Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Old Bowl Backs and sound

  1. #1
    Registered User DavidKOS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    North CA
    Posts
    5,020

    Default Old Bowl Backs and sound

    I recently have been helping a friend who has a large collection of musical instruments, among them a variety of mandolins.

    One part of the mandolin collection is a group of maybe 30-plus vintage bowl back instruments mostly made in the USA. Most were of medium and better quality, very few were the lowest-price models.

    As I was tuning and testing them, I was struck by the fact that the number of staves, decoration and ornamentation, perceived value, etc. had little correlation to the actual sound of the instruments.

    In fact, some of the "moderate quality" models with fewer staves and simpler cosmetics were often the best sounding ones.

    I'll be doing a more detailed investigation, but my initial impression was a bit surprising, as I had expected the models that were more expensive when new to be the better sounding instruments, but so far that is not the case.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DavidKOS For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    The Amateur Mandolinist Mark Gunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    South of Cleburne, North of Hillsboro, Texas
    Posts
    5,091

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Interesting observations so far, looking forward to more details.
    WWW.THEAMATEURMANDOLINIST.COM
    ----------------------------------
    "Life is short. Play hard." - AlanN

    ----------------------------------
    HEY! The Cafe has Social Groups, check 'em out. I'm in these groups:
    Newbies Social Group | The Song-A-Week Social
    The Woodshed Study Group | Blues Mando
    - Advice For Mandolin Beginners
    - YouTube Stuff

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mark Gunter For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Registered User Tavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Tavistock UK
    Posts
    4,439

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Gunter View Post
    Interesting observations so far, looking forward to more details.
    Me too.

    Though I have had some "plain Jane" Martin's through here that were really very nice sounding.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tavy For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Full Grown and Cussin' brunello97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor/Austin
    Posts
    6,281

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Super interesting, David, and obviously a fun project.

    Is there any way you might put together a simple spreadsheet / of matrix your experience and responses with the different bowlbacks?

    I look forward to hearing your reactions....

    Mick
    Ever tried, ever failed? No matter. Try again, fail again. Fail better.--Samuel Beckett
    ______________________

    '05 Cuisinart Toaster
    '93 Chuck Taylor lowtops
    '12 Stetson Open Road
    '06 Bialetti expresso maker
    '14 Irish Linen Ramon Puig

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to brunello97 For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Registered User Martin Jonas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    6,431

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    I'm not surprised that this would be the case when comparing bowlbacks from a range of makers -- I would think the competence of the maker is a stronger indication of musical merit than the level of decoration. That probably holds true for modern makers of F-style mandolins just the same. What would be interesting is whether the fancier models are consistently better than the student models from the same maker. I've always had the impression that (at least for Italian makers) the sweet spot is somewhere in the low middle. For the very plain and cheap models, compromises were made that affect sound, but once we're at the stage where the maker made an unadorned bowlback to the best of their ability, the musical value can only go down with every added decoration and flourish.

    Martin

  10. The following members say thank you to Martin Jonas for this post:


  11. #6
    Registered User DavidKOS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    North CA
    Posts
    5,020

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by brunello97 View Post
    Super interesting, David, and obviously a fun project.

    Is there any way you might put together a simple spreadsheet / of matrix your experience and responses with the different bowlbacks?

    I look forward to hearing your reactions....

    Mick
    I think I'll try and do so.

    Obviously the way I asses the sound of each mandolin will be subjective, though.

  12. #7
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidKOS View Post
    struck by the fact that the number of staves, decoration and ornamentation, perceived value, etc. had little correlation to the actual sound of the instruments.

    In fact, some of the "moderate quality" models with fewer staves and simpler cosmetics were often the best sounding ones.
    I have found, in my admittedly limited experience, that the indicators of a good/great sounding instrument, number of staves, say, or reputation of the brand or the maker, all these indicators take a back seat for these older instruments, compared to how the mandolin has been treated over the last 100 or so years.

    I am not saying a mediocre instrument will become great, but the other way, instruments that may have been great sounding 90 or 100 years ago may well sound not so good today, if for example left unstrung in a hot attic, or drying in the desert sun through the porch window, or OMG used as a planter. An an instrument that was decent or even good, back then, and has been taken care of all these years, could well sound much better than instruments with better more promising provenance.
    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  13. The following members say thank you to JeffD for this post:


  14. #8
    Mando-Accumulator Jim Garber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    30,753

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    One of my favorite bowlbacks is my style 3 Vega. Of course, the other is my (also style 3) Embergher. They are, of course, very different in structure and ornamentation. Frankly, I think the key understanding is that fancy wood and fancy pearl work may not add to the acoustic properties of any stringed instrument. I remember a very plain Italian violin that I played at a Skinner auction years ago that was extremely sweet sounding to my ears. It sold for $3000. If I found it at a flea market I might not pay more than a few hundred for it.

