Jonathan McClanahan "revoicing" a 2002 Gibson F-5 Master Model

[Mandolin Architect]

Hey guys, Jonathan McClanahan here. I just thought you might like to see my latest mandolin "Revoicing" of this Gibson F-5 Master Model. This mandolin was very heavy and it's volume and tone was not near were it should be. It was very "tinny" sounding with no warmth. So I re-graduated the top and back, took down their thickness, shaved down the neck, added a compound radiused fingerboard and re-sculpted the scrolls to give them a more pronounced crest line, as you will see in the pictures. I also focused on bringing out the Curl in the grain. I shot this video right after I finished it. The owner picked this one up and then brought me his 1951 Gibson F-12 for me to do the same thing to it. I will be uploading a video and pictures of it as well. Enjoy!

[Ron McMillan]

Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing this. Your customer John must be a happy guy.

ron

[Steevarino]

Stellar work, as usual Jonathan. BTW, last year Jonathan totally restored an old Lyon and Healy parlor guitar of mine that had a large television land on the top (long story), pretty much smashing it to bits. He turned this guitar into a fantastic sounding work of art!

[Bernie Daniel]

I agree the restoration work looks gorgeous! Was 2002 a very early year in MM production? I know the F-5 Ferns and Sam Bush mandolins from 2001 - 2004 are considered in general to be excellent mandolins. I've owned a 2002 Fern and a 2001 Sam and both were outstanding. But maybe the MM'sd were in their early phase then?

Jonathan, if you can please to put up before and after pics and playing in a video on the 1951 F-12. Those mandolins have a less than stellar track record and many have been re-graduated over the years. So it will be very interesting to see what kind of improvements you can make on it!

[Mandolin Architect]

Hello Bernie! Good to hear from you. Yes, this is a 2002. You're right, these were some good years for Gibson mandolins but every once in a while in a production setting, some of them can be overlooked in the details that matter the most. Absolutely, I will post pics and a video of the 1951 F-12. I should be finishing it this week.

[Robert Smyth]

Very cool, Jonathan! I'm curious as to just how heavy the mandolin was before and after the work was done. I have a 1994 that weighs in at 2.5 pounds but sounds great, but you have me wondering if it is not living up to its potential.

What does it typically cost to regraduate and refinish a mandolin?

Great website!

[Mark Seale]

2002 would have put this in the Derrington era. Was this an F5V or F5L? There weren't many fern F5V's.

[Cheryl Watson]

Jonathan, you are the mandolin resuscitator. That's a fine job and the curl is fantastic on the back!

[John Adrihan]

That is disturbing to see even 15 to 18 thousand dollar instruments could be that sub par. Just reinforces play before buy, and don't take anything for granted no matter what the name is on the headstock.

[Mandolin Architect]

Hey Robert, I really don't weigh each mandolin I re-voice because no two mandolins are exactly alike so I approach each mandolin differently. I can tell instantly if a mandolin has too much wood. It just feels heavy and unbalanced. With you mandolin being a 1994 and more or less settled in, if you are having issues with it's tone and/or volume not being what you would like to hear, chances are it needs a re-voicing. Essentially, when I do a re-voice, I am correcting all the mistakes and getting the "physics" of the instrument where they should be. I'm not sure, but I think I'm not allowed to discuss prices of my custom order mandolins or my charge for re-voicing/restorations etc.... so if anyone wants to know more about my re-voicing/restoration work etc.... we will have to discuss it via private messaging.

[Bernie Daniel]

Hey Jonathan I just noticed something -- the mandolin on your video has a Fern inlay so it is not really a Master Model as in "MM" but rather an F-5 Fern (which also has the term "master model" on the label). Is that correct?

The F-5 Ferns had, of course a fern inlay, Sitka spruce tops, were built with aliphatic glues, and finished with lacquer. All this in contrast to the real Master Models that had a flower pot inlay and also were made with red spruce tops, hide glue, and a varnish finish.

This is to say the mandolin you re-voiced (in the video) did not have a serial number starting with a "V". Correct? Too bad Gibson did not have the foresight to be more specific with the use of that designation -- "master model"!

[Mickey King]

Great job Jonathan, it sounds and looks amazing. My good friend, Steve Autry has one of your mandolins. You do great work!

[Mandolin Architect]

Hey Mickey! Thanks! Steve Autry is a great guy!

[Mandolin Architect]

Hey Brenie! I'll have to ask the owner to look in to it! Thanks! Do you still have that mandocello?

[Bernie Daniel]

That is disturbing to see even 15 to 18 thousand dollar instruments could be that sub par. Just reinforces play before buy, and don't take anything for granted no matter what the name is on the headstock.

