Why copy errors???

[sunburst]

I think the lower point balances the shorter neck designs (where it originated, look at an F2 or F4), but not the F5 with the longer neck. I moved the lower point on mine to improve that balance to my eye.

[David Newton]

I think Don's questions are as much philosophical as practical, so.....

I'll never forget in the first (I think) "Foxfire Book" back in the hippie days. If you don't remember, it was a book of folksy mountain lore, old people picking herbs and remedies, making lye soap, and, wonder of wonders, an ancient guy making "banjars" (fretless banjos) using nothing but a pocket knife and broken glass.

He told of a young person asking about his banjos, and making criticisms of his old timey methods, why it took him so long to finish one, and such. The young man told him he could build one in a weekend with modern tools. The old man said "that was a couple of years ago, I don't recall he's finished ONE yet."

I built 7 instruments last year. I've built quite a few in my 30-something years of working on instruments, but I haven't built an F-5. If I took the best set of F-5 plans out there and "straightened them up" then built one, it would have many more defects than the traditional one, until I built maybe 10 of them.

I think you are trying to "fix" things that you can't fix until you know better than to fix them.

[Nolan]

There was a recording floating around here for a while from one of the Loarfests that Charlie Derrington was one of the experts on the panel. I remember he talked about these same issues and basically said a lot of people think these "errors" were mistakes but that they were intentional. Anyone have a link to those interviews? I think Spruce may have also been on that panel... Mike K... Gilchrist too if my memory is correct.

** Edit - from the Co-Mando interview
Charlie Derrington -
"There are also some assymetrical aspects of Loars that some folks thought were errors in the originals. They are not.
....I am a Loar NUT and believe every mandolin should be exactly like them. Seriously, I'm pretty deranged about this stuff."

And this one was interesting too...
Questions -
" - In his Loar F-5 notes, Darryl Wolfe points out .....

"Most builders do not recognize that the neck is not square to the centerline of the instrument, nor is it square to the plane of the rim set. The neck is installed left of center toward the scroll. It is then cocked at an angle toward the tailpiece that causes the centerline of the neck to cross the bridge area mid-way between the f-holes. This angularity also has a bearing on placement of the f-holes. In order for the bridge/f-hole relationship to look right, one f-hole must be placed slightly lower on the body. Additionally, the neck is installed in a "twisted" manner that results in the fingerboard being lower on the treble side. This is why Loar bridges are thinner on the treble side."

I wonder if you could shed some light on the degree to which you embraced this off-center / tilted feature on the present Master Models and also your feelings on it being an intentional design feature of the Original Loars. I've heard a few folks comment on the off center neck of the present Master Models thinking it was fudged at the factory rather than being intentional replication of the originals.

Answer - This off-center design aspect of the Loars was intentional. (it is actually not very much off-center it just appears that way because of the scroll design) and the necks do tilt towards the tailpiece to help allay this feature. They are also higher on the bass side as Darryl says. In other words, he is exactly correct. I'll disagree with him on the bass f-hole being lower. I say the treble f-hole is higher and believe it was to alleviate the tilting, visual aspect of the bridge to compensate for correct intonation.

Yes, we do the same on the Master Models, and it is deliberate."

[testore]

Why do you call them errors? Design is an art form. The current F5 model is about the most interesting and beautiful man made designs in the world. Also, when you look at the most prized violins in the world none of them are symmetrical.NONE! I have seen tracings from about 40 Strads. The most symmetrical ones are still several millimeters off. Most of them are more than several millimeters. The ones that are symmetrical are always the far less desirable German made instruments. I find the funkiness to be SOOO appealing and the eye is drawn to those traits more so than symmetry.

[D.E.Williams]

I think Don's questions are as much philosophical as practical, so.....I think you are trying to "fix" things that you can't fix until you know better than to fix them.

Bingo.
I've a lot to learn, which is the purpose of this thread. One can look at something without the historical background and see one thing, but then once that history is added, it sheds new light on it and you see the same object differently. Wouldn't it be great to have the history of these things in print somewhere from original sources? That would be a good read.

Testore - I've admitted that calling them "errors" was an error on my part. Poor choice of words, said in ignorance.
I agree about design being an art form, or rather that the two are both often a part of one another. Some design is purely technical, and follows no form other than utility. Form follows function, and all that...