    Embergher made some very ornate instruments but the ones that are in demand by players are relatively unadorned... the style 5 and 5bis.

    As Martin mentioned, this also applies to flattop and carved instruments and also for guitars. Fancy woods look wonderful but don't necessarily sound better that the plainer ones.
    Jim

    My Stream on Soundcloud
    Facebook
    19th Century Tunes
    Playing lately:
    1924 Gibson A4 - 2018 Campanella A-5 - 2007 Brentrup A4C - 1915 Frank Merwin Ashley violin - Huss & Dalton DS - 1923 Gibson A2 black snakehead - '83 Flatiron A5-2 - 1939 Gibson L-00 - 1936 Epiphone Deluxe - 1928 Gibson L-5 - ca. 1890s Fairbanks Senator Banjo - ca. 1923 Vega Style M tenor banjo - ca. 1920 Weymann Style 25 Mandolin-Banjo - National RM-1

  15. The following members say thank you to Jim Garber for this post:


  16. #9
    Full Grown and Cussin' brunello97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor/Austin
    Posts
    6,281

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Garber View Post
    One of my favorite bowlbacks is my style 3 Vega. Of course, the other is my (also style 3) Embergher. They are, of course, very different in structure and ornamentation. Frankly, I think the key understanding is that fancy wood and fancy pearl work may not add to the acoustic properties of any stringed instrument. I remember a very plain Italian violin that I played at a Skinner auction years ago that was extremely sweet sounding to my ears. It sold for $3000. If I found it at a flea market I might not pay more than a few hundred for it.

    Embergher made some very ornate instruments but the ones that are in demand by players are relatively unadorned... the style 5 and 5bis.

    As Martin mentioned, this also applies to flattop and carved instruments and also for guitars. Fancy woods look wonderful but don't necessarily sound better that the plainer ones.

    I'm not sure I would put the Embergher ribbed bird's eye bowls and War-of-the-Worlds headstock exactly in the plain-jane category that David is alluding to.

    Maybe like comparing an Armani suit to a Men's Wearhouse 2fer.

    Some other modest LE bowls might be more representative of such a comping.

    Mick
    Ever tried, ever failed? No matter. Try again, fail again. Fail better.--Samuel Beckett
    ______________________

    '05 Cuisinart Toaster
    '93 Chuck Taylor lowtops
    '12 Stetson Open Road
    '06 Bialetti expresso maker
    '14 Irish Linen Ramon Puig

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to brunello97 For This Useful Post:


  18. #10
    Full Grown and Cussin' brunello97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor/Austin
    Posts
    6,281

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Jonas View Post
    .... but once we're at the stage where the maker made an unadorned bowlback to the best of their ability, the musical value can only go down with every added decoration and flourish.

    Martin
    Can't say I really agree with you on this, Martin. It seems self-contradictory, but maybe I'm not following you. How is a carefully made, wonderfully sounding mandolin compromised sonically by bling?


    Certainly bling added to an already sonically compromised instrument adds nothing to the sound quality.


    We've certainly had enough conversations here about the relative dubiousness of the F style scroll or the silly Orson Wells headstock or dragons on the high end Emberghers.

    But I don't think any of their advocates would suggest that it reduces the musical value of the instruments.

    MOP or MOTS encrustations are of course another thing alogether.


    I agree, comping student models vs higher end models from the same maker is a good start.

    I've only had such an experience with a few: Gibson, Vega, Martin and perhaps L+H, though their output seems to dwarf most others in terms of the range of quality.

    My MOR Ceccherini is very MOR.

    Comping between makers should introduce a pretty wide range of variables.


    Let's see what David comes up with!

    Mick
    Ever tried, ever failed? No matter. Try again, fail again. Fail better.--Samuel Beckett
    ______________________

    '05 Cuisinart Toaster
    '93 Chuck Taylor lowtops
    '12 Stetson Open Road
    '06 Bialetti expresso maker
    '14 Irish Linen Ramon Puig

  19. The following members say thank you to brunello97 for this post:


  20. #11
    Full Grown and Cussin' brunello97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor/Austin
    Posts
    6,281

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Apologies for the duplicate post.

