Jonathan McClanahan "revoicing" a 2002 Gibson F-5 Master Model

[Mandolin Architect]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cADKblZgFt0Hey guys, Jonathan McClanahan here. I just thought you might like to see my latest mandolin "Revoicing" of this Gibson F-5 Master Model. This mandolin was very heavy and it's volume and tone was not near were it should be. It was very "tinny" sounding with no warmth. So I re-graduated the top and back, took down their thickness, shaved down the neck, added a compound radiused fingerboard and re-sculpted the scrolls to give them a more pronounced crest line, as you will see in the pictures. I also focused on bringing out the Curl in the grain. I shot this video right after I finished it. The owner picked this one up and then brought me his 1951 Gibson F-12 for me to do the same thing to it. I will be uploading a video and pictures of it as well. Enjoy!

[Ron McMillan]

Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing this. Your customer John must be a happy guy.

ron

[Steevarino]

Stellar work, as usual Jonathan. BTW, last year Jonathan totally restored an old Lyon and Healy parlor guitar of mine that had a large television land on the top (long story), pretty much smashing it to bits. He turned this guitar into a fantastic sounding work of art!

[Bernie Daniel]

I agree the restoration work looks gorgeous! Was 2002 a very early year in MM production? I know the F-5 Ferns and Sam Bush mandolins from 2001 - 2004 are considered in general to be excellent mandolins. I've owned a 2002 Fern and a 2001 Sam and both were outstanding. But maybe the MM'sd were in their early phase then?

Jonathan, if you can please to put up before and after pics and playing in a video on the 1951 F-12. Those mandolins have a less than stellar track record and many have been re-graduated over the years. So it will be very interesting to see what kind of improvements you can make on it! :)

[Mandolin Architect]

Hello Bernie! Good to hear from you. Yes, this is a 2002. You're right, these were some good years for Gibson mandolins but every once in a while in a production setting, some of them can be overlooked in the details that matter the most. Absolutely, I will post pics and a video of the 1951 F-12. I should be finishing it this week.

[Robert Smyth]

Very cool, Jonathan! I'm curious as to just how heavy the mandolin was before and after the work was done. I have a 1994 that weighs in at 2.5 pounds but sounds great, but you have me wondering if it is not living up to its potential.

What does it typically cost to regraduate and refinish a mandolin?

Great website!

[Mark Seale]

2002 would have put this in the Derrington era. Was this an F5V or F5L? There weren't many fern F5V's.

[Cheryl Watson]

Jonathan, you are the mandolin resuscitator. That's a fine job and the curl is fantastic on the back!

[John Adrihan]

That is disturbing to see even 15 to 18 thousand dollar instruments could be that sub par. Just reinforces play before buy, and don't take anything for granted no matter what the name is on the headstock.

[Mandolin Architect]

Hey Robert, I really don't weigh each mandolin I re-voice because no two mandolins are exactly alike so I approach each mandolin differently. I can tell instantly if a mandolin has too much wood. It just feels heavy and unbalanced. With you mandolin being a 1994 and more or less settled in, if you are having issues with it's tone and/or volume not being what you would like to hear, chances are it needs a re-voicing. Essentially, when I do a re-voice, I am correcting all the mistakes and getting the "physics" of the instrument where they should be. I'm not sure, but I think I'm not allowed to discuss prices of my custom order mandolins or my charge for re-voicing/restorations etc.... so if anyone wants to know more about my re-voicing/restoration work etc.... we will have to discuss it via private messaging.

[Bernie Daniel]

Hey Jonathan I just noticed something -- the mandolin on your video has a Fern inlay so it is not really a Master Model as in "MM" but rather an F-5 Fern (which also has the term "master model" on the label). Is that correct?

The F-5 Ferns had, of course a fern inlay, Sitka spruce tops, were built with aliphatic glues, and finished with lacquer. All this in contrast to the real Master Models that had a flower pot inlay and also were made with red spruce tops, hide glue, and a varnish finish.

This is to say the mandolin you re-voiced (in the video) did not have a serial number starting with a "V". Correct? Too bad Gibson did not have the foresight to be more specific with the use of that designation -- "master model"! :)

[Mickey King]

Great job Jonathan, it sounds and looks amazing. My good friend, Steve Autry has one of your mandolins. You do great work!

