Gibson Master Model? #misleading?

[Greenmando]

Just wondering if I am one of the few or many people amused by sellers pushing the "Master Model" status of any old Gibson. We do know that the "Master Model" is a relatively new model only introduced a few years ago. It is also true that they have had this on the label of all models for decades, it's just funny to me to see a seller on the cafe or ebay not tell you out right which mandolin it is. They might even go so far as to mention it's a rare Carlson or Weber signed "Master Model" .

I know, seller beware!

By the way, anyone interested in a rare F9 Master Model ?
Or maybe the even more rare A9 Distressed Master Model ?

[Stephen Perry]

If a label in a mandolin included the words "master model" I would probably list the thing as a "master model" because that's how it is labeled. #All one has to do is request the entire text of the label, the serial number, and pictures I suppose to determine what something is. #

Are you thinking these sellers are attempting to mislead buyers? #I find labels indicating that Gibson mandolins are "master models" confusing. Like Chevrolet introducing a "Chevrolet" model Chevrolet. I suppose I must not be intimately familiar with the Gibson line of mandolins. #I also tend to ignore labels - they're so easy to make and get in and out!

[JGWoods]

A few years ago listers on ebay didn't say a Gibson mandolin was a master model. Now that Gibson offers a Master Model suddenly lots of listers are including that term in the listing. Deceptive? maybe, confusing? for sure.

[kudzugypsy]

there was a good thread about this a few weeks ago - it is confusing, they (gib$on) has painted themselves in a corner now, cause there is no more room for F5 Master Models in their lineup without going the martin route and have 4 other characters out beside it (ie D-28VLSH)
F5 / F5V / F5MM / F5DMM

of course, it works both ways - a year ago, i picked up a nice used D-28V-something, that was priced wrong - they just had it priced as a low end D-28 which was about $1,000 cheaper than the one i got.

[f5loar]

That can work both ways. The internet gets lots of lurkers looking for information. They see an ad on the free cafe that says "Gibson Master Model F5" and then see the photo and the price of say $8000. Then they list their mandolin that they found in their grandfather's closet and the ad says "Gibson Master Model F5" and in the description says "one owner,my grandfather. Has label that says Gibson Master Model F5 with serial number 73XXX and signed by some guy Lore on July 9,1923, $9000 or best offer, no trades" I guess my point is probably best to check all ads in the cafe no matter how they are listed and check them often!

[Big Joe]

There are two levels of master model. There is the body design used since 1922 called the Master Model. It has the label inside that says Master Model. It has no relationship to the current model called Master Model. The label indicates it is built similar to the original design from 1922-24. As we all know, these began to change almost from the time they were built, but the major changed starting in 25 and continuing to change until the instruments were not even close to the original design by the 50's and following until the early part of 2000. The labels were still used but they were to indicate body style rather than what is currently called the Master Model. Even today many of our models have a label indicating they are Master Models but this tag is for its design only. The model called the Master Model will have two labels...the Master Model label and the signature label. These are varnish mandolins with red spruce tops and other variations from the other models. The label will state F5V on the actual Master Model Master Models. Yes, it is confusing but it is what it is. When one advertises their mandolin as a Master Model it is important to know what era it is from. If it is from before 2000 it will not be the same instrument as is called the Master Model. They have been more correctly referred to as the F5L. These were built in Montana for about 10 years and before that in Kalamazoo Michigan. The instruments from the 50's to the late 90's were quite different from the original mandolins of the 20's and different from the current mandolins. That will give you an idea of what you are looking at. Even then, you need to know more than just what the label has printed on it. If in doubt, seek a professional or call me and I will try to help you.

I am in trouble with a person who advertised his mandolin as a Master Model in the ads. I e-mailed him and said his instrument was an F5L, and not the model referred to as the Master Model. He was outraged and wanted to sue for having an impropeprly labeled mandolin. Again, there is a difference from the design called Master Model and the model called Master Model. Now that I've completely confused everyone........

[f5loar]

Just because you got a Ford don't mean you got a Ford!
It would be like saying you have a 2002 Ford for sale or a 1955 Ford for sale. Lot of good that does. Model names are much more important than the maker. Like a Gibson A50 is way different than a Gibson F5LXYZ mandolin but you will still see people saying "It's a Gibson" even if it was painted onto the headstock of a Harmony oval hole. Look at how Martin does their guitars. A D18 is not just a D18.
You got the D18V, the D18GE and now that new one(forget what they call it).