    Mick
    Ever tried, ever failed? No matter. Try again, fail again. Fail better.--Samuel Beckett
    ______________________

    '05 Cuisinart Toaster
    '93 Chuck Taylor lowtops
    '12 Stetson Open Road
    '06 Bialetti expresso maker
    '14 Irish Linen Ramon Puig

  21. #12
    Mando-Accumulator Jim Garber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    30,753

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Actually what I should have said was that even the student model Emberghers were quality unadorned instruments like that style B that appeared yesterday on these boards.
    Jim

    My Stream on Soundcloud
    Facebook
    19th Century Tunes
    Playing lately:
    1924 Gibson A4 - 2018 Campanella A-5 - 2007 Brentrup A4C - 1915 Frank Merwin Ashley violin - Huss & Dalton DS - 1923 Gibson A2 black snakehead - '83 Flatiron A5-2 - 1939 Gibson L-00 - 1936 Epiphone Deluxe - 1928 Gibson L-5 - ca. 1890s Fairbanks Senator Banjo - ca. 1923 Vega Style M tenor banjo - ca. 1920 Weymann Style 25 Mandolin-Banjo - National RM-1

  22. The following members say thank you to Jim Garber for this post:


  23. #13
    Registered User DavidKOS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    North CA
    Posts
    5,020

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Lots of good points, gang.

    We'll see how soon I can go further on this.

  24. #14
    Registered User Martin Jonas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    6,431

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by brunello97 View Post
    Can't say I really agree with you on this, Martin. It seems self-contradictory, but maybe I'm not following you. How is a carefully made, wonderfully sounding mandolin compromised sonically by bling?

    Certainly bling added to an already sonically compromised instrument adds nothing to the sound quality.
    Maybe I'm not expressing myself sufficiently clearly. I would agree that the headstock design of the fancy Emberghers or the scroll on the F-style don't detract from musical value, as long as the maker doesn't "reclaim" the time spent on them by sloppy work elsewhere. However, I'm not sure that's true of inlays, fancy bindings and other types of bling that proliferates in old bowlbacks in particular -- they add mass and reduce structural integrity of the soundboard, and introduce potential weak points where cracks can initiate.

    I'm undecided on fluted ribs. They make the bowl heavier and stiffer which may or may not be a good thing, and I've also seen a suggestion that they act a bit like a toneguard in keeping the bowl away from the body. Not sure either of these is significant, but they sure look nice.

    Martin

  25. The following members say thank you to Martin Jonas for this post:


  26. #15
    Mando-Accumulator Jim Garber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    30,753

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    My Embergher Tipo 3 has beautifully fluted ribs and I don’t think it is heavier than others. Not sure that has any effect tonally vs. unfluted bowls.
    Jim

    My Stream on Soundcloud
    Facebook
    19th Century Tunes
    Playing lately:
    1924 Gibson A4 - 2018 Campanella A-5 - 2007 Brentrup A4C - 1915 Frank Merwin Ashley violin - Huss & Dalton DS - 1923 Gibson A2 black snakehead - '83 Flatiron A5-2 - 1939 Gibson L-00 - 1936 Epiphone Deluxe - 1928 Gibson L-5 - ca. 1890s Fairbanks Senator Banjo - ca. 1923 Vega Style M tenor banjo - ca. 1920 Weymann Style 25 Mandolin-Banjo - National RM-1

  27. The following members say thank you to Jim Garber for this post:


  28. #16

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    An interesting experiment, but maybe could be enhanced with making a few basic quantitative measurements on each - without getting into lab conditions. I’m thinking a table top cradle, a reproducible pick force and record say, open string spectra at a constant location.
    I once was asked by a piano tech to make a key thumper (for tuning purposes) with constant force, but the small physical variations of a grand piano keyboard turned this into more complexity than we thought.

  29. The following members say thank you to Richard500 for this post:


  30. #17
    Full Grown and Cussin' brunello97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor/Austin
    Posts
    6,281

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Jonas View Post
    However, I'm not sure that's true of inlays, fancy bindings and other types of bling that proliferates in old bowlbacks in particular -- they add mass and reduce structural integrity of the soundboard, and introduce potential weak points where cracks can initiate. Martin

    Is the 'mass' of MOP binding or inlayed wafer thin faux tortoise (or veneer) really that much heavier than the wood it replaces? How much dampening would it provide around the edges of the soundboard?

    Of course we've seen some super encrusted extravagent versions that would almost make that question moot.

    But I don't think that is where the real interest in the question lies.

