PDA

View Full Version : Modern Classical Mandolin Design ?s



Chris Baird
Sep-02-2004, 8:31am
Greetings,

I am in the planning stages of a modern classical mandolin. The mandolin will be arched top and back. I would greatly appreciate any input on the following subjects.

Scale Length - What scale length would be most appropriate and ultimately desired for the modern classical player?

Fretboard width - What nut width and fretboard taper would work best for the modern classical player?

Strings - I am planning on using 4 gut courses. Does anyone have any input on how gut courses will compare to wire or wire/gut combos? Diameters? Links to favorite gut manufacturers?

Tuner options - I am considering friction pegs but have reservations. Would friction pegs be too much a hinderance?

Tone - If anyone would care to elaborate on what type of tone a good modern classical mandolin should have I would be honored to try and interpret it.

Additional recommendations etc. welcome.

Thanks.

Jim Garber
Sep-02-2004, 8:56am
First of all: you may be making an anomaly A "modern classical mandolin" with gut strings? Also, are you carving the top and back a la Gibson? I am not sure how that would work with the gut strings. Perhaps, look at violin construction, ie, very light top might be the best. Otherwise, I am not sure that the strings will have enough tension to "drive" the top.

Be aware that the standard "modern classical mandolin" is a Neapolitan tuned mandolin with metal strings. My favorite playing instrument is an Italian bowlback with 13 inch (330mm) scale and 1 1/16 inch (27mm) measure at the nut end.

If you are looking to make a carved top instrument to appeal to classical players I would look to the Lyon & Healy. Doug Woodley (http://www.12fret.com/retail/woodleyMM.jpg) and a few other makers make models like the old ones. These do use steel strings tho.

As far as a source of gut strings for mandolins, Gamut Strings (http://www.gamutstrings.com/store/index.htm) would be a source in the US. This is run by Daniel Larson (http://www.daniellarson.com/mandolins/mandolin.htm) who is also a fine maker of both modern and historic instruments.

Jim

vkioulaphides
Sep-02-2004, 10:15am
I second Jim on metal strings. As for specs, both my post-1881 Ceccherini and my 2004 Calace have a wee bit longer scale: 34 cm. the former, 33.5ish the latter. Regarding width at the nut, Jim's Romanesque Pandini may be a bit tight for my paws. For comparison, a modern Greek I have is 26 mm. at the nut— veeeeeeery tight! The Ceccherini, a merciful 28 mm. My very, very comfortable de Meglio, 29 mm. I know of some (English?) mandolins that reach 30 mm., at which point one may be experiencing diminishing returns, i.e. a nut too wide to grip with comfort. I have no experience with that.

Still, metal strings are a given.

Chris Baird
Sep-02-2004, 10:24am
Thanks for the string input and fretboard input. I will be designing around the string tension that I eventually choose. The top will be graduated accordingly. As far as metal strings go what would be the most widely accepted brand and diameter. It is essential that I know the tension my strings are going to be at before I move on in my design.

Jim Garber
Sep-02-2004, 10:33am
We often use much lighter strings than the std bluegrass gauge. Not sure of the technical aspects but I lean toward Dogal Calace (http://www.dogalstrings.it/pages/mandolin_tab.htm) strings RW92b (ultra light) for the vintage bowlbacks and medium RW92 for more contemporary instruments. You may have to write to Dogal to get the actual tension specs.

As far as carved top instruments specifically meant for classical check out Phoenix NeoClassical (http://www.phoenixmandolins.com/neoclassical.htm). He says they are meant for medium gauge TI strings.

Checking out the Phoenix site i noticed that our own Jim Dalton (JimD) plays one.

BTW are you building this for yourself or for a potential customer?

Jim

Eugene
Sep-02-2004, 11:16am
I will add a 3rd unison voice to Jim's and Victor's. #Gut strings are the domain of historic replicas, not the modern instrument.

David Cohen gave this some thought and concocted this (http://users.erols.com/judcohen/oval.html) fine model. #I don't build anything, but I've given my preferences some thought too. #I think the most graceful form ever applied to the archtop mandolin was Lyon & Healy's mature style A: i.e. the later one with asymmetric points and short scale. #I like a scale length of ca. 13 1/8", an oval soundhole, and a top light enough to be responsive to light strings (down to ca. 0.009"-0.0095" on e"). #A fingerboard extension to 24 or even 29 (often omitting 28) would be a necessity for virtuoso-type characters (i.e. better players than me!). #Maybe atypical, but I definitely prefer the lower bridge/string height like that on bowlbacks and pre-1908 Gibsons; I don't know of anybody still building archtops like that. #I can do without the scratchplate/pickguard/finger-rest; although, those inlaid bowlback-style into the early Gibsons were attractive (like that on my own visible here (http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/show_image.pl?2139)). #I guess my ideal archtop classical mandolin would be #hybrid of the ca. 1907 Gibson and ca. 1920 L&H aesthetic.

