Loar Era Oval Soundhole Gibsons - Same Sound as Teens?

[Doug Freeman]

Lately I've become enchanted with the round, enveloping sound of the Gibson oval soundhole mandolins from the teens. I'm talking A-style here, btw. Wondering whether those instruments beginning in the Loar era retained those qualities or tended to take on more of the characteristics associated with the Loar f-hole mandos. Seems like a '23-24 snakehead A is pretty much the same instrument as a 1918 A, for example, but I don't know. The desirability of snakehead A's makes me wonder whether they started sounding more modern. Can anyone say from experience? Thanks.

[fatt-dad]

the neck got skinner when the truss rod was added. The "Loar" era snakeheads seem to have a lot of similar tonal characteristics though. I mean they are all carved top oval hole mandolins. Hey, I'm no expert, but my A2Z sounded more like my A3 than any f-hole mandolin I've played.

f-d

p.s., welcome to the cafe.

[usqebach]

OK, I'll chime in on this one.

I do have both a '17 A model and a '23 Snakehead. First, I would say that the different shape of the neck in the hand will have a much greater impact on your playing experience than the difference in sound. I find that the "sharper" nature of that splayed-v neck produces some significant pain when chording for more than just a few minutes. So in that regard, I much prefer the more rounded neck of the trussrod snakehead.

But when it comes to tonal characteristics, I do think that the old paddlehead has a fuller and richer sound than the snakehead. Words fail, but a good example might be the difference between a single-malt and a blend. But the blend has a stronger kick!

Also keep in mind that the sound of any of these old A models varies greatly between instruments, even identical models. In addition to my own two that I have played fairly extensively, I had a chance to visit Gruhn's in Nashville and play an entire row of vintage oval A's and F's. Sound differential could not have been more obvious, but also random. So if you are a "sound hound," make sure you play before you buy, or at least buy with a free look period.

[Doug Freeman]

Thanks for the input, fellas. Any more insights, keep 'em comin'.

[stevem]

Sound clips I made:

1922 F4 truss rod, adjustable bridge: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SIaIBELmRlc

1914 F2: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnRNYiCwPbw

[JeffD]

I haven't done a lot of comaprisons of vintage Gibsons. As shown in the avatar, I play a 1923 A2 snakehead. It does not have the focused projection of the modern F hole bluegrassers I have played. That is something I like about it, as I am primarily not a bluegrasser. I like the warmer, less percussive, rounded legato sound it has. It does have a loud creamy Gibson tone. As confirmed by some comparisons with some recent Gibsons, F holes and ovals, its in the family.

[trevor]

As previously mentioned with so many around there is great variation between individual instruments but to generalise the snakeheads have a punchier sound with more clarity and projection.

[danb]

You can generalize a bit, though it's pretty rare to have enough choices in one room really see the trends!

All my own opinoins & your mileage will vary.. but here are a couple thoughts on the ones I've experienced.. and also please be forgiving on my rough date ranges!


pre 1902
- Orville Gibson hand-made pieces
- Beautiful, ground-breaking, very hard to find in playing condition
- super-thick pieces of dark brown stained woods. Sides are carved rather than bent.
- Details and inlay on even the simplest A models.. butterfly motifs

1902-1904
- Treble-emphasis. inlaid pickguards, still thick top plates. Somewhat cruder work on scrolls etc than later efforts
- Neck set leans forward on the earliest ones, very low bridges in nearly the old bowlback style
- the very first ones, serials 2500-3500.. you can see almost each separate instrument improving on the previous one.
- completely fascinating period, so much tried & changing. The ones from 2500-2800 especially are unique per piece
- Bridges often have scrolls on them, Orville style. Sometimes a scroll on the fingerboard extension of the F4s.
- Very thick frying-pan like backs, mahogany and other "strange" wood choices to a modern eye.
- Hollow necks- the neck heel interior is hollow, which even extends a bit up the fingerboard.
- the first ones can feel "Fragile", the neck join and string tension combined with eggshell-like top & back plates

1904-1908
- pieces of wood used for tops/backs are thinner, sound improves, some real gorgeous ones/tree of life inlay etc
- Dawg's tree-of-life F4 3pt, a particularly nice example
- Orange, black, and tan finish colors
- neck angle no longer tilts forward, blocks used with dovetail for neck joint and no longer hollow.
- these feel "Sturdier" and much less worrying to string up to tension

