Gibson A-40's coming out of the woodwork on Ebay!!!

[Gary Hedrick]

Sheesh there must be close to ten of them on Ebay right now.

So if I was a starting out mandolin player and wanted a good starter instrument I might be looking into one of those.

I had one in my early days. They ain't the greatest but if you find one in solid shape it will do the job and if you buy it right then you can get your money back out of it.

[AlanN]

Yep, Gary. It was my first 'vintage' mandolin buy in 1978 and it served(s) me well. Has a dandy neck. Plus, it's a Gibson.

[multidon]

It still amazes me how much respect these get. I've played a couple, didn't think they were anything special. And they have laminate mahogany backs. If any other maker did that, they would get trashed here. But hey, because it's a Gibson, well, then it must be alright!

[Bill Kammerzell]

It still amazes me how much respect these get. I've played a couple, didn't think they were anything special. And they have laminate mahogany backs. If any other maker did that, they would get trashed here. But hey, because it's a Gibson, well, then it must be alright!

I agree and I own one. I bought it just to have a "vintage" Gibson, if 1964 is "vintage". It was the least expensive Gibson I could find and though it gets the job done it will very likely be the "beater" when I travel.

[texaspaul]

I owned a '62 40N. Easy player nice neck soft sound, with a mellow tone. A bright heavier string and the mandolin was fine. I traded it to a left handed player who plays it strung right handed and left handed, looks very strange but works. She plays it regularly on storage mids well sounds good.

[Gary Hedrick]

Didn't say they were "special". They are just the cheapest Gibson and are (for spending $500 to $700 or so) a decent investment that you will get you money back out of.

I really don't see the need to trash Gibson here within my post. I have owned Nuggets, Gilchrists, Woodleys, Dudenbostels, Monteleones, Gibsons, a Webber, a Lewis, a Boots Imperial and several more so I don't have a Gibson point to make here.

I like Gibson...think David Harvey is doing a great job of bringing quality to Gibson and don't see any reason to trash them.

and for an old fart like me....back in 1960 when I started an A40 was one heck of a better mandolin than the Silvertone my father had for me to start on!!!

[John Rosett]

I've played a couple of 50's A40's that I've liked a lot. Being a swing player, I like the softer tone of mahogany. I've had my eye on a couple of those mandos on ebay...

[Timbofood]

I bought one for about a hundred bucks in '76 sold it a year later for 250. I wish I still had it!

[multidon]

Hey Gary, point taken. Didn't mean to offend. I apologize if offence was taken. I don't think I was trashing Gibson. Through the many years they have been in business, they have simply done what they believed customers wanted, so they could sell those products for a profit. That's all any business does, really. And obviously, when they produced the A 40, they believed they had a market for it. And I believe they were correct. Not everyone can afford a top of the line model, so they just did what lots of other companies do: offer products at a variety of price points. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, I applaud that attitude. That philosophy has worked well for Martin, Taylor, and Fender, just to name a few.

I suppose my previous post wasn't terribly clear. What I was meaning to tweak a bit was not Gibson per se , but instead the attitudes that I see here that are so prevelent. How many times have we seen a certain mandolin trashed because it's made of (gasp!) laminate! Almost universally, mandolins with any sort of laminated component in the body is derisively called "plywood" and we move on. But, if it's a Gibson, well then, all is forgiven, and nobody even brings up the fact that the back is laminated. It just seems to me a bit disingenuous to say laminate is no good, but anything Gibson is great, even when they use the dreaded laminate.

I suppose part of it is the Gibson mystique that has lead to the brands collectibility, especially among speculators and pickers who are just looking for anything of value that they can flip for a buck. People who couldn't possibly care less about the musical aspect of our beloved instruments. I donated a guitar to Salvation Army once, and when the guy saw the case, the first question he asked was "Is that a Martin?". Everybody who deals in used goods of any sort, pawn brokers, thrift store operators, pickers, auction goer, they are all programmed to look for Gibson, Martin, or Fender. That's it. And that's why some of them can be easily fooled. They are focused on the name, and only the name.

I actually considered buying an A 40 once a couple of years ago. I was tempted because it was a good price, it would have been a birth year instrument for me (never had one), and of course because it had the Name. But ultimately, I walked because I realized none of those reasons above had anything to do with music.

I am a big fan of Gibson instruments. I own a few (not mandolins) and I would never trash them. I love the ones I have. But I guess I just would like to see some consistency around here. If the A40 is a decent instrument, and it has a laminated back, could we not then logically conclude that laminate is not necessarily evil, and has a legitimate role to play in instrument construction?

