Old School Ovals Vs. New School Ovals

[Wolfbane Stevens]

I have been wanting to buy an oval holed mandolin (A or F) for a long time and I keep going over the debate in my mind as wheather to invest in a nice old Gibson $$$ or to instead try something a little less expensive like an Eastman. #How do you people think these brands compare? #At least with the Eastman, I wouldn't have to worry about protecting it as much (less invested) as a nice teens Gibson. #Just curious to what you people think would be a better way to go. #Thanks in advance!

[otterly2k]

In my experience, Wolfbane, there are advantages to each, and I think the answer probaby lies with your figuring out your own personal preferences.

Vintage Gibsons are a varied bunch, largely b/c of the variations in how they've been played/treated/stored over the years. You can't always tell by looking at 'em which one is going to have that magic sound, and which one is simply ordinary (or seriously flawed). Also... they have a particular neck profile which is great if you like that, but not as great if you prefer something different.

A new oval mando won't have the character of the old ones...visually or sonically (sp?)...but may have options that aren't available on the old ones. Different tuners and tailpieces. Different neck profiles, lengths, radiused fretboards, different fretwire, etc.

If you're not sure what you like, I'd encourage you to take your time and try out some different instruments all up and down your price range...to see what feels and sounds good to you. I'd also encourage you to make your decision based on direct experience of the actual instrument if at all possible, since there's so much variation in quality in the old ones AND the new ones. Finally, pretty much anyone here will tell you that you'll typically get more for your money with an A than an F just because of the amount of time (cost) that's sunk into making that scroll.

Good luck!
KE

[fatt-dad]

I have an 1920 A3 and it sounds/plays better than any Eastman that I've played. I haven't played an Old Wave, but from what I hear that would be a suitable "new school" oval to compare. They again the price would be about the same. At the risk of getting on my personal stump, I like the Flatiron pancake for playing old-time. While they're not the conventional "oval hole" design, they are lots of fun to play and sound great.

fatt I-may-sell-my-A3 dad

[Eric F.]

I think there is no way to compare "nice" teens Gibsons with less expensive Eastman ovals. They're just not comparable enough. Anyhow, if you're not concerned with looks and "investment potential" you can get a teens Gibson for $1,000 or less that's maybe got some battle scars or a refinish.

[otterly2k]

hey-- I gotta agree... I don't think the Eastmans (nor most "less expensive" new ovals) are really comparable to vintage Gibsons. Some of the more expensive ones are, for sure.

[mythicfish]

I've had my A-4 for over 20 years. During that time, other mandolins have come and gone; but "Ol' Red"
isn't going anywhere.

Curt

[John Flynn]

My experience has been that the newer ovals are louder, more consistent and stay in tune better than vintage ovals at comparable prices. On the other hand, the best of the vintage instruments have a great, indefinable tone that is both "tubby" and "bell-like" at the same time. The new instruments cannot simulate this at comparable prices. However, some of the older instruments don't have it either. So, if I could find and evaluate a good one, the vintage might be the way to go. If I had to buy mail order, I would tend to go new. If I were playing solo or with light accompaniment, I would tend to go vintage. If I were playing in big ensembles, I would want the volume advantage of a newer instrument. If I were great at tuning on the fly, I would not mind those issues with vintage. If I were a beginner, I would want a newer mandolin that stays in tune better. Just MHO.

[mtnrose]

I have an old A Jr snakehead that Id never part with either. One thing you might want to keep in mind is that vintage Gibson prices (even on Ajrs which are the plainest of the bunch)seem to be going up steadily and you'll likely at least break even if you resold it. Plus old instruments are already "distressed". I worry about them less then I would with a brand new instrument.

[Stephen Perry]

I suspect decent condition old oval hole mandolins are still a good buy. Too many that I see have real troubles these days, with the ones in nice structural condition not on the market. I sort of regret selling all mine. Some were flabby. Some were warm and clear.

The Eastman oval is really a different animal with different bracing. Makes for different response, sustain, etc. Not really apples v. apples. They will take hard use and relatively high string tension, an advantage for some. None are likely fully broken in yet.

[Bob A]

Most of my instruments are old. They give me very few problems. They also keep their value nicely, while a new instrument will depreciate considerably. The there's the sound. No new instrument will have the complexity and developed sound of a (well-chosen) older one; you don't have to wait ten years for the tone to develop and the instrument to play in, and you can assume the sound will remain similar to what it was when you bought the thing.

