Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 181

Thread: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

  1. #151
    Okay, I'm with you fellas tburcham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jonesboro, AR
    Posts
    726
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew B. Carlson View Post
    1. Kentucky
    2. The Loar
    3. Gibson
    4. Silver Angel

    I think................3 sounds the best though.
    I agree with Andrew. I've owned all four of these instruments at one time or another. Still have my Silverangel and love it. Mandos three and four sound the best to me with the edge in overall volume going to No. 3.
    Tim Burcham
    Northfield Big Mon (Red Spruce/Red Maple)
    Gibson F-9 Custom
    1942 Strad-O-Lin
    1948-54 Gibson LG-3
    2011 Gibson J-45 True Vintage
    2017 Martin HD-28 VTS Custom Shop
    Bailey Mandolin Straps (NFI)
    Bell Arm-rests (NFI)

  2. #152
    Okay, I'm with you fellas tburcham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jonesboro, AR
    Posts
    726
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Ok, now I've looked at the results. I'm even more proud of the Silverangel. My first inclination was to go Silverangel on No. 3, but I didn't think it would be louder than the Gibson. Wow. Both 3 & 4 sound excellent, they are smoother and more refined that the Ken and Loar, but it's a really subtle difference.

    Good work on this review!
    Last edited by tburcham; Jan-03-2012 at 11:14pm.
    Tim Burcham
    Northfield Big Mon (Red Spruce/Red Maple)
    Gibson F-9 Custom
    1942 Strad-O-Lin
    1948-54 Gibson LG-3
    2011 Gibson J-45 True Vintage
    2017 Martin HD-28 VTS Custom Shop
    Bailey Mandolin Straps (NFI)
    Bell Arm-rests (NFI)

  3. #153
    Wood and Wire Perry Babasin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Roseville, California, United States
    Posts
    815

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Subtle difference is right, before I knew I thought they all sounded great. In fact if anything I thought #4 wasn't as rich sounding as some of the others. Maybe it's the great picking!...
    ===================================
    ... I'm a California Man!

  4. #154
    Americanadian Andrew B. Carlson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    828

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    If you suspect the finish is sub par on The Loar, do as this classifieds ad is doing.... NFI
    Mandolin, Guitar, & Bass for Doug Rawling & The Caraganas
    www.dougrawling.com
    2008 Kentucky KM-1000
    2014 Martin D-28 Authentic 1937
    1964 Gibson LG-0
    2022 Sigma SDR-45VS

  5. #155
    Registered User almeriastrings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Almeria, Spain
    Posts
    5,442
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    I noticed that... would be nice to see pictures. Hint. Hint.
    Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
    Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
    Northfield Big Mon #127
    Ellis F5 Special #288
    '39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.

  6. #156
    Americanadian Andrew B. Carlson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    828

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Bought it 9 days ago new. Selling today as antiqued. Quick turn around.
    Mandolin, Guitar, & Bass for Doug Rawling & The Caraganas
    www.dougrawling.com
    2008 Kentucky KM-1000
    2014 Martin D-28 Authentic 1937
    1964 Gibson LG-0
    2022 Sigma SDR-45VS

  7. #157
    Registered User mee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Shenandoah
    Posts
    261

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by almeriastrings View Post
    OK!

    Track One: The Loar LM700

    Track Two: Kentucky KM1000

    Track Three: Silverangel Distressed F

    Track Four: Gibson F5 Fern

    CHOPS IN THIS ORDER:

    1) The Loar
    2) Silverangel
    3) KM-1000
    4) Gibson F5 Fern
    I am just reading this thread for the first time as I was trying to learn more about "the Loar" brand, I knew that Gibson was #3 or #4 when I heard it in the first round! Although the first two were clean and crisp, there is no mistaking that Gibson sound. But PLEASE don't anyone take me wrong, I don't get opportunity to hear different mandolins, only heard Gibson, Eastman, Davis (Larry Stephenson plays) and a couple other handmade mandos.
    I have never heard any of the other mandolins previously. I appreciate this review, I have never had the opportunity to see or play the Loar, would have had to order it. However, I have played and heard a few Eastmans which have had very good finish for the same price range. I am not saying I would not consider a Loar if I had the opportunity to walk into a store and see/handle and play one, but that has not been the case. Thanks again, your review seemed to put the facts out there without being biased.

