perspective squared by the free flow of information between many more perspectives and experiences brings a smile to my face knowing these modern luthiers have dedicated their talents to this end.  My hat is off to you all and the part each of you have played in more fully understanding your art.  I'm sure Loyd would be pleased with the seed that he and so many others planted.

----------


## Spruce

> It wouldn't surprise me a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if they milled sides from "eastern maple" and mixed red and sugar from time to time. .



I guess what I'm trying to get at is this:  do we see _Acer saccharum_ in the Loars at all?  

Those folks were sure anal about getting Red Spruce into those instruments, and it just seems to make sense that they would be just as anal about their maple selection...

Especially considering the _huge_ difference between the two species...

----------


## sunburst

BTW Bruce, any idea where to get ferrous sulfate? My on line search isn't turning up much, and I have some "mystery maple" from Pa. that I'd like to confirm is sugar (or not).

----------


## Spruce

> BTW Bruce, any idea where to get ferrous sulfate? My on line search isn't turning up much, and I have some "mystery maple" from Pa. that I'd like to confirm is sugar (or not).


Here's where I get it...

Try applying it to _known_ samples of maple to get a handle on the resulting colors...

It's not as cut-and-dried as Hoadley makes it sound, but you _can_ ID the maples with a tad of practice on some known samples...

Man, this thread is a roller coaster, and I ain't helping things any...   :Wink:

----------


## sunburst

Thanks! I have plenty of known samples.
Hey, I'm enjoying the ride!  :Wink:

----------


## Mike Black

I'm enjoying the ride too!   :Grin:   :Mandosmiley:

----------


## Spruce

Here's a pic of the Hoadley hard/soft maple test...




As you can see, it takes a bit of practice to differentiate between the two colorations...
But, it's _doable_...

----------


## sunburst

Between the worm track and the depth that the ball point sunk in, I'd have guessed the red maple anyway. The hard maple pic could be either one from just looking at it.

----------


## Dale Ludewig

If the color is right on those pics, I see some gray in the soft and to me that's a sure sign.  Of course I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing that color in hard maple.  The stain color is an interesting thing.  Time to get Hoadley back out of the bookcase.  I had a electric guitar maker friend in the shop the other day and had a maple topped guitar that looked all the world to me to be soft.  He swore it was hard.  Even if I had some ferrous sulfate, I doubt he'd have let me do that test.

----------


## Spruce

> I had a electric guitar maker friend in the shop the other day and had a maple topped guitar that looked all the world to me to be soft.  He swore it was hard.  Even if I had some ferrous sulfate, I doubt he'd have let me do that test.


There's a big hubbub in the Les Paul world as to what the 'Bursts were made out of--hard or soft maple...

I've tested several under the pickup cavity, and it looks like there's a variety of woods used, both hard and soft...

I suspect that we'd see the same thing in the Loars, but it would be nice to know for sure...

I guess Loarfest would have been the time to do that...   :Wink: 
("you want to pour ferrous-what where"?!)   :Disbelief: 

Maybe I should buy a case of those bottles of ferrous sulfate and pass 'em out to high-end repair folks who might have a chance to test a Loar...

Maple gets exposed all the time when you replace a fingerboard, or do major surgery...

Would have been nice for Charlie to have had a bottle when he had Bill's mando in pieces, no??   :Wink:

----------


## Billybones

Hello All-great thread,

Has anyone had any experience using Chris Burt's tap tunung method for mandolin tops-aiming for F-F#-as described in American Lutherie Quarterly's #84, 85, 86 and compared that to the dimensions mentioned above? 
Thanks for any responses.

Bill

----------


## Mario Proulx

*Would have been nice for Charlie to have had a bottle when he had Bill's mando in pieces, no?*

Maybe he did, and that would be why he was adamant about using red maple in the MM from then on. He wasn't one to miss details, no?

Like John, I mix and match  maples in my mandolins; for whatever reason, I've found good tone in bigleaf(soft) maple backs, but I have really nice sugar maple that bends better than bigleaf, so most of my ribs are sugar. I've also used either one, and likely red maple too, for necks.

Ya know, we like to think Lloyd Loar was very finicky/choosy in his wood choices, because there are some odd things happening with the material choices, and we want to believe everything was chosen with the sort of attention to detail we give our woods today, but this was -still- Gibson, a company that wasn't going out of its way to bookmatch guitar tops and backs, much less mandolins, and covered them all up with dark sunbursts. It is completely possible that LL chose the best of what he could get the bean counters to buy or had bought prior to his arrival and was now seasoned enough to use, and then relied on the design and voicing that was his, to create a superior instrument. Yes, we have the brochures, shop notes and advertising copy and what all that states premium mountain spruce and all that, but, that wouldn't be the first time marketing took a bit of poetic license. Sells much better than "hand selected spruce from Bob's Hardware and Furniture". 
 Seems to me that he appeared to be very confident in his ability to voice the instrument, and given enough confidence in one's abilities, one begins to look less at the woods for one's "sound". I know for fact that I used to put a lot more stock into my wood selections than I do today, because I have found that I can make pretty well any wood combination sound distinctly like one of mine, especially with guitars, as that's where most of my experience is. 

My point is that perhaps we need to keep looking at his designs, and how he managed to attain his voice(perhaps that thin area by the F hole was something he did to free up a node there or something) and less at his wood choices. Often, the "magic" is so simple, that the real secret to the illusion is its very simplicity. Or not.... <lol>

----------


## Spruce

> My point is that perhaps we need to keep looking at his designs, and how he managed to attain his voice and less at his wood choices.


Well, there's a _hellova_ lot of difference between the tonewood selection for the tops of high-end mandolins pre-1990, and post 1990...

And a lot of it has to do with the fact that _someone_ started taking Lloyd's top wood selection very seriously...

----------


## sunburst

Yeah, but it seems to me that _someone_ had a vested interest in Lloyd's top wood selection being taken seriously by the buyer...a little different from whatever reason Lloyd had for the selection.

----------


## Spruce

Don't look at me...
I _lost_ money on the deal...   :Wink:

----------


## Hans

Not to mention Ted cutting W.V. red spruce...

----------


## Mario Proulx

*Well, there's a hellova lot of difference between the tonewood selection for the tops of high-end mandolins pre-1990, and post 1990...*

Right; we can't easily get into Loar's head, but we can -see- the woods he used, so in the search for the magic bullet, we chase what we see. And what we see are mismatched tops of what we -think- is red spruce, but you know better than I do that it could be any continental spruce, and seeing as how each half of the tops aren't likely from the same boards, they could even be combinations of different continental spruces. Red spruce hadn't yet gained cult status in 1920. Loar may have wanted red spruce, spec'd it out, but in the end was forced to use what was already in stock and seasoned. Don't forget the seasoning of the wood; he would have been keenly aware that well seasoned tonewoods are important, and does the time frame of his arrival at Gibson to the building of the instruments that bear his signature leave enough time for seasoning? Doesn't seem to be. So...  Loar's spruce could just as easily have been locally cut 1x6 white or black spruce as red spruce trucked-in from th6e Adirondacks, no? Kalamazoo Michigan is surrounded by maple and spruce, and Michigan had long been a major player in furniture production, with the raw wood supply infrastructure to support it already well established. And of course, Gibson was always a frugal company that never tried to be a high end instrument maker until Loar's arrival.  But of course, that makes for bad marketing copy....

Not saying it -is- so, but rather simply suggesting it could be. Nobody can prove it either way. 

At any rate, I'm willing to put more stock into Lloyd Loar's mind and ears, than in his eyes.

----------


## Glassweb

[QUOTE=Bill Halsey;735382]Ditto, Hans.  I hear plenty of loud, woody new mandos nowadays, but precious few with that core "Loar" fullness in the mids.

Voicing may take a while, but I'm stickin' with Lloyd.

this is the best thread to hit the message board in a _long_ time... kudos to all!

----------


## Kent Martin

Has it been suggested that Loar might have wanted wood with different characteristics on the treble side vs. the bass side? After all, the tone bars, at least in the F5s, are asymmetrical.

On the other hand, boards could have been selected for matching density. Many have hinted that we are we just looking at random selection of boards. Is there a pattern suggested in the photos?

Re the original A5 having a 2-piece back -- do all the Loar F5s have two piece backs ?

----------


## Glassweb

Re the original A5 having a 2-piece back -- do all the Loar F5s have two piece backs ?[/QUOTE]

Kent - most of the Loars have 2 piece backs... only a small handful have a one-piece...

----------


## Dale Ludewig

Spruce,
Oddly enough, or not, the builder is making Les Paul types.  I don't have enough experience to know or believe that the top wood on a solid body (this was) electric to make any difference in the tonal qualities.  I would think electronics would have far more to do with it.  And of course the entire core body structure.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, Bruce.  It was unfinished.  Raw wood waiting for a burst.  After the burst, as all know, it'd be hard to tell.  Maybe.