Of course, if everyone felt this way we'd be in a pickle: not only would the price of old insruments go thru the roof, since obviously no one is making used mandolins, but al;so there'd be no vintage instruments for the future (ither than the ones already in circultion).

That said, I don't expect imports to increase in value to the extent that a US-made mando will. Chinese bluegrass? They'll always have buyers, but they probably will not have the same cachet that Gibson has.

Maybe the best of both worlds would be to buy the best-sounding USED Eastman you can find. It will be affordable and the depreciation will be factored in. But me, I like the old Gibson sound.

[luckylarue]

Wolfbane, I, myself, have embarked on a vintage A vs. new A experiment. I just sold my '23 snakehead and had Don Paine build me a custom Pomeroy A2. I've been mando-tasting a few different instruments this past year and economics dictates that I can keep only one "nice" mandolin and sell the other off. I call it the Zen/Non-attachment approach and have no regrets so far.
I loved the snakehead - great vintage tone and Loar-era mojo on the cheap. I admit, I was a bit worried that the Pomeroy might be a step down from the Gibson - but so far, it has more than held its' own. It's definitely louder and more aggressive than the '23 and even has plenty of chop. I don't know if the Pomeroy possesses the complexity of tone that the snakehead had - it's hard to articulate - but it's pretty darn close, imo. I saved some 4-track recordings of the Gibson and have a/b compared them w/ the Pomeroy. Upon close scrutiny, I really like the Pomeroy tone. I think there is a difference from the Gibson, but again, it's hard to describe what or how. One lack of control was different strings - I've kept J74 phospher bronze on the Pomeroy, but the snakehead was recorded w/ Jazzmando flat-wounds. I'll try the flat-wounds on the Pom next and should get a better comparison.
Overall, I've found not that much difference in my vintatge vs. new experiment. Fwiw, the Pomeroy was around $700 cheaper and has a slight radius fingerboard and an incredible finish. Someday I'll own another snakehead, but for now I'm enjoying the Pomeroy. Old Waves and Pomeroys are two "new school" ovals that I've played and feel hold their own against the "old schoolers". Enough blabber for now - hope this helps, cheers, scott.

[Jim M.]

I've owned 2 F2's (1918 and 1924), and now I own an Arches F4. I loved the old F2s. They sounded great, they smelled great, and they had a lot of mojo from 80 years of playing. But, the necks were not that comfortable (to me), the fretboards were flat, the tuners were a bit cranky.

So I had Chris Baird build me a new F4 (like the old ones in that it has the short neck and a transverse brace). Frankly, both for tone and volume, I think it's up there with the best vintage ovals I've played, and I know it will get better with age as the red spruce top opens up. It also has the kind of neck and fretboard I like, and brand new tuners, not to mention that it's a beautiful work of art.

But if you buy a Gibson, you could sell it a month later and probably make a little money. It's very unlikely that you could sell a new one for what you paid for it, unless you wait 5 years, or more. That's okay by me, though, because I'm going to keep the Arches and see what it sounds like after 80 years of playing. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[chuck.naill]

Finding a good sounding earily 1900's sounding Gibson is one is a 1000 according to a respected old time artist.

I've played several and once owned a '21 F2 that probably need to be refurbished, but was in excellant condition. Just did not have much of the tone I was anticipating.

I got an Eastman 504 for around $500 and couldn't be more pleases and maybe surprised. As for the long term resale value, if that's why you buy instruments your in a differant game. If is sound you are after, I would suggest something new or newer.

Having said that, I am having a '09 Gibson restored, because I think that it is neat to have something that old to play regardless of the tonal qualities.

Chuck

[Bob DeVellis]

I've never found a new oval hole that was really comparable to a good old oval hole. There are certainly brands I haven't played but of the many I have, none capture the sound I admire in an old oval hole. But some new oval holes sound great in their own right. It's a matter of what you're after. The mandolin I play most and enjoy playing most was built in 1998. It's a Sobell oval hole. It doesn't sound like an old Gibson but it sounds great and the wide, radiused fingerboard lets me do some things much easier than I could on a skinny, flat board. I have played -- and owned -- other modern oval holes that didn't sound like a nice old one and, frankly, didn't have a particularly noteworthy character of their own. They had a sort of generic mandolin sound. Some were fairly loud but, again, pretty much without character. They sometimes seem like a hybrid of f-hole and oval hole tone achieving a not particularly satisfying compromise. I've also had the occasional old instrument that was a dud.

