Why copy errors???

[D.E.Williams]

Well, for the first thread I start here on this fantastic forum, I figure I may as well jump in right up to my neck...

So here's what I've been pondering for awhile:

It's no mystery why people make F5 style mandolins, as they are truly beautiful instruments. But, I'm wondering why people keep reproducing F5 copies including all the obvious inaccuracies and inconsistencies. For example, the curves on the sides aren't symmetrical. The section between the point is more bulbous than the other side. The neck is woefully off-center. I can't imagine that this was done by design...my guess is that if Gibson and Mr. Loar had access to good a CAD system and good machinery, these instruments would never have had necks attached on a funky angle. There are also two waist areas, one for the point at the upper bout (to borrow from guitar terminology), and another for the scroll area. To accommodate the scroll, the neck block has also been modified to be asymmetrical at the neck joint area. The curve on the scroll side has been pushed inward to allow for the scroll.
So why not redesign the F5 to have all of it's great styling, and yet give it a more balanced and symmetrical look, while retaining the scroll and points? Is it purely out of tradition that this isn't done? What gives? I'm wanting to make an F5, but find that the two sides of my brain are at odds with one another...one side wants it to look like an F5, the other wants it to look "right".
All thoughts welcome to the conversation.

Thanks!

Don

[JEStanek]

I guess someone (hint, nod, wink) will need to make the first one... I wonder who would be bold enough to try it?

There are other builders redoing the F5 in a new and innovative way. You wouldn't be alone out there ahead of the curve.

Jamie

[Bob Borzelleri]

Well, for the first thread I start here on this fantastic forum, I figure I may as well jump in right up to my neck...

So here's what I've been pondering for awhile:

It's no mystery why people make F5 style mandolins, as they are truly beautiful instruments. But, I'm wondering why people keep reproducing F5 copies including all the obvious inaccuracies and inconsistencies. For example, the curves on the sides aren't symmetrical. The section between the point is more bulbous than the other side. The neck is woefully off-center. I can't imagine that this was done by design...my guess is that if Gibson and Mr. Loar had access to good a CAD system and good machinery, these instruments would never have had necks attached on a funky angle. There are also two waist areas, one for the point at the upper bout (to borrow from guitar terminology), and another for the scroll area. To accommodate the scroll, the neck block has also been modified to be asymmetrical at the neck joint area. The curve on the scroll side has been pushed inward to allow for the scroll.
So why not redesign the F5 to have all of it's great styling, and yet give it a more balanced and symmetrical look, while retaining the scroll and points? Is it purely out of tradition that this isn't done? What gives? I'm wanting to make an F5, but find that the two sides of my brain are at odds with one another...one side wants it to look like an F5, the other wants it to look "right".
All thoughts welcome to the conversation.

Thanks!

Don

Pretty gutsy question you ask. Not that I have not considered it myself, though not to the level of detail that you note.

There have been several "evolutionary" versions of the F5 made by both small and larger builders, but I'm not sure that the variations address all the issues you point out. I am also of the impression that many folks don't take these "improved" offerings as seriously as they do the copies that reflect the design quirks you are talking about. My take on this question is that tradition seems to prevail in many fields and perhaps particularly in an area where so much tradition is associated with the music. I also think that, being made of finely built and finished wood brings additional requirements to be true to the "design" as any deviation can be viewed as reflecting an inability to "get it right". Them's my thoughts.

This should be an interesting thread.

[Joe Mendel]

Finding a case that would fit may prove difficult.

[D.E.Williams]

A case is a snap. Ameritage will custom fit an instrument to one of their cases for a reasonable fee.
But it does eliminate using any standard cases made to fit a traditional shaped F5. The really cool thing about a company like Ameritage is that they will actually create a stock model for a custom instrument if enough people were using the design. I worked with them to develop the case for a small jumbo guitar, and someone else I know also did the same for a similar instrument that several people have built. In fact, the plans for his version of a small jumbo is now being sold by StewMac, and the Ameritage case made for it fits like a glove.

[Larry Simonson]

"all the obvious inaccuracies and inconsistencies" ???? Now, what is so important about symmetry?

[OzMando]

I agree, symmetry doesn't always equal perfection and perhaps it is all those that little things that make the F5 what it is. If you're really interested in getting a mirror image type instrument why not build an A-style or a symmetrical two pointer or something? Or you could do what you propose with the F5 design?

[kjell]

I'm terribly inexperienced when it comes to fancy mandolins. I rarely play anything other than my tolerable, but run–of–the–mill Fender FM535.

But I find myself thinking—as cool as some of the mandolin designs out there are—if it aint broke, don't fix it.

[delsbrother]

I thought it was asymmetrical on purpose.

[man dough nollij]

Guys like Hans, BRW, et al aren't replicating the crooked neck of the Loar, are they? I've seen pics of the originals where the neck was visibly crooked, but most F5s (patterned after vintage Gibson F5s) I've seen look like the neck is straight, at least to the naked eye.