Chris Baird
Sep-02-2004, 11:51am
Again, Thank you all for the input very helpful. I will admitt that the gut strings were a romantic idea not grounded in practicality. I have a friend however, who has a gut strung classical guitar that has wonderful tone. The instrument I am attempting to build in no way is intended to replace the classical standard. It is an endeavor to fuse the finer points of classical tone and playability into the frame of a modern mandolin that has more projection and volume. This instrument will be a prototype and is not intended for anyone in particular. The shape will be somewhat like a non-cutaway archtop guitar fused with a standard classical guitar shape, of course mandolin sized.

Jim Garber
Sep-02-2004, 12:16pm
I think that if you want to use gut you might consider a much lighter construction like a mandolino or early Vinaccia type.

See Eugene's links (http://www.mandolincafe.net/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=6;t=17870) on this thread.

Jim

vkioulaphides
Sep-02-2004, 12:20pm
Ah, how multiple applications of the term "classical" lead to materially (pun intended, I suppose) different understandings! Yes, for "classical" guitar, gut just might be a more "authentic" substitute for nylon. I leave this to the guitarists on board to discuss, if thus inclined. But for classical mandolin, metal is standard, as of the birth of the Neapolitan "standard" instrument.

I know virtually nothing about non-bowlbacks —is it "carved" that they are called collectively?— so I take my leave before I outlast the welcome.

Best of luck. Keep us all posted as your worthy project progresses.

John Bertotti
Sep-02-2004, 12:56pm
I have been kicking this around for about a year now. Haven't begun but a previous post about a carved top bowl back instrument and the replies led me to believe this is done. I am under the impression that the greek mandolins forgo the cant and use a carved top. What type of carving I don't know. It may be graduated or it may be a relief carved into the recurve area. I haven't seen a greek instrument yet. I would add that part of the classical sound is in relation to the immovable back, at least in comparison with carved backs, and the body cavity volume. Please let me know what you come up with. I find this most interesting.
Also Victor may be able to help with the Greek instrument knowledge since he has one. John #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

vkioulaphides
Sep-02-2004, 1:12pm
Actually, John, it was Bob A who once made the best-suited simile I know of between the function of the (carved and graduated) top of Greek bowlbacks and the usual mechanism of a speaker: The top, suspended around the periphery, vibrates freely. The Neapolitan canting, while allowing for far more pressure to be put on the top, obviously does not foster that sort of suspended-membrane-like vibration.

Chris Baird
Sep-02-2004, 1:50pm
Yes, I realized shortly after posting that the term "classical" would be confusing and in and of itself may mean nothing more than non-bluegrass. I do however intend an instrument that will be played in a "classical" way meaning music from and/or inspired by composers of mid and eastern Europe and the Mediteranean. I would certainly use factors of design from bowlbacks if I can, esp. fretboard measurements and scale lengths. I do, however, have more of a spanish classical guitar tone in mind over the Italian bowl back. Whether or not that tone would transfer well into a mandolin is unknown to me.

vkioulaphides
Sep-02-2004, 2:08pm
Oddly enough, Chris, the mandolins that are most akin to the classical guitar TONE are the extra-stout German bowlbacks! So confusing, isn't it? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Eugene
Sep-02-2004, 2:10pm
I think the tone you describe is like that the modern German luthiers (Seiffert, Knorr, Dietrich, Albert & Mueller, Woll, etc.) have striven for and achieved in their bowlbacks built for use with flat-wound strings. I don't think you need to go there again.

However, your notion of creating a mandolin for European-style art-music repertoire is largely untapped amongst modern carved instruments. Sure, there are a few (e.g., Phoenix) that make an instrument with a "classic" tone in mind, but these are really interesting, modern, historically isolated concoctions based mostly upon post-mandolin-heyday Gibsons. I would say Dave Cohen's "oval" model (which, I believe, he actually used to call his "classical" model) is the only real post-depression effort to create an archtop mandolin for classical reperoire with some consideration to the functionality of the instruments for which much of the classical repertoire was created. Hooey, Im sorry about that last sentence; it's a whopper.

Eugene
Sep-02-2004, 2:11pm
Simultaneous-post alert: You took the words right out of my mouth, Victor.

Eugene
Sep-02-2004, 2:39pm
I would say Dave Cohen's "oval" model (which, I believe, he actually used to call his "classical" model) is the only real post-depression effort to create an archtop mandolin for classical reperoire with some consideration to the functionality of the instruments for which much of the classical repertoire was created.
...Other than those directly copying the Lyon & Healy models, of course.