But how you judge all this depends on what you want an instrument to do. The sound I find "generic" may be perfect for someone else who wants that particular tone.

I like the idea of a new instrument with an old instrument sound. I've just never found it in a modern oval hole instrument. It may well be that some modern oval holes have the sound of some, say, early Gibson oval holes. But they never seem to have the sound of the old Gibsons whose sound I like best. I spent about a year trying to find a new oval hole with the old sound. I tried a bunch of instruments, called a bunch of dealers and asked about the various new and used instruments they had in stock. Even some very good modern instruments had a very different sound (sometimes great, but not that old sound). I flat-out asked several very reputable dealers if they had anything built within the past ten or so years that was a reasonable approximation of theat old sound. At least two of the best (Elderly and Music Emporium come to mind) with large inventories directly said that it just wasn't possible. This was their response to inquiries about specific newer instruments in their inventories. So, their honesty was essentially costing them a sale. They both said, basically, if I was after the sound of nice old Gibson, the modern (actually some were used but not vintage) instruments I was looking at would disappoint me. Props to them for their honesty.

But, let me repeat, that some modern oval holes, like the Sobells I have played, sound incredible. The old sound isn't the only good sound by any means. Some newer instruments have a cleaner, crisper sound that is very appealing. My personal conclusion is that I'm most likely to find the "old" sound in an old instrument and that although I can find a variety of "new" sounds in newer instruments, I'm not likely to mistake them for a teens Gibson. YMMV.

[arbarnhart]

I will get the usual eye rolls, but my dirt cheap Washburn oval A has the good oval tone. This is not just my opinion; other more skilled players have been impressed by it. Over in the builder forum, someone posted about getting one that the previous user had attempted to woodcarve on the back and when he took the back off he was impressed enough with it to decide to restore it. It's a solid spruce arched top, machine carved. He happened to have full size plans of an old Gibson A and it matches up almost exactly. I suspect that I got lucky and that all of them are not as good, but another owner I have chatted with knows Andy Statman and took his to Statman to check out and Statman immediately recommended it to someone else who was looking for a good cheap mando. It's the M1SDL and they go for around $200.

[John Rosett]

i played one of those washburns in a music store a while ago and was impressed too, except for the butt-ugly peghead. i've been thinking about getting one to put a pickup in, as i don't want to alter my old gibson. it's good to know it wasn't a total fluke, and i might be able to get e decent one. i guess i can always cut down the peghead.

[GBG]

I'll just say that if and when you find a good sounding old Gibson A, you won't be asking any more comparison questions.

[JGWoods]

Finding a good sounding earily 1900's sounding Gibson is one is a 1000 according to a respected old time artist...
And who might that artist be?
Sure some old Gibsons sound lousy- 80 years and neglect can do that.
But if they are whole, not with separated backs or sunken tops, they usually sound pretty good, and some sound great, almost all of them sound "better" than anything new.

[arbarnhart]

Mandorose,

I don't care for the peghead on the Washburn either, but I have gotten used to it. For those interested, it has an F style peghead which is one of the two variances from a vintage A design. I have thought about cutting it off; doing so would remove the Washburn name but leave the flower pot and make it match a vintage A. But it would likely void the lifetime warranty. The other variance is that the single brace is on the seam instead of transverse. Interesting that you were impressed by one also. I tend to think mine is above average for them just because it sounds so good, but I have not heard a bad report on one ever. I did replace the bridge on mine (I made one similar to a Red Henry).

http://home.nc.rr.com/abhobby/images/washburn_m1SDL.jpg

[JD Cowles]

It's a tough call for sure. #When I was lookin, it seemed that the old A's that were available at the time were in rough shape to say the least. #For about the price of a solid vintage A2, I was able to have a Pomeroy built to my liking (radiused fretboard, etc). #Granted I have never owned an A2 let alone a vintage one, but Don's work (and I'm sure others out there) is superb and I love his take on the A2. #Perhaps the huge value increase in vintage Gibson F's has put them out of range for most and has driven up the prices of vintage A's as well. I felt that having a new instrument built to my specs was a better choice at the time than buying a dodgey old A in need of some work. Just my humble opinion...