[Mandolin Architect]

Hey Mickey! Thanks! Steve Autry is a great guy!

[Mandolin Architect]

Hey Brenie! I'll have to ask the owner to look in to it! Thanks! Do you still have that mandocello?

[Bernie Daniel]

That is disturbing to see even 15 to 18 thousand dollar instruments could be that sub par. Just reinforces play before buy, and don't take anything for granted no matter what the name is on the headstock.

I am guessing this was not a $15 -18K mandolin to start with -- rather circa $4 - 5K mandolin? Still Gibson should have not put it out there like that I expect -- hard to guess how that might have slipped through. As noted most early 2000 era F-5 Ferns were GREAT mandolins for sure. Maybe the owner of the mandolin will shed a little light on that story?

[Bernie Daniel]

Hey Brenie! I'll have to ask the owner to look in to it! Thanks! Do you still have that mandocello?

I do -- I'll email you this weekend about that! :)

[f5joe]

I agree with the play/pay for the most part. The mandolin is a Fern rather than the Master Model from the same time frame. Both have labels that say "Master Model", however, there were two distinct models ........... Fern and Master Model. The Fern was/is much cheaper in pricing.

[goose 2]

I agree that this is a Fern. I will say that I owned a 2002 MM before getting my 03 DMM. That 02 MM remains one of the best sounding and playing mandolins I have ever played and I wish I still owned it.
The work done on this particular mandolin is stellar. I wish I could don something like that to a piece of wood.

[Nick Gellie]

Absolutely brilliant work as usual. How do you take the back off without taking off the wood of the sides or the back or the top?

I really like your open conversational approach to telling us about your work.

Thanks for bringing this to the forum.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Well,there you go,a filmed testament to something i've known for a long time since seeing a few of Jonathan's own instruments,he's a consumate luthier. What he's done in turning that Gibson MM (that one was the ''Mediocre Model'') is little short of incredible. I have to say i'd like to hear that one played properly - no offence to Jonathan's 'strumming',but it sounded just like a good Gibson should do (IMHO),& as for the re-finish,'spectacular' doesn't even come close to what Jonathan has acheived. I wouldn't mind driving that one for a few hours (years !). Truly tremendous work !!!,
Ivan;)

[Skip Kelley]

Johathan, Nice work! It looks so much better!!

[testore]

That certainly is a fine job of making a sub par instrument better, probably a lot better. But, is it cost effective to do the job, charge the customer, and then end up with an instrument that is, at least from a market standpoint, worth much less than if it had been in original condition. I know that tone means almost everything as a sellable item, but even considering that, it is worth less than an original, unrestored Gibson of the same period, make and model. Maybe that's unfair because it now is a much better instrument.
In no way am I saying anything bad about the work. It is a beautiful job, well done!

[Mandolin Architect]

That certainly is a fine job of making a sub par instrument better, probably a lot better. But, is it cost effective to do the job, charge the customer, and then end up with an instrument that is, at least from a market standpoint, worth much less than if it had been in original condition. I know that tone means almost everything as a sellable item, but even considering that, it is worth less than an original, unrestored Gibson of the same period, make and model. Maybe that's unfair because it now is a much better instrument.
In no way am I saying anything bad about the work. It is a beautiful job, well done!

Hello, that's a great question. I understand where you are coming from but in all actuality was Bill Monroe's Loar worth more as a busted up mandolin or is it worth more restored back to it's original, playable condition. Just because a mandolin has a certain name on the headstock doesn't mean it's what it should be. I just recently finished a restoration on an early 1800's French violin with it's original Mother of Pearl/split Herringbone trim on the top and back, very intricate and very beautiful. It was in complete playable condition but all of the finish was gone and had a couple glue joint issues but other than that it was in excellent shape. The customer bought it at an estate sale for 200.00 here in Tennessee. He took it to an auction house in North Carolina to be auctioned off with his other antiques. The auction house "musical instrument authority" told him that it was a very valuable violin and that he needed to get it restored before he tried to sell it. He brought it to me and I restored it and aged back to it's original appearance. The owner took it back to the auction house and sold it for 10,500.00. It was worth much more after I restored it than it was in it's previous state.