[Professor PT]

Just give me one of them there mandolins with that funny lookin' bump on top, and I'll be happy. You have a point: if you really want to be confused, look at how many different Martin guitars there are.

[kudzugypsy]

big joe, i know you spelled it out the best one could - but reading that post is funny....it may say master model, but its not a master model, there is only one master model master model.

i think if it has a signature label, it ought to BE a master model - thats the way it was designed by LL - the post '25 models are referred to as "Guarantee" labels and have no signature - just because gibson has run out of stuff to label their F-5's doesnt negate the fact that all these pre-2000 mandolins are not really *real* master models - and gibson cant go changing the rules 75 years into a run and say that all those werent master models, that only the varnish ones are master model-master models. just like the F-5L which for years meant L=Loar. the funny thing is what is left for the next few changes in the product line (it WILL change, we had the F-5L, that wasnt *really* a good Loar copy, then the F-5V (monroe) from the 90s...same thing. so, i know someone who has a 95 F-5V, varnish, but thats a montana F5, thus, not a *real* master model-master model, only the nashville post-2000 F-5V is a master model-master model

WOW!

this is really gibsons own fault (again) for sticking the MM label into every mando they build.....i mean, is there a gibson being made WITHOUT the MM label? - back in the 20's, at least they had some idea of the marketing of the word - like if a banjo had a tone ring, it was labeled MasterTone, if it didnt - then it didnt get a label - same with mandos&guitars, the 5 series got the MM label and the others didnt - what we have now, is no less than a dozen mando lines with the MM label - no wonder it is confusing. i dont think these people are trying to MISLEAD anyone, it says right there Master Model (and many are signed), not everyone is going to know every little detail about the whole line - heck, even george gruhn, who know more than nearly anyone about vintage instruments wrote in one of his articles how ridulous this modern labeling has become and the future consequences. he said it has got to the point where HE cant even follow all the models and specs. this is REALLY evident in the crazy electric market like with Fender Strats - there must have been over 20 different vintage knockoff models from korean-made up to the usa custom shop up to the "master grade" (or whatever it is) which is suppose to be the most detail authentic, etc, etc, yet, it never fails that within another year or so, there is yet another, better, more authentic one that comes out and all those other models are now not really *authentic* reproductions.
ok, thats enough

[Michael H Geimer]

Big Joe ... not your fault, obviously.

But if for 60+ years it was just design element, nothing more than marketing copy on the label, and with 1000's of non-MM out there that say MM ... MM doesn't really mean much more than "Wolf!"

So making it a official production model so late in the game seems ... well ... a little dim, really. (not you personally Joe, just the marketing decision)

Perhaps a more Martin-like convention (say F-5A) might have better spoken to the goal of re-creating the F-5's past 'glory days'?

Of course, I own a Weber, and their naming conventions are so wide open that things aren't much better!

- Benig ... who never knew that so many Gibsons had that copy on the label.

[Greenmando]

I have been away a few days and I am pleased this topic was understood the way it was meant. The new Master Models truely live up to the name. Just sad to see people who know the difference try and mislead someone.

The way I see the marketing of the name is like that of trucks. Ford had their Ranger package which later became a entirely different model, Chevy had their Silverado package that is now the name of the full size model. So like Joe V. said it's important to know if you are buying a 1978 Silverado or a 2006 Silverado.

[pickinpox]

A simple solution would be to just rename the current Master Model. They could distinguish these from the others by calling them the "Gibson Model" mandolin. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



Just kidding, I have an '02 Fern and a sense of humor.

[MrTidy]

hmmm, just to reiterate what someone else said...
If I owned any Gibson Mandolin that had "Master Model" on the label, I certainly would advertise it as such on ebay, I normally try to make money on ebay, but if someone bidded extremely excessivly, I would question their knowledge of the product via email... I want to make good money, but I also don't want my first negative feedback...

