Calling time on this F4 listing.

[j. condino]

As far as the worn "Loar period" mandolin is concerned....

I wonder if folks are ever going to figure out that the 50% premium for a Loar period F-4 is just for a narrower neck with a truss rod, a serial number in the 70000 to 77000 range, and an adjustable bridge [if the original is present]. And if someone wants those things, that's fine. But the bodies are the same as F-4's made from 1915 through 1921.

Well......the body appearance is the same.

I'm usually first in line for the Loar unicorns and fairy dust jokes, but there is a distinct difference in construction through the years.

When I look at the measured hacklinger notes I've made on several hundred Gibson mandolins from 1914 to 1927 periods, the Loar years do vary as much as 30% in specific dimensions like the side thickness and plates. The teens tend to be thicker. Those subtleties do add up to substantial differences in voice. As well, there are some very obvious batches of wood that were different than others. Just like when you go to Loarfest and actually see fifty Lloyd Loar signed F5s in the same room together and the differences are quite obvious, not all F4s are created the same.

Personally, I like the 1918 F2s for a distinct rowdy voice and then the 1923 F4s with the chocolate colored tuner buttons seem to be standouts in the crowd.

There is also what I believe to be one specific craftsman from that era who's instrument builds are markedly different from the others. Most Fs have sort of average to medium sculpting in the arches and scroll. I've seen enough of one particular style where the scroll and recurves and button are very distinct- sharp and well executed and noticeably different from others. My hypothesis is that they had someone who was very skilled- possibly trained in a European violin school, whose work was so much better that they just let him do his thing.

[rcc56]

Well, a Hacklinger gauge is not among my armada of tools.

I've run across quite a few 20's instruments that appeared to me to have been built rather heavily. I have measured lengths and widths of several F-4's and found that the dimensions vary, but not necessarily by the period in which they were built. Two of them were built within a year of each other, and are noticeably different in both dimension and tonal character.

The old Hill book on Stradivari provides measurements on a number of his violins. They vary also.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did do a weight study many years ago. I sampled a number of instruments with similar footprints, including several F-4's. Included in the study were also several Martin and Gibson guitars with footprints that were similar to each other. I had a theory that weight had an empirical effect on tone.

Here's what I found: Sometimes instruments of similar design and weight were quite similar in tone and/or projection. But sometimes their tone or projection were quite different. Sometimes instruments of similar design but dis-similar weight sounded very different from each other. But sometimes instruments of dis-similar weight sounded quite similar to each other.

Without going further into detail, my conclusions from that study were that weight did seem to have some effect on tone-- some of the time. Lighter instruments sometimes tended to be brighter. But not always. A couple of the lightest instruments did not project well, or sounded "thin."

Heavier instruments sometimes seemed to have more mid-range response and greater sustain, but not always. And some of the heaviest instruments also projected poorly. Others projected very well.

My overall conclusion was that the results were not consistent enough to prove that weight was a compelling and predictable factor in influencing an instrument's tone. It appeared that other factors which were beyond the scope of the study, such as the character of the individual pieces of wood that a particular instrument was built from, often had more effect on the sound of an instrument than weight.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've played a good number of old oval hole Gibson mandolins. A few were what I would call superior instruments. Many of the others were decent instruments, many were mediocre, and some were poor. The particular year or period does not seem to me to be a comprehensive factor in determining whether an instrument sounds good or bad. Speaking very generally, my personal preference tends to lean towards instruments built in the 1910's over those built in the '20's. But not always.

I have found that teens Gibsons tend to have less intonation problems than twenties instruments. But that's another subject.

As far as "magic years" are concerned, I know of one well respected instrument purveyor who proclaims that a certain year is "the best" for a well known guitar brand. Long before he started making that claim, I owned 3 guitars from that particular year. One was quite good, but not "superior." Another was decent, but not as good as the first. And the third was simply a weak instrument. The "best year?" All I know is that none of the three was a keeper for me. I sold all three of them many years ago.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instruments are complex, and you can't put them in a box. You never know what factors are going to influence their sound, or make them "good" or "bad."

I have a 1911 Gibson that was set up with an adjustable bridge when I bought it. I've had at least three different saddles on that mandolin. One was ebony, one was aluminum. I finally settled on an ebony saddle with an overlay made from deer ivory. But no matter what saddle was on it, the trebles always sounded a bit "heavy" and "dirty." Last year, I decided to make a period correct non-adjustable bridge with removeable saddles. It cleaned the trebles right up; so noticeably that it was like getting a new instrument.

That same replica bridge might not sound so good on another instrument. And the adjustable bridge that I removed might sound great on a different instrument.

[Bazz Jass]

There is also what I believe to be one specific craftsman from that era who's instrument builds are markedly different from the others. Most Fs have sort of average to medium sculpting in the arches and scroll. I've seen enough of one particular style where the scroll and recurves and button are very distinct- sharp and well executed and noticeably different from others. My hypothesis is that they had someone who was very skilled- possibly trained in a European violin school, whose work was so much better that they just let him do his thing.

Interesting! Would be could to see some contrasting photos from the different eras side by side highlighting the different sculpting here.

[grassrootphilosopher]

... but I understand that F10 has been there a long time.

Very, very (!) long time. And the initial price for it was 25.000,- USD if I am not grossly mistaken. Even then it was a price that was out of the acceptable. But on the other hand, it´s a great instrument worth owning. So why not price it at a level where you can enjoy ownership until only a true worshiper will purchase it.

[Bazz Jass]

Gruhn has just listed a lovely 1917 F4 with overspray and repaired headstock scroll. $8000. That's considerably more than they were asking for these two years ago, so it looks like the market is in fact picking up again?

https://guitars.com/inventory/mf9225-1917-gibson-f-4

[MikeEdgerton]

For the market to pickup people have to pay those prices. You can ask as much as you want to.

[Simon DS]

Yes, my dream:
A market that’s producing millions of affordable, quality mandolins.
Then I buy my affordable quality mandolin which is exactly the same as my neighbour’s.
And then I play sweet music from dawn till dusk.