Gibson Master Model

Willie · 11-05-2009, 10:07 AM

Some time ago I remember that Charlie Derrington posted on the Cafe that his wife had performed a MRI/catscan on his original Loar and that is where the specs for the Master Model came from...I have also read on here and other articles that all Loars were not the same so are all Master Models built to one set of specs or has Gibson used more than one to get to the final specs for the M M?...Also can the wood be duplicated to really be close to the original `20 Loars....I am not a builder but just an interested person that is curious, I know Charlie posted that Gibson used hide glue and a varnish that was as close to the original varnish and they could get....Any info on any of this out there?

Willie

Big Joe · 11-05-2009, 10:43 AM

Yep. More than one instrument was "inspected" to get the "correct" dimensions. Loars are built to a reasonable similarity but since they were built by hand, each one is a little bit different from the others. In addition, there may have been more than one person carving and that would make a slight difference in the dimmensions. To further complicate that, many Loars have had the back off once or twice to install and/or remove a Virzi.

There were some things that were considered critical. One was the "consensus" of graduations from a good number of Loars. We wanted to ensure we stayed very close to those dimensions and used a particular 23 for our goal. Since they were hand carved, not everyone would be exact to the original, but well within specs of the whole. In addition, the necks on the Loars were hand built and each one is a bit different. Some are wider and have a more pronounced C shape while others were thinner with a V shape and everything in between. Even nut width was not always the same on the originals. The same is true for the MM's. There were some with a bit more V shaped necks and others with a more C shaped neck and some that may be a very slight bit wider than the others. They were still all within a range.

Bracing was based on the Loar method as well. Still, each brace was hand cut and shaped and placed. That means that there may be a very slight difference from one instrument to another. They were still within spec, but impossible to be all the same when actually hand done. The neck angle is the same situation. Each neck was set by hand and adjusted by hand. There are slight differences in neck angle from some of the instruments. This is a combination of hand building and that over the life of the MM project there were a couple different guys who did the neck installations. They had to fit and shape the joint for a perfect fit and the angle would be within spec, but not always the same. The more of these they did the more similar it became.

The glue used was hide glue, and there is not much difference in hide glue today from the Loar era. The finish was a project Charlie worked on for over 15 years to develop and perfect until he felt it was essentially the same as used on the original Loars. I have no reason to doubt that in any way. Working with him you get a real feel for some of the nuances of these things. It was a combination of the right varnish and the right french polish. It gave a certain feel and tone that he was looking for. When he got what he was looking for with the finish he used it on the MM. From the start of the MM process to the end under Charlies reign there was little difference in the finish. He would experiment with different things, but it was not used unless it was right.

Charlie understood the individual aspects of the instrument were critical. He also knew the end result was the important thing. If all the individual aspects were done right the end result would be good. One of the things that was important to him was the fact that they were hand built so each one would be an MM but still have a voice of its own. While they are very similar, there is a tone that each has. It was a wonderful project to be inolved with.

During that time we would experiment with lots of things. Most never saw the light of day, but it did give us a very good understanding of what those elements would do to tone and production. Some things were not so good and some were great. In the end, we altered the MM very little. Mostly just inspecting from time to time to ensure the little things were done right and if there were any slight issues to correct them. Charlie was more concerned about the construction and tone than just the appearance. He understood the appearance issues with the Loar and that was his model. He was very direct that the Loar was his model and everything that was done was to reach that standard.

Since the MM was a project nearly 80 years after the Loar we did have some advantages. We have better tools, better ways to do some of the jobs, and could product a more consistent product than was done in the 20's. The other thing that is often forgotten was that the Loar mandolins were built by guys just building mandolins. They had no idea they would become what they have and were just building for production. In our era, we had the advantage of having seen about 200 of the Loars and having handled them for many years. We knew far more about the "gold standard" than anyone in the 20's. Charlie has such a clear vision of what he wanted to do and how to accomplish that task that it was easier to produce a great product. It was also important to him that the actual hand built aspect would not be taken from the project.

We could have used CNC machines for much of the work, or lasers to cut some parts, but he felt that would eliminate the individual voices of the instruments. I agree with him on that. With all the wonderful technology available today, the old hand built portion cannot be replaced by a machine on the critical areas.

I hope this answers your questions about the process.

carleshicks · 11-05-2009, 11:26 AM

Great post Joe!!!