    I guess I'm probing that marginal area between the bling free elegance of a, for example, (lower middle) Martin bowl and the more typically but not overly blinged versions we might see from Chicago or Catania. Or from Roma or Napoli.

    From my eye, I never thought Martin did bling very well on their higher end models. Overly ornate without much of a unifying aesthetic. But I am fussy about that kind of stuff. I think some of the bling on Catanese bowls looks fabulous but others are out of design control.

    The inset scratchplates have long been a head scratcher for me...but those show up on many mandolins, even those senza bling.



    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Jonas View Post
    I'm undecided on fluted ribs. They make the bowl heavier and stiffer which may or may not be a good thing, and I've also seen a suggestion that they act a bit like a toneguard in keeping the bowl away from the body. Not sure either of these is significant, but they sure look nice.Martin

    Agreed on the fluted bowls. I think many of us have seen the demo videos Carlo M has put up of his process of carving flutes. Quite a bit of work there.

    The LE maple flutes are delightful.

    Jim, you're referring to your rosewood bowl LE, right? That is one beautiful bowl.


    Mick
    Ever tried, ever failed? No matter. Try again, fail again. Fail better.--Samuel Beckett
    ______________________

    '05 Cuisinart Toaster
    '93 Chuck Taylor lowtops
    '12 Stetson Open Road
    '06 Bialetti expresso maker
    '14 Irish Linen Ramon Puig

  31. The following members say thank you to brunello97 for this post:


  32. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,811

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    My experience, from days long past, indicates, to my own mind and ears, at any rate, that Italian bowlbacks, excluding those made merely to serve as decrative objects for the tourist trade, were made to please the players. The ornamentation, if any, was secondary to the primary purpose of making music.

    I had a pair of Ceccherini instruments, each with that distinctive tonality unique to that design/maker. One was more or less Plain Jane regarding ornament; not bare-bones, but far from the ornate creation of the presentation-quality of its partner. One would be hard pressed to distinguish a difference in a blind test. The presentation model had considerable inlaid ornament on the bowl, but was thankfully reasonable regarding fretboard inlay. Headstock was also inlaid with silver wire, IIRC. It has passed out of my hands so long ago that I no longer recall whether the bowl staves were scalloped. At any rate, it would seem that the maker took pains to assure that the acoustic properties of his workingman's model did not suffer; I presume it would hae damaged his main market, the player in the street, had he compromised in that essential area.

    I've owned a number of Italian bowlbacks, from a selection of makers, and most of them trended toward the middle of the market. (I've had a horror at the thought of trying to replace bits of pearl and other ornament that might have popped off over the decades). My impression was that sufficient attention was paid to the tonal properties of the instruments, whether they were made by the Big Three, or lesser lights.

    Regarding the "tone guard" concept of fluted ribs aiding the stand-off tonal properties, I'd have to say that it would be a miniscule effect, if it existed at all. One of the qualities of the bowlback style is the fact that most of the resonating area of the bowl is not impacted by contact with the player's body; merely tangential, especially as compared to the flatter style prevalent in the US. There's no question that the Gibson-style instruments are significantly impacted by the dampening of the player's body, but the monocoque nature of the properly made bowlback, and the lightness of structure and construction, makes for a much more "live" presence, with the entire instrument functioning as a transducer for the string vibration.

    Just a set of personal opinions, but possibly bearing some validity, for all that.

  33. The following members say thank you to Bob A for this post:


  34. #19
    Innocent Bystander JeffD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    24,807
    Blog Entries
    56

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    There is a guitar company that would play all their guitars before finishing and decorating, to see how they sound. The better sounding ones went on to become the higher end more ornately decorated models. No guitar started out destined for greatness.
    A talent for trivializin' the momentous and complicatin' the obvious.

    The entire staff
    funny....

  35. The following members say thank you to JeffD for this post:


  36. #20
    Registered User DavidKOS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    North CA
    Posts
    5,020

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard500 View Post
    An interesting experiment, but maybe could be enhanced with making a few basic quantitative measurements on each - without getting into lab conditions. I’m thinking a table top cradle, a reproducible pick force and record say, open string spectra at a constant location.
    .
    That would be an interesting idea....but I'm not going to be the one to do it!

    So far the best sounding bowl back has been a Washburn with only 9 rosewood staves.

  37. The following members say thank you to DavidKOS for this post:


  38. #21
    Registered User seankeegan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    East Coast of Ireland
    Posts
    246

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Very interesting discussion. I've found a similar thing with tenor banjos used for Irish Traditional Music. Epiphone and Paramount had a range of tenor banjos with an arch tone ring, but for my money the lower level ones (Epiphone Recording A / Paramount Style A) played and sounded as good, if not better, than many of the fancier models higher up the range.