  8. The following members say thank you to mee for this post:


  9. #158

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by guitarpath View Post
    This thread should not necessarily discourage a Loar owner. If you enjoy your "The Loar", why would a detailed critique of the fit-and-finish of one example diminish your enjoyment?

    Look, I see it like this. I bought a Loar 600 mandolin (en route to me) as a starter instrument. I am a guitar player and I want to get into playing the mandolin. I chose The Loar 600 because 1) it has a good reputation in the sub-$1000 category as a good sounding traditional mandolin; 2) it has a thicker neck profile and a wider nut which should make the transition from the guitar somewhat easier; and 3) I did not want to spend a lot of money on a mandolin when I don't even play the instrument yet (buying a Gibson Master Model probably isn't the most prudent idea since I am just beginning my mandolin journey).

    I think my story is fairly typical. I did not buy this to be my dream lifetime mandolin. I bought this to learn on. With experience, time, and practice, hopefully I will learn my own personal mandolin preferences and get proficient enough on the instrument so that I can pursue my ultimate dream mandolin, whatever that may be.

    I expect my Loar 600 to be a well-setup, easy-playing, good-sounding mandolin (I bought it from Robert with the CA bridge upgrade and his capable set-up). I do not expect it to necessarily look like a Collings.

    While certainly interesting and enlightening, I don't think that this thread will diminish my enjoyment of my upcoming Loar 600.
    You will enjoy it very much I played a 600 for about a year and got more than few complements on its tone and build from some seasond players. I sold it to upgrade to 4K mando. But I wish I would have kept it as back up the 600 is a nice sounding mando and after set up a great playing instrument good intonation, stays in tune, had low action no fret buzz. Have fun with it and you be the judge on what you think of it.
    Lou

  10. #159
    Registered User almeriastrings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Almeria, Spain
    Posts
    5,442
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    To be fair, the latest ones (The Loar) I have seen have been a definite improvement in 'fit and finish' over the ones I was seeing about 3 years ago. Still rather heavy on the lacquer, but not as 'agricultural' in other details. I still feel the higher end KM's win out, but I have not seen any really rough 'The Loars' for a while.
    Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
    Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
    Northfield Big Mon #127
    Ellis F5 Special #288
    '39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.

  11. The following members say thank you to almeriastrings for this post:

    mee 

  12. #160

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Agreed QC is way up from the past. There have also been several minor changes over the years.
    Robert Fear
    http://www.folkmusician.com

    "Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don't.
    " - Pete Seeger

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

    mee 

  14. #161

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Loar LM 700 - collapsed!! 6 weeks ago I bought a beauty from a chap via EBay. He’d bought it from a Bluegrass instrument shop (on line) in the USA a couple of years ago. Excellent condition, well maintained. Now it’s worthless & unplayable because the top has caved in. Luthier has said it’s obvious this will happen as there is no bracing!! Devastated!!!

  15. #162

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    “The top collapsed because of no bracing!” I’ve read enough negative about the Loar 700 that tomorrow I’m canceling my order. Think I’ll put the money towards a used American guitar because I can’t afford an American Mandolin.

    This is certainly a great thread. I’ve learned a lot about mandolins

  16. #163
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Jackson, CA
    Posts
    208

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by almeriastrings View Post
    Some 'Chops' on an A chord on each mandolin, random order.

    http://soundcloud.com/almeria-strings/mando-chops

    Certainly brings out a few differences....

    Structurally, these are all quite different mandolins:

    Silverangel F model with X-brace
    The Loar LM700 with no bracing
    KM1000 (Red spruce top) and Gibson Fern (Sitka top) with tone bars
    Those weren't all the same chord shapes, specifically the third sample. Apples to oranges. You can also hear inconsistency in timing which may belie a desired outcome. Thanks for sharing though, because even still you can hear very clear differences in voicing. Blessings

  17. #164
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Beaverdam, Va
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by almeriastrings View Post
    To be fair, the latest ones (The Loar) I have seen have been a definite improvement in 'fit and finish' over the ones I was seeing about 3 years ago. Still rather heavy on the lacquer, but not as 'agricultural' in other details. I still feel the higher end KM's win out, but I have not seen any really rough 'The Loars' for a while.
    Thanks for the update on the Loar cosmetics. It's at least a left handed compliment.