[F5GRun]

Ok...for one I wouldnt call them errors, besides for the crooked neck. 2nd I never meet or knew Mr. Loar so I am not sure he did it on purpose, but I have total faith in his luthier ability and see no reason that he couldnt set a neck dead straight. Third I think the F5 is rather elegant due to its asymmetrical look, and it probably wouldnt look right if it was perfectly symmetrical. Another thing to take into consideration is the sound. Im no pro luthier but I am sure the asymmetrical styling attrubutes to tonal differances. Even the tone bars are installed and shaped asymmetric to produce different responses on each side of the sound board, right?

Im not sure if this all came out right, so anyone out there feel free to correct me.

[j. condino]

Change the look and symmetry of a traditional mandolin?????? Keep talking like that and the next thing you know, people will be painting them green and putting funny soundholes all over the place......


j.
www.condino.com

[Bill Halsey]

A re-designed F-5 is not an F-5 -- it is something else. Every detail of this instrument and its predecessors has been worked out to complement the whole. Very many features of the outline, neck placement, etc. are evident in Orville's original instruments. If we are to understand the genesis of the Gibson artist models, it is helpful to consider that fewer than 30 years had passed between the appearance of OHG's highly original pieces, and the introduction of the full-blown F-5s that bear Loar's signature.

On the 2-point Gibson F-model rib moulds (which indeed were markedly asymmetrical in the absence of the points) there was a scribed centerline that intersects the center of the neck block radius and continues at the tail end, and bisects the body width at the bridge location. There are locator pin holes on the back side at each end (presumably for neck alignment), the top one drilled about 1/16" off-center toward the scroll, and one at the tail end about the same distance off-center toward the point. A centerline through these holes also bisects the body width at the bridge location.

In the 1970s this intentional neck offset was confirmed to me by Mr. Gerald Bergeon, an old-timer at the factory, who said that they used to offset those necks toward the scroll.

In truth, the heel of the neck is usually quite close to being on-center with the neck block radius; it’s actually the fingerboard that is moved closer to the scroll, thereby producing an asymmetrical neck heel.

It’s an interesting conundrum, this neck (actually, fingerboard) offset. If one studies for a moment any of the countless F-5 copies with centered fingerboards and a large gap between scroll and fingerboard, the scroll looks like it's hanging out in space. Then the rationale for the original Gibson design becomes apparent.

So, why not simply center the fingerboard and move the scroll toward it to satisfy the left-brainers? I invite anyone still struggling with his left hemisphere to try it. It simply won’t work without either modifying the entire area of the neck joint or changing the radius of the neck block, which leaves us once again with something other than an F-5.

The offset fingerboard was something Gibson always did as part of the genesis of the post-Orville Artist models, and I am satisfied with my understanding of the reason for it. Placing the straight line of the fingerboard closer to the edge of the scroll helps to relieve the innate clumsiness of the very notion that a scroll even belongs there. It compacts the appearance and helps to alleviate the look of an awkwardly contrived accessory, and gives purpose, grace, proportion and integrity to the whole. Gibson’s elegant resolution of this problem takes advantage of the established precept of asymmetry, which presents an especially revealing window into not only the design and manufacture of the old Gibson mandolins, but how such considerations in general were approached (i.e., thinking out of the box).

Amongst the attempts I have seen by makers who would resolve this and other issues of symmetry through change, I’ve yet to see one that works well enough to genuinely capture the feeling and intent of the original design.

[Michael Lewis]

I encourage anyone that wants to "fix" the F5 design to go for it. Get out the drawing materials and equipment and try your eye at improving the lines. There are numerous examples of slight deviations from the design, odd curves in the rim, uneven scroll work, etc. that even occur in Gibsons from time to time. But the over all design is a difficult one to change much. I have tried to make the F5 better for many years and keep coming back to the basic design with a few subtle "improvements".

There are some makers that have "massaged" some areas to bring an added element of elegance but have not really changed the design. Michael Heiden, Jamie Wiens, and Tom Ellis readily come to mind, and take a good look at Hans Brentrup's Loar models. Nugget, Gilchrist, Dude, . . . .

If you can put it on paper you can make it.

[HoGo]

"If you can put it on paper you can make it."
Well, I put it on paper more than once and I can tell you that not all of the weirdness and assymetry can be considered as errors... Some of them were intentional, some needed to be done because of technology used to make them. I'll try to elaborate it in my new plans (haven't put it on paper yet).
Bill had a very good take on it. I'll just add something from my own experience.
When I drew my own plans for F5 style mandolin I wanted the body to be as symetric as possible. I started with blank paper with scribed centerline and perpendicular lines at bridge and 15th fret positions. I knew I want body width of 10" and lenght 12" (to the 15th fret) which are basicly Loar numbers. I also wanted the rib between the points to be symetric curve (like old bows). I didn't use any blown up photograph to trace around I just looked at pics that looked good to my eye and slowly drew the lines. I worn 5 sheets of fine drafting by erasing lines and moving a bit at time but at the end I had outline that was perfectly symmetric and with nice flowing smooth curves (even the upper point was exactly oposite of the scroll beginning) but whenever I looked it it still didn't look good enough... The upper point looked too high on the body so I decided to move it down a bit and it looked whole lot better (more balanced) then I noticed that the bass side curve looks somewhat stiff.... so I tried to loosen its flow and voila I moved the apex of the bass side back towards tailpiece... I didn't do anything with the 15th fret area as I drew it with scroll close enough to f/b and reduced treble side to make that part symmetric.
Now if you look at Loar you see the same things: bass side apex moved down, upper corner lower than scroll beginning on opposite side. It's all because the two points and scroll throw all the symmetry of body out od window and the whole shape has to be re-thought again to look good and BALANCED.
Just my $.02

