Battle of the Flatirons

[travelerru]

I'm new to this board so please forgive me if this has been discussed at length in the past. #I'm in the market for a new mandolin and I've got my sights set on a Flatiron. #The only one I've played is a Pre-Gibson A that I absolutely love. #However, I'm interested in one of the F models. #Is there truly a noticeable difference between the pre-Gibson & post-Gibson F-styles? #How about between the Montana and Tennessee builds? #I'm just trying to make sure I have all the facts before I lay down the cash.

[fatt-dad]

Short answer: I don't know. My impression is that the pre-Gibson and post-Gibson Flatirons (after mid-1987) made in Montana are esstentially the same. They were both made by the same folks using the same methods. Some will argue that the early "Carlson era" Flatirons (pre- or post-Gibson) may have been better. Here is what I've heard: Carlson managed the early work until it got too hectic, then left. Weber took over somewhere in the early 90s, but the quantity of work was fairly large and some "give" in the production may have taken place. Maybe I'm partly spreading rumors - I don't mean to, but it makes sense to me that one shop that started as a Flatiron shop may have gotten overwelmed when they grew to handle the combined production of both Gibson and Flatiron.

In the late 90s, Gibson moved their production to Nashville. When they made this move, they re-tooled their production and made both Flatirons and Gibsons using the dovetail neck joint. Some feel that this is the "better" or "more authentic" construction method.

Something I'm not sure about: Early Flatirons were x-braced - but I don't know whether they also made them with tone bars. I expect they did, I just don't know what trim levels were tone bar and which were not. My 84 A5-1 is x-braced.

If your looking at pancakes, I doubt you'll notice much difference between pre- and post-Gibson other than the latter have an adjustible truss rod.

Another thing to consider is the product lineup. Early carved-top Flatirons came in two trim levels - both with elevated fretboards. Later in the production, they offerred an entry level mandolin that had a fretboard that was integrated into the top. Some feel that the integrated fretboard impedes the vibration of the top - i.e., the elevated fretboard is a better construction method. That said, I play with a guy that gets a wonderful tone from his Flatiron with the integrated fretboard.

In summary: Pre- and post-Gibson Flatiron mandolins are both good. Pre- and post-Nashville Flatirons are both good. Carlson Flatirons may be more collectable. Nashville Flatirons have a more conventional neck joint. Integrated fretboards common to the basic trim line may offer a different sound.

fatt I'm-no-expert-but-enjoy-the-topic dad

[Ken Berner]

The pre-Gibson Flatirons that I have played (A5 models) were absolute screamers; the owners would not part with them! My observation is that the Montana-era Flatirons were a cut above the early-Nashville ones I have played. They really are not the same instruments anyway, in fact, because of design changes. I have no doubt that the quality of later Nashville Flatirons improved considerably.

[man0mando]

Flatiron, before moving to Nashville, made 5 F model mandolins - the 2 top of the line models were x-braced, the other 3 tone bars - from top to bottom, the models were F5 Master (x), F5 Artist (x), F5 (tone bars), Performer F (tone bars) and Festival F (tone bars) - there were 5 A models, 2 x-braced and 3 tone bars (not including the pancakes) - you can count me as a Flatiron fan

dave

[Chip Booth]

I have owned 2 pre-Gibson Flatirons and have played a bunch of post-Gibson ones. All of the Carlson era mandos I have tried have been good or really good, but I haven't played that many. The Gibson Montanas seem more hit or miss, but maybe this is just because I have played more of them. Nonetheless there is a 90ish Weber signed F5 Artist out there that still haunts my dreams as one of the nicest mandolins I have played. I have only played one Nashville Flatiron, and it was decent but nothing special.

I think the end result is that you have to judge each one on it's own merits. Each period has winners, and I am sure each period has losers. But if I were a gambling man I would probably bet on the Carlson era instruments.

Chip

[pickinNgrinnin]

[QUOTE]but the quantity of work was fairly large and some "give" in the production may have taken place.