    Something that's curious:

    The Loar cosmetic defects provided at a discount = Bad/Horrid
    Distressed SilverAngel cosmetic defects at a premium = Good

    Cognitive dissonance is funny stuff.

    ps. Mandolin #3 sounded better than the rest to me - later identified as the SilverAngel

  18. #165
    Registered User almeriastrings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Almeria, Spain
    Posts
    5,442
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lefty665 View Post

    Something that's curious:

    The Loar cosmetic defects provided at a discount = Bad/Horrid
    Distressed SilverAngel cosmetic defects at a premium = Good

    Cognitive dissonance is funny stuff.
    Violin 'distressing' has a long history. There's also a vast, vast difference between a high quality hand-made instrument with a quality finish that has been carefully 'aged' and a much cheaper 'factory' mass-produced instrument with a thick finish that has actual defects such as lacquer runs and poor detail work (bad sanding, rough binding, poorly fitted tuners, frets, etc.).
    Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
    Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
    Northfield Big Mon #127
    Ellis F5 Special #288
    '39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.

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


  20. #166
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Beaverdam, Va
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by almeriastrings View Post
    Violin 'distressing' has a long history. There's also a vast, vast difference between a high quality hand-made instrument with a quality finish that has been carefully 'aged' and a much cheaper 'factory' mass-produced instrument with a thick finish that has actual defects such as lacquer runs and poor detail work (bad sanding, rough binding, poorly fitted tuners, frets, etc.).
    Q: When is a defect not a defect? A: When it is "a high quality hand-made instrument with a quality finish that has been carefully 'aged'" Oh, too, too funny. Thank you, I needed a good laugh. The illusion provided by fake "aging" salves the fragile ego.

    But, again thank you for the audio comparison. It did show the similarities and differences among the mandolins. The SilverAngel (carefully 'aged') did appeal to me, perhaps because I'm really a guitar player and have a fondness for the sound of X bracing. The other 3 were remarkably similar, although #4 (F5) did have a marginal edge in clarity and tone.

    That seems to confirm the comments of the genuine luthiers that appear throughout the thread. As low end instruments get better the cost of that last couple of percent of sound keeps getting higher.

  21. #167
    Registered User almeriastrings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Almeria, Spain
    Posts
    5,442
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lefty665 View Post
    Q: When is a defect not a defect? A: When it is "a high quality hand-made instrument with a quality finish that has been carefully 'aged'" Oh, too, too funny. Thank you, I needed a good laugh. The illusion provided by fake "aging" salves the fragile ego.
    It has nothing to do with 'egos'. Some people simply like that look, just as you might prefer a reddish or a brown sunburst or a natural finish. It's an option. If you like it - fine. If not - don't buy one. Same with the recent 'Monroe' Master Model. No-one is 'conned' into believing it is Monroe's mandolin, but if you like that, and can afford it, why not? Not to my person taste (and overall I would never buy any instrument on the basis of looks), but I do respect that people have wildly differing preferences and see no problem at all in luthiers offering instruments that those buyers will find attractive.

    It is the underlying sound and 'feel' of an instrument that really counts, and in that respect, I can only suggest you take a couple of examples of 'The Loar' and then pick up an Ellis, Gilchrist, Heiden or similar....
    Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
    Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
    Northfield Big Mon #127
    Ellis F5 Special #288
    '39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.

  22. #168

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    I’ve got instruments that were pristine when new, and I’ve also bought a couple of used guitars a few years back that were well and truly pre-owned. All good, and they all have their own look, feel and individual character.

    What I do hate, though, is when you get a brand new instrument that has thick runs in the poly finish - one of them big enough to produce a 1/4 inch “growth” on the edge of an f hole. Despite being drowned in lacquer, it also had unfinished areas, for some strange reason. A bad paint job where the paint covered the binding in a couple of places, and a fretboard extension that was drooping down towards the top of the mandolin. What was it? A The Loar 400 bought online from a proper dealer who’d set it up really well, but there was no mention of it being a blem when it was bought. Once we pointed out the issues, we were offered a refund or a discount. Sounded OK so took a pretty hefty discount.

    Kept it for a few months, then moved it on.

    I personally am not that keen on artificially relic’d instruments - if I was buying it brand new as a commission, I think I’d probably want it to look pristine (then I can provide my own relicing over the years!).

    But a reliced instrument that’s built with care and attention from a proven builder with a great track record, is a world away from a slap-dash muppet who doesn’t know one end of a paint brush from the other!

