Life expectancy of modern vs. vintage mandolins

[JonDoug]

It’s amazing to me that American-style mandolins (Gibson and its competitors) hold up as well as they do with high-tension steel strings, but when I read about vintage instruments 80-100 years old, many (with plenty of exceptions) have suffered structural maladies, whether repaired or not: sunken tops, soundboard cracks, seam separation, bowed necks, and neck joint failure seem most common.

When modern mandolins reach a similar age, will they be equally impacted by the passage of time? Or have construction techniques, materials, and wood drying procedures advanced to make modern instruments more stable? Or will they be less stable? To make my curiosity concrete: what’s the likelihood that my 10 year old Collings MT will be playable without structural repairs 80 years from now? I want to leave out the effects of finish, fret, tuner, nut, and bridge wear, or accidents, or angry ex-lovers armed with fire pokers. Feel free to guess—I won’t be checking answers!

[108 Mile]

wood is still wood, glue is glue, humidity is still.......ok you get my point!

[MikeZito]

To keep it as short and simple as possible . . . . my guess is that the high quality modern mandolins will hold up better than the high quality vintage, simply because with each passing generation comes improvement in construction, based on the successes and failures of the previous generation.

[pops1]

Also today the environment most are kept in is completely different. Air, dehumidifier, humidifier. I think modern instruments are able to get better care. Of course so will the vintage ones now too. My 22 has no top sinking, no cracks, some wear, but not much for nearly 100 years old.

[Jim Parriott]

But a question for you luthiers out there: Are tops being carved thinner today to get that big, woody, woofy sound right out of the box? Will they hold up as well?

[Mark Christensen]

I spoke to a prominent Luthier recently about this subject, he's convinced that a majority of tops are being carved too thin and will have issues. It's a fine line.

[fscotte]

On the average, I think Loars were carved a tad thick, top and back, there are exceptions of course. Now that's fine and dandy because 100 years later they are holding up and they are sounding great, with exceptions, some of which were regraduated to make them less stiff.

I'm a believer that mandos succomb to wood fatigue just like the rafters on an old barn or house. If that's true, then mandos under 80-100 years of string pressure will succomb a bit as well. And if carved thick, perhaps they'll start to sound a tad better after the first 20 years.

There are those who will argue that carving to Loar specs today, yield mandos that sound just like a 100 year old Loar. I'll argue that the luthier who did that, did more than just carve to spec. He listened, took a little off here, listened, took a little off there. Eventually, his mando is no longer carved just like an assembly line Loar.

[Timbofood]

Let’s face it, only time will tell! The rest is an exercise in conjecture.
That said, those who are buying well made instruments today will understand the maintenance needed and have all the above resources to equalize humidity, thermal shock as best possible. Most of that technology was beyond the average instrument buyers means 95 years ago.
Redcaps at the train depot were much more conscious of value than the average airplane suitcase jockey of today. Time has shown that the valued instruments of the past have survived despite weather and world. There is no reason to NOT expect modern instruments to hold up every bit as well as the well built pieces of 100 years ago.

[Mark Christensen]

I agree with you Tim but if some modern tops are being carved too thin the time might be sooner than later. The Luthier I'm referring to who I don't want to name without his knowledge has a real concern about this, I think it's a subject to be discussed and it'd be nice to hear some Luthier's opinions.

[dang]

...
There are those who will argue that carving to Loar specs today, yield mandos that sound just like a 100 year old Loar. I'll argue that the luthier who did that, did more than just carve to spec. He listened, took a little off here, listened, took a little off there. Eventually, his mando is no longer carved just like an assembly line Loar.

This sounds kinds wrong to me, it reads like you think all loars had the exact same graduations?
Assembly line Loar? In reference to Gibsons from ~‘22-‘24?

[allenhopkins]

...what’s the likelihood that my 10 year old Collings MT will be playable without structural repairs 80 years from now?...

Let's stick around and find out!

[Ivan Kelsall]

The bottom line seems to be that 'if' some mandolin tops are being carved ''too thin'',then in the coming years,they 'might' be subject to structural faults. We can't predict their future,any more than we can predict the future of any other mandolins. Any mandolin not treated / stored correctly, ''might'' be subject to structural changes of some sort in the future.