Willie · 11-05-2009, 02:14 PM

Big Joe....I was hoping you would chime in and answer my question because all of the posts that I have read here on The Cafe that you made were always precise and worded so a novice could understand every thing you were explaining...If I ever get down your way or see you at a festival I would like very much to meet you and shake your hand, you are truely a man that cares about this forum and you never seem to hesitate to share your knowledge with all of us...Thanks a whole lot.....Willie Poole (Durham Station Bluegrass Band)

re simmers · 11-05-2009, 02:34 PM

Wow! Joe, your post is another advantage of the cafe.

Bob

fernmando · 11-06-2009, 10:54 AM

This post also helps me understand why the MM has to cost so much more than some other mandos. Factoring in the individual processes involved in research and development, then man-hours, it all makes a little more sense. One day I'll have one.

JeffD · 11-06-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willie

that you made were always precise and worded so a novice could understand every thing you were explaining...If I ever get down your way or see you at a festival I would like very much to meet you and shake your hand, you are truely a man that cares about this forum and you never seem to hesitate to share your knowledge with all of us...Thanks a whole lot

Amen to that.

Hans · 11-06-2009, 12:12 PM

And I had the particularly good fortune to examine that July 9 for about 4 years...

Denny Gies · 11-06-2009, 12:25 PM

Great post, Joe. Thank you.

tburcham · 11-06-2009, 10:53 PM

Wonderful Post Joe...The MM project was special as are the mandolins that carry the MM label.

BradKlein · 11-07-2009, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hans

And I had the particularly good fortune to examine that July 9 for about 4 years...

Hans, For those of us who don't know that story, would you mind elaborating?

woodwizard · 11-07-2009, 10:02 AM

Sure is nice to hear from people that know. Thanks Joe. Your turn Hans.

Please

Hans · 11-07-2009, 10:59 AM

Sure, my friend (who's name shall remain out of this) bought the Loar from Charlie a number of years ago. He kept it for about 4 years and finally decided to pass it on to someone else. I measured that instrument every way possible except MRI (don't have one handy), including using my Hacklinger guage to get the grads.
Using those grads as primary and misinterpolatistcally combining with the grads from Reichman's Loar and a couple others that I had the grads from, I came up with a set of grads that I use on the F5C.
My friend owns the 3 point pictured with the July 9, and plays one of my F5C's
The Loar was sold to someone in California (who's name also will be out of this), and he plays a couple of my F5C's when he's just out and around...

This is probably the best Loar that I've ever heard, and while Reichman's is great, this one is flat out MEAN and in remarkably good condition.

Big Joe · 11-07-2009, 02:16 PM

I do miss hearing and playing on that Loar! It's not my favorite though. But it is very high on the list! Great mandolin!

Bernie Daniel · 11-08-2009, 08:04 AM

Joe and Hans thanks for the history lessons.

The story of Mr. Charles Derrington is a profound inspiration and IMO it is an example of what happens when you give a free man and his passion, a place, the wherewith all, and the opportunity, to express himself. The results are obvious.

And again, IMO much credit should go to Gibson, Inc. for allowing this remarkable artistic effort to play out within its corporate walls.

Joe your story settles it for me -- some time soon I will aquire an MM or a DMM....I need to have a part of this in my own hands -- thanks.

barry · 11-08-2009, 08:28 AM

I believe this is the Loar to which Hans and Joe are referring.

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?53

As I recall, it was bought and sold through the Mandolin Cafe classifieds. I remember when Charlie D listed it. I tried to convince a non-mandolin playing friend to buy it as an investment for the asking price of 60,000.

He said he did not want to sell his Cisco stock in order to buy it.....

Oops.

Bernie Daniel · 11-08-2009, 08:59 AM

Hmmmm, March, 1990 = $24/share...to...November, 2009 = $23/share! Yup should'a bought the Loar .... otoh the stock split somewhere along the way though didn't it? ... its not good to split a Loar

hank · 11-08-2009, 09:20 AM

Hans I used to wonder what my friends meant when they said a piece of art moved them. As I sit here drinking my coffee your beautiful 3 point almost makes me teary eyed. I understand now, I am moved. As a player I am also touched intellectually with the knowledge that the level of appreciation grows with our ability to operate these masterpieces.

barry · 11-08-2009, 09:22 AM

Charlie D sold that mando around 2000. CSCO was trading around 70 per share.