[Bill Kammerzell]

Oddly enough, I wouldn't have purchased a mandolin with a laminated back if it did not have the name Gibson on the headstock. So I would agree there is much truth in what you say.

[CES]

I'm with you, Don, and will leave it at that. But, I also agree with the OP. If you're hankering for a Gibson and need a budget priced instrument, these are definitely your best option...

[Bob Visentin]

I have a early 60's A40 I've owned for some time. Out of curiosity I went to ebay to look . The A40s and 50s I saw there have a different tail piece then mine. Mine has the annoying sliding cover the never seems to fit right. The ones on ebay have a tail piece that has the strings bend over the end of the mando and attach near the end pin. What is the story with this?

[Gary Hedrick]

Hey Gary, point taken. Didn't mean to offend. I apologize if offence was taken. I don't think I was trashing Gibson. Through the many years they have been in business, they have simply done what they believed customers wanted, so they could sell those products for a profit. That's all any business does, really. And obviously, when they produced the A 40, they believed they had a market for it. And I believe they were correct. Not everyone can afford a top of the line model, so they just did what lots of other companies do: offer products at a variety of price points. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, I applaud that attitude. That philosophy has worked well for Martin, Taylor, and Fender, just to name a few.

I suppose my previous post wasn't terribly clear. What I was meaning to tweak a bit was not Gibson per se , but instead the attitudes that I see here that are so prevelent. How many times have we seen a certain mandolin trashed because it's made of (gasp!) laminate! Almost universally, mandolins with any sort of laminated component in the body is derisively called "plywood" and we move on. But, if it's a Gibson, well then, all is forgiven, and nobody even brings up the fact that the back is laminated. It just seems to me a bit disingenuous to say laminate is no good, but anything Gibson is great, even when they use the dreaded laminate.

I suppose part of it is the Gibson mystique that has lead to the brands collectibility, especially among speculators and pickers who are just looking for anything of value that they can flip for a buck. People who couldn't possibly care less about the musical aspect of our beloved instruments. I donated a guitar to Salvation Army once, and when the guy saw the case, the first question he asked was "Is that a Martin?". Everybody who deals in used goods of any sort, pawn brokers, thrift store operators, pickers, auction goer, they are all programmed to look for Gibson, Martin, or Fender. That's it. And that's why some of them can be easily fooled. They are focused on the name, and only the name.

I actually considered buying an A 40 once a couple of years ago. I was tempted because it was a good price, it would have been a birth year instrument for me (never had one), and of course because it had the Name. But ultimately, I walked because I realized none of those reasons above had anything to do with music.

I am a big fan of Gibson instruments. I own a few (not mandolins) and I would never trash them. I love the ones I have. But I guess I just would like to see some consistency around here. If the A40 is a decent instrument, and it has a laminated back, could we not then logically conclude that laminate is not necessarily evil, and has a legitimate role to play in instrument construction?

Based upon your further note I did indeed take umbrage at the "what I perceived" as Gibson bashing. You have detailed out my thoughts exactly in your response. Gibson is NOT the only show in town and to ascribe some sort of mandolin deity status to them isn't correct either. There are a bunch of folks making very good instruments out there. But Gibson will always have a spot in my heart as it will for many others. I am friends with Lynn, Will and David and think all of them are great people. My Kimbles, Dudes and Gibson have all been great instruments...the Gibson F4's are especially dear to me.

The A40's are what they are....basic instruments that have the Gibson name on them and you can get one cheap and get your money back out when you are ready to go up to the next level perhaps a little more easily that other brands.

[Bill Kammerzell]

I have a early 60's A40 I've owned for some time. Out of curiosity I went to ebay to look . The A40s and 50s I saw there have a different tail piece then mine. Mine has the annoying sliding cover the never seems to fit right. The ones on ebay have a tail piece that has the strings bend over the end of the mando and attach near the end pin. What is the story with this?

That's interesting, because mine is a 1964 model and has a conventional tailpiece, with the sliding cover. The cover is marked with the "Gibson" logo, but fits quite well. I put Rubner tuners on mine. I didn't like those Kluson tuners at all. I also changes to a Cumberland Acoustic (ebony) bridge.
The difference in the clamshell tailpiece and the other with sliding cover might have been something done in the early 1960's. I'm not sure.

[pops1]

I had a 40's A40N when I first started, played it for a long time. It sounded very good and I had others that had much nicer mandolins comment on the sound. It was affordable, had a great neck and sounded good. What more can you ask for? Wish I had it back, sold it to someone who wanted to learn mandolin.

[AlanN]

Here's what Stan Jay had to say about my A-40, bought on 7-June-1978 at Mandolin Brothers:

[Jeff Mando]

Seems to be about 50/50 love/hate on these......coupla thoughts....

Gibson name does mean a lot, and rightly so....(think Cadillac)

Has a "coolness" factor...IMHO...

Looks like a 50-60 year old Gibson that can be had for $5-600 is something everybody probably needs....

I'd rather have a vintage Gibson than what the same money would buy in a Pac-rim, regardless of sound......back to the coolness thing....

You won't lose money, but then again, it is doubtful that it will go up much.....($500 in 1978!)

[brunello97]

....coupla thoughts....

Looks like a 50-60 year old Gibson that can be had for $5-600 is something everybody probably needs....

That's what I know.

I'd add to that: "Looks like a 100-110 year old Washburn bowlback that can be had for $150-200 is something that everybody probably needs." Classic Washburn sound, rosewood, etc.

Gibson and Washburn: coolness thing goes without saying.

Mick

[allenhopkins]

...It just seems to me a bit disingenuous to say laminate is no good, but anything Gibson is great, even when they use the dreaded laminate...If the A40 is a decent instrument, and it has a laminated back, could we not then logically conclude that laminate is not necessarily evil, and has a legitimate role to play in instrument construction?

Not sure who's saying "laminate is no good, but everything Gibson is great." Gibson has taken its lumps (read, "lump scroll") from many, many Cafe posts. Gibson is, overall, a quality brand of mandolins, but not without exceptions to that rule, such as 1960's-'70's F-5's, which have been panned mercilessly in thread after thread.

Gibson, back when they were trying to [a] make their instruments in the US, and [2] appeal to a "mass" market with those US-made instruments, tried several expedients to produce lower-priced mandolins. Cf. the Alrite, the A-Jr., the Army-Navy model, and other, later types -- as well as their "budget" lines like Kalamazoo, Cromwell, Kel Kroydon, et. al.

The unbound back and mahogany, rather than maple, construction of the A-40 were evident cost-cutting features, hoping to win a share of a diminishing mandolin market through the 1930's-'60's. So the instrument was a Chevy rather than a Buick or Cadillac, but I'd guess Gibson sold quite a few, since as pointed out by the OP, there are a lot on the market today. And they are what they are, at-least-a-half-century-old mid-range mandolins, which we should evaluate in comparison with other instruments in their current price range. Some will like them, some won't, some will value the "Gibson" label, some won't. As pointed out above, there's value to a well-known nameplate -- not just in musical instruments -- in the marketplace.

The role of "laminate in instrument construction" is another issue to Gibson veneration, or lack thereof. Some very fine instruments use laminates for back and sides, though not many would use laminate for the top, the primary vibrating surface. Currently, however, overall use of laminates is associated with lower-end instruments, which -- as a rule, and there are exceptions -- are acoustically less preferred to solid-wood, higher-priced mandolins. Recommending solid wood construction over laminates may just be a shorthand way of designating better instruments over less-well-made, mass-production ones.

Many or most of us learned on a "plywood" instrument, and I've heard even laminated-top guitars that sounded competitive with their solid-top rivals. And I feel free to bash Gibson where I feel it's deserved, and to stick up for plywood mandolins where ditto. I've never owned an A-40, but I've played a few, and liked the slim neck and the near-bluegrass sound at an affordable price. Laminated back and all.

[Bill Kammerzell]

I have always felt bad for that poor "Lump Scroll" mandolin. :(

I had a Kalamazoo electric guitar around 1965. :cool:

As far as the A-40 goes, the one I have has just about the best "chop" sound I could possibly expect for what amounts to an "entry level" mandolin. :grin:

[Timbofood]

Yep, the "Mouse ear", " Gumby","Lumpy"'," scrotum" days were a very strange wrinkle in design to say the least. And I agree, there have been some fairly awful years but, for the output the duds are less,than hits.
I really enjoyed Stan's flowery sense of language! Sad to not see any new examples.
One mans opinion.

[Gary Hedrick]

"I have always felt bad for that poor "Lump Scroll" mandolin. "

Yeah I understand but it is sooooooooo pathetic......if you have to have a scroll then get a scroll . Not some pathetic
POS!!!

i just have found those to be an insult to one's sensibilities!!!!

