The Gibson Eagle Beak

[Andrew B. Carlson]

I'm a big fan of Gibson and their Master models from the last 12 odd years. But what's with the eagle beak shape of most of their scrolls? I know they are basically repro loars, but I don't see nearly as much beak on real loars. And obviously they don't need the perfect shaped scroll (as Tom Ellis among others do). I just think they could be less beaky.

Newer Gibson DMM Eagle Beak


Real Loar Scroll

[Skunkwood]

Looks like the difference between a machine cut with a blunt end to the cut on the new ones and the Loar looks like it has been filed to a point after the cut.

[Skunkwood]

Closer examination shows very different technique where the binding meets, too.

[Kagey]

I had never noticed this before. I have a Pricetone which is built here locally where I am in S.C. by Lewis Price. It is according to him a copy of the 1923 Loar. It has the scroll like in the Loar picture here. Intresting, I guess I'll be looking for that from now on at Jam sessions

[Ivan Kelsall]

It looks like there was less care taken to produce a more esthetically 'pleasing' scroll binding on the DMM. Many amateur builders on here have produced better (IMHO),& i'm not knocking the DMM in any way,i'd love one- but a little more care maybe ?,
Ivan

[carleshicks]

Not all Derrington DMMs have the eagle beak. Here is D-70288 a 2004 Derrington Distressed.

[Andrew B. Carlson]

I knew I had seen a couple smooth ones!

[Mike Bunting]

I just noticed in a pic that I have, that Monroe's Loar (not The), has the beak of the eagle.

[Bernie Daniel]

On the DMM isn't it one continuous piece of binding that was wedged in to the vertex and "formed" (maybe it was warm and malleable?) -- rather then two separate pieces of binding coming together from separate directions to meet at the vertex on the Loar?

The DMM could have been made to look more like the Loar with a little more filing on "the beak" perhaps?

But it sure looks to me like the rest of the binding on the DMM, were it meets the wood along the entire scroll is sloppy for an instrument of that price. Surprising.

[Andrew B. Carlson]

Not all Derrington DMMs have the eagle beak. Here is D-70288 a 2004 Derrington Distressed.

Maybe it's just easier with the thinner binding on the sidebound models. Anyone seen a beakless top bound MM or DMM?

[Mike Snyder]

No doubt it's tough to keep everything uniform on the interior of that scroll, especially on sidebound tops. My "05 F5G is at least as "beaky" as the OP DMM. I cannot imagine the level of skill it would take to do that area to perfection. I've always wondered if the "beakiness" happens with sandpaper or the acetone they use to "weld" the plastic joints.

[Terry Allan Hall]

On the DMM isn't it one continuous piece of binding that was wedged in to the vertex and "formed" (maybe it was warm and malleable?) -- rather then two separate pieces of binding coming together from separate directions to meet at the vertex on the Loar? The DMM could have been made to look more like the Loar with a little more filing on "the beak" perhaps? But it sure looks to me like the rest of the binding on the DMM, were it meets the wood along the entire scroll is sloppy for an instrument of that price. Surprising.

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of less-than-stellar details on modern Gibson high-$$$ models, myself...

[pelone]

Perhaps you are dwelling on something that really is inconsequential. Does the "beak" enhance or take away from the tonal qualities of the instrument?

[Bernie Daniel]

Yeah, I've noticed a lot of less-than-stellar details on modern Gibson high-$$$ models, myself...

Well that is not quite what I meant to imply actually. I say the sloppy binding was "surprising" because I personally think poor workmanship on Gibson mandolins is the exception not the rule. That is to say I really don't see a "lot of less-than-stellar" details on modern Gibsons. But people have different standards of course.............

