"New" Oval vs "Old" Oval

[ColdBeerGoCubs]

Not in the sense of a mandolins individual age, but more or less of its build. From a search of the site I've gathered this. Correct my ignorance, please, and throw anything else you have right out there.

From my understanding an "older" design oval has a shorter neck and a deeper (for lack of a better term) sound.

A "new" oval (hybrid, I'm assuming) has a longer neck, different body attachment point, etc. But I keep reading that its sound is part F, part oval. What exactly does that mean or is there a way to describe it better?

I've been listening to various clips of different mandos and playing a few when I can, but what would be some brands to look at to compare the different styles? I have a Kentucky KM-174 now, and from what I can gather this was built in the "old" Style (For any of you Chicagoans, or Cubs fans, do you get thirsty everytime you read old style?)so what would be a brand that demonstrates the new? Weber Galatin, Breedlove? I'm thinking a trek to one of the meccas is in my future but would like to have some info before I go.

[Ed Goist]

I am sure that this will become one of my favorite threads...

ColdBeerGoCubs: Based on our various Cafe postings, I am sure that both you and I are firmly in the 'oval hole society' (this may be due to the fact that oval hole mandolins dominated during a time when both the Cubs and the Indians were powerhouse pennant contenders!) ;)

Anyways, I was recently fortunate enough to play several fine oval hole mandolins, and based on that experience (and my research here), here is a summary of my perceived differences between "old" and "new" ovals...

"Old Ovals":
short neck (joining the body at around the 10th fret), neck generally aligned with the body (not raised), X-bracing (sometimes with a transverse bar), characterized by woody, warm (not metallic) tone, moderate volume, and substantial sustain.
Example: Vintage Gibsons, Kentucky KM-170 series (somewhat of a hybrid due to the raised neck), JBovier A4, Old Wave

"New Ovals":
long neck (joining the body at around the 14th fret), neck generally raised above the body, tone bars instead of X bracing, characterized by a hybrid tone - compromising the increased sustain of the vintage oval hole with the 'bluegrass bark' of f-hole mandolins.
Examples: Eastman ovals (due to the tone bars), Gibson Jam Master Oval-A, Weber ovals, Collings ovals, Pomeroy ovals

I am firmly in the 'Old Oval' camp and am always looking to try good examples...

Looking forward to the input of others.

[rnjl]

I have a Will Parsons long-neck oval hole which has a deeper, rounder tone- a couple of people have said it has the "old Gibson vibe" but IMO it's much easier to play. I think you can work with builders to get certain kinds of tone - wood choice makes a difference as well as all the factors listed above.

[red7flag]

I love the oval sound. I recently put up for sale a number of "new" ovals after I was smitten by the 22 Oval A. The Mojo of that instrument cannot be matched by the new ones. The Weber Oval A had an old sound due to the old wood but a new instrument vibe and feel. The Eastman DGM-2 was great by Eastman standards and due to the Bacon shape had some mojo, but not the old Oval A sound. I once had a F4 with short neck and attached to the body made for me by a custom builder, but it just did not have the old oval sound. I guess that I why I kept the A-2. After playing it, the new instruments, excellent that they are, simply did not have that something very special that an 90 year old instrument has. I am still considering buying an F4, but think I will keep the A2 even if I do. It is just a special beast.

[mandroid]

I got 2 short neck Gibbys, both early 20s , generalizations fail , they are each sounding unique.

[hank]

Something that you might want to check out when you go mandolin tasting is the sometimes radical difference in the way a mandolin feels under the fingers and pick. I won't get specific but there is a huge difference in this area between my two mandolins, a 2006 Gold Rush and a 1915 A4. I am very attached to both of them but they are not only night and day different in sound but also in the way you can play them. Everyone talks about the tonal differences but you may find that the longer neck oval with a larger neck angle plays and responds differently than the shorter shallower angled oval. When a reference is made that they are part A5/F5 and part A4/F4 it may also refer to the way the instrument feels and responds under your fingers and pick.

[Pete Martin]

Fast Eddie described it well. The older Gibson (and new Old Wave) ovals have that fatter/warmer mojo that the newer hybrid ovals don't.

I too am a big fan of that.

[modgar]

Eddie,
Why are the Pomeroy A-2 oval mandolins in the "new ovals" classification? I thought they are short necked.

Thanks,
Gary

[Ed Goist]

Eddie,
Why are the Pomeroy A-2 oval mandolins in the "new ovals" classification? I thought they are short necked.