[Bill Kammerzell]

Yep, the "Mouse ear", " Gumby","Lumpy"'," scrotum" days were a very strange wrinkle in design to say the least. And I agree, there have been some fairly awful years but, for the output the duds are less,than hits.
I really enjoyed Stan's flowery sense of language! Sad to not see any new examples.
One mans opinion.

Well that is a new one! I have heard Gumby, Mouse ear and of course Lumpy! :) But Scrotum? :disbelief: Oh my!

[Bill Kammerzell]

"I have always felt bad for that poor "Lump Scroll" mandolin. "

Yeah I understand but it is sooooooooo pathetic......if you have to have a scroll then get a scroll . Not some pathetic
POS!!!

i just have found those to be an insult to one's sensibilities!!!!

Wow! I almost bought one. I actually offered a guy $750.00 for one about a year ago. It actually sounded pretty good in all of its ugliness. He turned it down. I feel so lucky now. It was all about wanting a Gibson. So glad I would up with this A-40. :))

[Gary Hedrick]

Well now you know one of my hot buttons.....The sins of the the 70's and Gibson and Martin for that matter. Leisure suits....those awful colored ties.....two tone shoes that made you look like a pimp.....only two good things came from the '70's for me....I graduated from engineering school and met and married the most fantastic woman in the world!!

[jim simpson]

Well now you know one of my hot buttons.....The sins of the the 70's and Gibson and Martin for that matter. Leisure suits....those awful colored ties.....two tone shoes that made you look like a pimp.....only two good things came from the '70's for me....I graduated from engineering school and met and married the most fantastic woman in the world!!

I don't know about the '70's not being that great, I mean, remember leisure suits? How about my old '74 AMC Javelin! Actually it was a bit of a lemon, couldn't wait to get rid of it.

[Bill Kammerzell]

Well now you know one of my hot buttons.....The sins of the the 70's and Gibson and Martin for that matter. Leisure suits....those awful colored ties.....two tone shoes that made you look like a pimp.....only two good things came from the '70's for me....I graduated from engineering school and met and married the most fantastic woman in the world!!

Between the two tone shoes and those flowered shirts with the different colored collars the women couldn't tell who the pimps were.

[allenhopkins]

I don't know about the '70's not being that great... How about my old '74 AMC Javelin! Actually it was a bit of a lemon, couldn't wait to get rid of it.

Got a helluva lotta miles out of my '72 Dodge Dart -- slant-six engine, couldn't beat it to death with a stick. Finally rusted through the floor ("unibody" construction, gotta love it), but it went all over the US in the eleven years I owned it.

Started playing mandolin in the '70's, on a 1915 Gibson A-1 resurrected from my grandfather's attic. Bought the house I live in today, had a kid (Prof. Dave Hopkins of Boston College) that turned out OK.

And there's Creedence; gotta love them too...

[jim simpson]

You couldn't beat those slant 6 engines!

[Bill Kammerzell]

You couldn't beat those slant 6 engines!

I had a 1963 and later a 1964 Valiant. Great little cars. Slant 6 engines.

[Gary Hedrick]

"I have always felt bad for that poor "Lump Scroll" mandolin. "

Yeah I understand but it is sooooooooo pathetic......if you have to have a scroll then get a scroll . Not some pathetic
POS!!!

i just have found those to be an insult to one's sensibilities!!!!

and guess what....Ebay now has two of these for your buying pleasure

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gibson-A-12-Mandolin-Master-Model-F-style-1970s-USA-OHSC-Sunburst-no-reserve-/262732357982?hash=item3d2c11a15e:g:0gcAAOSw44BYGoQ Z

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GIBSON-MANDOLIN-EARLY-70-S-WITH-CASE-AND-OWNERS-MANUAL-/152329483890?hash=item23778b7672:g:wDwAAOSw44BYNf1 E

Oh the humanity!!!

[Bill Kammerzell]

and guess what....Ebay now has two of these for your buying pleasure

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gibson-A-12-Mandolin-Master-Model-F-style-1970s-USA-OHSC-Sunburst-no-reserve-/262732357982?hash=item3d2c11a15e:g:0gcAAOSw44BYGoQ Z

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GIBSON-MANDOLIN-EARLY-70-S-WITH-CASE-AND-OWNERS-MANUAL-/152329483890?hash=item23778b7672:g:wDwAAOSw44BYNf1 E

Oh the humanity!!!

Man. To think how close I came to owning one. I shudder.