  23. The following members say thank you to Johnny60 for this post:


  24. #169
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Beaverdam, Va
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by almeriastrings View Post
    It has nothing to do with 'egos'. Some people simply like that look, just as you might prefer a reddish or a brown sunburst or a natural finish. It's an option. If you like it - fine. If not - don't buy one. Same with the recent 'Monroe' Master Model. No-one is 'conned' into believing it is Monroe's mandolin, but if you like that, and can afford it, why not? Not to my person taste (and overall I would never buy any instrument on the basis of looks), but I do respect that people have wildly differing preferences and see no problem at all in luthiers offering instruments that those buyers will find attractive.

    It is the underlying sound and 'feel' of an instrument that really counts, and in that respect, I can only suggest you take a couple of examples of 'The Loar' and then pick up an Ellis, Gilchrist, Heiden or similar....
    Think there's any truth to the rumors that the follow up to the "distressed" model will be an "Authentic" model "aged" with a fireplace poker like Ol' Bill's was?

    I never argued that The Loar was a high class mandolin, only that on the one hand you dripped acid on it for mostly minor defects while having paid big money for an instrument with defects added by the maker. Apparently you're a fan of defects if they're expensive. As I noted before that created cognitive dissonance.

    FWIW, the Loar I ordered showed up today. It came from an ad here. The Mandolin Store folks were nice, knowledgeable, easy to deal with, and set it up well. It's an LM 700 VS, listed as blemished, mfd in November 2016, and it was inexpensive.

    It sounds much like the Loar and Kentucky you tested, perhaps somewhat better tone because it has had a couple of years to settle down and open up. We'll see what it does when it's been played for awhile. The back is very nicely flamed and impeccably bookmatched. The sides and neck are also nicely flamed. The face has remarkably tight grain. The finish, while not thin, is well applied with no drips or sags. The edges of the f holes are finished. From what I can see inside it is neatly assembled, no glue slop or rough joinery.

    On the down side, the finish under the fingerboard extension is rough. On the back the binding around the scroll is a little uneven as it is around the heel. There is one very small ding in the center of the back, and a couple of small very light scratches that look like they may have come from a shirt button. None are things that would be apparent or disturbing in normal use. The fit, finish and most of the materials are better than the '37 Gibson A-00 I have that was made in Kalamazoo. Not bad for a "blem".


    I like the neck, but I'm a guitar player so dunno how that translates to you mandolin pickers. It will do what I got it for just fine. Thumbs up for The Loar.

  25. The following members say thank you to Lefty665 for this post:


  26. #170

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Congrats on the new mandolin! Enjoy!

  27. The following members say thank you to Jeff Mando for this post:


  28. #171
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Beaverdam, Va
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    The other Loar arrived today, thought I'd do a quick comparison. This mandolin is an LM-600 dated January '18, used off Ebay. Initial impression on sound is that it is between the LM-700 and the Kentucky in the OP's sound files.

    It has none of the blemishes found on the "Blem" 700, although, while far better, the finish under the fingerboard extension is not perfect. The finish looks a little thinner, and all the binding is impeccable. The couple of minor indications of play wear would never qualify as "distressed". The wood is generally not quite as pretty as the AAA on the 700, but the neck has nicer flame.

    All in all these pac-rim instruments seem a remarkable value. From the OP's sound files, to my guitar pickers ears, they have upwards of 90% of the sound of the F5 at 10-20% of the price. From the samples I have it appears that Loar has pretty much addressed the cosmetic issues that distressed the OP in his original postings, although another recent poster had one with finish issues. Inexpensive instruments will display more sample variance than expensive ones. Look before you buy, get a generous return policy if you can't, or take your chances if the price is right.

    Now for me, which mando goes to which son...

  29. The following members say thank you to Lefty665 for this post:


  30. #172
    Registered User almeriastrings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Almeria, Spain
    Posts
    5,442
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lefty665 View Post
    I never argued that The Loar was a high class mandolin, only that on the one hand you dripped acid on it for mostly minor defects while having paid big money for an instrument with defects added by the maker. Apparently you're a fan of defects if they're expensive. As I noted before that created cognitive dissonance.
    Ludicrous conclusion. No - I'm not. I own instruments based upon sound primarily, and 'feel' secondly. I own a Silverangel because (as most on here recognise) they have a very unique tonal signature. No other reason. The 'distressing' was entirely incidental (I purchased it used and no, it was not 'big money' either). That said - I don't have a closed mind on the issue and I do have some respect for the 'art' of distressing convincingly. It has a long history in the violin world. Personally, I can 'take it or leave it' and as long as the instrument sounds great and plays well then that is all that really matters. I have only ever owed one single 'distressed' instrument in more than 40 years of playing... so I hardly think that qualifies me as a "fan"! The rest of my instruments are either genuinely aged vintage examples or more or less pristine....
    Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
    Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
    Northfield Big Mon #127
    Ellis F5 Special #288
    '39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.