Thanks,
Gary

Gary, thanks for catching my error. The Pomeroy A-2 DEFINITELY should be in the 'Old Oval' category. I had jotted the name down on a piece of paper to remember to include it in my post because it's such a fine example, and then ended up putting it in the wrong category (D'oh...) :redface:

-Ed

[Ed Goist]

I have a Will Parsons long-neck oval hole which has a deeper, rounder tone- a couple of people have said it has the "old Gibson vibe" but IMO it's much easier to play. I think you can work with builders to get certain kinds of tone - wood choice makes a difference as well as all the factors listed above.

I completely agree that the builder's intent (or instructions from the buyer on a custom order) can be very defining regarding the final tone of the mandolin. I'd say that the characteristics I listed above are 'indicative' but not 'defining' of the two 'types' of mandolins, but that there is a huge middle ground which includes many, many models. Also, individual mandolins can vary from their model norm considerably.

In terms of defining elements, it appears that the short neck is quite defining of the "Old Style" ovals, while the presence of tone bars seems to be quite defining of "New Style" ovals...interesting stuff.

rnjl, I would love to see photos of your Will Parsons long-neck oval hole.

[rnjl]

Hi again. Here are some pictures (http://picasaweb.google.com/rabbineal/Parsons?authkey=Gv1sRgCIvooYWkzqvFLQ#)of my Will Parsons A-model, which I got in . . . 2004, I think. These pictures are kind of old and not very good- I didn't know as much about digital photography then as now- but they'll do until I take better ones. Since these were taken, I took the finish off the back of the neck and I like that feel very much. It's got a nice deep tubby bass tone, and I'd say the weakest strings are the E course, but overall it's got a nice balance (this from the prof. luthier who set it up recently.)

Long, round, thick neck- no dinky little Gibson "v" necks for me! - black finish, abalone rosette. If I could do it over I would not have put strap button in the neck, but I did, so I use it.

I like to practice on this mandolin, just playing it alone. I does not have a particularly woofy bluegrass "chop," but then, I don't think it's supposed to.

Neal

[red7flag]

Neal, I laughed when you said "no dinky little Gibson 'v' necks". As the neck on my 22 A2 is anything but dinky. But, I know you are referring to the new model necks. My Gibson is the only neck I have that is not dinky, well except for the Octar.

[Rob Gerety]

I like both styles - and would love to own both someday. My current mandolin is an old Gibson oval and I doubt I will ever lose my love for that old short neck gibson sound. It really does it for me. I assume by "dinky" you are referring to the length of the neck not the girth because it would be hard to find a beefier neck profile than you find on a teens Gibson.

[Ed Goist]

Hi Neal:
Thanks for posting the pictures. Beautiful mandolin!
-Ed

[walt33]

Here http://www.cranfordpub.com/papazian/papazian_mandolin.htm
is a new-build, old-style oval A that knocked my socks off. It's the only oval A I've played up to this point, but I was enraptured for the brief moments it was in my hands. Sounds great recorded, too. Someday I'll venture out and play a few old Gibsons.

[red7flag]

Love the look of that instrument. Has the look of a renaissance instrument to me or taking its cues from those designs.

[walt33]

It is a very simple instrument. Being unstrung with no bridge or tailpiece makes it look unusual in the photos. I was struck by how the fingerboard appears to be laid into the top, and by the back, which appears to be flatsawn (like many old Gibsons). My first impression was that I wasn't sure I liked it, based on the visuals. But that impression went out the window soon as I strummed it for the first time. The sound was great, nice and fat, and very even from string to string.

This instrument belongs to Colin Savoie-Levac of the group Dentdelion from Quebec. He'll be teaching in August at the Algoma Traditional Music and Dance Family Music Camp near Sault Ste. Marie, ON. algomatrad.ca It can be heard on the CD La Tondeuse by Dentdelion and on the CD Annabel by Les Poules a Colin. http://lespoulesacolin.com/musique/trouve-moi-site/

[rnjl]

Hi again everybody.

Re: dinky necks- actually, I WAS referring to the girth of Gibsons I've played, which with a V profile have felt very thin and insubstantial in my hand, like there was nothing there to grab onto and my fingers had to bend too much to wrap around it.

Now- maybe I've played later models, or the necks I've seen were thinned down, or my Flatiron is just such a big round lovable C shape that any V profile at all feels all wrong to me.

Ironically- it's the opposite with Martin guitars, where the classic old V profile feels much too big and I love the low oval or modified low oval.

Good thread. Anybody in the Hudson Valley region or nearby is welcome to come try out the Parsons . . . .

Neal