Is an F-5L the same as a Fern?

[danmills]

I'm talking about Gibsons from the post-2000 time period. Is an F-5L different from a Fern, and if so, how does it differ?
Thanks,
Dan

[almeriastrings]

No. Same thing. There were, however, some changes to the F5-L/Fern over that time frame to the present day: bindings changed, sunburst changed, 'Gibson' script was different, and the 'Fern' inlay changed a bit.

[JAK]

There is a 1990 Gibson F5-L, Steve Carlson signed, at Gryphon Strings in Palo Alto, CA (the last time I checked the website).

[DataNick]

Different specs on the Bozeman era Gibson F5Ls such as the one at Gryphon: graduations are not the strict "Derrington" modeled Loar graduations, tenon-mortise with a bolt versus compound dovetail neck joint, tuners are different I think, radiused fretboard versus flat, and there's more differences that Big Joe or someone from that era could elaborate on. Not dissing the Bozeman F5Ls as I own one (94' F5L) and it is a seriously good mando, with several pros having given it their endorsement after playing it.

[FLATROCK HILL]

Delete...Double post.

[FLATROCK HILL]

... radiused fretboard versus flat...

So, the F5Ls were radiused and the 'Ferns' were flat or is it the other way 'round? Just curious, I have no idea...trying to learn.

[DataNick]

So, the F5Ls were radiused and the 'Ferns' were flat or is it the other way 'round? Just curious, I have no idea...trying to learn.

The difference is Bozeman Gibsons versus Nashville Gibsons. F5L and Fern are synonymous. Bozemans are radiused and Nashville's flat (Loar specs)

[GTison]

I have never heard that Montana made F5Ls were radiused fretboards. I owned a '96, it was flat as I recall. Data, is yours radiused?

link to previous thread with a link in my post to
Charlie Derrington interview again that covers some of the answers to these and other questions.

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...gton+interview

[Ken Waltham]

I don't believe any of them originally have radius finger boards.

[FLATROCK HILL]

I've read and re-read an awful lot of those old posts relating to F5L vs Fern etc. It seems that there is no exact date, time or serial number that can be named as the cut-off between one model and the other.

There was a neck attachment change, a neck angle change, a change in the degree of top arch, a change in the sunburst color, the 'Fern' inlay design, the 'The Gibson' logo , the binding...and the list goes on. The designation was changed from F5L to Fern along about the time of the move from Bozeman to Nashville, but evidently not all the changes were made at that point, or even simultaneou....simultaneiou...at the same time.

The one change that I hadn't read of before was the one mentioned by DataNick. I'm certain that I've seen the later models (built in Nashville regardless of designation F5L or Fern) with a radiused fretboard albeit a very slight radius. My guess is that there is no real correlation, Bozeman/Nashville re the fingerboard/fretboard shape. Could be wrong though, just wondering.

[DataNick]

I have never heard that Montana made F5Ls were radiused fretboards. I owned a '96, it was flat as I recall. Data, is yours radiused?

link to previous thread with a link in my post to
Charlie Derrington interview again that covers some of the answers to these and other questions.

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...gton+interview

Yeah, mine's radiused...I could be wrong about the specs on that issue...these specs are hard to nail down, and like you I have read interviews, cafe threads, etc. It sure would be nice to have them nailed down. I'll check the interview again and thanks for the correction (you too Ken)

[Willie Poole]

Here is what I heard from some members here on the Café....That the name was changed from F-5L to Fern because originally the Mandolin was said to be built on the same specs as an original Loar, hence the "L", later Charlie found that this wasn`t true so he changed the name to Fern when Gibson started building the Master Model which is now said to be a more correctly made mandolin to the original Loar specs...

As I stated, this is what I have heard and you know how that goes on here...

[DataNick]

I think you're pretty much right on there Willie!

There are aspects of the F5L (lacquer finish, neck joint, graduations etc) that make it inconsistent with true "Loar" specs.
It is closer to a post-Loar 20's Fern, hence Gibson's(Charlie D) decision to name them Ferns.

[lenf12]

There are Ferns from the late Loar period specifically 1923 and 1924 as well. After Lloyd left Gibson they're all Ferns until Gibson returned to the flowerpot in 1930's. Re: flat vs. radiused fingerboards on Montana Gibson mandolins, they are all flat unless special ordered or have been radiused aftermarket. Both of the Montana made Gibsons I have owned (a 1994 Carlson signed blonde F-5L and a 1996 Weber signed F-5G) have flat fingerboards.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL

[DataNick]

Hi Len,

We have pretty much nailed down the specs, including the flat fingerboard, in this thread http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...Specifications

Is there any more that you can add or clarify to post#6?

It would sure be apprecitiated!

Thanks!