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


  32. #173
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Beaverdam, Va
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    "I do have some respect for the 'art' of distressing convincingly" Thank you for bringing some lightness to what has been for me a difficult couple of weeks.

    Adding defects to a well finished instrument as art is a concept that had never occurred to me. Thank you for broadening my horizons. As with any art form I suppose it has its own vocabulary. For example, is scraping the front known as "defacing", marring near the end pin and around where the strings attach "detailing", or scratching the back as with a belt buckle known as "rationalizing" (which serves double duty as a description for the appreciation of the art form itself)?

    Your appreciation of "distressing" after the manufacturing fact as 'art' and your distain for the application of imperfections by the artisan during manufacture caused me cognitive dissonance. Perhaps that is the tension between the traditional concept of instrument as canvas to be marked on, contrasted with the more modern concept of "the medium is the message". To that end you have inspired me to take another look at the "blem" Loar I recently received. The roughness under the fingerboard extension now appears to be a symbolic expression of the ascent of mankind from the hidden dark recesses of the past into the shiny sunburst light of modernity. The subtle unevenness of the binding around the rear scroll as the artisan's expression of revolt against the rigid mathematical formula of the Fibonacci curve of the scroll and the equally rigid placement of the frets and bridge.

    You make me rethink the relative value of the gradual accumulation of nicks, dings and scratches over time commonly known as 'mojo' compared to the artificial distressing of a new instrument perhaps known as 'pho(ny)jo'. You also make me re-examine the relationship of defects incorporated during construction versus those expressed later. For example, Duffy built a neck for his F12 (I think that's what it was) with the 3rd fret misplaced. He perhaps used the dissonance that caused artistically as heard in the sometimes brutal ends to his breaks. Monroe performed for some time with the scroll broken off the headstock as an expression of his anger at Gibson. I recollect that at one point he even picked the "Gibson" inlay out of the headstock. Under your formulation Bill's expression was art, and Duffy's was not. That is food for thought to compliment whisky before breakfast and the bright sweet light of spring sunshine making a blackberry blossom.

    In conclusion, I truly do appreciate the time and effort you took to produce and post the sound files that are the substance of this thread. For me they were enlightening. They highlighted the similarities and differences among the mandolins. Three of them had much in common, while the fourth, the Silverangel, was distinctive, and to my ear, most pleasing. I hope you thoroughly enjoy it over many years as its distress merges with natural aging.
    Last edited by Lefty665; Mar-28-2019 at 10:47am.

  33. #174
    Registered User almeriastrings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Almeria, Spain
    Posts
    5,442
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Quote Originally Posted by Lefty665 View Post
    "I do have some respect for the 'art' of distressing convincingly" Thank you for bringing some lightness to what has been for me a difficult couple of weeks.

    Adding defects to a well finished instrument as art is a concept that had never occurred to me. Thank you for broadening my horizons.
    You're welcome. It is extremely difficult to do well, and is a very specialist skill. While I would not (myself) commission an instrument like that, I do recognise the challenge and difficulties of the work required. There are different view on this. Some approve, some don't. As long as it sounds right, I really don't care.
    Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
    Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
    Northfield Big Mon #127
    Ellis F5 Special #288
    '39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.

  34. #175

    Default Re: Review and comparison 'The Loar LM-700 VS'

    Couldn't help but comment on this old tread.... I purchased a 2010 Loar 700. I love it. I have a CA bridge, new frets, speed neck, and removed alot of the thick finish. Been trying different strings and found with the GHS Bright Bronze this baby sings!!! As mentioned before it does have a darker and woodier tone anyway. I have kept this Loar 700 and prefer its tone over the following mandos I've had. Eastman 315,515 Kentucky 620,650 and a custom built mandolin. Im very happy with it. I can over look the finish issues long as it sounds good. All you Loar 700 folks definitely try the GHS Bright Bronze strings.

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
  •