FLATIRON F5 ARTIST VS. WEBER FERN

[Hal Loflin]

I am looking for information for the difference between a Montana Flatiron F5 Artist (1996) and a Weber Fern (sound, construction, tone, how similar in make, etc.).

Thanks

[Kevin Briggs]

I've played three Flatiron Artists ('92, '94, '95), and my Bitteroot is appointed like the Fern, minus the cosmetics. Each of these mandolins is in great shape and is played daily. First, the Flatirons:

Each one was very nice.

The '92 was the best of the three, but that was owned by a good setup guy who owns his own music store, and does minor repair work. It hummed so beautifully, and had that old, woody sound when picked and chopped right. The most memorable aspect was the hum when strumming it. It vibrated my leg, no kidding. I'm almost positive it was X-braced, but am not sure.

The '94 was the next best. Both it and the '92 had a rounded V neck that was very comfortable. This one seemed like a tone bar instrument, and did not have as much volume. Still it had that old, woody sound, and was a reliable bluegrass jam mandolin.

The '95 came in third, but I think that's because it had a poor setup. It was the loudest of the three, because the strings were way off of the fretboard. It chopped very well, but it did not hum very much. It had a dry, strong sound. It seemed like it was a tone bar instrument. The neck was V shaped, which seemed kind of pointy to me.

Now, the Weber...:

Of course, I'm probably biased. The Weber has more potential for power than all three of them, and it maintains a rounder, kind of sweeter all around tone. It has some dryness to it, and some hum, but it's really a different sound altogether. The tone is essentially "rounder." I can pound chops out of it if I need to, and I can pop single notes in fiddle tunes with it. Double stops sound great and cutting, but with that suddle roundness.

I suspect that more hum will develop. I'm still getting a solid bright sound out of it right now, after over a year of consistent playing and practicing. The only drawback is the action. It's not the easiest mandolin to play. I mean, It's not bad, but the Flatirons were easier to play. I even had the neck reshaped by Weber (warranty repair work!) to match the '94 Flatiron neck. It somehow feels a little wider and thicker though. I don't know enough to know why it doesn't feel the same, other than it feels a little wider and thicker.

That said, if I had $5000 to spend on either a Weber Fern or a Montana Flatiron, I would go with the Weber Fern. This is mostly because I like the tone better than the Flatirons I've played, and because with Weber you can customize all kinds of things without price changes, including action stuff. It's a better deal, as long as you know what you want them to do. They can do it all.

[Nick Triesch]

Paula Jean who used to work for Weber and was a real Flatiron expert told me a few years ago that the Weber Fern was built to be in the same league as he Gibson F5 Fern. Before my Fern I owned a Flatiron F5 Artist which was a wonderful mandolin but just was not built to the same standards as the Weber Fern. I really liked my Flatiron but the differance in pure power and fit and finish and construction was huge. IMHO please. Remember that was just my Flatiron. I have heard other Flatirons that were some of the best sounding mandolins that I have ever heard or played....anywhere. Nick

[Frank Russell]

One difference I always have to consider, since I am a chronic trader, is what will have better resale value. I've seen too many really nice Weber F-models sitting on consignment or being priced-down in order to sell. Due to their reputation and relative availability, used Flatirons always seem to sell at just a hair better resale price. Not the only criteria to consider, just another grain of salt. I like them both quite a bit. Frank

[Charles Johnson]

I think all of the Flatiron Artist series were X braced - at least the ones built in Bozeman. After they moved to Nashville things changed....

Charles

[Kevin Briggs]

It's a good point, Frank. To add, I think eventually older Webers will hold there value more steadily, and then increase. I mean, it may take ten years or so for the current mandoins to gain that value. Time will be good to Webers.

Webers are built to last, and that is something Mary Weber, Mike Bartow, and Paula Jean all said to me. They want to make sure the mandolins they make won't fall apart anytime soon. This also helps explain how Weber mandolins take their time breaking in. It may take a while, but a little patience reaps great rewards. Mine sounded great out of the box, with a beautiful Red Spruce top, and is really, really developing into a nice tone. It's an incredibly gradual process, but it is steadily improving, and I'm enjoying the show, so to speak.

Anyway, I think once the Webers come into their own, after aging for a while, they will be valued greatly. I also thin that 50 years from now they will have a great value.