I'd love to hear that recording Nolan mentioned...that sounds very interesting.

[sunburst]

There are several things about the F5 design that confused me for a long time until I looked at older designs like F4, F2, and the earlier Gibson company and Orville Gibson mandolins. Some of the features that don't make sense to me on F5s do make sense to me on F4s, so I think they were adapted to the F5, not designed for it.
To me it seems that the Gibson F styling gradually became the teens and twenties F2/F4 shape, then rapidly took on the elevated fingerboard extender first, then the F-holes and long neck to become the F5. In the process, some of the design elements lost some of their context and weren't adjusted to the new shape.
I think there is a lot to learn about the F5 design from studying earlier F designs, and I recommend doing that. From outward appearance, they basically took an F4, changed to F-holes and a longer neck and stopped there.

[CES]

From the practical side of things...copy the F5 because it SELLS! Even those builders here on the Cafe who are brilliant in their skills/craftsmanship and unique designs (which I'll admit I tend to gravitate towards) typically offer an F5 model or "Loar Specs Copy." We're a niche instrument, and I would think it difficult to make a living (at least until your rep is established) with a niche of the niche, or something like that...

Don, all joking aside, your kind of thinking is what brings about innovation...I'm often torn between enjoying/finding comfort in tradition and wondering, "Why the heck do we still do it that way?"

[Bill Halsey]

One other thought came to mind.

With guitars, a dovetail joint is essentially a two-way dovetail. It tapers internally, as does the mandolin dovetail, but also it tapers down the neck block in that V shape. I'm curious why a straight dovetail was used, rather than one like on a guitar neck joint. Anyone have thoughts on that? Could it be due to the size of the instrument and the minimal amount of wood in that area?

All the old Gibson mandolins I've worked on in that area did indeed have tapered dovetail neck joints.

When hand-fitting a neck joint, the tapered d/t gives me the control I need to bring the neck and body into correct alignment in no fewer than six different modes. These would include longitudinal (scale length), rotational, lateral angular (alignment with bridge position), vertical angular (pitch), lateral parallelism (offset), and vertical parallelism (overstand). The tapered d/t has the additional advantage of tightening into place without scraping the glue from the joint.

[Bill Halsey]

There are several things about the F5 design that confused me for a long time until I looked at older designs like F4, F2, and the earlier Gibson company and Orville Gibson mandolins. Some of the features that don't make sense to me on F5s do make sense to me on F4s, so I think they were adapted to the F5, not designed for it.
To me it seems that the Gibson F styling gradually became the teens and twenties F2/F4 shape, then rapidly took on the elevated fingerboard extender first, then the F-holes and long neck to become the F5. In the process, some of the design elements lost some of their context and weren't adjusted to the new shape.
I think there is a lot to learn about the F5 design from studying earlier F designs, and I recommend doing that. From outward appearance, they basically took an F4, changed to F-holes and a longer neck and stopped there.

Spot on, John. There was no known original assembly drawing for the F-5. When the "New Style F-5" was finally formalized enough to appear in the manufacturing spec. book, its rims were referenced: "Dimensions and designs the same as F-4". The back and top were both referenced: "Dimensions the same as F-4". The caveat for tops and backs was: "Carved on special F-5 carving form."

There was obviously some struggling with the change from flush to raised fingerboard, with the fingerboard support penciled in as an afterthought (apparently not in Loar's hand, as has been surmised).

There was a special drawing for the F-5 head veneer, which is narrower at its waist than the F-2/F-4. This demonstrates Gibson's awareness that an F-4 headstock would appear out-of-proportion on an F-5, with its 1-1/8" longer neck and narrower fretboard.

[Jim Hilburn]

Don, I bet you've been looking at Lynn D's photo journal. He deliberately decided to use a straight dovetail instead of tapered.
About the idea that the neck is shifted toward the scroll and the whole neck is tilted so the treble side is lower... I'm confused.
If it was tilted so the treble side was higher it would make sense in that it would bring the heel into line with the center so it all worked correctly at the junction with the back. But to tilt it so the treble side is lower... moving the heel nearer to the scroll, it seems to compound the problem of heel-body alignment.
Someone set me straight.

[Bill Halsey]

Jim, I don't think Gibson intended to tilt the neck or fingerboard per se; the fingerboard was simply shifted toward the scroll in a lateral plane while leaving the back button on-center.