[testore]

Unfortunately I cant open your attachments. Your Monroe mandolin comparison isnt a valid one. Neither is your violin analogy. The current Gibson mandolin was made poorly and you helped it. Monroes mandolin and the French violin were mistreated and needed restoration. Those are two different situations. The period of construction of almost any factory determines a rough market value for the item. A refinished instrument is always worth considerably less than a fresh one. Compare the prices of a Gilchrist refinish job on a Loar to ones that are original and worn. There is a huge difference, even though the refin is well done. As in your example, the work is top notch but you still have something that is less marketable than if it was untouched. Please don't get me wrong. I think you did a good thing here. I just know how much I would charge for that job and I'm not sure I would have done it. Especially considering how the market treats this kind of work. The mandolin is more playable, but less valuable.

[John Adrihan]

I am guessing this was not a $15 -18K mandolin to start with -- rather circa $4 - 5K mandolin? Still Gibson should have not put it out there like that I expect -- hard to guess how that might have slipped through. As noted most early 2000 era F-5 Ferns were GREAT mandolins for sure. Maybe the owner of the mandolin will shed a little light on that story?

Thank you for seeing the fern and clarifying that. That is a hugh difference. Master Models are Mater Models - even though all the lables say master model.

[Gene Summers]

Unfortunately I cant open your attachments. Your Monroe mandolin comparison isnt a valid one. Neither is your violin analogy. The current Gibson mandolin was made poorly and you helped it. Monroes mandolin and the French violin were mistreated and needed restoration. Those are two different situations. The period of construction of almost any factory determines a rough market value for the item. A refinished instrument is always worth considerably less than a fresh one. Compare the prices of a Gilchrist refinish job on a Loar to ones that are original and worn. There is a huge difference, even though the refin is well done. As in your example, the work is top notch but you still have something that is less marketable than if it was untouched. Please don't get me wrong. I think you did a good thing here. I just know how much I would charge for that job and I'm not sure I would have done it. Especially considering how the market treats this kind of work. The mandolin is more playable, but less valuable.

Beautiful work Jonathan, You brought out the best sound of the instrument. Testore, Stradivari violins have been reworked over the centuries, are they worth less now? Certainly not. Many Loars have also undergone the knife, including Bill Monroe's F5, is it worth less today than when it was new? No, certainly not. I know what you will say, "but that was Bill's iconic F5 Loar!" True, but tell one of the top classical violinists that their Strad is worth less after they've been worked on. This mandolin has been improved, and will see it's full potential after it is played a while. Otherwise, it would have been a dud even if from a famous company.

[testore]

Stradivari violins are worth less than the perfect examples. The Lady Blunt Stradivari(it looks like it's 20 years old)sold for over 15 million dollars while other Stradivari violins that have had repairs are selling between 4-10 million.
My only point was as to the cost effectiveness of the repair. Regardless of how much better this mandolin looks and sounds it is worth less than it was before the repair, and at an additional cost to the owner.

[Mandolin Architect]

Unfortunately I cant open your attachments. Your Monroe mandolin comparison isnt a valid one. Neither is your violin analogy. The current Gibson mandolin was made poorly and you helped it. Monroes mandolin and the French violin were mistreated and needed restoration. Those are two different situations. The period of construction of almost any factory determines a rough market value for the item. A refinished instrument is always worth considerably less than a fresh one. Compare the prices of a Gilchrist refinish job on a Loar to ones that are original and worn. There is a huge difference, even though the refin is well done. As in your example, the work is top notch but you still have something that is less marketable than if it was untouched. Please don't get me wrong. I think you did a good thing here. I just know how much I would charge for that job and I'm not sure I would have done it. Especially considering how the market treats this kind of work. The mandolin is more playable, but less valuable.