1908-1911
- improved bass, but not as boomy. Some very nice 3pt f4s tonally
- another of the mini-innovation bubbles.. taller single-piece bridges
- Raised pickguards appear originally with violin chin-rest hardware, then the "pat applied for" clamps. 2 pins in neck, none in bridge
- Last 3-pointers have double flowerpot inlay, and 2 1911 patent clamps (one at cutaway) to hold guard in place
- pickguard shape is "f-style" or "a-style" (following the point). Some are slimmer, some go right to the edge/binding.
- some early sunburst finishes appear, mostly they are even tint violin-style
- 1907-1909 are my personal favorite 3-pt F2 & F4s, All of them of this age I have tried sound great.

1912-1915
- the first 2-pt instruments. Incredible woods on backs, black or orange tops, some amazing finish & tone
- Violin-style brown finishes appear on a few examples. Some very nice custom pieces made for famous players.
- Lower output, but seems Gibson was the boutique choice for top players.
- F4s especially nice & sought after from this time period
- bridges have a slotted top with little inserts for the string compensations.
- Pickguard has a little curl at the bottom, and a pin into the bridge. 2 pins (nails) into the fingerboard near the 12th fret.
- single patent cam clamp & plastic arm
- some of the first red finishes show up
- My personal favorite 2-pt F4s

1916-1920
- The real boom-period at gibson, much production. Red finishes dominate.
- The most commonly seen examples by sheer volume
- Slight tendency vs other years to sound "tubby" or a little overly bassy in the F2/F4 models
- Slight tendency vs other years to have top sinkage
Raised pickguards appear.
- bridge pin from pickguard disappears somewhere in this range, but still plastic arms & 2 pins (nails)
- I've played some fantastic H4s from this period, even if they did have a bit of top sink

1920-1924
- Truss rods, slimmer necks, adjustable bridges, snakeheads, loars, virzis. A lot going on that changes sound
- The really good snakeheads sound like the F5s on the top 3 courses, but can't quite compete with a Loar G-string.
- All the refinements together really sound nice, you get a lot of the punch & bass and midrange clarity people love in these
- Still some instruments from this range are complete duds!
- tendency towards mis-fretted fingerboards on various models, where intonation is completely wrong
- A2z model seems to have a higher-than-average chance of sounding fantastic. Early brown snakeheads too.
- Under-rated and great F2s abound- somehow the ones I've experienced seem to have a better chance of sounding great than F4s
- Virzi'd oval-hole instruments are very interesting, completely unlike anything else tonally
- Loar-signed F5s flop completely on release, but go on to be the benchmark years later
- pickguard shape changes slightly, thickens a bit, goes down to a single pin, and has a metal post/arm that goes to the clamp
- Truss rod F4s with nice maple backs are a favorite with collectors
- early serials (71xxx-73xxx) in the A-models always get my attention.. the first brown snakeheads tend to sound very nice

1925-1930
- Lacquer finishes appear. Snakeheads go away & paddle-heads come back.
- Very punchy tone, lots of real bargains to be had in black top truss rod A models.
- These often wow players at first though the loar period ones have more staying power or long-term enchantment?


I tend to focus my own attention on these models for my favorite tone:

1907-1909 3pt f2/f4
1911-1913 F4
1922 Brown snakeheads
1923-1924 a2z

and of course, Loar F5s which are a whole other kettle of fish!

[Goodin]

Awesome post Dan!

I have owned and/or played countless examples of oval A's from the teens and Loar period and I agree with what others have previously stated. Of course, each instrument will sound different depending on numerous factors (setup, fret condition, string gauges, etc.) but in general, in my experience, the snakeheads have more brash punchiness than the paddle heads. I find the snakeheads are more difficult to play; you have to press down a little harder on the frets. I think this is due to the closer position of the tuners, but that's just my speculation. Also you can really dig in with a snakehead and get a lot of volume out of it, whereas the same amount of right hand force would cause a paddle head to peak out.

I prefer the tone of a paddle head for it's warmth and sweetness, but for a loud raunchy jam session a snakehead has it's merits. The best sounding oval I have ever played was a mint 1922 A-4 truss rod paddle head at Gruhn's about a year ago. I still wish I would have laid out the plastic to get that one.