The very best that we can do is to use our common sense,don't neglect them,store them sensibly,keep them from temp. / humidity extremes & hope that they survive,
Ivan

[HoGo]

From the graduation maps of Loars and vintage Gibsons I see hey were mostly graduated quite thin sometimes scarry thin. Most better modern makers don't go any thinner than typical Loar though I've seen some that were thinner than I would be comfortable with, but if maker used some reliable method to make sure the top is strong enough (deflection testing etc) they can hold up well. Most modern factory instruments I've seen are carved quite thick (including Gibsons) except some high end models.
Old instruments had often rough life in cases that are nowhere near current best cases and often were stored or used in less guarded conditions than we have today. And also the factories of old didn't have the humidity control like modern makers to start with. I heard that old Martin stored tops and backs in heated room (means lower humidity) for few days before bracing was glued to dry them out and prevent later cracks, this led to the arch of top after the top stabilised again after gluing the bracing but otherwise they had no means of controlling RH.
Also modern makers use modern glues that may or may not hold well after 100 years or so, we don't know. HHG has good track record, but old makers often worked in colder environment and HHG joint sometimes were not as strong when it got cooler in the winter ... In this case modern makers using HHG have advantage of temperature control and proven track record of HHG.

[fscotte]

This sounds kinds wrong to me, it reads like you think all loars had the exact same graduations?
Assembly line Loar? In reference to Gibsons from ~‘22-‘24?

Their target was about .154" center to .110" recurve area, for the old growth red spruce. Theres obvious variations to that, but these were factory made instruments. Some were thicker, some thinner.

My modern gibson a5 from '99 is .145 center with sitka spruce. I see other prominent builders going .180 center for engelmann. There is also one very well known luthier who builds down to .145" center for red spruce.

Keep in mind that the red spruce used on Loars were old growth and likely much stiffer than much of the spruce used today.

[William Smith]

Its like anything, you take care of it, it will last. Also one has to think a good bit of "old" teens-40's mandolins well most instruments had a hard life, people mostly bought them to play I doubt there were a bunch of collectors back then, the good ones were expensive and people played them. Sure some sat in the cases and hardly got played, the cases weren't the best, for sure those shaped cases. Even the ones that sat untouched need work today be it neck sets, loose bracing, "Gibsonitis- shrinkage of the wood, cracking of wood etc...People didn't worry about humidification like they do today. Some seem to be just fine like time capsules that have been found sitting in closets etc...Wood is a funny unpredictable thing and look at all the survivor instruments today from the so called golden age they're still going strong 100+years later, they will go on and on I believe just like todays instruments will go on and on people have the knowledge today about taking care of a prized instrument just don't clean it with gasoline like a book from the 20's says!

[David Lewis]

Another great discussion!

[Jim Garber]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned up till now the longevity of old violins many of which have lasted over 300 years—much longer than than our beloved carved top mandolins.

Any case, I believe that many of the quality instruments made today will last into the next century but will probably need as many adjustments and repairs as the old instruments of today. All things eventually fall apart: mandolins, violins, guitars, houses, cars, etc.

And the ultimate answer to the OP‘s general question is that it is truly unanswerable.

what’s the likelihood that my 10 year old Collings MT will be playable without structural repairs 80 years from now?

As for the question above: I would think an 80 year old anything would need to have some sort of structural repairs at some time in its life.

[Tom Haywood]

Of course, we'll have to wait and see. But I build from the perspective that the old mandolins and violins give an accurate example about how long these things will last if constructed with care. Repairing the old mandolins, especially the bowl backs and flat tops, I have thought that they were not designed to last all that long. - maybe 30 years maximum before they caved in. Yet, after a hundred years or more, a large number of them are still perfectly playable without repair, and many more are easily repairable. The arch top design seems to be much sturdier and longer lasting in general. A lot depends on the individual pieces of wood, the glue, the graduations, the general care and upkeep, etc, for a particular mandolin, but I see no reason that a good sounding and playing mandolin built today, as well as many vintage mandolins, can't last at least 200 years.

[Bob A]

I have a very lightly built Salsedo bowlback dated 1895 that is just fine. It appears to have been played a reasonable amount, has no issues.
F4 from 1921 has been in regular use for much of its existence; back shrunk and had to be repaired a few decades ago.
A2Z from 1923 is like new.
1920s Martin 018K is fine; 1930 Gibson Trujo, incredibly lightly built, no problems.

I see little evidence of issues with well-cared-for instruments that were properly constructed in the first place. The more innately valuable, the better care they'll get, of course, unless they're in the hands of an ignoramus.

[allenhopkins]

I have a fair number of mid-to-late 19th-century instruments: a c. 1860 "no-name" guitar, several 1885-1900 Autoharps, 1880's-90's Wheatstone concertinas, a "mystery maker" gut strung banjo that's probably 1870's, an 1890's Washburn bowl-back mandola. Plus B&J Victoria, Merrill and Waldo mandolin-family instruments from the 1900's, Gibson 3-point F-2 from around 1910, and so forth.

None of these instruments appear significantly "sturdier" than their modern relatives. They've just been lucky in terms of ownership and care; some have significant repair work, others just show the wear associated with more than a century of use. All are playable, and get played as I need them.

It will be interesting, I guess, to see how some of the more modern finishes age over many decades of playing. That is one area where manufacturing techniques have evolved more significantly, with makers who don't use the varnishes and lacquers that once were standard.

[Tavy]

It will be interesting, I guess, to see how some of the more modern finishes age over many decades of playing. That is one area where manufacturing techniques have evolved more significantly, with makers who don't use the varnishes and lacquers that once were standard.

Indeed: some of the the old German Waldzithers were finished with an early synthetic finish that was simultaneously hard as hell (as in a nightmare to remove) and at the same time gradually fell off in big lumps over the years. I'm sure it seemed like a great idea at the time.

Other than that, manufacturing techniques and indeed glues used haven't actually changed all that much over the years. Some will get lucky and be looked after and last. Others will be dumped in barns, lofts and cellars and end up cracked and falling apart. Generally speaking, I work on the assumption that both the instruments I build and those I restore will be in rather better condition than me 80 years from now

[LostVenture]

The only way that this is going to be settled is when we all meet back here in, oh, 60 years should do it.
So, June 13, 2078 around 4:00 pm lets see what, and who is in the best shape.
Catch you then.
Don

[JonDoug]

Thanks for all the responses! When I posted, I think that I was hoping for a consensus that modern instruments have better builds/technology, therefore likely better long-term outcomes, much as Mike Zito suggested off the cuff. I now understand that the wood in past, present, and future string instruments (along with her sidekick, truss rod) are in a never-ending battle with string tension and the results can be unpredictable, especially if the wood is stressed environmentally. I agree with those suggesting that there are too many factors at play to make a clear call.

So, I'll play on, keep my case humidifier filled and the instrument in a temperature-controlled environment, and expect that likely I will have no major problems with my Collings in my lifetime! And, as Jim Garber notes, structural repairs to keep an instrument working over multiple generations is hardly earth-shattering.

[Timbofood]

I agree that there are “any number” of carved top instruments which may be thinner thanmay be structurally wise but, by and large I am fairly certain that with PROPER maintenance, even they should be good health in seventy some years. I am equally certain that many of them will be piles of splinters.
And Dang, Loars were assembly line instruments, with the associated variables which come from a set of plans, the individuals working knew the craft and the desired end product which accounts for some differences in graduations. But, that’s a different thread.

[August Watters]

Thanks for all the responses! When I posted, I think that I was hoping for a consensus that modern instruments have better builds/technology, therefore likely better long-term outcomes, much as Mike Zito suggested off the cuff. . . .I agree with those suggesting that there are too many factors at play to make a clear call.

Another factor not mentioned yet is the poor quality of materials, design and build of many of those instruments, 100 years back, most of which never lived long enough to become "vintage" -- because of the great wave of popularity. Mandolins were sold by the boatload, by catalogues and department stores -- at very low prices. And no one had yet figured out how to mass-produce instruments cheaply with plywood, which compounded the problem. I'm guessing today's cheap instruments will hold up a lot better.

As to carving tops thin -- I spoke to a builder a few days ago, Lorenzo Lippi, who explained that carving too thin is problematic -- not just because of potential structural issues, but also because of tonal issues -- losing high end response over time, and limiting the instrument's presence (making it harder to hear from a distance). As someone said earlier in this thread, it's a fine line between one and the other.