How is your f5 different from a loar?

[Chip Booth]

After recently recieving a custom built F5 and talking with another very good builder and comparing several F5s I have begun to wonder about the small and large differences between them. I'd love to hear from some of you builders as to what it is that you do differently from a Loar? Why is your scroll deeper, or headstock larger, recurve smoother, etc? Why do you do things the way you do?

Also, is there even a Loar standard or do they vary considerably as to construction details?

Let's hear what you do and why.

Chip

[sgarrity]

Great question. I'm anxious to hear some of the answers.

[amowry]

I make mine symmetrical, i.e. the neck isn't offset. I also used reverse-kerf lining and laminated tailblocks, and carbon-fiber neck reinforcement (unless someone requests a trussrod). I drew my plans by overlaying all the availabl Loar drawings and taking the aspects I liked best from each of them. I originally drew my headstock with a different flare to match Schaller tuner posts, but I've recently changed it back to be more similar to Loars. Those are the things that immediately come to mind, but I'm sure there are more.

[Gail Hester]

If you are looking for a list of Loar F5 mandolin attributes, they are many, some subtle and some not so subtle. #

Some great resources are, "The F5 Journal" and this thread:

http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin....t=32721

It is 89 pages long so get comfortable but just about everything you might want to know is in there somewhere.

[sunburst]

Shape of body, shape of neck, shape of headstock, all different.
I'll have to get back to you with why(s) when I have some time to type.

[Dan Cole]

About $250,000.

[Mario Proulx]

Maybe it would be easier if list what mine and Loars' have in common.

a) spruce

b) maple

That's about it... <lol>

[Spruce]

After recently recieving a custom built F5 and talking with another very good builder and comparing several F5s I have begun to wonder about the small and large differences between them. #I'd love to hear from some of you builders as to what it is that you do differently from a Loar? #Why is your scroll deeper, or headstock larger, recurve smoother, etc? #Why do you do things the way you do? #

Also, is there even a Loar standard or do they vary considerably as to construction details? #

Let's hear what you do and why.

I can't think of a single maker ever who has faithfully reproduced all the subtleties and quirks of a Loar...

And that would include the company currently building under the Gibson name....

[man dough nollij]

I make mine symmetrical, i.e. the neck isn't offset.

I'm ignorant here-- on Loars the neck isn't centered? Is that carried on in other big-G mandos? What was LL's rationale in doing it that way? Was he the first? I'm assuming that luthiers trying to replicate the Loar sound would duplicate the assymetry?

[JEStanek]

man dough nollij,

Look through the thread Gail referenced above. Later in that thread there are pictures looking down the neck of some of those Loars. if I recall correctly. Many have a twist. If you Print This Topic on the view you'll open every post on one screen. In one, the late Charlie Derrington wrote...
"Yup.

It probably came from the huge Kzoo auction in '84. I find the bolt "hole" in the headblock area very interesting.

I think I've mentioned it before, but the necks really aren't that far off center. It's just that the scroll throws the center-line out of whack. If one digitally removes the scroll and point, things are pretty well centered. However, due the the hand-work nature of dovetail neck-fits, there are differing levels of being off-center in different Loars.

Charlie"

That thread is a gold mine of Loar knowledge.

Jamie

[sunburst]

...and here's why, briefly.

There were (and are) several aspects of the F5 design that never made sense to me, like; why does the scroll get skinny and then get fat again? why doesn't the crest of the scroll have anywhere to go as it merges into the body? Why is the outline of the back so much different from the outline of the top when you view the mandolin from the side? and so forth.
As I looked at F4s and F2s I always thought I was seeing nicer scrolls and nicer, more balanced looking mandolins in general, so I thought; why not use a scroll like an F4 for my F5 style mandolin? Well, it didn't work out because the F4/F2 tops didn't have the elevated fingerboard extender so the scroll crest had somewhere to go as it merged into the top. Likewise, the top and back had similar profiles unlike the mismatched profiles of an F5 top and back. I began to view the F5 design as an adapted design. It looks like someone took an F4, lengthened the neck, cut away part of the top profile to add an elevated fingerboard extender, added F-holes and got rid of the oval hole. I concluded that everything from the peghead outline, the body outline, the scroll, the whole thing basically needed to be re-drawn to get the F5 design to look more balanced and complete to my eye, so that's why my F5s look different from Loars.

I also graduate the plates differently from Loars because I'm trying for a different balance in the sound. Loars tend to have a "boost" in the mids, and I'm trying to balance in a little more treble "ring" and bass to the sound.

[Jim Rowland]

Hello.
Jim

[amowry]

Now THAT scroll ridge has somewhere to go.

[man dough nollij]

Look through the thread Gail referenced above. #
That thread is a gold mine of Loar knowledge.

Yikes. Several hours later, I'm just getting into the 2004 posts... It is an incredible thread, though.

[Glassweb]

Fix it if you like, but the design of the Loar F5 definitely ain't broke...

[sgarrity]

Great info so far. There is certainly nothing "wrong" with the Loar design but that doesn't mean someone can't do it differently and still get great results. My Brentrup has many differences from a Loar as far as construction goes, but it still sounds Excellent!

[HoGo]

To reply to the OP.
I have my own body shape, slightly more symmetrical than Loars. Centered neck. Smaller headstock. Hand finished f-holes that are just similar to Loars. And like John wrote I also usually want to have more even response than the "middy Loar tone" though my taste is shifting...
I hand carve the scrolls without template, so no two will look alike etc. But the basic construction is like on Loars.

