I think this Madeline was made for Bill Monroe because in case it came out of had his band's name on it
Printable View
I think this Madeline was made for Bill Monroe because in case it came out of had his band's name on it
how about a picture of the case?
Oh, I dunno, I can go to a bluegrass festival and get half a dozen band stickers and put them on my mandolin case. It wouldn't mean anything.
It's an unusual mandolin in some respects ... I like the bird's head detail on the scroll, very creative — and it goes with the birdseye maple, nyuk nyuk. Is there a builder's name or label anywhere?
It will be interesting to see if anyone knows anything about this unique instrument...
I venture to suggest though, that even if it was made for Bill Monroe, he may never have even seen it... Making something is one thing. Getting it to someone is another. And while Monroe seemed to own quite a few mandos, they haven't seem to have been that well documented, outside the Loar, and a couple of Japanese ones, and the one that was destroyed with the Loar, and maybe one or two others (didn't some go missing after he died?). I hope the story of this one comes out...
Value? Probably not much with an unglued neck joint, unknown maker. Do the cigarette butts come with it? :) whoever owned it probably was a bluegrass fan. Does the fretboard have any wear on it? Could be an indication that it was played and playable at one time.
Yeah, I'm guessing that the only thing this shares with Bill Monroe is his name on the case sticker. Even if this were presented to him, I doubt he'd have had any interest in it. I also doubt it was "made for him," at least not in the sense that it was commissioned by him. This belongs on the Worst Scroll thread - even though I do get a kick out of that bird's head detail. :grin: Sorry, but it just ain't no part of nothing. :whistling:
You could open a beer can with that scroll.
It is a gibson and it does have the person's name that made it inside but I won't be able to get back to it for a few days to get it
It is a gidson and I will get you the name inside the mandolin of who made it
I don't mean to give you a hard time. But it seems like somebody told you a whopper, and we're trying to straighten out the story.
1) It's not a Gibson. All Gibsons other than Gibson A models (with no numerical suffix) have a logo on the headstock. As far as I know, every F-style Gibson mandolin has a logo.
2) That scroll's shape is just not correct for Gibson models.
3) I have never heard of a builder's name being written on the label inside a Gibson. The only exception would be Lloyd Loar - acoustician, not builder - as far as I know. Someone may correct me on this, but I did say "I have never heard of ..." etc.
4) That neck block issue is a serious problem that needs repair, and diminishes its value considerably.
5) in the interest of dispelling confusion:
___ a) This is a madeleine:
Attachment 202235
___ b) This is my Madeleine:
Attachment 202236
___ c) This is a mandolin (or mandoline):
Attachment 202237
Spelling matters.
OK, kidding aside, welcome to the Café! Have some fun with us. We're generally harmless.
I like the scroll. I wonder if maybe it started life as a lump scroll that someone pulled the neck off of and recarved. I know it has a Gibson tailpiece cover, but that doesn't mean it's a Gibson.The work on the scroll seems a lot better than the inlay work on the headstock.The birdseye maple on the back is nice if it's solid.I don't think it has much value as an instrument, but I like the body. I think I'd trash the neck. Please post more pictures when you get the chance.
I think you meant Gibson and that mandolin never came out of a Gibson factory. To the untrained eye it might look like a Gibson mandolin but it's not.
The inlay I saw it on another gibson maybe it is the signature of the artisan that made it I wish I could remember the name on the inside of the mandolin I'll have to wait till I get back to it to get it but the minimum was made in 1960 something
As much as you want to believe this mandolin was made by Gibson it was not. We get people here all the time looking to identify old mandolins. Generally the first thing we do is rule out what it isn't. It is my hope you didn't pay a lot of money for this instrument as it isn't very valuable.
In too deep for you to be . Just joking
Quite the username there.
Wait, we’ll see Gibson lawyers
claim design ownership on that bird’s head….
<Not appropriate for this forum.>
That is the Funky Chicken model. Big Mon played it everytime they did a Czech or German venue in Texas and he needed to break out with the Funky Chicken at a wedding.
He put chicken feed inside of the mando instead of a rattlesnake tail to keep the humidity / dryness ratio constant for that model.
Constant vibrations from tubas and accordians are, according to rumor and legend, part of the reason for the mysterious split string tone that came out, in addition to the fact that one of the E strings had a slightly dislodged fret.
As stated before, it is NOT a Gibson mandolin. It doesn’t even look like one in any way at all. The neck and headstock is not Gibson, a nd the body and scroll have no resemblance to any product made by Gibson.
We have a tendency to get a bit facetious in responding to what I'm sure is a serious inquiry from someone who doesn't know a lot about mandolins, but has heard of Bill Monroe and Gibson and thinks this non-Gibson might have some relation to Monroe.
We all know it's not a Gibson, and probably Monroe never saw it; looks like it was made by an amateur luthier, who added some quirky and amusing features, such as the bird's beak, to it. However, I'd like to hope we'd do our best not to make fun of either the instrument, or the Cafe member asking about it.
People who aren't familiar with mandolins -- 99.9% of the population, I'd guess -- go by what they see: the label on the case, the general appearance, what someone may tell them, etc. The real shame is when they get fooled, and invest money in an over-priced rough copy of the instrument they think they're buying.
I don't watch Pawn Stars any more, but vividly remember the episode when "Chumley" -- an experienced employee, though not the sharpest knife in the drawer -- got fooled by a stick-on headstock label, into over-paying for a cheapo import mandolin that he thought was a "Gibson." Got a laugh out of it, sorta, but there's a lot of misinformation out there. Some of it is malicious, some just due to ignorance, but we're the guys to set people straight, right?
Hope we can also let 'em down easy...
Actually IMHO I thought almost all of the comments were direct and to the point and not belittling the OP. It is our responsibility to set people straight. The humor was directed at the obviously humorous bird motif of this mandolin.
While I agree that is a good approach, I disagree with the assertion that we've been inordinately demeaning in our assessments. I think we have concentrated on the instrument in our fun-making and not the member. The former deserves a fair amount of tweaking; the latter, right, not so much. I'll admit to chiding him gently concerning his misspelling of the instrument - I've been avoiding commenting on misspelling in this age of people phone texting and not checking spelling and spell-checking - but made an exception in this case because of this particular word, with its inherent importance in our microverse. I took care to couch my quippage in clearly humorous fashion, and even took pains to welcome the new guy. I feel alright about how I went about this.
What is more egregious in this brouhaha is that the member has committed a cardinal sin of thread etiquette - don't start a thread and then check out. At some point an OP has to ring in to direct the proceedings, or else things could go awry. At least say something like "Thanks, guys, I got it." Something so contributors can know they've done their job. Someone asks for help, we're happy to help, but we need to know our efforts have helped. I'm sorry, but we haven't heard from him in ten days. He said he was going to look at the inside of the mandolin but he hasn't followed through. We've asked for pictures of the case. None yet. All we've gotten is some pushback on our observations. This doesn't help with the search for the truth about this instrument. Sorry, but I find this puzzling. Especially so since it seems clear he joined up specifically to find information about it. :confused:
Oh well!