    I have a lower model Embergher, rosewood fluted back, which stood up well against most bowl backs, and served me fine for my studies. But my old teacher, Ali Stephens, had 2 Embergher 5bis; her own and one on loan from Hugo D'Alton's family. Both of those blew my orchestral Embergher out of the water....
    Last edited by seankeegan; Jun-02-2023 at 4:29am.

  39. The following members say thank you to seankeegan for this post:


  40. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    800

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    As someone who knows little about bowl back mandolins but would like to own one someday this information is very helpful. Perhaps someone (David) would give a general outline of the types of construction and features to look for, etc. There is a poorly looking one in a local pawn shop near me for cheap that may have potential, but I don't want to waste my time repairing junk. Also, what gauge strings are appropriate for a bowl back? Thanks to all.

  41. The following members say thank you to Hudmister for this post:


  42. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    447

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    fwiw, one of the best mandolins I played was a no-name no-brand bowl-back of fairly crude construction. i posted photos of it's exploded (ahem) view in the builders-and-repair section. because it sounded so good, i am likely to reassemble it, eventually.

  43. The following members say thank you to mandocello8 for this post:


  44. #24
    Mando-Accumulator Jim Garber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    30,753

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by seankeegan View Post
    I have a lower model Embergher, rosewood fluted back, which stood up well against most bowl backs, and served me fine for my studies. But my old teacher, Ali Stephens, had 2 Embergher 5bis; her own and one on loan from Hugo D'Alton's family. Both of those blew my orchestral Embergher out of the water....
    Your Embergher would most likely be a No.3, the only regular orchestra model with fluting. So yours actually is upper end orchestra model—there was a No.4 but those were deluxe and rare. In any case, I believe that the concert mandolins (Nos. 5 and up) were braced somewhat differently from the orchestra ones and may also differ in other structural ways which would account for tonal differences.
    Jim

    My Stream on Soundcloud
    Facebook
    19th Century Tunes
    Playing lately:
    1924 Gibson A4 - 2018 Campanella A-5 - 2007 Brentrup A4C - 1915 Frank Merwin Ashley violin - Huss & Dalton DS - 1923 Gibson A2 black snakehead - '83 Flatiron A5-2 - 1939 Gibson L-00 - 1936 Epiphone Deluxe - 1928 Gibson L-5 - ca. 1890s Fairbanks Senator Banjo - ca. 1923 Vega Style M tenor banjo - ca. 1920 Weymann Style 25 Mandolin-Banjo - National RM-1

  45. The following members say thank you to Jim Garber for this post:


  46. #25
    Mando-Accumulator Jim Garber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    30,753

    Default Re: Old Bowl Backs and sound

    Quote Originally Posted by Hudmister View Post
    As someone who knows little about bowl back mandolins but would like to own one someday this information is very helpful. Perhaps someone (David) would give a general outline of the types of construction and features to look for, etc. There is a poorly looking one in a local pawn shop near me for cheap that may have potential, but I don't want to waste my time repairing junk. Also, what gauge strings are appropriate for a bowl back? Thanks to all.
    As far as the pawn one, if it is cheap enough and you are doing your own repairs, that will give you more of an education than anything any of us could tell you. However, the factory ones from the early part of the last century which were often sold wholesale by the dozen were often made quickly and may not even have any real neck joint. As a result of that design, neck sets are near to impossible. Personally I would stick to the name brands both American and Italian. Like any other mandolin, avoid warpage on the neck or the top. As for strings for the vintage ones use extra lights. The inexpensive ones are GHS A-240. The best sounding IMHO and in general are Dogal Calace RW-92b Dolce which are also extra-light. There are a few other brands out there but it seems like most are imported into the US or available only by buying from Europe.
    Jim

    My Stream on Soundcloud
    Facebook
    19th Century Tunes
    Playing lately:
    1924 Gibson A4 - 2018 Campanella A-5 - 2007 Brentrup A4C - 1915 Frank Merwin Ashley violin - Huss & Dalton DS - 1923 Gibson A2 black snakehead - '83 Flatiron A5-2 - 1939 Gibson L-00 - 1936 Epiphone Deluxe - 1928 Gibson L-5 - ca. 1890s Fairbanks Senator Banjo - ca. 1923 Vega Style M tenor banjo - ca. 1920 Weymann Style 25 Mandolin-Banjo - National RM-1

  47. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jim Garber For This Useful Post:


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •