1969 Gibson F-5

[jan281969]

I have in my reach a superb condition 1969 Gibson F-5.I do not know much about F-5s from the 60s although the 50s models sure look and sound very much vintage.If there are any information, opinions and value on the 1969
Gibson F-5 let me know!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MikeEdgerton]

It wasn't always a good vintage, they aren't generally sought after instruments.

[bdjbdj]

I have a 1974 F-5 that has been regraduated and top refinished. The top was never of the mando.
Anyway it has a quality and cut that I have not heard in any of the new Gibson mandolis. The tone is so much more settled and direct. I believe that without the modifications that these are simply to thick to achieve the great tone. But with the mods coupled with the age, it surpasses most new mandolins.
Bob

[Mike Bromley]

My 1975 underwent similar remodelling including a complete strip & refinish with thin Nitro.

It sounds better, but both my F9 and especially my new Triggs snuff it out with tone.

[lenf12]

My 1975 underwent similar remodelling including a complete strip & refinish with thin Nitro.

It sounds better, but both my F9 and especially my new Triggs snuff it out with tone.

Hi Mike,

Tell me more about the remodeling job to your '75 F5. Who did the work, etc. What doesn't it do that the F9 and Triggs can do? I had Randy Wood regraduate the top and replace the tone bars of my '56 F12. I got it back from him this past June and it is greatly improved but I still find it a bit lacking. Randy said that it will need many months of breaking in to reach a really good tone. How long ago did you have the work done and has it improved over time?

Curious,
Len B.
Clearwater, FL

[Mike Bromley]

I had the work done by a local repairman in Calgary. He used a Hacklinger gauge (Sp?) to assess the top thickness around the rim, and thinned it down so as to create a substantial recurve. Using a felt piano hammer and dead reckoning he managed to increase the flexibility of the top and back and get the instument to become louder. The results were striking. He did the work gratis, doing it in his spare time over a year. I doubt that paying the likes of Randy Wood to do it would have been worth the money....

As for the thing that the F9 or the JTriggs have, let me describe it as 'the fuzzy buzz'. When asked by Jim Triggs how I would like my new Hoss to sound, I used those precise words, along with 'and every banjo should tremble in fear'. I got that in spades. Meaty, thick, rich, fuzzy, however you can describe it, it's a design thing. The '75 was not originially of that ilk...the original finish, for instance, was obscenely thick. I remember a phone conversation with a somewhat snooty Mandolin Brothers employee (ca. 1977)when I mentioned the '75 to him...I won't go into detail! Suffice it to say, that short of a total disassembly and replacement of the tone chamber, the '75 hasn't got a hope in hooey of matching the rebirth of Loarish specs present in Gibson's newer efforts or in my Champ. The sides of the instrument are also narrower, giving it a noticebly different tone chamber depth.

In summary, the '75 is loud, but lacks that 'thing'. I think, basically, it never HAD that thing to begin with. Very pretty, as the pic with the stable will attest, even not bad-sounding now, plays really nicely, but that MOJO....

The work was completed in late 2006. There was some improvement over time, but the assessment was interrupted by my discovery of a killer F9 in the local L&M store in May 2007, followed by my discovery that skinny F-necks are ergonomically dumb for my mitts, inducing further MAS...and the aquisition of the JTriggs. I was recently comparing the three, and the '75 held its own volume-wise, but there just ain't the tone, suffice it to say.

Hope that helps?