[HoGo]

Most of this effect is caused by carving of the scroll rather than binding alone. The first pic in this thread is exemplary. Even correctly applied binding (smooth curves well joined) when not carved right to the edge of the button will have the "beak" look to it, especially when viewed in direction from bass side f-hole. Have a look at this Loar:
http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/at...mentid=795&d=0
The binding is mitered but the outer piece is carved with the wood right to the perimeter of the scroll button.
Sidebound mandolins were done similarly (the joint was not mitered but the outer piece was butted to the button circle and naturally created this effect - probably introduced on F-2,4's and they tried to copy that on mitered triple on top binding as well) And of course there are some Loars that were not that nice.
BTW, that D-70288 is pretty ugly to my eyes, not relly Loar style, and that black paint job makes me sick...

[JeffD]

Perhaps you are dwelling on something that really is inconsequential. Does the "beak" enhance or take away from the tonal qualities of the instrument?

Oh, they are way way down the list from things that have any effect on tone or playability. I don't even think you can see it from across the jam circle.

Its one of those tiny distinctions folks make when they are grading the difference between great and really great, exceptional versus OMG. I love it, because it shows folks are really into the details. Its not something I notice until pointed out to me, but I think its great the someone is following that close.

There are so very many ridiculous things in the world that folks pay attention to, this is one of the less ridiculous IMO. Still ridiculous, but indicative of attention to detail beyond practical reason - a sure sign of adoration.

[HoGo]

I love it, because it shows folks are really into the details. Its not something I notice until pointed out to me, but I think its great the someone is following that close.

There are so very many ridiculous things in the world that folks pay attention to, this is one of the less ridiculous IMO. Still ridiculous, but indicative of attention to detail beyond practical reason - a sure sign of adoration.

Some of these details are not just "weird things" but are also indicative of methods used. This binding detail shows attention to design, not just CNC'd plate sanded smooth... Those old instruments (not only mandolins) show great workmanship that once was standard, now almost extinct. There's dozen of such details on a Loar (dovetailed corners, offset f-b, rotated/moved f holes, headstock binding details, heel button binding piece). There's very few builders who appreciate and use these details but when I see them done correctly it makes my heart go wild.

[Andrew B. Carlson]

There are so very many ridiculous things in the world that folks pay attention to, this is one of the less ridiculous IMO. Still ridiculous, but indicative of attention to detail beyond practical reason - a sure sign of adoration.

I'll admit it, I'm fussy about scrolls. Don't get me started on dovetailed ivory points! j/k

[Andrew B. Carlson]

Newer Gibson DMM Eagle Beak


Real Loar Scroll

It looks like the Loar scroll still isn't a perfect curve meant to meet at the point exactly, but they simply increased the angle of curve in small amounts at the 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock and 11 o'clock positions before it got to the inside point. The DMM is "more precise" to the curve angle until it's almost to the point. Then it takes the last minute curve to meet the point at the 12 o'clock position. Yes, I'm picky about my scrolls, but if I was going to drop 18-25k on a new mandolin, I'd want it to floor me with it's attention to detail.

And yes, it is the fault of the scroll carve. The binding was just butted against the wood.

[HoGo]

It looks like the Loar scroll still isn't a perfect curve meant to meet at the point exactly, but they simply increased the angle of curve in small amounts at the 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock and 11 o'clock positions before it got to the inside point. The DMM is "more precise" to the curve angle until it's almost to the point. Then it takes the last minute curve to meet the point at the 12 o'clock position. Yes, I'm picky about my scrolls, but if I was going to drop 18-25k on a new mandolin, I'd want it to floor me with it's attention to detail.

And yes, it is the fault of the scroll carve. The binding was just butted against the wood.

In this particular case the shape of the ledge is a bit more curved than should be but carving would help it. The modern G binding typically rises up towards the miter and it reaches the heigth of button 1/4" or so before the miter and turns flat from there to the button. This creates the look of a beak at certain angles of view even when other things are OK.
On Loars the binding rises smoothly all the way to the circle of the button and it's ouside layer actually doesn't reach the height of button- you can see the cut of chisel in the pic I posted earlier. Normally the inner black/white lines meets the button level.