A2 vs A5

[mjb128wv]

Could someone explain the difference between an A2 and an A5? I have an instrument by a modern maker that says A2 on the label but I'm not sure what distinguishes it from an A5. Mine has F holes but I've seen A2's that have oval holes as well - I think Pomeroy makes one.
Is the difference in the binding, body size - or maybe something else?

Just trying to get educated.
Thanks

Mike

[JEStanek]

There are no hard rules for nomenclature. Typically an A2 refers to a Gibson Teens style tear drop shaped mandolin with less binding and ornamentation. IT is shorter necked (joining the body at the 12th fret) and has an oval hole. An A5 typically means (again using Gibson nomenclature) a tear drop shaped mandolin with F holes and a longer neck (joining the body at the 15th fret).

Here's a link to a 1922 Gibson A2 (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?3173) with photos.

Jamie

Edit: Your particular mandolin would have difference based on your builders criteria for naming it. The body size,shape, binding and neck length may vary.

[mandroid]

The species A 2&4 from genus mandolineus gibsonus,refers to oval holed pear shaped.
A5 ,as seen in this very website, was applied to both a 2 point,
oval hole with the,neck and bridge shift of an F5,
and also uses that neck adaptation, shift, aka long, [leaving off that odd headstock shape with the break away roundish piece] with a pear shaped body, with F holes,

and So ... even within Gibsonus Phylum, is applied to more than one product .. ~:>

Give up on trying to make sense of that part of numerology, :disbelief:

Just play some music on what ever you brought. :popcorn:


~o)~o)

[Tim2723]

I gave up trying to figure out those numbers long ago. Now I just look at pictures of things I can't afford.

[mjb128wv]

OK - Thanks for the info.

The A2 I have is by Will Parsons, has f holes, joins the body at the 15h fret and has binding on front and back. So go figure. I'll ask Will what his criteria was for calling it an A2 next time I talk to him.
As you all have noted there appear to be some guidelines for nomenclature but no hard and fast rules.
Sounds great whatever it's called.

[allenhopkins]

"A" and "F" are pretty standard, accepted descriptions for the two body styles Gibson originated. Gibson's first system was to use a letter prefix to indicate the basic style, and a numerical suffix to indicate the model within that style. The higher the number, the more ornamented and expensive the instrument. There was a plain "A," then "A-1," "A-2," "A-3," and "A-4." Each one had more binding, inlay, and often more elaborate finishes; all had oval soundholes. The first A-5 was a "one-of" designed by Lloyd Loar, and had f-holes but an oval or A-style body. Gibson didn't make A-5's for more than 30 years subsequently, and then started building them again, I think in the 1950's. First they made a two-point, oval-hole instrument, with a cherry sunburst finish and a scrolled F-style headstock, and called it the A-5. In the 1970's, they made a sort of F-style, but with a simpler "lump scroll" and an oval hole, and called that the A-5. Now they make an oval-bodied instrument resembling Loar's 1920's version, with a "snakehead" headstock and a good deal of inlay, and call that their A-5. So you have the same designation for four disparate Gibson models.

Jamie's typology is probably the most useful: A-2 (or A-3, A-4, whatever) for an oval-hole A-style, A-5 for an f-hole A-style. But honestly, Gibson's been all over the lot with their model designations, and sometimes the more I research, the more confused I get.

[Jim Garber]

The higher the number, the more ornamented and expensive the instrument. ...
But honestly, Gibson's been all over the lot with their model designations, and sometimes the more I research, the more confused I get.

To make it even more complicated, when you go higher than 5 those models are actually less ornate/expensive: like F-7, F-10 and F-12 in the 1930s (and similarly numbered guitars) and even in more modern times like the F-9. Confusing enough?

[allenhopkins]

You're right, Jim. You may notice I said "Gibson's first system" was the increasing-number-equals-higher-range-model numbering. Gibson came out with such oddities as the A-0, the A-2Z, the A-00, the A-Jr., etc. They made F-7's, F-10's and F-12's that were lower models than the F-5. Their banjo model numbering was all over the map, with numbered models, named models -- hard to keep 'em straight.

It has often interested me to contrast the chaotic Gibson system with Martin's easy and orderly typology. But of course in recent years Martin's had a proliferation of models and model designations. Nothing's simple any more, but in terms of vintage instruments, it's so much easier to keep track of Martins.

[barney 59]

It is probably a designation particular to this maker. Usually the higher the number the more ornate or better appointed the instrument. Givens ,for example, produced an A-6 which meant that it was more ornate and used more figured wood than "his" A-5. This doesn't necessarily have anything what so ever to do with how Gibson designates instruments now or in the past--or it could depending on the builder.