[f5loar]

Although signed by the janitor of the week sometimes, starting in 1971 the Master Model labeled F5 had signature labels too. So don't relay on a "signature" label to indicate a better sounding mandolin. My only worry is when they do finally get it exactly like a Loar F5 what will they call it? Maybe they can do like Martin in their deceased signature editions(aka: the Clarence White model is signed by his daughter Michelle White Bedslow) and have Loar's 3rd cousin twice removed sign them.

[ronlane3]

Hmmm, let's see. I'll volunteer to sign them at that point. IF they will let me have #1.

[Big Joe]

What makes you think we are not already there? Many think we are...including me. I have nothing to do with naming the instruments. I only try to report what is going on to the best of my ability. You are right...it would be easier if the MM had a different name to differentiate it from the design. However, that did not happen so we have to live with what we have. Besides, a little confusion keeps us from going crazy http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[f5loar]

Big Joe, It's not a secret that you are so close yet certain little details keep it from being the exact copy. Darryl has pointed out several areas to Charlie and Charlie will tell you that certain things just can't be changed overnight. Charlie has seen many changes to the F5 over his many years off and on at Gibson. I've been among the first to praise that Gibson has come a long way from when I saw Gibson build those first F5Ls. There is still a lot of unknowns about Loars.
In many respects what you are doing now might be better than the Loars but don't say I said it! It's like Martin coming out with the GE models and now they had to go another step and change only a few minor details to get them closer to what they did in 30's yet they claimed to have already done it with the GE models. Over on the Martin chats you hear about the Tbar having a different tone then their new adjustable neck so they come out with a new model featuring the old Tbar. What's next,bar frets and ebony bars? I only wished Gibson had a model like they make today in the 60's when I started out playing.
The DMM and MM have come a long way since the first one but are they exact duplicates of the Loars? Close but how do they say it close only counts in horseshoes. Choosing a mandolin is sorta like buying a new pair of shoes. If they fit and don't feel uncomfortable after walking on them a few days you've made the right choice no matter they cost.
Mandolin choice should be something you are comfortable with regardless of price and status symbol. Even old Big Mon had to try out an Ibanez and Randy Wood to see if he liked it. Turned out he didn't!

[harleymando]

who cares...........

[f5loar]

IT might matter 100 years from now when our grandchidren are trying to figure out what the heck it is they need to sell so they can get rich quick. Today's grandchildren of orignal owner Loars don't have that problem.

[Willie Poole]

Yeah, I almost got my butt kicked at a festival when a fellow told me he just bought a MM and I looked at it and it was an F-5L and I tried to tell him the difference and he got right up in my face and showed me the label that said "Master Model"...I told him if he was satisfied with it he could call it anything he wanted...Like the man said.."Who Cares", we know the difference and won`t be fooled...WILL WE?....`til later, Willie

[Stephen Perry]

I think I understand this now. #Gibson labels have read "master model" for many years. #Someone looking into the hole on a mandolin will see this and may think that "model" refers to the model of that particular mandolin. #Specifically, that the mandolin in question is a "master model" - because the label reads that way. #So eBay auction 7392220701 for an F-5G described as a "Master Model" is correct as far as the label goes.

I have a difficult time following the reasoning behind this nomenclature. #Big Joe is smart, kind, reasonable, and therefore must have had absolutely nothing to do with this decision! #

I've observed that folks in general tend to trust labels inside things. #I see lots of odd labels in violins. #Usually on the newer violins the labels weren't put in by the makers. #They're still trusted by the public, even if some are quite laughable. #

So here's a label indicating clearly that the mandolin is a "master model." #Now I wouldn't have realized there was a specific "F-5 Master Model" that was different from the generic master model label except for this thread. #I used to have a Gibson F-5L. #I think that I would be quite correct in stating that my F-5L was a "master model Gibson" as the fellow Willie encountered did. #If I recall correctly, my F-5L indeed had a label reading "master model." #Apparently I'd also be incorrect. #Situations that make me both correct and incorrect at the same time are unusual. #

This thread started with the suggestion that sellers were pushing Gibsons with master model labels as "master model" Gibsons. #I can't even type that without laughing! #I suspect only a small number of sellers realize that the term refers correctly to two different things, well not different, just . . . #just what? # The difference appears to be in a catalog or product line? #They're all master models, the label says so.a #That's what Gibson promoted them as. Weren't the Flatirons under Gibson also Master Models? #