Hello Testore, I understand your point of view, but you also have to look at it from the owners point of view. The "real" question is...."How much is it worth to the owner" to have their mandolin sound, play and look like it should have sounded, looked and played from the factory. The people that I do these for love their mandolins and aren't looking to sell them anyway. But, I have had customers that I have re-voiced their mandolins that was offered far more for their mandolins after I did the work because they were far better mandolins. The guy I did this Gibson mandolin for was so impressed with it, he brought me his 1951 F-12 for me to re-voice it. He said he couldn't stand his Gibson Master Model before but now he say's he wouldn't sell it for nothing. Along with these two mandolins, he is having me build him one of my F-5's. Many of the new build mandolin orders I get are from people that I have done re-voicing's for. The approach that I have is this, at the end of the day, if a mandolin is not what it should be, then it has no value to any one because no one wants to play it. Lets move on brother! God bless!

[Nick Gellie]

I agree with Jonathan. He has made it into a thing of beauty which has better tonal qualities than in its original form. Imagine the owner asking what a knowledgeable player thought of his mandolin. He would have been mortified having spent good money for it. He can probably now get his money back if he sold it particularly with the handiwork of Jonathan all over it.

[Perry Babasin]

Very nice work!! Looks and sounds great!

[delsbrother]

How much did the work cost?

[Ivan Kelsall]

We need to ask the question - " Would we have bought it prior.to Jonathan's re-build or afterwards,if we could have heard it before & after ? ". Personally,i believe that the majority of us would be going for the post re-build instrument,if what Jonathan says is true & going by the owners thoughts on it's original sound. Regarding the value,for me,it went up in value as it became a better sounding instrument than it had been prior to the re-build,or at very least it should retain it's value. I also believe that Jonathan made it a much more beautiful looking instrument as well,judging by the 'post.op.' pics. All told,i can't see anything that Jonathan did to that instrument that wasn't beneficial in both appearance & tonal quality. What i really mean to say, is that i wish to heck it was mine !!,:)
Ivan;)

[testore]

I too think he did a good thing. The issue of cost benefit and market though is arguable. He did improve it but he also altered its original state, which always devalues an instrument from a market standpoint. Again though,obviously, that's arguable. I personally wouldn't do that job for less than $2000 maybe a little more. Add that to its original cost,? Not sure it equates quite like that. The only reason it might make sense is because it is a Gibson. You wouldn't do the same work to an Eastman.

[JAK]

Do we REALLY know if it sounds better after the work has been done? Too bad a recording wasn't made before and after, then we could have ten people listen and make their evaluations, without knowing if they were listening to the before or after. I imagine we wouldn't have total agreement as to which was better sounding. Did you ever have a mandolin that you thought was one of the best, and then you played it against another, and you liked the other one better? My point is that our ears will often fool us unless we have a direct comparison.

[Bernie Daniel]

I also think this was a great project-- but it would have been wonderful to have heard a before and after sound test.

Also a before and after set of pics?

The one question I keep wondering about is how did the owner happen to buy a Gibson mandolin that was this far out of spec? I suppose he could have made the purchase on-line -- but that still leaves the question who bought this obviously out of spec. Gibson mandolin in the first place?

Be great if the owner were go come on and tell his story here! :mandosmiley:

[Mandolin Architect]

Hey guys! Thank you for your comments! Open debate is good. I have been in the instrument business a long time and I understand "market value" of musical instruments etc... as good as anyone. BUT, I also understand "owner value" just as well. Testore said that he wouldn't do a re-voicing for less than 2,000 or maybe more? I did this re-voicing for 1,500.00. I am now doing a revoicing on a 1951 F-12 for this same owner and I strongly encourage you guys to be looking in the next couple of weeks for my thread on it. It will be an even greater transformation than this Master Model. Listen guys, I "corrected" all of the mistakes in this mandolin that are so often made in a production setting and made it much better and more valuable. Respectfully, my question to you is, "Was this Master Model worth more under the bed and never played or in the condition it's in now"? Obviously, now. Think of it, what good is an instrument that is not 100% of what it should be. Just because it has the name "Gibson" on the headstock does not mean it's an excellent mandolin. I absolutely love all Gibson instruments. I worked on the "inside" of the Luthier trade for a long time and I know what I am talking about. JAK, you are right. BUT you could never get an exact representation of the sound until it was in your hands or you done a before and after recording of it with no effects in a studio. How you know the comparable difference is by the "owners" response, repeat business, and by the Luthiers experience as a player himself. Hey Bernie, there are a lot of reasons of how a person can buy an instrument that is so far out of spec. First is, the seller didn't like the mandolin either, so he sold it to get rid of it and the buyer gets a good deal. Or, many times, people will buy an upper end mandolin that they've always wanted, begin playing it against other mandolins, and find out that it's lacking something. Guys, the owner has already told his story! After he got his Master Model back, he brought me his 1951 F-12 to revoice it and he is having me build him one of my F-5's. Not to mention that I have been inundated with emails from people contacting me about building them a custom mandolin and also people wanting revoicing's done as well. Good hearing from you guys on the Café! I'm too busy to get on here much but when I do, I enjoy the conversations! Keep your eyes open for the F-12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God Bless!