I am guessing this was not a $15 -18K mandolin to start with -- rather circa $4 - 5K mandolin? Still Gibson should have not put it out there like that I expect -- hard to guess how that might have slipped through. As noted most early 2000 era F-5 Ferns were GREAT mandolins for sure. Maybe the owner of the mandolin will shed a little light on that story?

[Bernie Daniel]

Hey Brenie! I'll have to ask the owner to look in to it! Thanks! Do you still have that mandocello?

I do -- I'll email you this weekend about that!

[f5joe]

I agree with the play/pay for the most part. The mandolin is a Fern rather than the Master Model from the same time frame. Both have labels that say "Master Model", however, there were two distinct models ........... Fern and Master Model. The Fern was/is much cheaper in pricing.

[goose 2]

I agree that this is a Fern. I will say that I owned a 2002 MM before getting my 03 DMM. That 02 MM remains one of the best sounding and playing mandolins I have ever played and I wish I still owned it.
The work done on this particular mandolin is stellar. I wish I could don something like that to a piece of wood.

[Nick Gellie]

Absolutely brilliant work as usual. How do you take the back off without taking off the wood of the sides or the back or the top?

I really like your open conversational approach to telling us about your work.

Thanks for bringing this to the forum.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Well,there you go,a filmed testament to something i've known for a long time since seeing a few of Jonathan's own instruments,he's a consumate luthier. What he's done in turning that Gibson MM (that one was the ''Mediocre Model'') is little short of incredible. I have to say i'd like to hear that one played properly - no offence to Jonathan's 'strumming',but it sounded just like a good Gibson should do (IMHO),& as for the re-finish,'spectacular' doesn't even come close to what Jonathan has acheived. I wouldn't mind driving that one for a few hours (years !). Truly tremendous work !!!,
Ivan

[Skip Kelley]

Johathan, Nice work! It looks so much better!!

[testore]

That certainly is a fine job of making a sub par instrument better, probably a lot better. But, is it cost effective to do the job, charge the customer, and then end up with an instrument that is, at least from a market standpoint, worth much less than if it had been in original condition. I know that tone means almost everything as a sellable item, but even considering that, it is worth less than an original, unrestored Gibson of the same period, make and model. Maybe that's unfair because it now is a much better instrument.
In no way am I saying anything bad about the work. It is a beautiful job, well done!

[Mandolin Architect]

That certainly is a fine job of making a sub par instrument better, probably a lot better. But, is it cost effective to do the job, charge the customer, and then end up with an instrument that is, at least from a market standpoint, worth much less than if it had been in original condition. I know that tone means almost everything as a sellable item, but even considering that, it is worth less than an original, unrestored Gibson of the same period, make and model. Maybe that's unfair because it now is a much better instrument.
In no way am I saying anything bad about the work. It is a beautiful job, well done!

Hello, that's a great question. I understand where you are coming from but in all actuality was Bill Monroe's Loar worth more as a busted up mandolin or is it worth more restored back to it's original, playable condition. Just because a mandolin has a certain name on the headstock doesn't mean it's what it should be. I just recently finished a restoration on an early 1800's French violin with it's original Mother of Pearl/split Herringbone trim on the top and back, very intricate and very beautiful. It was in complete playable condition but all of the finish was gone and had a couple glue joint issues but other than that it was in excellent shape. The customer bought it at an estate sale for 200.00 here in Tennessee. He took it to an auction house in North Carolina to be auctioned off with his other antiques. The auction house "musical instrument authority" told him that it was a very valuable violin and that he needed to get it restored before he tried to sell it. He brought it to me and I restored it and aged back to it's original appearance. The owner took it back to the auction house and sold it for 10,500.00. It was worth much more after I restored it than it was in it's previous state.

[testore]

Unfortunately I cant open your attachments. Your Monroe mandolin comparison isnt a valid one. Neither is your violin analogy. The current Gibson mandolin was made poorly and you helped it. Monroes mandolin and the French violin were mistreated and needed restoration. Those are two different situations. The period of construction of almost any factory determines a rough market value for the item. A refinished instrument is always worth considerably less than a fresh one. Compare the prices of a Gilchrist refinish job on a Loar to ones that are original and worn. There is a huge difference, even though the refin is well done. As in your example, the work is top notch but you still have something that is less marketable than if it was untouched. Please don't get me wrong. I think you did a good thing here. I just know how much I would charge for that job and I'm not sure I would have done it. Especially considering how the market treats this kind of work. The mandolin is more playable, but less valuable.

[John Adrihan]

I am guessing this was not a $15 -18K mandolin to start with -- rather circa $4 - 5K mandolin? Still Gibson should have not put it out there like that I expect -- hard to guess how that might have slipped through. As noted most early 2000 era F-5 Ferns were GREAT mandolins for sure. Maybe the owner of the mandolin will shed a little light on that story?

Thank you for seeing the fern and clarifying that. That is a hugh difference. Master Models are Mater Models - even though all the lables say master model.