Imagine this in front of a judge. #Andy buys a mandolin described as a "master model" - gets it, accepts it on the basis of the label and its description as a "master model." #Then realizes that there's a "master model" master model and a non-"master model" master model. #How does this go? #"Your honor, Bob agreed to sell me a 'master model' Gibson mandolin. #I got it and it was a Gibson mandolin with a label that said 'master model' on it. #Later I figured out that it wasn't really a 'master model' Gibson, just that Gibson put the words master model on all the labels, even if the mandolins weren't really master models. #See, they always labeled them this way, but then they decided to put out a 'master model' that was better than the other master models they'd always made." #

This looks like mutual mistake mostly rather than deception.

Most amusing. #I can imagine having someone come up to me and tell me my "master model" wasn't a "master model" even though it was clearly labeled "master model" because the "master model" was . . . . . # #Anyway, I might get pissed or laugh!

This is a great business and hobby and whatever! #I have so much fun with instruments and players. #Thanks for a great thread. #

That would be fun to listen to!

[f5loar]

The majority of Master Model F5s(including F5Ls) also had dated signature labels. Even those 70's someone signed them. It was during 1926 up to 1970 that another label was used which did not say "Master Model" on it. So don't count those. So what Gibson really meant was their line of Master Model series includes the F5 and the H5,L5,K5 and even the TL. So it's not only the F5. So the proper way to advertise would be: For Sale: 19XX Gibson Master Model F-5(L or G if it has one). The year made clears it up fo most buyers.

[lloydlore]

Gibson created the labels and therefore is the only one responsible for the confusion. Frankly, in some ways I think marketing is all about confusion. Gibson has lawyers, they know what they're doing. Everyone else, as always, have to do their homework.

[chuck.naill]

Marketing is not about confusion. I don't think any reputatble company owners set down and decide to confuse it's customers, that would work only once.

Good marketing is about finding out what the customer wants. Companies with antiqated ideas of marketing sought to sell what they produced. Whereas the transition has been for companies to produce what is the buyer demands. Perhaps somewhere Gibson has made that transition and that change has led to the confusion. I think that my point is reflected in the models like the distressed models and the attempt to recapture the Loar era tone.

Chuck

[lloydlore]

Maybe confusion is the wrong word. How about basic marketing, FUD.

[chuck.naill]

I was thinking about the mandolin market. What would comprise the market segment for the Gibson Master Model or any mid hign end instrument. Once you know this, the labeling tells the buyer that this is the premier offering of the builder or in this case it does confuse the issue.

Since Gibson is one hundred year old company, I am sure that they have changed their marketing many times as their resources fluctuated and the market changed during the economic and war time interruptions. This is a time of unparelled avaiabilty of capital by middle class people to buy exceptional instruments. One dealer of Collings, Martin and Gibson instruments said that most of his customers were Baby Boomers who had wanted a fine instrument when they were young, but neither had the time of money to justify a find instrument. I can understand why this person would be upset about the labeling.

Since most players are non professionals, that segment would comprise the larger numbers of potential markets. THerefore the brands are going after the non professional market. If Sam Bush's name did not sell mandolins, there would be no Sam Bush model. Also, builders are segmented into those that are custom builders, mass produced with brand recognition, and mass producers, some quality and some not. I have listed some demograhics below that came to mind quickly.

Collectability
Playability
Income of buyer
A style or F Style preference
Amature or professional
Age of the buyer
Desire for acceptance, brand consciousness, brand loyality
Geographic location
Musical style of preference


Chuck

[Greenmando]

Here we go again Gibson 2000 Master Model (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7402118761).
Seller has a 1998 F5G that he bought in 2000, thinks that makes it a 2000.

[Knucklehead]

It appears some of the same issues with regard to Master Model labels applies to higher end Gibson archtop guitars.
In 1994 I bought a Gibson L5 CESN, which sported the MM label. It was suppose to be a "recreation" of the famed 1951 'L5 with two P90 pickups. Nice instrument, beautiful blonde with flamed and figured wood all over.
A couple years later I bought a L5CTN "George Gobel" model with a single floating BJB pickup. This was nicer than the first one, and certainly was very limited production, but it had a standard orange oval label beneath the bass f-hole. On top of that, they mis-s[elt George Gobel's name and it's now a "Gobble" model.

