Octave Mandolin Project from Eastman Mandolins

[Ivan Kelsall]

Firstly,isn't it really nice to be asked for an opinion on a proposed new instrument ?.While my personal preference is for a Guitar shaped Octave mandolin,i can see that there would be a lot of interest in this new Eastman project,& i happen to like the design very much indeed. Regarding the colour choices,one easy finish to do (compared to 'bursts') would be a 'black-top',that could look stunning,especially with natural back & sides. I tend to agree with downtown above regarding the fingerboard extension.
Maybe you could show us what the same instrument would look like with the standard Eastman f/board termination shape ?.
A question please - given that you decide on a final design,is there a proposed launch date ?,
Ivan

[mrmando]

I'm with pjlama. I like the Florida.

[Ed Goist]

As a tenor guitar player primarily, my personal opinion is that the scale should be 22".

From a tonal perspective, I am firmly in the 'play the longest scale you can get away with' camp. I believe that longer scale instruments have a tremendous tonal advantage, particularly when it comes to chords and rhythm lines.

However, form a market standpoint, I think an instrument like this would really appeal to folks looking for the shorter scale in an octave mandolin.

This leads to an interesting quandary...If I were designing this instrument for me, I'd go with a 22" or even a 23" scale, but if I were designing it for consumption in the marketplace, I'd probably go with the 20" scale like you plan to.

[TijnBerends]

It looks very nice I'm with most other people, in that the soundhole looks too large. It doesn't look nice, it would make for a very punchy sound I think, and it might even affect the structural integrity of the little sweetling. Also, I'd not use the fretboard extension - it's no use at all for playing, it just gets in the way of your plectrum.
As for the scale, I think it depends on whether you want to play melodies or rhythms, and on the size of your hands. I have a 66cm (26.4") scale bouzouki which I can still play tunes on (though with the flat top, pin bridge and deep body, it's really built for rhythms), but it's not really comfortable. My mandola has a 50cm (20") scale, carved top and floating bridge, which works great for melodies but not for rhythms.

[foldedpath]

From a tonal perspective, I am firmly in the 'play the longest scale you can get away with' camp. I believe that longer scale instruments have a tremendous tonal advantage, particularly when it comes to chords and rhythm lines.

Sustain is a big part of that tonal advantage, for me. The sound of my 22.5" scale Weber OM when capo'd up the neck, is the reason I'll probably never get a traditional acoustic mandola. The sustain is just another whole world to work in, especially for finger articulations like hammers and pull-offs when playing melody.

However, form a market standpoint, I think an instrument like this would really appeal to folks looking for the shorter scale in an octave mandolin.

This leads to an interesting quandary...If I were designing this instrument for me, I'd go with a 22" or even a 23" scale, but if I were designing it for consumption in the marketplace, I'd probably go with the 20" scale like you plan to.

From a strictly marketing perspective, I'd have to agree. They'll probably sell more at that scale length, because I think most first-time OM buyers are nervous about being able to play melodies on 22" - 23" scales.

From the player perspective though, and if you're not intending to play melody in an Irish session (which frankly isn't that easy at full dance tempos even on a 20" scale), I think newbies to OM's may not realize how well these instruments perform when using a capo. If you're playing melodies at home and not coordinating with other instruments, just throw a capo on the 2nd or 3rd fret, and suddenly you have a nice comfortable reach for melodies, without giving up the power and sustain of the longer scale. You still have access to GDAE or GDAD for playing arpeggiated or strummed backup chords with the capo off. You'll be adapting your mandolin chord shapes anyway, even with a 20" scale.

But all of this is hard to put in a product brochure, so 20" scale OM"s continue to be desirable. People with smaller hands need options, too. I just think it would be a shame to cramp the potential of something like this with a shorter scale.

[otterly2k]

First, I'd suggest posting this query down in the CBOM discussion area. There are some builders that frequent CBOM world, but more importantly, I think you'll reach more people who regularly play (and buy) OM's, and their/our perspective could be quite informative.

