Gibson F7

[Barry Platnick]

There is a 1934 F7 in the classifieds that has piqued my interest.
Does any know about it?

what can you all tell me about these in general. both the model and the year?

what are the major differences among the F5 , F7, and F12


thanks
Barry

[allenhopkins]

The F-7 was made in the 1930's. Basically, you could call it a "short-neck F-5," with simpler ornamentation. Gibson made several models below the F-5 -- F-7, F-12, and the rare F-10 -- with the basic F-5 body, but in the case of the F-7 and F-10, shorter necks like the oval-hole F-4. and in all cases, less inlay work. The Depression was on, the F-5 at $250 or so was expensive, and, worst of all, the mandolin was on the way out as an instrument of general popularity.

Bill Monroe played an F-7 with the Monroe Brothers and after, before he bought his legendary Lloyd Loar F-5. The shorter neck leads to a bridge placed closer to the center of the mandolin body, and there's a general consensus this makes them less sonically desirable than the longer-necked F-5.

Here's a short but informative frets.com writeup (http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/Museum/Mandolin/Gibson/F7/f7.html) on the F-7. Bernunzio has this nice example (http://www.bernunzio.com/item.php?sku=0812621) on sale for $10K.

Because of their rarity, F-7's have some cachet as collectors' instruments. One of the big regrets I have, is turning down an F-7 back in the '70's because I had to have an F-5. I like shorter-neck instruments, and I'm sure I would have been very happy with the "7."

The one in the classifieds is a bit pricier than Bernunzio's, but the seller says it's a stellar example. Bernunzio says his has a refinish, which does detract from the collector appeal, though it might make little difference to a player.

[Bernie Daniel]

allenhopkins: Bill Monroe played an F-7 with the Monroe Brothers and after, before he bought his legendary Lloyd Loar F-5. The shorter neck leads to a bridge placed closer to the center of the mandolin body, and there's a general consensus this makes them less sonically desirable than the longer-necked F-5.

Without a doubt the bridge has to be more centered on the top plate to get the intonation right.

But does the idea that it makes it a less desirable arrangement for sound (from the F-7 versus the F-5) make any sense to you?

I do not recall that I've ever thought much about it but if someone would have put the question to me I think that I would have guessed the centering of the bridge would be a better arrangement? -- tonewise.

Does anyone know the physics of this?

Or is it just "consider opinion" -- or more likely, a case of "Well, Bill switched so therefore..........." :)

[Big Joe]

Frank Ray is a good friend and a great mandolin player and singer. This I know about Frank. If he says it is a good mandolin, you can take it to the bank. He has a few Loars so he is not likely to need this instrument. Great guy who really knows his instruments. If you are in the market, Frank would be a great guy to deal with.

[Barry Platnick]

I would like to hear more about the general concensus regarding the sound of these manolins if any one can comment. Are they particularly soft or anything like that?
thanks

[Bernie Daniel]

Barry Platnick: I would like to hear more about the general concensus regarding the sound of these manolins if any one can comment. Are they particularly soft or anything like that?

I would try to listen to some of the early Monroe recordings -- he played the F-7 on those.

PS Not to sidetrack your thread -- but I see you also have a '52 F-12 (I also have one) -- it is not quite up to my F-5 Fern in volume but it is certainly huskier sounding

[Fretbear]

The shorter neck leads to a bridge placed closer to the center of the mandolin body, and there's a general consensus this makes them less sonically desirable than the longer-necked F-5.

The shorter neck causes the bridge to end up lower on the mandolin's body rather than centered as it is on an F-5.

[Bernie Daniel]

Fretbear: The shorter neck causes the bridge to end up lower on the mandolin's body rather than centered as it is on an F-5.


I thought I had made a mistake once but I was wrong. Now it all makes sense.

[allenhopkins]

The shorter neck causes the bridge to end up lower on the mandolin's body rather than centered as it is on an F-5.

I stands corrected.

[f5loar]

30's F7,F10and F12 are rare today because many under went "Loarism" conversions in the 70's. After Monroe went to the long neckers, short neckers were out. When backyard luthiers found you could knock the neck out with a hammer and put in a Loar style long neck in the same slot and sell it for the double the money why not? And they generally did sound better after this long neck conversion. Many would take out the original 30's label and use fake Loar labels to disqise the newly made F5 copy. After all it did have a real Gibson body on it. Decades later they found out they could build the whole mandolin for less money and the fate of the remaining few F7's were saved. I've not heard of a production figure for these but it's got to be less then 1000 of made in those few years.
I describle the sound the of the F7 more to the sound of the F4 round holes then to the sound of the F5. They tend to loose the punch the farther up the neck you went.
Monroe didn't start doing that much B stuff untill after he got the F5 when he found the F5 could cut it up the neck.
I was at Gruhn's a few months ago and he had one and told me personally "you know these F7s are rarer then Loar F5s" Can't argue with that. The one Frank has is dead mint and the price to me rather cheap when you compare it to the refinished one. I've seen them bring $15K back in the good old days before the downfall of our nations ecomony.