[Bernie Daniel]

Hey guys! Thank you for your comments! Open debate is good. I have been in the instrument business a long time and I understand "market value" of musical instruments etc... as good as anyone. BUT, I also understand "owner value" just as well. Testore said that he wouldn't do a re-voicing for less than 2,000 or maybe more? I did this re-voicing for 1,500.00. I am now doing a revoicing on a 1951 F-12 for this same owner and I strongly encourage you guys to be looking in the next couple of weeks for my thread on it. It will be an even greater transformation than this Master Model. Listen guys, I "corrected" all of the mistakes in this mandolin that are so often made in a production setting and made it much better and more valuable. Respectfully, my question to you is, "Was this Master Model worth more under the bed and never played or in the condition it's in now"? Obviously, now. Think of it, what good is an instrument that is not 100% of what it should be. Just because it has the name "Gibson" on the headstock does not mean it's an excellent mandolin. I absolutely love all Gibson instruments. I worked on the "inside" of the Luthier trade for a long time and I know what I am talking about. JAK, you are right. BUT you could never get an exact representation of the sound until it was in your hands or you done a before and after recording of it with no effects in a studio. How you know the comparable difference is by the "owners" response, repeat business, and by the Luthiers experience as a player himself. Hey Bernie, there are a lot of reasons of how a person can buy an instrument that is so far out of spec. First is, the seller didn't like the mandolin either, so he sold it to get rid of it and the buyer gets a good deal. Or, many times, people will buy an upper end mandolin that they've always wanted, begin playing it against other mandolins, and find out that it's lacking something. Guys, the owner has already told his story! After he got his Master Model back, he brought me his 1951 F-12 to revoice it and he is having me build him one of my F-5's. Not to mention that I have been inundated with emails from people contacting me about building them a custom mandolin and also people wanting revoicing's done as well. Good hearing from you guys on the Café! I'm too busy to get on here much but when I do, I enjoy the conversations! Keep your eyes open for the F-12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God Bless!

Awesome reply Jonathan! :)

I will look forward to seeing your re-voice of the F-12. I once had a 1953 F-12 re-voiced by a well-known luthier in Georgia (Mr. R. Wood of course) and it came back greatly improved. So as the song goes "I'm a Believer".

[Ivan Kelsall]

From John Karsemeyer - "Do we REALLY know if it sounds better after the work has been done ?". I understand your question,but Jonathan McClanahan is a top notch luthier & i'd trust his word & judgement any time. As for Gary Vessel's point regarding it's 'post op.'value,again i understand,but, if the mandolin did sound below par,then maybe most people might have sold it rather than go for a re-build. I applaud the owner's decision to go with Jonathan's advice as it's produced a lovely sounding mandolin with a stunning visual appeal as well.
Jonathan's addressed all the points made by others in his post above,every point valid & answered with a valid argument as well,
Ivan

[HoGo]