That's the first I have heard of that. I would be surprised if this happened under Bruce's watch.

travelerru - you have some good information here. I've owned a number of Flatirons over the years - both Montana and Nashville. Enjoyed playing all of them. Yes, they are indeed hard to compare since their design is quite different. Hard to go wrong with a Flatiron - no matter where/when it was made.

[travelerru]

Everyone, thanks for all the great input. #It sounds like flatirons - despite their year and location of build - are well respected instruments. #This is bad news for my checkbook http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. #

James G

[Jim Yates]

Now, how do the Webbers compare to the Flatirons? Are they the same basic design, made by the same craftsmen?

[Ken Berner]

I have no doubt that STE would build pretty much anything you might desire. Their X-bracing is a little different from the Flatirons, but it is evident that the work-ethic has not changed, judging from the quality of their mandolins. The reason I bought my '99 Beartooth was because I was unable to locate a Flatiron for sale at the time. I have since bought two Flatiron Artists, and still have my Weber!

[Chip Booth]

I spoke briefly with someone from Weber about the differences, but it's been some time back and my memory is fuzzy. #As I recall the body shape is just a little different. #The impression I got was that Bruce was somewhat dictated to when he worked for Gibson, and with Weber of course he is able to do things the way he wants. #There are subtle construction differences, enough to certainly change the overall sound. #

I think Webers are generally voiced lower, whatever that means. #There is often a peak frequency in the low mids that is not common to the Flatiron sound, it kind of gives Webers (with F holes) a "chunk" or "clunk".

Chip

[Michael Wolf]

This "chunk" is something that I hear from my Flatiron and that was one characteristic that attracted me. I bought my A5 Artist a few month ago and I had the chance to choose from two Flatirons one A5 from the 80's (pre Gibson) and the Artist from 95'(Gibson, but Montana made). They were very different, both were nice. But the Artist was clear the better Mando, very punchy and responsive. So I think the Flatirons from the Gibson aera are not inferior, I think its more a matter of nostalgia or something that drive people to think they must have a pre Gibson Flat. I was tempted too, but then I found that I must have been stupid not to take the better sounding mando, only for the prestige. One can only judge by ear not becaues of rumours.
I then had the chance to compare my A5 to a Gibson F5L, build by Bruce Weber, which is a very nice example. The owner was amazed by the Flatiron, because it was as good as this F5, only different. The chop of the Flatiron was much stronger and also the bass, but the F5 was more even across the strings and had an more open e-string.
The same person owns a Collings F5. We also found in this case that both mandos have their advantages but are about the same quality, only that the F5s cost a "bit" more. For me the Flat works better, because I found that Irish tunes, that I play very much, are better on it than on the Collings.


Cheers
Michael

[Willie]

I am playing a `91 Flatiron, made after Weber left Gibson, and for my money it beats any older Flatiron I have ever played...It`s like comparing anything, not everyone will agree as to which is the best because we all hear and are looking for different things...GO AND TRY BOTH...Then you will know which one suits your style and ear, you might also want to try a few other high quality mandos, do`nt jump on the first one that comes along there a lot of good ones out there....Willie

[Markelberry]

I just traded off my 90 f5l carlson and recieved a 96 flatiron performer f5 integrated neck and was sceptical of the integrated fingerboard no problem hearing this one nicely balanced great tone good chop. I like it every bit as much as the Gibson and I loved the Gibson both great mandolins only different the Gibson was brighter and might be because of thepearl nut the flatty has bone nut seems to be a little warmer sounding. Also owned an 84 ajr flatiron I should not have sold every Gibson 1 I owned was great and all Flatirons were consistantly good. I did notice the scroll and headstock were carved diferent even though they were made at the same shop.Markus

[harmonist34]

I've got two new (to me) mandos waiting for me when I move back to the states: '97 Flatiron Performer F and an '83 Flatiron A5-1. I'm looking forward to A/Bing them!

Andrew