Gibson made a Master Model this recently?

[holden]

I didn't know there were MM's made in 2012
http://www.themandolinstore.com/scri...dproduct=10016

[sgarrity]

Dave Harvey has been making them for quite some time. There just aren't that many of them. Sierra Hull plays one.

[pheffernan]

From what I understand, The Mandolin Store isn't allowed to advertise new Gibson mandolins with prices, but they had a new Master Model in this past holiday season a bit north of that used one.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

I don't doubt that that one sounds good. But why do they make them so unnecessarily non-loarish: non-loar eagle beak (scroll binding mitre), non-loar flower pot, non-loar script?

[barry]

I don't doubt that that one sounds good. But why do they make them so unnecessarily non-loarish: non-loar eagle beak (scroll binding mitre), non-loar flower pot, non-loar script?

Agreed. Actually, the entire inner contour of the scroll is a bit wonky.

[Ivan Kelsall]

I have to agree with Barry about the scroll. Maybe it's just the angle of the picture,but it seems very un-even around the top contour.If i were looking to buy a Gibson MM,it wouldn't be that one. They do come up 'used' in the Classified ads.fairly regularly & most of them have a nicer scroll than that one. At close to $15,000, i'd want as close to a perfect scroll as i could get,
Ivan

[Andrew B. Carlson]

It would be nice to see 20+ straight on shots of different Gibson MM scrolls from 2001ish-Present. Many (if not all) of the side bound scrolls I've seen have no such Eagle Beak shape, and this makes sense, since the carve would be much less. It appears that the inner scroll carve and the (seeming) non-mitering of the binding (top bound, triple bound etc.) would be the explanation. From what I understand, many who have ordered a MM from the factory have been able to talk with the guys who build them, and if I were to order one new, I would bring this up.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

It would be nice to see 20+ straight on shots of different Gibson MM scrolls from 2001ish-Present. Many (if not all) of the side bound scrolls I've seen have no such Eagle Beak shape, and this makes sense, since the carve would be much less. It appears that the inner scroll carve and the (seeming) non-mitering of the binding (top bound, triple bound etc.) would be the explanation. From what I understand, many who have ordered a MM from the factory have been able to talk with the guys who build them, and if I were to order one new, I would bring this up.

I used to own C. D.'s personal side-bound (#73732, Oct. 2000). That one had a nice body scroll, indeed, but the peg head scroll was - insufficient, pretty much like two early side-bound Derrington DMMs. Others, like MM #70429 and (my own) DMM (#70321) are side-bound with eagle beak.
Generally, all recent scrolls I've seen lately not only have the eagle beak, but also a fairly wide scroll opening, as Barry suggested, botch? Seems like David Harvey at least managed to reduce the bridge height (neck set). Would be interesting to see, if Mr. Harvey and crew would be able (or willing) to really copy a particular Loar.

[JAK]

Yes, it would be interesting to see a Gibson copy of John Reischman's Loar, and compare it to a Red Diamond copy of the same.

[Tom Coletti]

I don't doubt that that one sounds good. But why do they make them so unnecessarily non-loarish: non-loar eagle beak (scroll binding mitre), non-loar flower pot, non-loar script?

Probably because David Harvey is neither Lloyd Loar nor a copycat. He is his own person and he makes his own stuff.

--Tom

[goose 2]

I believe that the bridge height is due to it being a full contact bridge. I don't see the feet on the bridge base. My2003 DMM has a full contact bridge where as my earlier(2002) MM did not. The both play exceptionally well and the intonation is spot on. There were many subtle differences between the Loar batches and and from one year to the next. Same with these modern era master models. I really believe that nothing comes as close to capturing the tone, feel, and overall vibe of a Loar as the modern MMs do.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

Probably because David Harvey is neither Lloyd Loar nor a copycat. He is his own person and he makes his own stuff.

--Tom

All Loars are a bit different from each other, no doubt. Today's official Gibson advertising ("The F-5L, introduced in 1978, marked the beginning of a return to the specifications of Lloyd Loar's original F-5 Master Model mandolins of 1922-24") is intended to make us believe that the modern F5 is much like a Loar. Let David and his team leave their own little marks on any of the MMs. I'd just prefer them more subtle. Neither the eagle beak nor that modern flower pot and script are David's inventions. The recent crooked scroll openings may be his, though.

[almeriastrings]

Even though a small team, modern Gibson's are made by a large corporation in a modern facility that makes use of CNC and other recent innovations. They are not built identically to those back in 1923...... some changes may be dictated by current procedures and machines. Have to say this, but the work on some of those Loar's would have a hard time passing modern QC standards. I can image what Bill Collings would say if one appeared from his shop. Simply put, they were a product of their time, built using techniques (including machines) that were available at the time. You can (of course) get very high quality modern 'reproductions' which feature the best of both worlds, but demand for these is not exactly huge, and Gibson are a very commercially oriented business, seeming content to leave that to individual specialist builders, of which there are several who make such things to order. C F Martin have gone further down the 'truly' authentic route with their, um... Authentic and 'Museum' lines, but even there, they are not precisely the same, because some materials available in the 30's are not available now.

Marketing claims are just that. Marketing claims, and in fact in this case, they are fairly accurate... "the beginning of a return" - I'm not sure that is quite the same as saying they have achieved a full return. They clearly do not make a precise replica - but it is a pretty good mandolin, regardless of the historical minutia. That is probably more important to some potential buyers than others, and for those for whom it really matters, I would think they'd be better off looking elsewhere.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

"They clearly do not make a precise replica - but it is a pretty good mandolin," I see. But wasn't "the beginning of a return" way back in '78, the model only the F5"L" (sic), and today's 15k+ MM ahead of that - full return?

[almeriastrings]

Well... since they have still not got it right (in terms of historical detail) evidently not! Whether they even want to do that (or not) is open to question, I suppose. Only they know.

Interesting issue, though. The most accurate Loar-era 'copies' are those from small, specialized builders... but they are not 'real' Gibsons..... the 'real' Gibsons are not really all that close.... but they do have a (legitimate) Gibson script and label on them...

For my part, I don't care much who builds them, or what name they have on them, as long as I like how they sound and how they play.

[DataNick]

...The most accurate Loar-era 'copies' are those from small, specialized builders... but they are not 'real' Gibsons..... the 'real' Gibsons are not really all that close.... but they do have a (legitimate) Gibson script and label on them...

+1...Gary Vessel makes a Loar "tribute" that has got to be seen to be believed, even down to period hardware. And the voicing is unbelievably "Loarish"...I've said it before and I'll say it again; Gibson could sub contract out a true "Loar" MM to Gary, pay him $15k for each and sell them for $30k and they'd go like hotcakes!