[chuck.naill]

Mr. JGWood,

I always like use "evidenced based posts". Here is the quote from Flatpick.com's interview with Mr Norman Blake, my favorite picker. I think the man knows something about an instrument of two.

"It is like the A model Gibson mandolins, there is only about one in a hundred that is really a cut above the other ninety-nine".

Like I said, I love these old instruments, but they need the skilled hands to keep them sounding their best.

Regards,

Chuck

[JGWoods]

Mr. JGWood,

I always like use "evidenced based posts". Here is the quote from Flatpick.com's interview with Mr Norman Blake, my favorite picker. #I think the man knows something about an instrument of two.

"It is like the A model Gibson mandolins, there is only about one in a hundred that is really a cut above the other ninety-nine".

Like I said, I love these old instruments, but they need the skilled hands to keep them sounding their best.

Regards,

Chuck
We're probably somewhere on the same page Chuck.
Norman Blake says in sum- one is a cut above the other ninety nine.

I say that most of those 99 sound "better" than todays oval hole mandos.

I haven't figured out Gibson's production #s. I'm fairly sure a survey of serial #s would give a good idea how many were made say from 1915 to 1925. I think there's a few thousand out there that sound pretty darn good based on the happy Cafe members who own some, Mando camp folks, and festival folks I have run into that own some etc.

did they make hundreds of thousands of mandolins back then? I doubt it. So while 1 in 100 may reach the pinnacle of perfection to please Norman Blake, many of the rest of that 100 will please the rest of us.

clear as mud but it covers the ground.

[Greenmando]

There is a old Gibson Oval hole on ebay with only a few hours left within a reasonable price. Ebay auction (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7390403347)
http://i19.ebayimg.com/03/i/06/26/9e/5e_1.JPG

As far as old school or new, I think it's more involved than that. Old school has to also include Martins, Lyon and Healy and many others. Just like today, not everyone is looking for the loar sound. I have a Eastman 804 two point I really love

[otherhobby]

hi newbie to the cafe been watching for quite a while i couldnt help but to jump in on this i have an 21 A gibson #and i just bought a eastman 814 #both are equal in there own rights, gibson has a richer tone #but the eastman more volume, necks are quite differnt eastman narrower the eastman seems to be my go to mando every day nice tone nice to play gibson when the mod moves me. other eastmans werent close i wanted something close to the gibson and came home with this one.it would be hard giving up either now,colling was right there id say better but #out of my range, thanks

[peter.coombe]

I respectfully disagree with those who claim that there is nothing like an old Gibson oval hole. I have a 1918 Gibson A1, a real good sounding one. I played it for more than 10 years in various bands, and only 1 or 2 Gibsons I have come across over the years sounded better to my ears. But what I make nowadays, after 12 years of making oval hole mandolins, easily beats the pants off that old Gibson.

[luckylarue]

Peter - I'd love to play one of your instruments. Probably not too many here in the States - are ther e any available from dealers?

[peter.coombe]

I think there are around 50 in the USA now, but not all are oval hole mandolins. Some are F hole, and a small number of mandolas. None are with dealers, it is strictly orders only because I can't keep up with the demand, except for the occasional experimental instrument. I have one now, but it is a F hole A.

[yoods]

“At the risk of getting on my personal stump, I like the Flatiron pancake for playing old-time. #While they're not the conventional "oval hole" design, they are lots of fun to play and sound great.” Fatt-Dad


Agreed!

I was doing a long drive on the interstate to a gig this last weekend, and brought my old Flatiron pancake with me (Koa backwood), to play while on cruise control. In that confined space I could really hear the quality sound that old Army/Navy copy makes. You find a good one; you have yourself a great deal for the money and sound.


(Disclaimer, to keep this topic from going off-thread: don't worry, I was driving safe with little traffic, few curves, had the steering wheel low so I could steer with my leg with hands able to grab the wheel quickly as needed).


Just for fun, this is at Gruhns (http://www.gruhn.com/) now: MF7095 Gibson A Jr mandolin, 1920, VG+, original walnut stain varnish finish, excellent sound and playability, HC......$1250

[fatt-dad]

Dave be crazy mon!

fatt don't-pick-and-drive dad

[Lee]

Having played a Coombe A5; if an oval-A of his crossed my path there's no telling what I'd do.
Hmm, I haven't seen Peter's website for awhile. I recall there was work on it being done. Time for a visit...