From John Karsemeyer - "Do we REALLY know if it sounds better after the work has been done ?". I understand your question,but Jonathan McClanahan is a top notch luthier & i'd trust his word & judgement any time. As for Gary Vessel's point regarding it's 'post op.'value,again i understand,but, if the mandolin did sound below par,then maybe most people might have sold it rather than go for a re-build. I applaud the owner's decision to go with Jonathan's advice as it's produced a lovely sounding mandolin with a stunning visual appeal as well.
Jonathan's addressed all the points made by others in his post above,every point valid & answered with a valid argument as well, Ivan
I still wonder if the mandolin was the top model MM or "just" Fern?
I don't have to listen to it and I trust Jonathan just by reading his description. In the past year several Gibsons passed through my hands (usually lower end models) and his description is consistent with my measurements. The mandolins had extraordinarily thick edges (up to 7mm - that's more than 1/4"), sometimes very inconsistent around the back (on unbound models) on A9 where scroll would be on F there was thick edge with a ripple of the scroll ridge (they used F style carved back, just sawed off teh scroll), just a hint of recurve likely created by sanding disc rather than carving and thicknesses that are questionable. The last one I measured just few weeks ago (F9) was 5mm thick at the back recurve going to 6mm in places and back to +-5mm in center. Top was similar... Looks like they just sanded out the marks from CNC machine and finished it. There were often gaps at the neck joint filled with putty and hidden by that thick brown mud they call finish. They just cannot sound to their full potential.
You're brave man Jonathan. I refuse any structural work on these except setup, I don't want to step into someone elses **** built-in in these instruments. Perhaps the higher models are better in the structural work but....

[wildpikr]

It would be nice to hear a before/after comparison; perhaps the instrument’s owner is a working musician and has recordings to share. The mandolin could be viewed as ‘incomplete’ and Mr. McClanahan simply finished the job. If the object is to have/find/play a fine instrument that is easy to play and exhibits a full range of beautiful clear tones when played [as the mandolin in the video appears to do], I think that the value would be enhanced by the work done. Perhaps this holds true for only the more valued or more desirable instruments, but that might be another debate. Anyway, I look forward to hearing the F-12 being worked on…~o)

[Bernie Daniel]

I still wonder if the mandolin was the top model MM or "just" Fern?
I don't have to listen to it and I trust Jonathan just by reading his description. In the past year several Gibsons passed through my hands (usually lower end models) and his description is consistent with my measurements. The mandolins had extraordinarily thick edges (up to 7mm - that's more than 1/4"), sometimes very inconsistent around the back (on unbound models) on A9 where scroll would be on F there was thick edge with a ripple of the scroll ridge (they used F style carved back, just sawed off teh scroll), just a hint of recurve likely created by sanding disc rather than carving and thicknesses that are questionable. The last one I measured just few weeks ago (F9) was 5mm thick at the back recurve going to 6mm in places and back to +-5mm in center. Top was similar... Looks like they just sanded out the marks from CNC machine and finished it. There were often gaps at the neck joint filled with putty and hidden by that thick brown mud they call finish. They just cannot sound to their full potential.
You're brave man Jonathan. I refuse any structural work on these except setup, I don't want to step into someone elses **** built-in in these instruments. Perhaps the higher models are better in the structural work but....



Sad to hear. :(

[Atlanta Mando Mike]

I don't see the newer Gibson mandolins being like the old ones-there are too many and they no longer stand head and shoulders above the crowd like they did 100 years ago. These days you have the Nuggets, Gil's, Monte's, Heiden, etc... that are the top of the heap and there's even a good bit of those around-especially Gils. We now have thousands of great mandolins made each year in aggregate. So, is the value affected? Maybe a little, I doubt much. If it turns out to be a great mandolin I don't think people will care much. I don't believe these mandolins will increase in value much over inflation anyway over the years. Too many great mandolins out there. Sam Bush had the work done on his mandolin, Mike Marshall had it done on his mandolin-There is a history of players taking a so-so, heavy mandolin and re graduating. I stand firmly in the camp of these are tools, not pieces of art.

[Ken Waltham]

Perhaps the higher models are better in the structural work but....[/QUOTE]
I don't believe they are. Folks that think these are " as close to a Loar as you can get" are sorely mislead.

[Andrew B. Carlson]

It sounds great on youtube and I imagine it sounds much better in person. Many Les Paul freaks will have they Historic Reissues re-carved and re-worked like this. Don't remember what happens to resale on those though.