I mention this to my friend every so often...."Well played sir."

b

sgarrity · 11-08-2009, 09:25 AM

That three point is an absolute work of art! And the Loar ain't so bad either.

Bernie Daniel · 11-08-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

barry: Charlie D sold that mando around 2000. CSCO was trading around 70 per share.

Yeah. I'd like a crystal ball and a Loar.

Big Joe · 11-08-2009, 02:54 PM

You can have the crystal ball. I'd just loose it, but I would not mind the Loar

.

re simmers · 11-08-2009, 06:47 PM

Joe,

I don't have a crystal ball either. And I'm not Mr. Gruhn or Mr. Buffet. PLAYING mandolins is my hobby, not investing in them. I can barely afford the hobby! Loars surely are an investment.

Back to the Master Model........knowing what I've read here, I'd love to have one some day.

Bob

Glassweb · 11-08-2009, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Joe

I do miss hearing and playing on that Loar! It's not my favorite though. But it is very high on the list! Great mandolin!

so tell us... what is your favorite Loar of all the ones you've played? curious minds want to know!

Bernie Daniel · 11-08-2009, 08:12 PM

Quote:

re simmers: Back to the Master Model........knowing what I've read here, I'd love to have one some day.

Yes it is an awesome story and would make having one all the sweeter.

11-05-2009, 10:07 AM	#1
Willie Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Maryland Posts: 583	Gibson Master Model Some time ago I remember that Charlie Derrington posted on the Cafe that his wife had performed a MRI/catscan on his original Loar and that is where the specs for the Master Model came from...I have also read on here and other articles that all Loars were not the same so are all Master Models built to one set of specs or has Gibson used more than one to get to the final specs for the M M?...Also can the wood be duplicated to really be close to the original `20 Loars....I am not a builder but just an interested person that is curious, I know Charlie posted that Gibson used hide glue and a varnish that was as close to the original varnish and they could get....Any info on any of this out there? Willie

11-05-2009, 10:43 AM	#2
Big Joe Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Nashville Posts: 2,645	Re: Gibson Master Model Yep. More than one instrument was "inspected" to get the "correct" dimensions. Loars are built to a reasonable similarity but since they were built by hand, each one is a little bit different from the others. In addition, there may have been more than one person carving and that would make a slight difference in the dimmensions. To further complicate that, many Loars have had the back off once or twice to install and/or remove a Virzi. There were some things that were considered critical. One was the "consensus" of graduations from a good number of Loars. We wanted to ensure we stayed very close to those dimensions and used a particular 23 for our goal. Since they were hand carved, not everyone would be exact to the original, but well within specs of the whole. In addition, the necks on the Loars were hand built and each one is a bit different. Some are wider and have a more pronounced C shape while others were thinner with a V shape and everything in between. Even nut width was not always the same on the originals. The same is true for the MM's. There were some with a bit more V shaped necks and others with a more C shaped neck and some that may be a very slight bit wider than the others. They were still all within a range. Bracing was based on the Loar method as well. Still, each brace was hand cut and shaped and placed. That means that there may be a very slight difference from one instrument to another. They were still within spec, but impossible to be all the same when actually hand done. The neck angle is the same situation. Each neck was set by hand and adjusted by hand. There are slight differences in neck angle from some of the instruments. This is a combination of hand building and that over the life of the MM project there were a couple different guys who did the neck installations. They had to fit and shape the joint for a perfect fit and the angle would be within spec, but not always the same. The more of these they did the more similar it became. The glue used was hide glue, and there is not much difference in hide glue today from the Loar era. The finish was a project Charlie worked on for over 15 years to develop and perfect until he felt it was essentially the same as used on the original Loars. I have no reason to doubt that in any way. Working with him you get a real feel for some of the nuances of these things. It was a combination of the right varnish and the right french polish. It gave a certain feel and tone that he was looking for. When he got what he was looking for with the finish he used it on the MM. From the start of the MM process to the end under Charlies reign there was little difference in the finish. He would experiment with different things, but it was not used unless it was right. Charlie understood the individual aspects of the instrument were critical. He also knew the end result was the important thing. If all the individual aspects were done right the end result would be good. One of the things that was important to him was the fact that they were hand built so each one would be an MM but still have a voice of its own. While they are very similar, there is a tone that each has. It was a wonderful project to be inolved with. During that time we would experiment with lots of things. Most never saw the light of day, but it did give us a very good understanding of what those elements would do to tone and production. Some things were not so good and some were great. In the end, we altered the MM very little. Mostly just inspecting from time to time to ensure the little things were done right and if there were any slight issues to correct them. Charlie was more concerned about the construction and tone than just the appearance. He understood the appearance issues with the Loar and that was his model. He was very direct that the Loar was his model and everything that was done was to reach that standard. Since the MM was a project nearly 80 years after the Loar we did have some advantages. We have better tools, better ways to do some of the jobs, and could product a more consistent product than was done in the 20's. The other thing that is often forgotten was that the Loar mandolins were built by guys just building mandolins. They had no idea they would become what they have and were just building for production. In our era, we had the advantage of having seen about 200 of the Loars and having handled them for many years. We knew far more about the "gold standard" than anyone in the 20's. Charlie has such a clear vision of what he wanted to do and how to accomplish that task that it was easier to produce a great product. It was also important to him that the actual hand built aspect would not be taken from the project. We could have used CNC machines for much of the work, or lasers to cut some parts, but he felt that would eliminate the individual voices of the instruments. I agree with him on that. With all the wonderful technology available today, the old hand built portion cannot be replaced by a machine on the critical areas. I hope this answers your questions about the process. __________________ Have a Great Day! Joe Vest Big Joe's Guitarworks www.bigjoesguitarworks.com