[LongBlackVeil]

While it doesnt address the ops question directly, this is a good read and does answer some of your questions. Mostly its just a good read worth sharing

http://www.mandolincafe.com/news/pub...s_001217.shtml

[DataNick]

LBV,

It is a good read & certainly gives a real good historical framework to understand how the F-5L came about...What's unclear that we're nailing down in another thread is how, to what extent, and when did the specs change from Roger Siminoff's F-5L to the F-5L that was being produced in Bozeman, MT. We do know that the Bozeman, MT tooling was scrapped when Charlie D. had production moved back to Nashville in late 97; and that there was a re-tool effort from roughly 97-99'; with the resultant mandolin specs changed to "Loar" specs.

[DataNick]

Thread Bump:

I met a really nice mando guy who is an MD from the Southwest USA, conference/vacationing in Carlsbad this week. He showed up to a weekly jam that I go to and he brought along his F-5L. He has a 1980 F-5L that is in good condition and I'm pretty sure it's probably one of the last ones that Roger Siminoff graduated/tap-tuned.

We hung out together, playing licks, mando duets on breaks, and talking shop all evening. Apparently he purchased it at Mandolin Bros. almost 20 years ago. All original parts, etc. It plays nice, and the feel and the tone is remarkably really close to my 94' F5-L which is really interesting because his is from Kalamazoo, mine from Bozeman, and they're 14 years apart. That says to me that the specs must not have changed all that much, and that Gibson must have a rigid spec adherence methodology. One difference that I did notice however is that his Fern inlay is a different Fern design than mine, and the pearl inlay is a different color.

Really nice instrument and enjoy the pics below. Sorry, but the lighting was horrible and with the crowd noise, and mass of humanity, I didn't get a better shot of the label, so it's hard to make out the signature. All in all, pretty cool stuff though!

[Robert Smyth]

My Weber signed F-5L Fern has a flat fingerboard. I'm curious about the Master Model discussion. My label says Gibson Master Model, but one of the above posters says that Derrington brought back that designation in Nashville.

Any thoughts?

[Willie Poole]

Robert, just about all Gibson mandolins are labeled as "Master Models", what I was referring to is they now make a model that is called the Master Model , I know that sounds confusing ...It is a completely different mandolin than the rest that had that name on the inside labels...Even the Flatirons that were made in the Gibson factory are labeled "Master Models"...I wish I could explain it more clearly....

[Robert Smyth]

Robert, just about all Gibson mandolins are labeled as "Master Models", what I was referring to is they now make a model that is called the Master Model , I know that sounds confusing ...It is a completely different mandolin than the rest that had that name on the inside labels...Even the Flatirons that were made in the Gibson factory are labeled "Master Models"...I wish I could explain it more clearly....

That's kind of what I thought...thanks for substantiating!

[almeriastrings]

Anyone can be forgiven for being confused..... but, that's Gibson for you....

The 'Master Model, Master Model' if you will, features a red spruce vs. sitka top, hide glue construction, ebony fingerboard extension support, varnish vs. lacquer finish, and flowerpot vs. fern inlay (and a few other details too), one of which is around a $10K upcharge...

[DataNick]

Anyone can be forgiven for being confused..... but, that's Gibson for you....

The 'Master Model, Master Model' if you will, features a red spruce vs. sitka top, hide glue construction, ebony fingerboard extension support, varnish vs. lacquer finish, and flowerpot vs. fern inlay (and a few other details too), one of which is around a $10K upcharge...

Very insightful on the $10K upcharge....LOL!

Almeria,

In your documented taste test evaluation between the MM and F-5L Fern, did you notice any difference in E-string ability for sustain and "cut-through"?

I was in a jam last night with a friend and their 98' Gilchrist F5 (which I've played before), and I and another mando buddy of mine both prefer my 94 F-5L. I did not notice any difference in those characteristics, only that mine seemed to be better. Albeit, I do realize that picking style, pick differences between us, etc. do make a difference. I am interested however in your observations from your taste test sampling when you had the chance to evaluate both MM and Fern side by side for some time.

I've been thinking my "holy Grail" will end up to be a MM, but I'm starting to think maybe varnished Fern...

[almeriastrings]

Ni Nick,

Got your PM but can't reply as your inbox seems to be over-full. Delete a few older messages and then I'll try again.

On that E-string,

Actually, no. In terms of "cut" or "banjo killing capacity" I would say there was absolutely nothing in it at all. The main difference was that my Fern (the Harvey model) was quite a bit "sweeter" on the treble side than that particular MM, without sacrificing "cut".

[DataNick]

Almeria,

Thanks for the reply....I deleted some messages from my inbox if you'd like to elaborate a little more further....I'm particularly interested in the "held" viewpoint that I read around here that Red Spruce = more "cut-through" and sustain that Sitka Spruce; along with the lacquer versus varnish component.