The scroll binding looked alright on this one. Not much Eagle Beak on it, but you seem like you could tackle the job of smoothing out the inside binding curve of those newer Gibbys.

These newer Ferns are 50-60% less than the MM's or DMM's, so $1500 to re-carve (half graduate?) the thing could bring it a little closer to the MM tone. Not a terrible investment in my opinion. And the color scheme coming closer to a nice brown cremona looks nice. I don't like much black around the rim.

[HoGo]

I don't like much black around the rim.
But it's usually the dark opaque color that hides their mistakes... If you try to refinish mandolin that has filler in gaps around neck heel and some glued bending cracks in the scroll rib you'll have hard times trying to keep those things less noticeable.

[Mickey King]

Jonathan you did a great thing. Just like the Gilchrist 1920 Gibson F-4 Conversion that has shown up on the Cafe a few times http://www.om28.com/ProductDetail?product=P120914004. The mandolins both sound and look better and that what the owner's wanted so the expense shouldn't be an issue to justify the work. If expense was an issue then how is MAS so prevalent among us?

[KevinM]

Yes, but did he roast it?

[BenShavers]

You done a fantastic job on that mandolin!

[Larry Simonson]

Nice work Jonathan! Have you had much experience with post-Loar pre-modern era Gibson F5's?

[Mandolin Architect]

Hey Larry, yes I've revoiced F5's and A-5's from that era. They turn out really well.

[almeriastrings]

I have to say I am somewhat disconcerted by the constant use of the term "Master Model" to describe this instrument, as it is very misleading in my opinion. It is a Fern (or F-5L). It is as much a Gibson "Master Model" as the Flatiron 'Performer' A-style I have hanging around here at the moment. That also has a "Gibson Master Model" label and is from exactly the same period (2001-2). Is that really a Gibson "Master Model" too? I don't think so.... unfortunately the 'blame' (if there is any) for this confusing state of affairs ultimately lies at Gibson's door as they are the ones who compounded this strange nomenclature when they added the 'real' Master Model... the one with red spruce, varnish and hide glue, etc....the one that is sometimes found in a rather distressed state...

So, we are actually talking about an F-5L/Fern here. It would be interesting to know what the label actually says. F-5L or F5-Fern? As others have pointed out, if it really was a "Master Model" (as we normally understand the term today) there would be a 'V' present on the label designation.... as per those 2002 examples shown in this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfRvWMKRNIQ&feature=youtu.be

Clearly instruments vary. There are good, bad and indifferent examples. This one evidently had some problems and it looks like a great job was done in sorting them out and bringing it to life. I too would have liked some "before and after" samples/photos as it is impossible to really assess the results without them. I do think the new finish work looks excellent, and from what I've seen of other F5-L's from that period, is quite an improvement. I also think $1500 to get a mandolin that is not that good sounding up to one that keeps the owner happy is fair enough. If I had a "lump" of a mandolin, I would certainly consider it!

[Northwest Steve]

Looks beautiful and sounds great to my untrained eyes and ears. Thank you for posting

[lenf12]

A refinished instrument is always worth considerably less than a fresh one. The mandolin is more playable, but less valuable.

Less valuable to whom exactly? The current owner or some future owner? We're not discussing a Loar signed F-5 here of which there are not many all original examples remaining and hence their "value" in the marketplace. This is a relatively recent Gibson that left the factory in less than optimal condition. How much value can be attached to that? Putting it right has at the very least stabilized that downward decline in value. I would contend that it has enhanced the value considerably by addressing the build issues (weight, tinny sound, etc.) and upgrading to a custom finish that's as good (or better?) than the original Gibson lacquer finish. I think the current owner had a vision for this mandolin and Jonathan helped him realize it. Who cares how the future market will value this mandolin if the current owner is happy with the results now? BTW I'm too am waiting with baited breath to see/hear how the re-voicing goes with the '51 F-12. My '56 F-12 was revoiced by Randy Wood back in 2008 and it was worth every penny in sound transformation. I did however decline Randy's advice to do a total varnish refinish. The 50's nitro finish is one that is near and dear to my aging heart.

Len B.
Clearwater, FL