11-05-2009, 11:26 AM	#3
carleshicks Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dowling MI Posts: 689	Re: Gibson Master Model Great post Joe!!! __________________ '02 Gibson master model #70327 02-01-02 '25 Gibson A-4 Snakehead #82626 '06 Hicks #1 and #2 F-5 almost done

11-05-2009, 02:14 PM	#4
Willie Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Maryland Posts: 583	Re: Gibson Master Model Big Joe....I was hoping you would chime in and answer my question because all of the posts that I have read here on The Cafe that you made were always precise and worded so a novice could understand every thing you were explaining...If I ever get down your way or see you at a festival I would like very much to meet you and shake your hand, you are truely a man that cares about this forum and you never seem to hesitate to share your knowledge with all of us...Thanks a whole lot.....Willie Poole (Durham Station Bluegrass Band) __________________ W.G. Poole

11-05-2009, 02:34 PM	#5
re simmers Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: maryland Posts: 347	Re: Gibson Master Model Wow! Joe, your post is another advantage of the cafe. Bob __________________ re simmers

11-06-2009, 10:54 AM	#6
fernmando Registered User Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 38	Re: Gibson Master Model This post also helps me understand why the MM has to cost so much more than some other mandos. Factoring in the individual processes involved in research and development, then man-hours, it all makes a little more sense. One day I'll have one.

11-06-2009, 12:12 PM	#8
Hans Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota Posts: 2,048	Re: Gibson Master Model And I had the particularly good fortune to examine that July 9 for about 4 years... __________________ Johann D. Brentrup, Builder In the works: PML's, oval A, Eclipse On the drawing board: Larson style 6 & 12 strings In the thought bubble: Larson harp mandolin http://www.brentrup.com

11-06-2009, 12:25 PM	#9
Denny Gies Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 264	Re: Gibson Master Model Great post, Joe. Thank you.

11-06-2009, 10:53 PM	#10
tburcham Tim Burcham Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Martin, TN Posts: 99	Re: Gibson Master Model Wonderful Post Joe...The MM project was special as are the mandolins that carry the MM label. __________________ Tim Burcham Custom Weber Yellowstone Distressed Silverangel #257 - Loaned to Young Artist "The Loar" LM-700 70's Aria Pro II F-style Eastman AC 520 Mahogany Dread Breedlove OM Tenor Guitar

11-07-2009, 10:02 AM	#12
woodwizard Mike Parks Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Knoxville Arkansas Posts: 1,830	Re: Gibson Master Model Sure is nice to hear from people that know. Thanks Joe. Your turn Hans. Please __________________ I Pick, Therefore I Grin! 1919 Gibson A4 '06 Gibson F5 Goldrush '47 Gibson L7