[otterly2k]

Lee...that Brentrup hasn't even warmed up in your hands yet! You are truly afflicted!
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Avi Ziv]

Did any of you notice just how fast that Old Wave blacktop in the classified sold today? Must have been a couple of hours. I sent a question in and it sold before I even got an answer back.

Nice. Very nice mando

Avi

[PhilGE]

Buy what you can afford, what feels right, sounds right, and is acceptable to your eyes. Your hands and ears gotta be happy otherwise you have an expensive wall-hanger.

[sgarrity]

I'll be the happy new owner of the blacktop Old Wave. I missed buying one a few months back so when I saw that one, I didn't even hesitate. Should be here next week. I'm very excited!!

Shaun

[Avi Ziv]

Good for you Shaun. They are really excellent mandolins. You beat me to this one http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Congratulations!
Avi

[red7flag]

One difference I notice in a lot of the newer oval holes is the raised fret board. #All things being equal, what does that do to the tone? Thanks.
Tony

[sgarrity]

I've talked to several builders about this and most agree that it gives the instrument a stronger tone with more volume. Closer to an F5 kind of tone. I'll be anxious to see you 12 fret Pomeroy and hear your review. I imagine that will be a very nice mandolin. One reason I wanted an Old Wave was the shorter neck and attached fingerboard. More like the old snakeheads.

Shaun

[Lee]

Cut me a break. We all know there's no harm in just looking.... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[sgarrity]

Absolutely no harm in looking. But every time I start "just looking" it seems to cost me a lot of money!

[John Flynn]

When I was considering buying the Old Wave oval blacktop I now have, I called Bill Bussman about it. I asked him how close the sound would be to a vintage oval. This is not a precise quote, but his answer was funny. He said emphatically, "The sound should not by close at all. It should sound a lot better. If it doesn't, send it back."

After I got it, I recorded my mando-mentor, Curtis Buckhannon, playing the fiddle tune "Pretty Little Dog," first on his 1920 A2 and then on the Old Wave. I posted that clip on the Cafe' at the time. MHO, and Curtis' opinion, was that they sounded similar, but that the OW had stronger treble. Now that the OW is well broken in, I have to say that it is louder, and more even across the range, than that Gibson oval, or the several I have played since. The Gibson does have a unique sound, though, that is very appealing.

[red7flag]

Johnny, which sound do you prefer and why?
Tony

[acousticphd]

Congrats, Shaun - I had time to send and get answers to 2 emails re: the Old Wave last night, but you were probably very wise to pull that trigger.
Once again I'll have to make do with the ones I have....sniff.

[acousticphd]

...Including my ugly but great sounding 1915 Gibson A, and this Old Wave #182:

[acousticphd]

OK, trying that again:

[sgarrity]

Oh something tells me you'll do just fine with the ones you got. #I'd hate to have both a vintage Gibson and an Old Wave in the house. #But we all have our burdens to bear. #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif # I like the 'burst on the OW by the way.
I've had oval hole MAS for quite sometime and I imagine this will cure it. #And a blacktop is just what I wanted.

Shaun

[John Flynn]

Johnny, which sound do you prefer and why?
Tony
I wouldn't say I have a universal preference between the two. It would be more like "what do I prefer for what situation?" I don't think you can beat the Gibbie played solo or close miked with a good mike. It has that classic, old, dry, tubby, bell-like sound that is great for old-time fiddle tunes. But in prefer the OW in a jam or performance, when I need volume, if I am playing all over the neck, where I need consistency, if I am performing and want to stay in tune more reliably and if I am playing any other type of music, such as bluegrass, celtic, church music, blues, etc. It's not that the Gibbie is not good at those things, it's just that the OW is better and those situations don't benefit as much from that signature vintage sound. I would not trade the OW for a vintage oval of similar value, so I guess it's the winner in MHO.

[Eric F.]

The original poster asked about vintage Gibsons versus Eastman ovals. Since we've strayed from that, I'll put in a vote for Peter Coombe's ovals. I'd take one of those over the two teens Gibsons I own, sweet as they are. I've not played an Old Wave, though I'd love to.

Who else is building a great modern oval? I hear good things about Don Paine's Pomeroys, but I haven't played one of those, either.

[a12]

I have a Gibson 1915 A-4 blacktop and a Weber Beartooth oval hole. Both are the top of the line models.Both have + and -s.
The Gibson is heavy on the bass notes and the Weber is more evenly balanced. To me the Weber is more modern sounding, crisp and clear. But I don't think it is louder.
To me volume is overrated.
One isn't "better" than the other, just different.

