Kentucky 272 vs Loar 310

[Phaedrus157]

Thought I would post this in case other beginner players are wondering since you won't find this direct comparison out there, at least I did not. I'm comparing apples and oranges since these are not really similar and that is likely the reason there are not direct comparisons. The Kentucky was $600 (with nice case) and the Loar was $400 w/o case.

How I came to purchase the Loar is already on another thread.

I purchased the Loar initially since it was locally available, it sounded good, and seemed fine for a beginner mandolin. Plenty of good reviews out there and several will say it is the best of its price point. I have no complaints about the instrument and the reason I switched was simply due to my preference for tone.

I received the Kentucky 272 so was able to sit down and play them side by side, the Loar was traded in. By this time I was able to play some chords and basic bluegrass melodies from the courses I'm taking.

The first really noticeable thing is that the Kentucky is simply beautiful (I got the transparent Amber), the binding, grain, and inlays are well done and look perfect. The fretboard is with radius and lovely binding. It came with a pickguard. I don't know what tuners are on it or what strings came with it but sent an email to the company. It looks like what one would expect from a well made professional instrument. The strings look shiny new. I've only just gotten it but my impression is that right out of the box, no set up was required, the bridge looks solidly placed, action is good, intonation is darn near spot on.

Shockingly, it arrived with a beautiful faux light leather case which is substantial. Perhaps I missed it but was under the impression it did not come with a case but it is a really nice one. I'm still buying a hardshell due to our travel but this is great for now.

The Loar 310 looks very basic and even rough in some places like under the raised fretboard. There really isn't much in the way of appointments and the fretboard is flat and plain looking. The strings looked old with minor corrosion when I received it but it had been on the wall already and who knows how long. The intonation was poor when I received it and had to be set up, bridge height adjusted, and bridge position adjusted but then the intonation was quite good afterwards.

Ok, that is all just appearance, bling if you will but substantial difference between the Loar which looks and feels like a good beginner instrument (think squire bullet or affinity) vs a well made professional instrument.

Oh, the Loar also feels really tough, like a tank, like I had the question in my mind "does this thing even need a case?" The Kentucky is lighter, and feels more finely constructed. The Loar feels like something you could leave hanging about in your sailboat without worry. I apologize to all the luthiers out there but I don't have the vocabulary to describe my impression so I substitute visuals. It came with EJ74 strings, I contacted the company. It has Grover tuners and I was impressed at after playing for several hours and coming back the next day, it was mostly still in tune. My Telecaster was like that, noticeably stayed in tune compared to my other guitars. I will say that the A string tended to go out of tune while playing so I don't know if that is a function of the tuner or the string, like the G string on a guitar that breaks first and goes out of tune first?

On to the sound. Here we really are comparing apples and oranges because they are not even designed for the same purpose. The Loar 310 is what I consider a well made albeit cheap copy of an old time specific model. I don't know anything about the original The Loar so will let others comment. The 310 was loud, bright, in your face, and could cut through any mix in my opinion. I'm not a banjo player but have picked one or 2 up to try and I thought it about as loud as a banjo when pushed. It has bluegrass written all over it. I thought it played quite easily but what do I know, I play upright bass and everything plays easy by comparison! Played softly and lightly, the higher strings were quite clear, decent sustain, and sang/sparkled. The low G string was very hollow and sounded like a rubber band whether played loudly or softly. When I first brought it home, my wife commented that the low G made it sound like a toy. The rest of it did not, just that string. I'm a newbie and am really quite ignorant about mandolins so perhaps adjustments, strings, bridge, playing technique, or all of the above would change that and please chime in. I think it inherent to the design and there was one vid on an old original The Loar played in some high end vintage shop, and frankly, it sounded the same to me, although I'm sure side by side they would be nothing alike.

This was my first mandolin, chosen by the price point for what felt like a good beginner instrument in my hands, with almost no real comparison (see my other thread on purchase) and I was not committed to the instrument at that point, but seemed good enough to start playing. And it was. Although the Kentucky takes my breath away, I'm not really so attached to bling and I have no complaints about the Loar. I started Peghead Nation courses and played 2-3 hours daily on the Loar for about 2 weeks and other than the G string tubiness, have no complaints. The thing could sing after a proper set up and I had intended to change strings but discovered something else instead. And did I say loud? My oh my.

I'm aware of the price of mandolins and that the Kentucky 272 is still way down near the bottom and perhaps some would not even call it an intermediate instrument. I would not know. But I have owned expensive acoustic guitars and in looks/feel and I would compare it to say, my Gibson Hummingbird Pro in terms of how it looks and feels. That Gibson is not top of the line by any means but it is a fine and relatively expensive guitar.

This part is a little difficult to explain but I'll try. I had no complaints about the Loar but although I do really love bluegrass, I am used to playing much more balanced instruments and I'm sensitive to sounds, resonance, etc... I was trained as a classical musician before anything else and also studied classical guitar for awhile. I was exposed to lute music, Renaissance music in general. Although I really do like Bluegrass and am learning bluegrass tunes with Sharon Gilchrist on PN, I'm also enrolled in Marla Fibish's Irish Mandolin Course. After hearing Michael Kelly, I realize that a very personal subjective choice for me is that of a balanced, sustained, ringing/singing sound that is very apparent in the Kentucky. It is simply a beautiful sound in a way that the Loar is not. I think of it like this, the Loar is built for one thing and one thing only, a one trick pony? And that thing is bluegrass, or perhaps an imitation of what a bluegrass mandolin should sound like. The Kentucky is perhaps built more for Irish Mandolin, classical mandolin. I don't doubt it could be used in bluegrass but doubt it has the chop for bluegrass, and to my ears does not sound as loud. It is an instrument that makes me want to play more softly because the subtle tones that can be evoked are simply enchanting, i.e. listen to Michael Kelly. It seems that the oval hole is preferred in that genre? I think the Loar would cut through in an Irish Pub, but I have my doubts about the Kentucky. But I mostly play alone at home so much prefer the sound. I also plan to delve into classical mandolin at a later time and this is the sound. Like I said, apples and oranges, subjective choice. The Kentucky inspires me to pick it up, the Loar was serving its purpose as a beginning instrument.

Oh, the fretboard. I did not have the presence of mind to measure the frets. But my impression, and could be totally off, is that the neck on the Kentucky is slightly longer scale? Or maybe it is just that the body joins the neck at the 14th fret so it looks longer. But the curved radius really feels good and the frets feel a tiny bit larger? I'm very average male, not big hands, but this felt easier to play. Again, I did not measure but felt like the neck was a little bigger on the Kentucky which was more comfortable for my hand in that it seemed to lay better near the joint of the 1st finger while it felt awkward to get the Loar settled at the first fret.

Saga Music has a really good video about the Kentucky 272 and he seemed genuinely impressed with the instrument, "I could take this on stage right now, right out of the box" or something near to that.

I'm sure I forgot many things and many things I simply do not know to mention or question. I hope that helps other newbies looking for a beginning instrument.

[milli857]

Good to hear you love the Kentucky! Sounds like a keeper.

[Charles E.]

Congratulations on the Kentucky, I was not familiar with that model but when I looked at a couple on line, I was impressed.

Personally, I have never played a "The Loar" that impressed me. Have fun with your new mandolin.