11-07-2009, 10:59 AM	#13
Hans Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota Posts: 2,048	Re: Gibson Master Model Sure, my friend (who's name shall remain out of this) bought the Loar from Charlie a number of years ago. He kept it for about 4 years and finally decided to pass it on to someone else. I measured that instrument every way possible except MRI (don't have one handy), including using my Hacklinger guage to get the grads. Using those grads as primary and misinterpolatistcally combining with the grads from Reichman's Loar and a couple others that I had the grads from, I came up with a set of grads that I use on the F5C. My friend owns the 3 point pictured with the July 9, and plays one of my F5C's The Loar was sold to someone in California (who's name also will be out of this), and he plays a couple of my F5C's when he's just out and around... This is probably the best Loar that I've ever heard, and while Reichman's is great, this one is flat out MEAN and in remarkably good condition. __________________ Johann D. Brentrup, Builder In the works: PML's, oval A, Eclipse On the drawing board: Larson style 6 & 12 strings In the thought bubble: Larson harp mandolin http://www.brentrup.com

11-07-2009, 02:16 PM	#14
Big Joe Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Nashville Posts: 2,645	Re: Gibson Master Model I do miss hearing and playing on that Loar! It's not my favorite though. But it is very high on the list! Great mandolin! __________________ Have a Great Day! Joe Vest Big Joe's Guitarworks www.bigjoesguitarworks.com

11-08-2009, 08:04 AM	#15
Bernie Daniel Certified! Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Cincinnati, "Round on each end High in the middle" Posts: 1,897 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Gibson Master Model Joe and Hans thanks for the history lessons. The story of Mr. Charles Derrington is a profound inspiration and IMO it is an example of what happens when you give a free man and his passion, a place, the wherewith all, and the opportunity, to express himself. The results are obvious. And again, IMO much credit should go to Gibson, Inc. for allowing this remarkable artistic effort to play out within its corporate walls. Joe your story settles it for me -- some time soon I will aquire an MM or a DMM....I need to have a part of this in my own hands -- thanks. __________________ Bernie ____ In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a Congress. - John Adams

11-08-2009, 08:28 AM	#16
barry Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: atlanta ga Posts: 82	Re: Gibson Master Model I believe this is the Loar to which Hans and Joe are referring. http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_mando.pl?53 As I recall, it was bought and sold through the Mandolin Cafe classifieds. I remember when Charlie D listed it. I tried to convince a non-mandolin playing friend to buy it as an investment for the asking price of 60,000. He said he did not want to sell his Cisco stock in order to buy it..... Oops.

11-08-2009, 08:59 AM	#17
Bernie Daniel Certified! Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Cincinnati, "Round on each end High in the middle" Posts: 1,897 Blog Entries: 1	Re: Gibson Master Model Hmmmm, March, 1990 = $24/share...to...November, 2009 = $23/share! Yup should'a bought the Loar .... otoh the stock split somewhere along the way though didn't it? ... its not good to split a Loar __________________ Bernie ____ In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a Congress. - John Adams

11-08-2009, 09:20 AM	#18
hank Henry Lawton Join Date: May 2009 Location: Greenwood, Ar Posts: 286	Re: Gibson Master Model Hans I used to wonder what my friends meant when they said a piece of art moved them. As I sit here drinking my coffee your beautiful 3 point almost makes me teary eyed. I understand now, I am moved. As a player I am also touched intellectually with the knowledge that the level of appreciation grows with our ability to operate these masterpieces.

11-08-2009, 09:22 AM	#19
barry Registered User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: atlanta ga Posts: 82	Re: Gibson Master Model Charlie D sold that mando around 2000. CSCO was trading around 70 per share. I mention this to my friend every so often...."Well played sir." b

11-08-2009, 09:25 AM	#20
sgarrity MAS Afflicted Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 2,488	Re: Gibson Master Model That three point is an absolute work of art! And the Loar ain't so bad either. __________________ Shaun Garrity http://www.youtube.com/user/spgokc78

11-08-2009, 02:54 PM	#22
Big Joe Registered User Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Nashville Posts: 2,645	Re: Gibson Master Model You can have the crystal ball. I'd just loose it, but I would not mind the Loar . __________________ Have a Great Day! Joe Vest Big Joe's Guitarworks www.bigjoesguitarworks.com

11-08-2009, 06:47 PM	#23
re simmers Registered User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: maryland Posts: 347	Re: Gibson Master Model Joe, I don't have a crystal ball either. And I'm not Mr. Gruhn or Mr. Buffet. PLAYING mandolins is my hobby, not investing in them. I can barely afford the hobby! Loars surely are an investment. Back to the Master Model........knowing what I've read here, I'd love to have one some day. Bob __________________ re simmers