[grandmainger]

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

Maybe Mr Loar did the same

[John McGann]

Change the look and symmetry of a traditional mandolin?????? Keep talking like that and the next thing you know, people will be painting them green and putting funny soundholes all over the place......


j.
www.condino.com

Gosh, that'd be like adding new notes to tunes!

[D.E.Williams]

That's just the sort of commentary I was hoping for. Just so you folks don't think I'm a certifiable wacko, I usually have a method to my madness when asking a question I know will elicit strong responses. People are often very passionate about what they like and why, and that seems magnified further when it comes to "traditional" instrument styles.

I've actually already drawn a more symmetrical version of the F5 in my cad system based on the Siminoff drawings. I also found that doing so changed the look of the instrument, no matter how subtle the change. I'm not saying it's better or worse, or more or less in balance than the original outline, just different. Which I guess is part of the issue. As Adrian said, when you change one thing, you find that you want to change another to give it more of a sense of balance.
As to calling the subtle differences "errors", well...perhaps that was a poor assumption. Guilty as charged. I have to agree also that if you change it too much to try to improve those things, it does seem to no longer look like an F5. It's very difficult achieve those changes and retain the look of an F5.

Bill, that's some fantastic insight into why they did what they did at Gibson, and eloquently stated. That's the sort of commentary I was hoping to see. Thanks...

[Timbofood]

Isn't the assymitry attributable to the fact that it speaks of "Artistry?" How many things in nature that we find the epitome of beauty are symmetrical? I heard someone once tell me "Only man makes straight lines."
Interesting topic.

[Ted Eschliman]

Change the look and symmetry of a traditional mandolin?????? Keep talking like that and the next thing you know, people will be painting them green and putting funny soundholes all over the place......

Nah, it'll never happen.

As far as "symmetry," I just looked at myself in a mirror:
Yup. Asymmetrical. Guess God was in "error" with me, too.

[sunburst]

My F5 shape is a symmetrical A5 shape with points and scroll added. The neck is centered, the outline is not skewed anywhere. Like Adrian, I started with the dimensions of an F5 and re-drew the whole thing from there. Also like Adrian, I erased and moved lines a bunch of times. I hung the drawing on the kitchen wall so I would see it every day, and if something didn't look right I changed it until it did. Same thing for the peghead and scroll; before doing the full size drawing I drew them on pieces of paper and moved lines around until they looked right to me, but they ended up changing again when I put them in context on the full outline. I've made small changes two or three times since I've started using that outline, and in fact I moved one line about 1/32" about 3 mandolins ago. It's not chiseled in stone, and if I see something that doesn't look exactly right to me as I look at my completed mandolins I may change things again.

[D.E.Williams]

As far as "symmetry," I just looked at myself in a mirror:
Yup. Asymmetrical. Guess God was in "error" with me, too.

Oh no! Me too...



Hey, I didn't say that being asymmetrical was a bad thing! I just assumed that they would have wanted it symmetrical except for the points and the scroll. (I'll admit to being wrong in that assumption.) I figured there must be a way to retain most of the shape of the F5 and yet have the neck aligned with the actual centerline of the body, and also have the to sides be more symmetrical. I guess I've been looking to do what Sunburst has done, and that's to make it work for my eye, and also to make the neck joint a bit easier for me.

[D.E.Williams]

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?

[sunburst]

Loars had straight dovetails?
I've never pulled a neck out of a Loar, but if they had straight dovetails they changed them to a taper by 1933.
Some people like a straight dovetail so they can "adjust" the height of the overstand by sliding the neck to their preferred position and gluing it there during construction. Many of us use tapered dovetails.
(By overstand I mean the height of the fingerboard surface of the neck above the top of the mandolin.)

[Steve Ostrander]

Symmetry and balance are two diffrent concepts. An A model mando is both symmetrical and balanced equally along the centerline or axis of the neck. An F5 is balanced yet asymmetrical in it's design.

Sometimes to create balance, a designer must alter or exagerate the symmetry of a design to achieve balance. An example of this is the point on the lower bout of the F5. Besides performing a function, which is to keep the instrument from slipping on your leg when sitting down, it also adds visual balance to the design by adding weight or visual impact to the right side of the design (as viewed from the front).

Perhaps some of the asymmetry of the original F5 design was done to create balance in the visual aspect of the design, or even to create balance in the functional design?