My 2c re: the design is-

- OM's are more typically flattops (or slight induced arch) for the styles of music that most commonly played on them. However, there does seem to be recurrent interest in affordable carved OM's. If this could come in at a price point between $1-2k, I think that might appeal to a lot of players.

- People buy OM's for the LOW end, not the high end. Ditch the fretboard extension... it is not useful, aesthetically questionable, and why have anything interfering with the sound output?

- As much as I personally prefer (and need) shorter scale, I think that 21-22" scale is probably a good target for most OM players. This allows for both chording and melodic playing options, depending on the preference of the player. At 22", some of the standard OM string sets can be used. That convenience factor makes a difference.

- I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation to make sure this instrument fits existing case and gigbag options. We CBOMers sometimes have a lot of trouble finding cases for our non-standardized instruments.

- I think most OM players are not attached to the idea of a scroll the way so many mando players are. The expense is not worth it. A shape such as you have, or a two-point design, would be my recommendation.

- I agree that the soundhole looks too large for that body size, not just b/c of the rosette.

- I have a bias against sunbursts. I prefer a natural wood look, or solid stain in a natural looking color. I won't make claims for general preferences. But I will say OM market is not the same as the bluegrass market... more instruments are natural than bursts, and I don't think there is necessarily the same burst bent that there is among grassers.

- I think price point is very important. Trinity College and the like have OM's that hit at about $500 that are pretty decent. Most of the luthier built ones come in at $2k or above (there are exceptions, of course, and they are good ones). If you can hit a price point between $1k and 2k, you will be adding an option to a place in the price range where there are perhaps the fewest options.

- Finally, and most importantly, it has to sound great.

Looking forward to seeing how this develops.
KE

[PFCG]

Attachment 87866Attachment 87867Attachment 87868

I changed the end of the fingerboard to reiterate the curve of the headstock, although responses we have had so far on and off the board combined, seem to be split decision.

The sound hole is not changed in size. If it goes smaller, it will be too small. The rosette really throws people off but i removed all the external rings and this is how large it really is.

This instrument will be a carved Maple back and sides as well as a Carved Spruce top. Fingerboard and headstock overlay will be Ebony. I am thinking that this will be in line with our 5 Series Mandolins.

Also, the 20 inch scale will cater to a variety of players who want to play chords over longer stretches.
The bracing is going to be a traditional X brace. We wanted to make one model that would really hit a lot of bases, and this seems like it will be well received by the majority of folks. Of course everyone has likes and dislikes, and we cannot accomodate everyone, so i want to make sure that everyone knows that we will always do what sounds best and is most functional as well as what is the most stable in terms of build quality. We do things a certain way that sometimes go against the grain if you will. For example, we brace lightly on our flat tops, and it makes them sound unparalleled in their price range. We finish with a thinner finish to make sure the instruments sound better. We always want to make the instruments sound the way they should, and that is why we pick some of the specs.

Fret markers can be placed wherever we want, that is not a huge issue. And as much as i personally like Celtic ornamentation, i don't know if it is really something that says "Eastman"

We will have to make some prototypes of this model before we launch it into full production, but this is an important stage for us. It will most likely take some months to complete a first working model, because making one instrument is not as big of an issue, and smaller builders can make one offs without a hitch, but we have to make a whole tooling system for when we think up a new model.

I think the Golden Age finish would be nice as well, but we will certainly do a bit more listening :D

Please remember that a drawing can be deceiving sometimes when you can only see a small picture. My computer can show it in full and extended scale as well as in 3 dimensions but not everyone has the ability to see it like that.

[pjlama]

I'm with pjlama. I like the Florida.

Great minds. It looks bitchin'

[Galimando]

Attachment 87866Attachment 87867Attachment 87868

Hey, there's nothing at these links – did you intend to attach images? I'd love to see them!

Also, do you intend the instrument to be tuned GDAE? What gauge strings do you intend it to be used with for the 20" scale length? (I ask because 20" is the scale length of some 17 fret tenor banjos and I always found it a bit short; I have a 16 fret tenor with a 21" scale and in a lot of ways it's an ideal length for a short scale banjo –#maybe an OM too?)

[Eddie Sheehy]

On a 20" scale I'd be expecting J76 or equivalents (FT76 etc.) - need at least .052 G string...

[David Rambo]

I'd like to see the pictures, too. All I get is a message that says:

Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator.

[PFCG]

Do these work?

[dunbarhamlin]

To my eye, the fingerboard end styling makes it look like a left hander.

[kidgloves2]

Thank you for asking us for input. If you go with a 20" scale, I would market it as a short scale octave... not a true octave. If you think of it as an octave, I would make it 22" scale. That's how many people in the mandolin community will see it.

Weber's octave is 22"
Flatiron used to make an octave that was 23 5/8" scale.

[Eddie Sheehy]

Flatiron's Octave was labeled as a Bouzouki... a rose by any other name...

[Primarilywoodcharlie]

22" very good.
please make some so I can buy one.

[kidgloves2]

Now if you make a 22" F-style octave for less that $1000..... we're in business!

[Tavy]

I've stayed silent on this thread, not because I don't care, but because if you ask three pickers for their thoughts, you'll likely get 4 opinions

Never mind here goes anyway:

1) I like the revised plan, but I agree the fingerboard shape looks like what you'd expect on a lefty (reversed image maybe?)
2) Soundhole size looks right on the revised plan, I conclude that what folks were seeing on the original was an illusion based on the rosette. In any case, it's functional, build it the size that sounds right. Too small and very likely the same folks who complained about it being too big will complain about it sounding tubby
3) There's no ideal scale length. Currently I play a 20" scale OM, and while I like the like the shorter scale and the sound, I don't like the thick strings. So I'm contemplating something longer - but that's just as much a compromise too. I guess you just have to go with your gut on that one.
4) Finish? I quite like blondes (no jokes please!), but the classic Eastman finish would be something pretty different and distinctive too. Choices.... choices....
5) This is a really good idea.
6) A really really good idea!

[Jim Baker]

I thing 21" scale should be minimum for an O.M.. Otherwise the strings need to be very heavy.

[Charlieshafer]

I'm on the same page as those who like a longer scale. As mentioned, you really don;t want an om sounding or playing like a mandolin or mandola unless capoed. You really want a great low end and hours of sustain. I also vote for a guitar-bodies shape to get a little more volume in there. Little oval-holed "a" shapes are all over the place. If you make that for a lower-priced model, I'd also love to see you do a higher-priced one with a different body, either archtop guitar style, or my personal favorite already in your line, like the John Pisano series or the Pagellie series, or if you really want to have some fun, and maybe sell too few instruments, the electric El Reys in an OM. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

[Keith Newell]

Soundhole is too big, body depth too shallow and probably price is too low

[foldedpath]

Do any of the usual string suppliers even make a packaged set of strings that will work on a 20" scale OM?

I don't think D'Addario J-80's will work well at that scale length, although they're fine for 22". Many of us end up putting together custom gauge sets for our CBOM's anyway, but it's nice to have a packaged set to start with. Also nice for the instrument builders, if you don't have to put together custom strings to ship with your instrument.

[Tavy]

Do any of the usual string suppliers even make a packaged set of strings that will work on a 20" scale OM?

I don't think D'Addario J-80's will work well at that scale length, although they're fine for 22". Many of us end up putting together custom gauge sets for our CBOM's anyway, but it's nice to have a packaged set to start with. Also nice for the instrument builders, if you don't have to put together custom strings to ship with your instrument.

Good point, but if someone with Eastman's clout produces a 20" scale instrument that becomes the "new standard", and I'd be willing to bet the string suppliers would soon follow.

[Galimando]

PFCG, have you considered perhaps doing a couple mock-up drawings of the same instrument (à la a few posts above), but with the longer 22" scale? I think people would be interested in seeing them, if only for visual comparison's sake.

[xntric]

I'm not really a fan of the new "pompadour" headstock design, but if you must echo it in the fretboard end, put the bulge on the treble side.