Also, is there even a Loar standard or do they vary considerably as to construction details?

Yes and no. They were factory built so parts were duplicated and technology was given but the details were hand finished so each one has its own quirks.

It probably came from the huge Kzoo auction in '84. I find the bolt "hole" in the headblock area very interesting.

This one is not about Loar mandolins. This post was reply to a post that was long ago deleted.

I can't think of a single maker ever who has faithfully reproduced all the subtleties and quirks of a Loar...

There's many of these that have never been mentioned here on the cafe and without them the mandolin won't look "right".

And that would include the company currently building under the Gibson name....

Well, they should use correct body shape first...

I'm ignorant here-- on Loars the neck isn't centered? Is that carried on in other big-G mandos? What was LL's rationale in doing it that way? Was he the first? I'm assuming that luthiers trying to replicate the Loar sound would duplicate the assymetry?

The assymetry is hard to describe, but I think it was consensus between the factory methods and design. The fingerboard has to be close to the scroll to look right but the neck and dovetail is best fitted on the apex of the body. The heel button also looks better on the apex, so the whole neck heel had to be asymmetrical with the fingerboard offset to the bass side and heel kept at the center of the back. The trussrod nut should be in the center of the dovetail so any assymetry in dovetail placement will translate into trussrod placement. But the truss rod was installed on a neck blank parallel to its edge and centerline so the ather end of the truss rod often is not centered under nut.... etc....
Did I mention how hard it is to determine WHERE is the centerline of the body? So all I posted above may be just wrong.
Just my $.02.

[Chip Booth]

This is good stuff, I appreciate the input.

I don't want anyone to get me wrong, I'm not suggesting things should be done the way they were back in the day, just that we probably all agree that the Loar is the original template. I enjoying your answers.

Chip

[Spruce]

"Loars tend to have a "boost" in the mids, and I'm trying to balance in a little more treble "ring" and bass to the sound. "

And there in a nutshell you have the basic difference between the voice of a Loar, and the voice that most modern makers are going for in their designs....

And I think most modern players prefer the latter without even realizing how vastly different it is from the sound of a typical good Loar...

[Will Kimble]

Another reason to copy the asymmetry (fingerboard shifted towards the scroll) is so a full size pickguard will fit correctly and look right. #

I agree with Adrian, it is hard to get your head around the asymmetrical shape even when you know what to look for. #It is impossible to locate the centerline of the top (join line) underneath the fingerboard extension, and difficult to approximate it on an instrument with strings and a fingerboard still attached.

The join line on the back seems to go right down the middle of the heel button, and that makes sense. #But if you sight down the back join line it does not usually line up with the point of the headstock. #Which makes you go hmmmmm... #

I have a method that approximates these results and looks right to me, but I don't really know why they are this way. #F4s seem to be offset in a similar manner, and my theory (based purely on speculation) is that the machine that indexed the rim to cut the dovetails was offset. #I will not speculate on whether it was offset on purpose - maybe, maybe not. #But if F4s are the same, then it wasn't Loar's idea to offset them.

When I started building and was overflowing with ideas, my friend Lynn Dudenbostel asked "Will, what is it you don't like about Loars that you feel the need to change?" #This question has caused me to do a lot of thinking, research, and soul searching. #So far, the only thing I don't like that I feel the need to change is the 29 fret fingerboard - I have built 140 mandolins and have never built one with 29 frets. #

Everything else is just about right. #

Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

[Rick Schmidlin]

Well first mines a Colings MF5 not a Loar.Yes it has the classic F design and burst. First it is not varnished. Second it was made in 2005 not 23 0r 24 and it was
made by Collings not Gibson and Loar. Thus it is the same thought and both sound great, well the Loar #sounds much greater. But that is all to compare,it is #a Collings MF5 inspired by, but not a Loar.

[Jim Hilburn]

The guys who get closest to the Loar look usually have worked on quite a few or own one like Chris Stanley. Always helps to have something to compare to.
I haven't seen every supposed Loar print but in my own case until I recieved a copy of Adrian's print I only had the McRostie Stew-Mac print and I suspect that was taken from a 30's F-5. As a result many of my earliest F's had significant differences. I too went to a more symetric design. When I made a tracing of the bass side from Don's plan and transposed it to the treble there was quite a difference.
I made a new mold for my current F's directly from Adrians plan. The last F I made was intended to be very Loar like and I even had the 29 fretboard on when the buyer changed his mind and had me do a radius board with big frets. There are some details that I just won't chase after like the dovetailed point protectors but I do like the idea of getting the right vibe.
This is getting long but there's one other point I'd like to make. I was present for the measuring of David Grisman's Loar at the 2006 Symposium. I've mentioned before about how thin that mandolins top is. While it's over 80 years old and still one of the greatest sounding instruments ever made it does have some serious deformation of the top with a big buldge behind the bridge. It's thickest point is 4.3mm and thinnest 2.5 but that 2.5 is farther in than the f-hole. How many are willing to risk that kind of thickness today?

[danb]

Mine says "Wiens" on the peghead.. other than that..

[evanreilly]

After a lot of comparison, the biggest difference between my Dude and a 'garden-variety' Gibson from 1922 - 1924 is that smell!
Other than the lack of olfactory senses thinking sameness, most other senses sense similarity!
Oh, yeah... the Dude has a slight curve to the board; sorry; snap out of it, there!!

[Glassweb]

Mine says "Wiens" on the peghead.. other than that..

Dan's Wiens looks about as Loar as a non-Loar can look - amazing!