Pick thickness.

[Ivan Kelsall]

There have been so many threads on here re.picks 'in general' that this might be a bit of
'overkill',however here goes.
Disregarding our personal preferences for 'whatever' brand of pick, & given that each of us has chosen a make of pick of a certain thickness & rigidity,is there any benefit to be had from going to a thicker pick,in terms of tone / volume ?.
I currently use Dunlop Primetone picks,'teardrop' shaped & 1.3mm thick. They're un-bendable & work very well on my Weber & Ellis,but i'm wondering if my Lebeda,which is a larger than standard mandolin,would benefit volume wise by using a thicker pick.
My own thinking is that once a certain 'rigidity' has been reached,any additional thickness won't affect the rigidity & a thicker pick won't be of any benefit.Also,thicker picks usually mean a larger bevel on the edge,something which i've found when using the Golden Gate or Dawg picks,robs any mandolin i've used them on of tone.
The easy thing to do is pick harder i know,but picking too hard has it's own pitfalls. The other easy thing to do is to buy some thicker ones & try them out,but i just don't need any more picks lying around un-used - so,any thoughts on this ?
Ivan

[zedmando]

GO & try it--can't hurt too much.

[Ron McMillan]

I enjoy occasionally plucking the Dunlop Big Stubby (or its cousin, the Tri Stubby) 3mm pick out of the jar and having a play with it for a while. It's cheap, easily found, and might just be suited to your Lebeda.

[Nick Quig]

I'll second the Big Stubby!..2mm is good and the Nylon version too!

[AlanN]

This'un is about as far as I can go

[Tobin]

I agree that rigidity/stiffness is probably the most important aspect, regardless of thickness. But you do make a valid point on the bevel, Ivan. I have both the Golden Gate and Dawg picks, and they lack the tone I'm looking for, despite their thickness. Both these picks have a plain rounded shoulder.

Personally, I think the rigidity of a pick is important insofar as its ability to move through the string without causing a "flappy" sound like you get from thinner picks. But beyond rigidity, tone has to come from the shape of the point and the bevel. Some folks prefer a rounded pick, but I've never been able to get good volume or tone from these (the Golden Gate and Dawg picks being prime examples) with my picking style. I like more of a point, while stopping well short of the sharp points offered by some pick makers. And a directional 'speed bevel' seems to be very important for getting tone and volume with my picking style.

So obviously it depends on one's right hand technique and the sound they're looking for. But I'd venture to say that rigidity, shape of the point, and bevel are the three top variables that affect tone and volume.

[Mark Wilson]

The other easy thing to do is to buy some thicker ones & try them out,but i just don't need any more picks lying around un-used - so,any thoughts on this ?

Things change. I once refused to try a $40 pick. Now I have a collection of them 1.0 to 1.5mm. Just when I think I'll sell one it becomes my new pick de jour.

I had swore off the 1.0 (40) for too thin a sound but right now I'm digging the 40 with no bevel. Sounds like my 60 (beveled edge) - but has a slight flex that feels right to my playing style atm.

Keep a few around to try now and then if you are on the learning curve I'm on. Cheaper than a new mandolin and you can sell extras when you've figured it out. The guy who has played a long while probably has it down to one.

[T.D.Nydn]

The thinner the pick,the less energy is transferred to the string.the energy goes back into the pick.a stiffer pick is more efficient in directing that energy right to the string. Why waste your right forearm muscles with a thin pick?

[Ivan Kelsall]

Tobin - I've tried the Golden Gate & Dawg picks which on the face of it seem to be identical. They murder the tone from any mandolin i've tried them on. T.D. above makes a point which i already know about. I have a pick so thin & flexible that when i used it,i sounded as though it was hitting the strings twice & that i was duetting with myself.
The 1.3mm Primetones work very well on all 3 of my mandolins,but as i said,i was wondering if a move up to 1.5mm picks would add extra volume to my Lebeda. The 1.3mm Primetones are 'solid',no flex in them at all,so a 1.5mm pick could hardly be expected to add extra 'no flexing'. I suppose that if i did buy a 3-pack,i could always sand the larger bevel off - it didn't however make the GG or Dawg picks any better,they still slid over the strings without imparting hardly any energy to them. A case of 'Silence is Golden (Gate)' or 'My Dawg don't bark'. For info.,my Lebeda weighs 3/4 lb more than either my Weber or Ellis.That's a lot more wood to get moving.
DR MD12 strings didn't seem to do much for it as i had to pick harder anyway. I removed them,put on the lighter MD11's,which if i play them as hard as i did the MD12's,gives me more volume - but - i'm trying to find a way of not having to pick harder on the Lebeda - hence this question. I can see some 1.5mm Primetones at some point in the future (maybe),
Ivan

[Tobin]

The thinner the pick,the less energy is transferred to the string.the energy goes back into the pick.a stiffer pick is more efficient in directing that energy right to the string. Why waste your right forearm muscles with a thin pick?

Coming from a guitar background where I preferred thinner picks (playing the mandolin broke me of that, and now I prefer thick picks for guitar too), I actually found it easier to play fast with a thinner pick. Tone and volume suffered, of course, but it was sure easier to maintain a consistent right hand movement when the pick would easily bend as it passed over the string, and I could keep a tight grip. Using a thicker pick does require more refinement and precise movement, coupled with a loose grip. Especially on a smaller scale instrument with higher tension like the mandolin.

Honestly, I think that the majority of folks who go with thinner picks on the mandolin are probably coming from a guitar background. Not all, but probably most.

[Joey Anchors]

I'm a big fan of PaPa's 2.2mm picks. They have a great bevel that produces a thicker tone with rounding the high-end.

[AlanN]

Here are 2 picks in the stash - never have seen another GG like this one and forgot how I got the Gilchrist. They both are the same shape and thickness.

[UsuallyPickin]

Well ... I expect a players particular technique can be influenced by a thicker than 1.4 pick and thereby their tone and volume. So many different things impact pick choice. How hard do you play? How light or heavy a string do you prefer. How "high" is your setup? How thick is the top on your instrument? After spending thousands on instruments, concern about the price of a few picks seems unwarranted as they are "generally" fairly inexpensive. Those that are more expensive are readily remarketed with little loss. The will to explore and permission are all that are needed here........... R/

[David L]

This'un is about as far as I can go

These are the only picks I've used on my mandolins for years. They just have the best tone. I find them a little too heavy for guitar.

[mandroid]

Fender 346 is the shape of those AlanN shows . BC, Ala CT, similar outline..

Seems the 346 heavy can be bought in smaller counts, but X-Heavy only by the half gross..
price of 1 BC..

I like Dawg picks .. the applications I use them on, particular Mandolin,
then ... tone, and feel/RH technique is different, A choice..

not robbed of having any..

[JeffD]

I agree. Once the pick is thick enough to not flex, so that 100% of your picking energy is going into string movement, it is thick enough, IMO. No advantage above that.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Hi Jeff - Exactly my thoughts - mmmmmmm !,
Ivan

[Mark Wilson]

I agree. Once the pick is thick enough to not flex, so that 100% of your picking energy is going into string movement, it is thick enough, IMO. No advantage above that.

Sounds right to me. One reason why I believe folks move to thicker picks as their pick stroke gains speed. Matching impedance if you will.

[AlanN]

Perhaps no advantage from a striking-the-strings perspective, but the 'feel in the fingers' is what I'm after. Two inflexible picks can feel markedly different to hold.

[Jackgaryk]

Ivan...I love to read pick threads. In the 14 months I been picking a mandolin I have had a chance to try out a bunch of picks mainly suggestions from café members. I'm finding out that my tastes change almost daily and different picks work better on different mandolins for me. bc, wegan, v-pick, Dunlop, dawg, and golden gate just to name a few I've tried. I think the wegans sound better on my cheaper mandolins, but I have a sweet sounding Eastman that just loves to be picked with a bc tad 40. however I am gonna try the thicker ct55 soon. I enjoy reading about and trying out different picks. oh yeah, I sure would like test my pick collection on a ellis or weber like you have

[Lord of the Badgers]

I once had a lesson where the teacher wouldn't go thicker than .60 picks
It didn't last... I like thick ones.. I'm on Primetone 1.4 which is thicker than my previous picks, but i find it allows fast strumming as much as the old .60 ones did, and doesn't strain my wrist!

[mandobsessed]

I am using the prime tone picks in 1.0, 1.3 and 1.5 in addition to the wegen bg140. The difference between the 1.0 and the 1.3 is significant in terms of sound. But the 1.3 & 1.5 sound virtually identical which lends credence to the initial hypothesis of this thread.

[texaspaul]

I have Primetone picks a tear drop 1.3, a rounded tri-point 1.4, a tri-point 1.4 with right hand bevel and a a tri-point 1.5 with right hand bevel. Each pick has little flex put each has very different tone. I keep trying to find a pick that is a compromise to use with guitar and mandolin. The best of the primetones for that is the tri-point 1.4. I was amazed at how little the difference in size made a big difference in sound.

[mandobassman]

Ivan, I don't really think you are going to notice any real difference in volume going from the 1.3 Primetone to a 1.5 Primetone. In fact, you may actually experience just the opposite. I think you get to a certain point in thickness where the tone becomes softer because of the thickness and the "perceived" volume is actually lower. AlanN, in post #5, shows the Dunlop 207. That is a excellent example. I used to use that pick at home because I really liked the tone on the mandolin I had at that time, but any time I ever used it on stage, I fought like crazy to get any volume at all. AlanN also shows a Gilchrist pick in post #12. 1.5mm pick, but one of the quietest and softest-sounding I ever used. So I don't think thickness alone will affect volume as much as the combination of thickness and material.

I've used lots and lots of picks over the years and I don't think you are going to find a louder pick than the Primetone you are using now. The only other pick that I've used that had a ton of volume was the V-Pick Freakishly Large rounded triangle, but I didn't like the tone as much.

[mandobassman]

I agree. Once the pick is thick enough to not flex, so that 100% of your picking energy is going into string movement, it is thick enough, IMO. No advantage above that.

I agree that there is no advantage as far as picking energy is concerned, but the extra thickness can change tone dramatically. I am currently using a 1.8mm Wegen and there is a big difference in tone between that and the same pick in a 1.4mm that it normally comes in.