As to backs, we've been here before and I believe it's pretty much agreed that it doesn't matter if it's one piece or two.  Iirc, even Monteleone has built with even more pieces in the back and I've not heard anyone complaining about his work.  As to the type of wood, that's another issue but I tend to agree with Mario that you can make a pretty good instrument out of a wide variety of woods, if.......

Different densities for treble/bass sides of tops?  I don't think so.

----------


## sunburst

> Not to mention Ted cutting W.V. red spruce...


That was my intention...  :Wink:

----------


## Dale Ludewig

Now I don't know the details like John (with his large outdoor pool) or Spruce (with the ocean probably a stone's throw away), but didn't Ted have special permission to harvest the already dead trees in that area, which I'm not going to name.  I think that's what he told me.  Just wondering.

----------


## sunburst

Dale, I went with Ted the first two years ('89 & '90) that he harvested red spruce trees in W.Va.. He had worked for years to get permission to cut a tree or two a year on USFS land, and finally a new ranger came to the district who understood that red spruce might be good for something besides wood pulp, so he finally got permission and he called me to go help him harvest the trees in return for some spruce. My part of that wood is the red spruce I've been using ever since.

Ted wrote a few articles about Lloyd Loar and his specification of red spruce for F5s, and was one of the biggest influences in the resurgence of red spruce in instruments. The fact that he had a lot of it for sale may or may not have had any influence on his advocating for red spruce as a deluxe top wood.

It was interesting to me that at this year's ASIA symposium there was little sitka or engelmann to be found, but lots of red spruce for sale. There was _none_ for sale before 1990 or so.

----------


## Dale Ludewig

Thanks, John.  What wonderful memories you must have.  I wish I had kept better track of where some of my spruce had come from.  I know some of it was from there.  Pretty cool.

----------


## Glassweb

speaking of tone woods... i've been completely blown away by a couple of rosewood mandolins (back and sides and on one of them... even the neck!) that Stan Miller here in Bellingham has made. John Reischman plays one of them throughout a Tony Rice Unit album he did that has been retitled "Devlin". the volume, tone, bass/treble balance... everything about these F5s has totally changed my thinking about this wood for mandolins. stay tuned... (always!)

----------


## sprucetop1

Once again...as the OP....thanks to all for contributions and resultant compulsive reading....as a relatively inexperienced builder...I'm learning a lot.....John

----------


## Spruce

> It was interesting to me that at this year's ASIA symposium there was little sitka or engelmann to be found, but lots of red spruce for sale. There was _none_ for sale before 1990 or so.


So-ooo, as far as the modern re-introduction of red spruce to the world of luthiery, is this date gonna hold up?

Does anyone know of _anyone_ harvesting red spruce prior to Ted's expeditions in '89, even if it's a builder harvesting for his or her own needs??

I _do_ know of a mill in Dolgeville, NY, that supposedly was supplying Steinway for decades (_that's_ why those pianos kick butt!), but don't know if they supplied other instrument makers...

I've been asked to write a little history of tonewood cutting over the years, and want to see if the '89/'90 date holds up...
I'm guessing "yes"...

Anyone??

----------


## Woody Turner

"Ted should be considered the 'Father of the Red Spruce Revival,' since it was his efforts in the 1980’s that brought about the resurgence of this fine tone wood. Ted began cutting red spruce in 1985, sourcing blowdown trees removed from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ted began working with the USFS in West Virginia in 1988, and encouraged them to set aside selected red spruce trees for future tonewood production. It was the availability of Davis red spruce that prompted the introduction of the Collings Clarence White model, the first production guitar with red spruce since the mid-1940’s."

From the Ebay auction narrative: http://cgi.ebay.com/Adirondack-Red-S...17186009r26117

----------


## Spruce

> "Ted should be considered the 'Father of the Red Spruce Revival,' since it was his efforts in the 1980s that brought about the resurgence of this fine tone wood. Ted began cutting red spruce in 1985, sourcing blowdown trees removed from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ted began working with the USFS in West Virginia in 1988, and encouraged them to set aside selected red spruce trees for future tonewood production. It was the availability of Davis red spruce that prompted the introduction of the Collings Clarence White model, the first production guitar with red spruce since the mid-1940s."
> 
> From the Ebay auction narrative: http://cgi.ebay.com/Adirondack-Red-S...17186009r26117


Whoa...
Thanks for that!

Sunburst, does that all sound right to you??

----------


## Darryl Wolfe

> Whoa...
> Thanks for that!
> 
> Sunburst, does that all sound right to you??