There are so many modern good builders nowadays that it is hard to pick a bad one.

[Eric F.]

There are so many modern good builders nowadays that it is hard to pick a bad one.


Maybe, but oval holes are an afterthought for a lot of people. So many people want F holes that most builders focus on those models. I don't blame them for meeting demand. I just wonder who's making great ovals today. I've owned or played Weber, Coombe and Gibson ovals if you don't count flattops.

[sgarrity]

I just dug up that sound clip of the 1920 A2 compared to the 2004 Old Wave. The Gibby has a deep, thrummy, almost muddy sound for lack of better terms. Very dark on the bass side. Trebles a little tinny to my ears. The Old Wave had much more note separation and projection. And those treble notes just ring like a bell. I wouldn't say one is necessarialy better than the other. Just different animals all together. I'd love to hear a comparison like that done with an Old Wave and a '23 or '24 Snakehead A2. For those of you interested, the sound clip is over on the mandolin project site under the 2005 Misc. Musings section.

Shaun

[otterly2k]

My OW #147 just came back from a visit to Bill's equipped with a nice new ebony fingerrest and with some setup work done... it is sounding and playing great!

IMHO, it is in the same sound/shape family as the vintage Gibsons, but more comfortable to play due to the radiused fretboard (my preference). I play regularly with a friend who has a particularly great sounding old Gibson (best I've heard), and it approaches that in tone... much closer to the Gibson tone than the other contemporary oval mandos I've played (e.g. Rigel, Weber, Eastman, Breedlove, etc.) and certainly closer than Collings, Phoenix (but these are not ovals). I haven't had much opportunity to play ovals by the other small scale builders mentioned.

Congrats, Shaun, on scoring that blacktop!

[otterly2k]

FYI-- that great sounding Gibson is a '29 A-O, very plain looking, no-frills. Great tone.

[Eric F.]

Karen, seeing your post jogged my memory. Of course, I've also owned a Breedlove Quartz oval, as you well know. I'll chalk it up to lack of caffeine rather than a faulty, aging memory. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[otterly2k]

that's your story, and you're sticking to it! right, Eric?
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Eric F.]

I'd stick with it if I could remember it. ...

[Don Grieser]

I remember picking up an Old Wave oval at the Santa Fe festival some years back and that mando was just awesome--the sound just exploded out of it. Wish I had bought that one. I bought an old Gibson A off of ebay with a cracked top for under $700 a few years ago. It's a 1916 with a very wide grain top and it sounds wonderful too. But one of these days I'll get an Old Wave oval to match my Old Wave mandola and octave. Can't beat the playability of the new ones.

[mandolooter]

well my old 1906 Gibson A does have the tone I really like but so does a LOT of the newer ones I've tryed...different to some degree but still good...the 1 Eastman Ovalholer I heard I compared side by side with my Gibson and for the price thought it was a good mandolin. I was surprised by the tone actually since the one MK I heard was unimpressive to my highly untrained ears. No offense to anyone who has one but the tone was just thin sounding. Very loud tho.

[judith]

I don't think I've played a mando whose sound I like better than my no-frills A-O and I know a couple of other people with old A's that I'd be equally happy to have. The new A's - like Otterly's Old Wave - that I've played, sound really good, too, though not the same as old A's. But, it may be futile to compare old vs new,because no 2 Gibsons sound the same, either. I'd say they fit into "sound families" - lousy (which includes lifeless and dull), mellow, full, woody,woody and full, bell-like and resonant. However, there is defintely something to be said for new mandos with new tuners that work well - that turn smoothly, that are not bent at all, etc. I might look back on the builder's threads about best way of lubing tuners (i.e. Paul Hostetter always has advice), but I have lubed old tuners and they are never as east to manage as used ones. Always a trade off, darn it. Judith

[sgarrity]

Well I just got that blacktop Old Wave. Been playing it for the last half hour and all I can say is I'm very, very pleased. The volume and complexity of tone is just outstanding. I'll put up some pics and a little better review in the next few days.

Shaun

[otterly2k]

Congrats! Shaun. I hope you are as pleased with your OW as I am with mine... and Bill B. is a very decent guy to work with if it ever needs adjustments that are beyond what you want to do yourself.