dearth of A-style f-hole plans

[Mike Sayre]

Some investigation of previous posts suggests there is no good (i.e. accurate) plan for an A style f-hole mandolin. What, then, is one to do?

[multidon]

Stew Mac carries full scale plans drawn by Don MacRostie, one of the finest mandolin makers on the planet, for a very reasonable 14.95. What else could you possibly ask for? Reportedly, these are the same plans Howard Morris used to get started.

[fscotte]

I use a slightly altered version of the Siminoff A-style plans. Just keep in mind the peghead is all jacked up.

[Whittle]

If anyone has accurate plans, it's Roger Siminoff (http:// http://parts.siminoff.net/drawings-a5-full-sized.aspx). They are based on the original Loar signed A5.

[Rick Lindstrom]

I used the Stew Mac F5 plan and just redrew it without the parts that make it an F- mostly the points, scroll and fingerboard extension. I also added a custom peghead. It worked out well.

[Bertram Henze]

If anyone has accurate plans, it's Roger Siminoff (http:// http://parts.siminoff.net/drawings-a5-full-sized.aspx). They are based on the original Loar signed A5.

The correct URL is http://parts.siminoff.net/drawings-a5-full-sized.aspx

[Whittle]

The correct URL is http://parts.siminoff.net/drawings-a5-full-sized.aspx

Oops! That's what I meant to put.

[dan in va]

Gotta agree with fscotte. That peg head in those plans would make a train take a dirt road, and it makes me wonder about the rest of the plans. i remember buying the Siminoff mandolin building book when it was first introduced, and even my uneducated eye could spot some of the errors.

i respect the reverence and enthusiasm but don't understand not getting it right.

[fscotte]

The peghead is jacked because the perspective is from a top down view - which doesn't take into account the angle of the peghead. So it's shorter and likely not accurately dimensioned. But I suspect the body is accurate.

[Dick Hutchings]

Top down dimension doesn't make it wrong or inaccurate. I don't get how you can say that.

[Steevarino]

While coming up with my A-5 design, I pinged back and forth between Roger's book and Adrian's excellent set of F-5 plans. It's pretty easy to ignore the scroll and points, putting in your own curves and ideas there. BTW, I had Adrian's plans laminated, framed them in Honduras Mahogany, and mounted them on the wall. I use them so much that they would be quite tattered by now had I not laminated them.

[dan in va]

Well, i've seen quite a few direct frontal pics of the Loar A5, which sounds like a top down view to me. However, an end view would give that kind of skewed proportions. None of the pics i've looked at make the peg head seem so short and square blocked. Without doing lots of measuring from different views and angles, it looks a lot more distorted in that blueprint to me. It would have to be one heck of an end view to distort the image that much to my eye. But no matter, it is what it is.

i doubt we'll ever know for sure why the drawing appears to be so far off. But the eye can be amazingly accurate when detecting when proportions are off, and i think this the case. As for the dimensions of the box, anybody's guess is as good as mine.

[Dale Ludewig]

I'm kind of with Steve on this. My A's are basically F5's without the scroll and points. As to the headstock, just design your own. The grads on the top and back correspond to an F, by and large.

Like Steve, I get all my plans laminated as soon as they arrive. I'm not so fancy pants though as to have them in a mahogany frame! Mine are just rolled up stored in a wine rack kind of enclosure. :)

[fscotte]

Top down dimension doesn't make it wrong or inaccurate. I don't get how you can say that.

The angle of the neck + the angle of the peghead. You have two angles there that screw up the proportions. I have his plans as well as the computer cut templates. It's not accurate to the pegheads of the time, and its quite obvious.

This is a really good straight on view of the peghead (perpendicular to the peghead's surface). The main thing with the Siminoff template is that it's shorter especially the area where the Gibson inlay is. Almost like its been chopped off at the top. There's other oddities with it as well but less obvious until you start building it.

132578

132576

Now look at this image of his pehgead plans:

132577

I think he simply had a frontal view photo and used those dimensions forgetting about the perspective error. Seems like something easy to do, but not really accurate if that's what you're advertising. But it does make one wonder how much time was spent making accurate physical measurements.