[D.E.Williams]

Don, I bet you've been looking at Lynn D's photo journal. He deliberately decided to use a straight dovetail instead of tapered.

I've been spending a lot of time studying that in fact. It's a terrific resource. But the place I got the idea about the sliding dovetail was from the Siminoff plans. He shows the sliding dovetail as the original method, and also his pinned M&T joint as an alternative. I did notice it in Lynn's journal too, and it got me thinking...

Don, all joking aside, your kind of thinking is what brings about innovation...I'm often torn between enjoying/finding comfort in tradition and wondering, "Why the heck do we still do it that way?"

I think I started this thread because I felt there must be other folks besides me who tend to question "Why was this done this way?" about things. It's part of my nature to analyze things, to take them apart, put them back together again, and learn to understand how and why they work, or why they don't work. I'm always looking for a different way, hoping perhaps to find a better way. I find the fun in the "looking" more than the "finding" though. The finding is the ice cream on the pie, though, so there's always the hope of finding the better way.

[Jim Hilburn]

I had copied the above photo from the F-5 Journal as a reference to another thread about neck joints. It seemed relevant to this topic.
So I just took a closer look and does anyone else notice that the heel does appear to be further to the treble side, another assymetric detail of a Loar?

[D.E.Williams]

The whole heel block area is asymmetrical, which one wouldn't expect. As a result of that, the neck heel appears shifted more than perhaps it actually is. Make a .pdf scan of a drawing, and then convert to a .dwg file or something where you can start editing it in a cad system, and you'll start finding all this stuff that I have found. It's a real eye-opener!

[David Newton]

I find myself in this situation too often, that of apologizing for my words and tone, in my response to Don Williams.
No use in trying to explain my state of mind when I wrote. I am as uninformed as I accused you of being, Don. I see that you are not a first-time nubie, and build beautiful guitars.

Maybe my stupid mistake will cause others to look at your website.
I truly apologize.

[ApK]

Oriental rug makers intentionally make small imperfections in their carpets, because they believe only God can create perfection.

Wow...how full of themselves did those rug makers have to be to think that unless they INTENTIONALLY included an error, they would achieve God-like perfection!?!

Reminds me of when Patrick Swayze supposedly said that he held back his moves in 'Dirty Dancing' because his character wasn't supposed to be a real pro dancer....

Anyway, on the topic, for the thread title to be appropriate, you'd first have to build a mando without the factors being discussed and show it to be as good or better than a Loar in order to say that those things are 'errors,' right?

ApK

[sunburst]

I noticed the offset appearance of the heel, but the camera angle could do that. It also looks like the heel has more curve/concavity on the scroll side. I'd have to turn it and look it over to decide if it is really like that. I wouldn't be surprised either way though, because those heels were shaped and those dovetails were set by hand, and when I do that I sometimes end up with a slightly skewed neck heel for one reason or another. I can assure you that it is not an intentional design feature when I do it, and I doubt it was when they did it.

[Jim Hilburn]

That shot seems pretty straight on, but I see what your saying, John. But we're told that ALL Loars are shifted toward the scroll and that leads to having to do something to align the heel with the back.
This is one of the questions that has kept me from attempting the shift.

[D.E.Williams]

I find myself in this situation too often, that of apologizing for my words and tone, in my response to Don Williams.
No use in trying to explain my state of mind when I wrote. I am as uninformed as I accused you of being, Don. I see that you are not a first-time nubie, and build beautiful guitars.

Maybe my stupid mistake will cause others to look at your website.
I truly apologize.

David, I took no offense, and in fact I feel like I did learn something from your post. I take everything here that is written as being offered as constructive conversation. Mandolins are a "new" thing to me, and I'm finding they are a very different beast from guitars. And if I say something out of line, I expect to have folks set me straight. I'm old enough to know that I don't know it all, and learning new things is a real gas for me. (I guess that expression shows my age, eh?) Anyway, I may have built a bunch of guitars, but a mando is a very different beast than a flat-top guitar. I have a slight edge on the learning curve I suppose, but not by any means experienced with building a mandolin.

It's all good my friend!



Wow! Speaking of nice guitars...I was just at YOUR website. Very nice stuff indeed!

[Michael Cameron]

I've been spending a lot of time studying that in fact. It's a terrific resource. But the place I got the idea about the sliding dovetail was from the Siminoff plans. He shows the sliding dovetail as the original method, and also his pinned M&T joint as an alternative. I did notice it in Lynn's journal too, and it got me thinking...