[RoryDon]

HELP?http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif???
Now I'm confused guys:D http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I'm taking delivery today on a 2000 Gibson F5G (sight unseen). What did I buy??
Is this a master model or a master model master model.
How is this 2000 F5G different from a 1999 F5G.

RORY DON

[Frank Russell]

It's a year younger.

[Stephen Perry]

Typically for confusion issues one looks for evidence of confusion. Analogous with trademark infringement analysis. Lots of evidence appears to exist for confusion among the normal buying public. Until this thread I didn't realize a "master model" master model existed. I doubt that Gibson intended to confuse. I doubt that people getting confused in the public are stupid. Just one of those odd situations that sometimes arises.

[Kevin Briggs]

It seems like Gibson could have done a better job with the MM naming debacle. Of all the things a company could screw up, screwing up the naming of products seems the most inexcusable.

[Moose]

Huh!!http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif - "Would you repeat the question, senator!?" - http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Givson]

The confusion isn't among the relatively small number of purchasers of the new, expensive "Master Model", but among the thousands of owners of lesser "Master Model labelled" Gibsons and Flatirons.

It was absolutely a marketing blunder on Gibson's part to use the same nomenclature for their new, top of the line, instrument, that they had previously applied to their entire line of instruments. When major corporations launch a new product, they usually conduct "focus group" research on product names, etc. Had Gibson done this, the resulting confusion over the use of the "Master Model" name would have sent them a strong message that they should choose a different name.

[red7flag]

You can bet that a few people on a chat room actually corrolate to thousands.
Tony

[David Horovitz]

You can bet that a few people on a chat room actually corrolate to thousands.
Tony
I second (thousand) that

[David Horovitz]

For the record, I have an '89 Gibson A-5L ("Master Model"!!!!!) that I love but I too am quite confused by the issue brought up in this thread and tend to agree that it's a clumsy marketing message. Having said that, it still wouldn't have stopped me from acquiring my mando even if I had fully understood the whole model vs. line difference beforehand. The mando just sounds and feels good. Period.

As a side note I just noticed that Gibson's site no longer lists the A-5L but instead just calls it A-5. So I really do now own a piece of history!
Gibson Original Acoustic Instruments (http://www.gibson.com/Products/Bluegrass/Gibson%20Original/Gibson%20Mandolins/)

[Kevin Briggs]

Hey, I'll be the first to say it. I would probably have a Gibson MM right next to my cherished Weber if I made twice what I make (that'd be a little under $80k/year). I'd still play my Weber more often, because it's like an extension of my arm or something, but I have very little against a good Gibson, other than some mild capitalist disgust. Of course, it'd have to be one Big Joe picked out for me, which apparently makes a difference, which raises one of my eyebrows right there.

I'm just saying, dang, we just mandolin playas. We can't do nuttin' too good but pick 'n' grin. Why confuse us simpletons with a Master that's not a Master, and a Master that is a Master, different than the other Master, and a Master that's a Master that has a Distressed Master that's a better Master?

[Stephen Perry]

Giannaviolins--
Your point is well taken, but I'm not sure that a self-selected, small group of posters on this website, on a thread that is flirting with the ancient Cafe tradition of Gibson bashing, is enough evidence to support a finding of broad "confusion" among thousands of mando buyers in the country. #
That's not what I looked at. I look at people who come into my shop with their master model and wondering if it is worth so much now. And people advertising their "master model" becoming confused. This is common on eBay. I expect people here to be more cognizant.

Incidently, I never claimed that there were thousands of confused people about this issue. I doubt that many care that much. Are some people confused? Yes, certainly. Just look at eBay listings. That's the test as I remember it. Does this really matter to me? No. Am I interested in Gibson bashing? No. I work on them all the time. Fun.

[Greenmando]

I started this thread with a idea of exploring the idea of the Master Model name being a mislead idea. First of all, I own a A9, F9 and a Gibson era Flatiron festival F5. I am very proud of them and wish I had the ability to play well enough to justify buying a Master Model or DMM.
Yes, I can afford to buy a few of them, but I am not worthy.

Frankly, I can not think of a more appropriate name for the line. The line is quite worthy of the title - Master Model.
Yes, Gibson mandolins have master model in the description on the label. #But they are quite a bit different.

