"florida spot" height

[Soupy1957]

I came across a comment in one other Thread that I thought might be worth amplifying a bit, with builders, so I hope this will be considered to be the correct thread for this....

I read a statement that the distance underneath the Florida Spot to the body of the mando was "better" (?) being higher rather than lower, (presuming I read the thread contribution correctly, that is).

Other than the obvious, (to me anyway) that if the Florida Spot were closer to the neck, that could mean some increased distance between the strings and the frets; and the obvious reverse.

But is that really the point, with regard to this issue? Is it rather, the actual vertical positioning of the neck during build, in the dovetail joint seating that is the concern?

Is there a way to use as a gauge, the distance between the underside of the Florida Spot and the upper bout, to determine the quality construction of an instrument?

-Soupy1957

[markishandsome]

Huh?

[djohnso7]

I think he's asking about the distance between the end of the neck extension and the mando top.

[buddyellis]

My first thought was 'what the heck is a florida spot' but I didn't want to appear ignorant.

[mandolooter]

My Florida spot experience is mainly limited to Spring break but going on that I'd say its not that important. Lots of A styles don't even have Florida on thier map. I wish my Givens was missing the last inch of fretboard so I'd quit clicking on it. My old Gibson's sweet spot is below the fretboard end but it isnt raised from the top. YMMV TIMHO

[billhay4]

IF the "Florida spot" is the point at which the neck joins the fretboard extension, there are two considerations I can think of that apply here -- the angle of the neck and the height of the neck at that spot above the top.
Both affect two things (one of which is NOT the height of the strings above the frets). The first is the angle of the strings as the break over the bridge. This, in turn, affects how much downward pressure is put on the top. The second is the height of the bridge. This, PLUS the height of the nut, is what determines the action of the instrument. In addition, height of the nut (if it's too high) can result in poor playability and damage to the top (if the bridge, say, is forced to tilt from being too high).
Another factor is that an instrument with a neck angle that is too great results in awkwardness strumming the strings as the whole feel of the instrument is changed. This can be adjusted to, though. On the other hand, a too-low neck angle makes getting enough string break angle difficult.
IF the "Florida spot" is some other place, I'm as confused as the others.
Hope this helps.
Bill

[Gail Hester]

The distance between the fingerboard extension and the top of the mandolin is a function of the depth of the neck set, which is determined by the top arching, and alignment of the bridge for optimal height and position. It functions as a system and as already stated too much or too little makes playing awkward. Here is a good example on a Loar F5 from the archive.

[sunburst]

Whoah!
I thought that looked familiar! That was right before I fixed the bridge on that one.

[allenhopkins]

Thinking about neck angle: I once saw, and briefly played, a mandolin built by Dick DeNeve, who's now much better known for his resonator guitars. It had the neck angled "back" much more extremely than I had ever seen, and a resultingly high bridge. Dean Roets of Bristol Mountain Bluegrass, for whom the mandolin was made, said it had much more projection; I had trouble playing it at all, since I was used to a more conventional neck set (I was playing a '20's F-2 at the time).

Apparently the idea didn't catch on, since I've not seen a mandolin with a "raked back" neck since. I've heard, however, that mandolins where the strings are higher above the top, are louder. Is this true or a "rural legend," and have some builders experimented with different neck sets and angles?

[sunburst]

I've heard, however, that mandolins where the strings are higher above the top, are louder. Is this true or a "rural legend,"

Yes, it is "rural legend".

and have some builders experimented with different neck sets and angles?

Yes, many have.

The things that affect loudness most are the mass vs. stiffness of the top/bridge system, and more importantly, the coupling between the top, back, and air modes.

[nelson_luthier]

I know in the fiddle world that a greater break angle over the bridge will create a greater amplitude. However, there is a point of diminishing return and these instruments are designed to it. More to the point, a lower than optimal break angle will decrease amplitude. That may be where the legend starts. Take an instrument that has a low angle and increase the string height and you will make it louder. But that just means you need to do a neck reset.

Well built instruments are made just on the edge of falling apart. I believe William Cumpiano describes it as "minimal adequate structure". Too high a break angle and you create such a downward pressure that you run the risk of cracking the top. Be careful.

Greg Nelson

[markishandsome]

I can't think of a more irrelevant dimension on a mandolin than this distance from the soundboard to the bottom of the extension. It does not determine the neck angle or the action. Otherwise identical instruments with different extension support block thicknesses would have different "florida spot heights". Most people would agree that on an f-hole instrument, an elevated fingerboard lets the top vibrate more freely, but once it's elevated, making it higher gives you nothing.

No single measurement can "determine the quality construction of an instrument".

[Antlurz]

If the thickness of the extension itself isn't eactly the same on all the instruments, the other dimensions being spoken of are entirely meaningless..

Ron

[Rick Lindstrom]

I think the original poster was looking for some type of benchmark to determine if the neck was set at the proper angle, and I would agree that the height of the end of the "Florida" extension could be used to gauge this as long as we're talking about instruments that are all built to the original (Gibson or Loar) specification and have the "standard" style of extension. Similar benchmarks exist for determining, by inspection, if a guitar has sufficient neck set for instance. Given the fact that so many variables exist in the way mandolins are built, it'd probably be risky to use the height of the extension as the only criterion for "correct" construction. What's correct anyway?

I would also agree that more backset on the neck will result in a taller bridge, a greater break-angle of the strings across the bridge, more down pressure on the top plate, and as a result, more volume or projection for a given instrument. I always have seen this as the reason why many Bluegrassers are willing to put up with high actions on their mandos- they can make it louder by raising the bridge, and the trade off in playability seems worth it.

Rick

[Jerry Byers]

I would also agree that more backset on the neck will result in a taller bridge, a greater break-angle of the strings across the bridge, more down pressure on the top plate, and as a result, more volume or projection for a given instrument.

Generally, the break angle, to a certain degree, gives you more energy transfer, not greater down pressure. Yes, if the height changed significantly, you would experience more down pressure, but a 1/4" - 1/2" change in height doesn't increase the length of string significantly.

In reality, the higher string action allows the player to bear down on the strings more, resulting in more volume or projection.

[sunburst]

Rick, the guitar/mandolin comparison doesn't work very well.
Gibson mandolins were built "correctly" with the fingerboard glued directly to the top, and with an elevated extender. Flat top guitars, for the most part, have a fixed bridge and a fingerboard glued to the top. In that situation, there is a correct neck angle relative to the bridge, but it has nothing to do with height over the top at the extender because, as I mentioned, the extender is glued to the top. Archtop guitars, OTOH, are similar to mandolins.

On a mandolin (or other archtop instrument) the height of the arch in the top, the neck angle, and the "overstand" (extender height) determine the bridge height. The amount of overstand can be varied, and the bridge height kept the same by changing one of the other variables, particularly neck angle, so a mandolin can be built correctly with any height of overstand from none (glued to the top) to noticeably higher than usual. Furthermore, the height of the bridge can vary quite a bit and still be "correct", as can the breakover angle of the strings at the bridge, so I don't see any way that the height of the overstand can be used as a gauge of quality of construction.

Some builders continue the recurve of their tops around under the extender. Some builders carve the arch all the way to the head block. That changes the point of reference measuring from the top to the "florida", as does the length of the "florida" if you're measuring at it's end.

I think it is a bad idea to suggest that there can be a measure of quality assigned to something that is so variable from builder to builder.

For various reasons, structural and aesthetic, I prefer the top arch to be pretty full under the extender and for the extender to be fairly low. Here's the Loar that Gail posted next to one that I built. The angle of the shot isn't exactly the same, but you can see the difference in the appearance of the extender. (Loar on left, mine on right) The one on the Loar is higher, and since we all know that the quality of the Loar is about 20 times higher, (if price is any indicator) the conclusion could be drawn that a higher extender indicates higher quality. I would disagree.

I don't mean to single you out, Rick, with this "lecture", and I'm still really not sure I know what the original question was, but it concerns me that a measurement of extender height might be viewed as a quality indicator when I feel that it is not.

[Rick Lindstrom]

I don't feel singled out, and I entirely agree with you that the height of the extender isn't a measure of quality.

Actually, I think it was the original poster who might have mistakenly equated extender height with quality when what he really wanted to know is if there is an easy way to judge whether the neck on a given mandolin is set at the "proper" angle in relation to the body. That's how I interpreted it anyway.

To bad he's not here to clarify matters, but I think he may have moved on to greener topics.

Rick