Dan's comments about fret mis-placement in Loar period instruments is true in my experience. I have owned two oval A's from 1925 with frets waaaayy off. Always check intonation on mandolins from this era before making a purchase.

Edit: Oops, for some reason I thought this was another paddlehead vs. snakehead thread, until I read the thread title!

There are great examples and duds from the teens and Loar period. In general I don't think there is much difference in tone. If anything, perhaps the Loar period ovals sound more...mature, but my thoughts are probably influenced by the "Loar lore".

[Doug Freeman]

Wow guys, a bounty of information. Many thanks.

[Doug Freeman]

Here's a follow up question: Did the snakehead era A Jr. have a non-adjustable truss rod? If it had no truss rod, did it continue to have the larger, non-truss rod neck profile?

[danb]

Here's a follow up question: Did the snakehead era A Jr. have a non-adjustable truss rod? If it had no truss rod, did it continue to have the larger, non-truss rod neck profile?

The neck is slimmer. I'm not sure what's inside.. does anyone have an xray or maybe replaced a fingerboard on one to see the difference?

I've heard descriptions saying the truss rod is there but not adjustable, I'm not sure what that means actually. .some reinforcement or metal detected? Obviously there is no truss rod cover on an Ajr snakehead, so no bolt to tighten or loosen

[danb]

Here's a follow up question: Did the snakehead era A Jr. have a non-adjustable truss rod? If it had no truss rod, did it continue to have the larger, non-truss rod neck profile?

The neck is slimmer. I'm not sure what's inside.. does anyone have an xray or maybe replaced a fingerboard on one to see the difference?

I've heard descriptions saying the truss rod is there but not adjustable, I'm not sure what that means actually. .some reinforcement or metal detected? Obviously there is no truss rod cover on an Ajr snakehead, so no bolt to tighten or loosen

[Doug Freeman]

Yes, in reading up on it I can see there is some uncertainty over the question. I will say this: if I get one I'll take it to my dentist and X-ray it to solve the mystery. I did that years ago with a minty '44 scalloped brace Martin D-18. The X-ray revealed a slightly darker stripe of black down the center of the neck, indicating not steel—which would have shown bright white—but ebony, which they used in place of steel as part of the war effort. My suspicion is that the snakehead A Jrs have a permanent non-adjustable steel truss rod. That's how Stan Jay characterizes them.

[LexLuthier]

A ukulele playing friend (a whole other religion!) just directed me to this thread. Thanks to Dan, who can always be counted on for a well-researched good pile of data.

I have owned and played old oval hole Gibsons for nearly half a century now, having restored many and played a lot of "catch and release" over the years. Especially in the past decade and a half I have bought and sold many of them, always looking for the best one yet. This gets extremely personal as we all know, but here I go. So far my fave is a black very basic 1928 A model, with paddle head, fat neck, truss rod, beautiful glossy finish and a very pronounced deep, dark "pop" to the way the notes come out. That pronounced pop is what I love about it, and seems to appear in one mando out of literally dozens played, maybe one in fifty. "Blacky" hasn't lost that aforementioned WOW! factor for me.

Dan referenced fret and intonation problems, and this '28 A had that issue. I have now fixed this in several instruments, all great sounding mandolins from the later twenties. The issue appears consistent, though my experience is somewhat limited; the distance from the nut to the first fret is just a little too short, and it takes very little to drive you completely nuts trying to set the intonation. I suddenly just caught it visually one day, then measured to find the space from nut to first fret a little shorter than the distance between the first and second frets. It must have been some kind of jig in the factory with a little gang saw cutting the fret slots that got misaligned and went unnoticed for a few years...oops! There is room to preserve the integrity of the original nut's position by making the nut a little thinner (roughly about 1mm) and adding a little slice of end-grain ebony to lengthen the fingerboard by the same appropriate amount. Properly done, the fix is indetectable, and this alone will get the instrument in tune, so don't despair if you get one of these. I won't attempt precision here, just letting you know this is a common flaw and well worth addressing. If you're having intonation problems with an old Gibson and you know how to put the bridge in the right place, take a good look at those top two distances (nut to fret 1, fret 1 to fret 2), and if the first distance is the same or less than the second, there's your problem. Hope this helps some people.

I have an otherwise identical snakehead that sounds entirely different. It is more balanced and better for certain kinds of music, but I still prefer the big fat sound of the '28 over it. Before the internet, I theorized that if Loar was tinkering around with the setup of the machinery in an attempt to make changes to the sound of the oval hole instruments (which I believe he did, but who really knows?), they probably continued cranking out mandos with the same shop setup after he left, and that the post-snakehead mandolins would have the tone people look for in snakeheads at half to two-thirds the price. With this in mind, when the internet (namely ebay) came along, I began to test the idea by buying, trading and selling A models. I haven't bought hundreds, but I have bought dozens and played hundreds, and my personal opinion is that I have proven to myself I was right. I continue to recommend post-Loar Gibsons as a wonderful affordable alternative to anyone not addicted to that more slender snakehead neck.

Being that wooden sound boxes are fashioned from an organic material, nothing can be etched in stone about how good or bad a Gibson mandolin is going to sound from any era. The general consensus amongst snakehead lovers is that Loar-era mandolins have a significantly greater production percentage of exceptional instruments. That said, there are also a good many from the WW1 era with big round sound to die for.

On that note, I suppose the moral of this story is "Try before you buy" ...and above all, keep enjoying the pickin' and learnin' experience!

[Doug Freeman]

Great post, Lex, thanks for the info. If that pop on your '28 A is as rare as one in 50 you'd almost think it must be an aberration, something out of spec in production. And good to know about the source of the intonation issue. Hope I can avoid it.

[Doug Freeman]

The neck is slimmer. I'm not sure what's inside.. does anyone have an xray or maybe replaced a fingerboard on one to see the difference?

I've heard descriptions saying the truss rod is there but not adjustable, I'm not sure what that means actually. .some reinforcement or metal detected? Obviously there is no truss rod cover on an Ajr snakehead, so no bolt to tighten or loosen

Happy to report a definitive answer to this question, courtesy of my dentist, who was kind enough the other day to take an x-ray of the neck on my '24 A Jr. This was shot at the 2nd or 3rd fret. If there were a truss rod inside it would show a wide, horizontal white line in the vicinity of the A and D strings, which it doesn't. So the answer is, Loar era A Jrs. DO NOT have truss rods. At lease this one doesn't. Luckily this neck is straighter than most WITH truss rods!

[fatt-dad]

last night I strung up my new '25 snakehead A with Thomastik Starks, the same strings as on my 1920 A3 (paddlehead). Same pick, same strings, same tunes. Quite interesting. Yes there is a difference in sound. It's not quite volume as my A3 has plenty of horsepower. No it's more sustain on the A3 and more focus on the A. There seems to be a percussive difference, for whatever that means.

f-d

[Doug Freeman]

I wonder if truss rods can have the effect of adding "focus"?

One thing I neglected to point out above is that the x-rayed '24 A Jr. is a snakehead. Just wanted to be clear about that.

In having played numerous teens and '20s ovals over recent months I will say--corroborating LexLuthier's post--the one that stands out most is a '28 blacktop A. No intonation issues, HUGE sound, well balanced, strong and clear top end, deep but not too tubby at the other end. And it's got the pop.

[Jim Garber]

last night I strung up my new '25 snakehead A with Thomastik Starks, the same strings as on my 1920 A3 (paddlehead). Same pick, same strings, same tunes. Quite interesting. Yes there is a difference in sound. It's not quite volume as my A3 has plenty of horsepower. No it's more sustain on the A3 and more focus on the A. There seems to be a percussive difference, for whatever that means.

I had a 1919 white-faced A3 which I traded for my 23 black A2. I am not a big fan of TI strings except on my Lyon & Healy mandolin. I wish i still had my A3 -- it was a good one and I liked it in spite of its look.

[pheffernan]

I wonder if truss rods can have the effect of adding "focus"?

I don't think anyone is suggesting causation with the snakeheads or truss rods, only correlation. Some have speculated that the ovals were voiced differently during that period.

[Capt. E]

Great thread. Very interesting comments, Lex. The post Loar era A's were produced in rather smaller numbers due to the popularity fall off for mandolins in general, but does not mean the quality fell off as well. My favorite Gibson I have owned was a 1935 A-00. The pre-war A-00 and A-50 with ff holes are another bargin in my opinion. I think people are discovering them as the prices have been going up lately, though still relatively low. WWII era instruments are something else entirely as the men in the factory went to war and many of the builders were less experienced women, though I'll have to say "good work gals".
I have briefly experienced only one loar era snakehead A, it was quite a good player, loud and resonate.