But there are problems with uninformed sellers, and possibly buyers (even here in the cafe classifieds). I recently emailed a ebay seller with the problem. I posted a link to his auction here. After checking out my response to him with Gibson he closed the auction early with 18 bids already up to $2000.
Master Model??? (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7402118761)

[Big Joe]

First of all, remember that Gibson is the ONLY mandolin manufacturer that has been doing this for 112 years. In that time lots of things come and go. Labeling is a minor part of the whole issue. The Master Model is actually a name for the Loar design. That is why it has been used on the Gibson mandolins for eighty four years. The current "Master Model" is called that, but its actual designation is the F5V Master Model. The Fern is also a Master Model design, but is not an F5V. The term Master Model for the F5V has become the name most people have associated with this model and has been ultimately used for that model. The confusion may be understandable to a certain point, but there are so many differences from model to model to help clear that confusion for most people. It is like saying a Ford makes a pickup truck. There are many kinds, but they are all pickups. They have the F150, the F250, F350, F450, F550 and maybe even more, but they are all pickups. Is it confusing becuase they are all called pickups or F series trucks? Not to those who know anything about trucks.

The E-Bay confusion is more about trying to get everything they can for a product they know is not what they claim. I would not believe any description I read on any product on e-bay. There are some very honest and trustworthy people there, but it seems more and more are just trying to 'color' thier product to increase the bids. I have seen some pretty strange bids for some pretty strange products with some VERY strange claims. I don't put any stock in what e-bay does. I don't believe it represents but a small fragment of our culture and certainly not the mainstream of instrument buyers or collectors. Anything you buy there you better make sure what it is before you lay down your hard earned cash!

[mandopete]

I have seen some pretty strange bids for some pretty strange products with some VERY strange claims. #
Really?

http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[lloydlore]

I think it is simply Gibson has created confusion by using a model name that they also say is a generic name. I also don't think it is any big deal, but I wouldn't criticize a seller for stating what is printed on the label. I don't think the pickup truck analogy works. It would be like having an emblem on the side of every Ford pickup that said F150 and then underneath it would say F150, F250, etc.

[Jim Hilburn]

They should designate the MM the F15.

[sgarrity]

Or how about the F5 Authentic? And the F5 Authentic-Distressed? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here is the origin of this stuff. #The "Master Mandolin" bearing a label stating "The Gibson Master Model" #These are cuts from the first brochure introducing the first instrument with "Master" designation. #It should be noted that this label only appears in F-hole instruments. #Tenor lutes have the label also as they are f-hole instruments, but not Style 5.

[Darryl Wolfe]

about the labels

[Big Joe]

Just in case anyone is interested, we have these brochures at the Gibson Bluegrass Showcase. They were replicated from an original 22 Loar and they look as if they are old brochures. They are really cool! They can be yours for only $10.00. Just call the store at 615-514-2200 x 3 if you are interested. Now back to the regular programming http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif .

[Darryl Wolfe]

That is good to know Big Joe> Here is what it looks like. Front

[Darryl Wolfe]

back

[Darryl Wolfe]

Nicely folded up.

[Kevin Briggs]

I'll be printing mine for free from this thread. No charge please.

[FlawLaw]

I will take one of those mandolins for $250.00! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Charles Johnson]

Gibson is just following their long and established tradition of contradictory product labeling, dating back at least to the 1920's. They make great mandolins, but their marketing decisions on naming products over the decades and up the present have often left me and others completely bewildered:

A1 - A body w/oval soundhole, then F holes, then the wide bell body with f holes, then back to the standard body with f holes. In some years its identical to the A50, some its not.

A5 - one made with f holes and long neck in 1923(?), then a 2 point body with oval hole in the 60s, then a "lump scroll" F style body with f holes, then back to a regular A body with f holes as the A5L, and now its just the A5.

Even the current Master Model/Master Model is numbered as the F5V. That same exact model number was used for the Bill Monroe varnish models, then used a few years later for the non-Monroe varnish F5 model.

Don't even start on flame top Les Paul reissue variations...

Best regards,
Charles Johnson

[Darryl Wolfe]

I'll be printing mine for free from this thread. No charge please.
Not at that resolution http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif