Is the Gibson design really better than Neapolitan mandolins?

[CSobe]

Well, in that case, you've always been wrong.

Maybe the case with some canted top / flat back mandolins--some of which sound way better than bowlbacks--but certainly not with carved top instruments.

It was (and remains) about differences in tone and projection, just like with violins.

Mick

Wouldn't be the first time. Fact is, I don't know. I wasn't there. Also, I don't really care. In my opinion, the differant types sound differant from each other, not better than each other. I must have ruffled some feathers in trying to bring up the ease of build aspect. I'm sorry if I somehow insulted Orville Gibson. Perhaps too, with Henry Ford it was all about the driving experience and making cars accessable was a happy byproduct.

[Tom Coletti]

Not necessarily, no.

--Tom

[DavidKOS]

This is getting a bit silly. It seems to me that the entire premise of this thread is deeply flawed. It's just not reasonable to ask if one version of instrument design is somehow "better" than another. "Better" in what sense -- "better" how?!

It really wasn't my question so much as that I have seen so many claims in articles and videos that the Gibson was "better" that I wanted to sort of challenge that assumption.

[Bertram Henze]

No ambiguity, no fun. Even the most reasonable thread will enter a turbulent phase after the critical Reynolds number of posts has been reached, like this:

Title: "YES?"
Answer #1: "No"
Answer #2: "No"
...
Answer #3729: "what are we talking about, at all?"
Answer #3730: "now you're talking sense"
Answer #3731: "no, I don't"

[brunello97]

Wouldn't be the first time. Fact is, I don't know. I wasn't there. Also, I don't really care. In my opinion, the differant types sound differant from each other, not better than each other. I must have ruffled some feathers in trying to bring up the ease of build aspect. I'm sorry if I somehow insulted Orville Gibson. Perhaps too, with Henry Ford it was all about the driving experience and making cars accessable was a happy byproduct.

No feathers ruffled. Just looking for clarity. Sometimes that takes more than a sentence or two lobbed into a conversation. And some homework sometimes, too.

At the time Orville Gibson was working out the design of his archtop mandolin, Lyon and Healy was producing thousands and thousands of bowlback mandolins at their factory in Chicago. They applied contemporary industrial production logics to rapidly produce high quality bowlback mandolins in large numbers, dwarfing the speed and output of the the traditional Neapolitan makers. At some price points (better woods, better detailing, more care in the finishing) they were very good mandolins. The also made a lot of lower quality mandolins. As they did in Naples as well.

When "Gibson" (the company) was formed they sought to optimize production while keeping to Orville's design. Design changes in the mandolin and design changes in the means of fabrication are related but not inherently dependent on one another.

I don't think anyone is seeking to defend Orville Gibson, either, just trying to get information clear without being snarky. I don't think the Ford analogy is particularly apt. Henry didn't as much invent a new car, he invented a means of production of the car. Maybe a more applicable analogy to the Gibson company than to Orville Gibson's work itself.

Mick

[FLATROCK HILL]

No ambiguity, no fun. Even the most reasonable thread will enter a turbulent phase after the critical Reynolds number of posts has been reached, like this:

Title: "YES?"
Answer #1: "No"
Answer #2: "No"
...
Answer #3729: "what are we talking about, at all?"
Answer #3730: "now you're talking sense"
Answer #3731: "no, I don't"

Not disputing the theory itself...just want to set the record straight.
Answer #3730 should read: "lentils."