I think I started this thread because I felt there must be other folks besides me who tend to question "Why was this done this way?" about things. It's part of my nature to analyze things, to take them apart, put them back together again, and learn to understand how and why they work, or why they don't work. I'm always looking for a different way, hoping perhaps to find a better way. I find the fun in the "looking" more than the "finding" though. The finding is the ice cream on the pie, though, so there's always the hope of finding the better way.

Good discussion! It may be prudent to mention that Mr. Loar,whose name is always mentioned in conncetion to the F5,among other innovative instruments,was definitely not alone in the transformation of the Gibson mandolin.

I can't recall all the names;but,Mr. Hart (?) was the instigator along with a couple other men (help?) that brought about F5 mandolins.

Got to wonder how many folks can do a neck re-set on a M&T joint? I saw a highly-experienced luthier get ugly doing one of these on a Gurian guitar! I didn't let him reset the neck on MY Gurian. Nor would I attempt it myself.

Nothing wrong with ignorance. One has to know what one doesn't know to escape it. OK,maybe that didn't make sense.

Close to 20 years ago,when I got my first F5,a Gilchrist,I was so in love with everything about it,I never noticed these "errors"/asymmetry. I didn't know anything about F5s except that I realy liked them.

A few years later I got a Red Diamond F5;and,had read some about "Loar" dimensions,I did notice the exact Loarish funkiness in RD #61. I plugged the end-pin hole and re-drilled it at a "more-perfect" 6 o'clock. I just thought Don had a bad day or something.

For whatever reasons,I let go of two Gilchrists Fs and a Nugget F. Still have the RD. I now can see these features we are discussing in the '04 Derrington MM;and,I can appreciate them for what they are.(tautology?)

Mr. Williams,thanks for being bold enough to bring this up. I've learned a bunch on this forum and others,like Co-Mando.

"Better to keep my mouth shut ,and be thought a fool,than to open my mouth and prove it." I don't believe that.

[TomTyrrell]

I've never considered any of Loar's work to be accidental. Evolutionary but not accidental. At Gibson he was making highest-end mandolins and staying within the lines of what the high-end Gibsons were. Visually, the F5 looks enough like an F4 to be recognizable as a Gibson mandolin (at least in the 1920s it was recognizable as a Gibson).

The assymetrical elements of the F5 were not for appearance, they were for sound. Loar was much more focused on sound than appearance.

[grandmainger]

Wow...how full of themselves did those rug makers have to be to think that unless they INTENTIONALLY included an error, they would achieve God-like perfection!?!

That's not really the way they think (still today). Making a rug that looks perfect to the eye is quite easy, especially if one sticks to strict symmetry. These are deeply religious people who wouldn't ever dream of achieving God-like perfection. But they want to make sure they don't even do something that would look perfect. Their intentional mistakes are quite big, and clearly visible.
The point here is that the "mistakes" add to the beauty of the rugs

[Michael Cameron]

I've never considered any of Loar's work to be accidental. Evolutionary but not accidental. At Gibson he was making highest-end mandolins and staying within the lines of what the high-end Gibsons were. Visually, the F5 looks enough like an F4 to be recognizable as a Gibson mandolin (at least in the 1920s it was recognizable as a Gibson).

The assymetrical elements of the F5 were not for appearance, they were for sound. Loar was much more focused on sound than appearance.

I don't aim to beat the horse when he is already dead;but, do you think Lloyd A. Loar did any actual designing of the F5? I don't know.

Have you seen the shoes he wore? Fashion-wise he was REALLY in-line with Orville,yes?

[Nolan]

I can't recall all the names;but,Mr. Hart (?) was the instigator along with a couple other men (help?) that brought about F5 mandolins.

Guy Hart and Ted McHugh?

[Gerard Dick]

The ancient Greeks built temples with curved walls, out of square corners and off vertical columns. Mistakes? Not really. They had insight into how distance distorts images and they wanted the temple to look perfect from accross the valley when you got your first glimpse of it. The sring line and the plumb bob were not new and they were quite capable of creating a square corner. Pythagoras showed them how.
By the same token Mr Loar & associates were quite capable of making a symmetrical instrument had that been their intent. I would hesitate to call their design an error.