It does to me...I lived in Knoxville then and knew Ted well.  John Arnold deserves some credit on the effort also and is currently helping liquidate Ted's stash (didn't look at the link first)

----------


## Woody Turner

Back in the 70s my wife and I used to vacation out near Dolly Sods in WV, a high plateau with  alpine climate. Some of the flora resembled what you'd find in Canada. It was the only place within a few hours of DC where you could find a 20-degree drop in temperatures in the summer. That climate surely affected the red spruce growth on the mountain tops. I remember taking an old Shay locomotive up through the hardwood forests and on to the red spuce stands at the summit. It was all second growth, of course, as this little bit of history explains:

"The extensive high areas in Dolly Sods and Flatrock-Roaring Plains were once mostly covered by dense, ancient Red Spruce and hemlock forest. The trees were 60 to 90 feet (27 m) tall (18-27 m) and some measured at least 12 feet (370 cm) in diameter. In terms of size and quality, experts believe that the greatest stand of red spruce trees in the world was found here along the upper Red Creek. 

"Railroad logging made the spruce and hemlocks accessible in the late 1880s and the huge trees were cut down. Shay locomotives climbed the mountain and logging camps sprang up throughout Dolly Sods, clearing away the virgin forest to provide lumber to sustain America's pre-war construction boom. Centuries of accumulated needles from the massive trees had created a blanket of humus (soil) seven to nine feet deep. The humus dried up when the protective tree cover was removed. Sparks from railroad locomotives, saw mills and logger's warming fires easily ignited this humus layer and the extensive slash (wood too small to be marketable, such as branches and tree crowns) left behind by loggers. Fires repeatedly ravaged the area in the 1910s, scorching everything right down to the underlying rocks. The destruction was extraordinary. The complete clearcut of this ecologically fragile area, followed by extensive wildfires and overgrazing, as well as the ecological stresses of the elevation, have prevented quick regeneration of the forest." [http://www.pbase.com/jboard/dolly_dods]

----------


## sunburst

> Whoa...
> Thanks for that!
> 
> Sunburst, does that all sound right to you??


Ted had one wedge of red spruce when I met him and he said he had had a few more but apparently nothing major before '89. 
I had been working as a lab assistant at a community college in the early 80s and had done a bit of field work with Dr.s Adams and Stevenson who sampled spruce stands throughout West Va., Va., North Carolina and Tennessee researching the spruce growth decline, so I had seen most of the remaining old growth stands in the southern Appalachians and that was what got my interest up. A core sample from almost any of those trees looked like an instrument top to me! I didn't know if red spruce would be any good for tops but I sure was curious about it and wanted to give it  try. When I found out about Ted and his efforts I talked to him and got to know him, and that's why he called me when he finally got the chance to go harvest some trees. It really wasn't until then that I learned about the history of red spruce in American instruments and it wasn't until the 90s that "word got around" and the market developed. It's all been pretty interesting...

That wedge of spruce that Ted had when I met him; 40 grain lines per inch, even grain spacing, looks and carves like engelmann, taps like glass; He gave me that piece as a gift after our first spruce harvesting outing. I got two mandolin tops from it, and built myself a mandolin from it, It was the third mandolin I had built, and I've regretted using that wood that early ever since. I still have the other top blank, and one day when I feel qualified to use it I'll build myself another mandolin with it.
I think he said it came from a blow-down near the Smokey Mountains, but I can't remember for sure.

----------


## Spruce

Thanks!!

----------


## Bill Van Liere

Nice read you guys, best one in a long time, thanks all.

----------


## Mario Proulx

Fascinating stuff! 12 foot diameter red spruce! I've seen an old photo of an army jeep parked on a black spruce stump, with all 4 tires -on- the stump. When I started working in the Abitibi mill in the mid 80's, there was a black spruce trunk section on display in the entrance lobby that was about 4-5 feet in diameter and 800+ years old. It, like the one in the Jeep photo, were ground up into newsprint pulp.... Sad. Wood was just wood, at one time; none of it was held in the high regard we have for it now. Which is why I find it hard to swallow that the bean counters at Gibson would have imported red spruce when they had great, cheap, and from all methods indistinguishable, large old growth white and black spruce right there in their back yard. Martin, on the other hand, was right there in Red spruce country, so it was naturally their spruce of choice.

As a side note regarding Shay locomotives, we have one here that I remember smoking away through town when I was a wee lad. According to the town's web site: Our Shay, serial#3298, was believed to be the last working Shay in North America. It worked in the Iroquois Falls bush operations from 1947 to 1956, and in the mill yard until the mid 1970's.  In the spring of 1979, the Shay was donated to the Town of Iroquois Falls, and became a static display next to the old train station.  It is now situated in Devonshire Park where it has been restored.

----------


## Woody Turner

"I remember taking an old Shay locomotive up through the hardwood forests and on to the red spuce stands at the summit."  Actually, now that I think about it, that train ride happened a bit south of Dolly Sods, near Cass. Spruce Knob is also nearby.

----------


## Woody Turner

I don't want to hijack this thread, but those shots of the Shays are terrific. They're not that environmentally friendly--never were in terms of the logging they enabled--but what other form of transportation has such character and structural refinement--almost scuptural? And power! I can't imagine a diesel pulling those mountain grades. 

BTW, Cass Scenic Railroad still has a half-dozen Shays running along 11 miles of steep, switchbacked track in east central WV. The outfit that operates them claims Cass Scenic Railroad State Park to be "America's authentic operating museum of lumber railroading."  The park's Web site (http://www.cassrailroad.com/shay7.html) has pix and specs on the bores, drivers, and all the rest for its fleet.

----------


## Don Grieser

Nobody's mentioned much about Mark Taylor's Prodigal 5 copy of the Loar A5. How'd he do with getting the sound of it?

----------


## Spruce

> I don't want to hijack this thread...



That's pretty funny....    :Wink:

----------


## hank

Chris's thread My Duff A5 has a sound clip on post#30.  I asked at some point in the thread if it was like Loars A5 and Chris responded it was.  Pretty bodacious from down under.

----------


## Gail Hester

> Ted should be considered the 'Father of the Red Spruce Revival,' since it was his efforts in the 1980s that brought about the resurgence of this fine tone wood. Ted began cutting red spruce in 1985, sourcing blowdown trees removed from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ted began working with the USFS in West Virginia in 1988, and encouraged them to set aside selected red spruce trees for future tonewood production. It was the availability of Davis red spruce that prompted the introduction of the Collings Clarence White model, the first production guitar with red spruce since the mid-1940s.


Darryl sent some old red spruce from Ted Davis awhile back.  It is incredible wood, taps like a church bell and I wish I had more of it.  It sorta spoils you for anything else.  I think he wanted me to know what real mandolin wood should be. :Smile:   Now I know.

----------


## hank

Gail did you see the link in the 95th post of this thread?

----------


## Gail Hester

> Gail did you see the link in the 95th post of this thread?


Yes, thanks Hank.  I have an order into John for some mandolin wood.

----------


## Woody Turner

"hi-jack...to steal goods in transit..." (_Webster's New World_)

----------


## Mike Black

> Yes, thanks Hank.  I have an order into John for some mandolin wood.



You actually got John Arnold to reply to you? 

 I've tried a few times and different ways... Personal e-mail, Mandolincafe PM and I even tried the "ask a seller a question" section of eBay to get some mandolin woods from him but no avail.   He has a lot of guitar top on eBay, but nothing for Mandolin tops.     :Confused:

----------


## fscotte

Just wanted to bump a great thread in case anyone new missed it.

----------


## Dobe

[QUOTE=Hans;735016]Keep in mind that Loars were pretty thick compared to some mandolins being made today. Modern builders have had to take into account the idea that many customers want instant gratification in a mandolin, and it's been my experience that you can't have both a Loar sound and a fantastic sounding mandolin right away. Instruments built to Loar specs are very stiff to start and take a lot of pounding to break in. They are not that resonant to begin with. It comes through playing.
Now, you can build an instrument for instant gratification that will be very resonant, sound excellent right out of the box, but will never sound like a Loar. The choice is yours.
 Let me also say that you are safer building a thicker instrument. It'll hold together. Builders making "IG" mandolins are close to the edge of collapse, but know through experience how far to go.


I don't know about never sounding like one ( possible McGurk effect here ?    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypd5txtGdGw ), but then I've only played 1 Loar. 
I've always been in this camp:  Give me the killer tone out of the box. I don't have 30 - 50- years+ to wait. I'd rather have the gratification now & someday, 10-20+ years, have it re-topped. I'm more of a Nugget guy,(former A-5 owner) & played lot's of em'.  Very consistent & yet they still get better with use / age. But I do know of at least a couple that needed to be re-topped (by the man himself of course. Took more than a few months !). I completely agree that's from pushing it to the edge (and perhaps a little over on occasion). I wonder how much weight  builders are putting on tone verses longevity throughout the building process.  I personally just assume the structural strength will be there if your using high grade materials & keeping pretty close to specs. All my attention is going into tone (near the end of the build).
 :Confused:   :Mandosmiley:

----------