Chris Baird
Sep-02-2004, 3:02pm
It is my intention to design a mandolin that is not even a little "Gibson"-like. Since bowlbacks are not even close to what I build I will stick to my own repetoire of building techniques and see what happens. If nothing else I will make sure it looks good. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Jim Garber
Sep-02-2004, 3:17pm
I would say Dave Cohen's "oval" model (which, I believe, he actually used to call his "classical" model) is the only real post-depression effort to create an archtop mandolin for classical reperoire with some consideration to the functionality of the instruments for which much of the classical repertoire was created.
...Other than those directly copying the Lyon & Healy models, of course.
What about the Phoenix Neo-classical I mentioned above? Non-L&H, for sure andf meant for those purposes. I have never played one and frankly, I am not pleased with the look, but the intent of the maker is there.

Jim

Eugene
Sep-02-2004, 3:19pm
What about the Phoenix Neo-classical I mentioned above? Non-L&H, for sure andf meant for those purposes. I have never played one and frankly, I am not pleased with the look, but the intent of the maker is there.
Those I had addressed with:

Sure, there are a few (e.g., Phoenix) that make an instrument with a "classic" tone in mind, but these are really interesting, modern, historically isolated concoctions based mostly upon post-mandolin-heyday Gibsons.

Eugene
Sep-02-2004, 3:20pm
It is my intention to design a mandolin that is not even a little "Gibson"-like. #Since bowlbacks are not even close to what I build I will stick to my own repetoire of building techniques and see what happens. #If nothing else I will make sure it looks good.
I'm mighty keen to see whatever you come up with.

Jim Garber
Sep-02-2004, 3:47pm
Those I had addressed with:

Sure, there are a few (e.g., Phoenix) that make an instrument with a "classic" tone in mind, but these are really interesting, modern, historically isolated concoctions based mostly upon post-mandolin-heyday Gibsons.
Sorry, Eugene... I had not read your posts thoroughly. But please, let me know how Dr. Cohen's design veers further away from the Gibson design, more than, say, Mr. Gerhardt's Neo-Classical.

The Cohen one looks like a Gibson A with the soundhole moved futher up and some contraption below the oddly shaped bridge. I know he has done much scientific acoustic research on mandolins, but I was wondering what he is doing in this model.

Jim

Eugene
Sep-02-2004, 3:51pm
I personally have only seen Dave's pre-oval models. The biggest differences on those are internal. His bracing isn't much like anything else in mandolin; I believe it is largely a riff on the Kasha-Schneider guitar patterns. The bridge certainly is. I think his oval-hole model features similar creative bracing. Also, I understand he used a more bowlback-like scale length on the oval model. With any luck, he'll happen by here and reply himself.

Jim Garber
Sep-02-2004, 4:44pm
He offers that model with either 13.875" or 13.125" scale lengths.

I would be curious as well.

vkioulaphides
Sep-03-2004, 6:44am
By way of a post-script: After posting the above specs, I got home only to realize that I was a bold-faced liar. Havind said that Jim's Pandini, 27 mm. wide at the nut, would probably feel cramped, I measured my modern Calace last night: 26 mm.! So, apologies and amends to both Chris and Jim. Other than the super-super-narrow Romans with their 24-25 mm. wide nuts, the 25-30 mm. range is open for experimentation. Then again, of course, said Romans have arched fingerboards, so that the curvature creates more room for the fingers than width alone would have one believe.

I am still left wondering, though, having just measured my Calace. Vintage creatures of the Calace shop were often a good deal wider at the nut; I recall a specimen in Alex' excellent text with a good 29 mm. Others, too... Have the Neapolitan master's models been "Romanized" over the generations?

Rex
Sep-05-2004, 11:12pm
I prefer the short scale, 13" or 13.125". I feel the longer scale contributes to the bluegrass type focused tone (but is probably more a function of the extra string tension on most long scale instruments). 13" is also easier for me to play. Light guage strings like the Dogals. I also like a wider neck, like some of the Gibsons have. I do not like the standard narrow neck on most bowlbacks. Classical guitars have wider necks than steel strung guitars. I play classical guitar and really like the extra space a wider neck allows. I can fret notes cleanly without interfereing with neighboring strings. I also like nylon strings. Radim Zenkle has a custom made nylon string mandolin with a wide neck. I used to have the string gauges he uses but have lost that information. I prefer nylon to gut strings on a guitar, synthetic materials are much better IMHO. I really like the direction Mid Mo had gone with the raised fingerboard. This makes for a taller bridge so you get a good bend over the bridge without resorting to a cant. You also get a little better access to the higher frets. There is a line of classical guitars, Millenium I believe is the name, (made by Humphrey, maybe?) that employs a raised fingerboard for better access to high notes. It would be interesting to go even a bit higher than the Mid Mos, or even tilt the neck back like a violin to employ a high bridge. Not as high as a violin bridge. Plucked instruments don't behave like bowed ones. I would use a flat top and graduate the braces instead of arching the top. For sure I would want an oval or round sound hole, no f holes on a plucked instrument. Save those for the bowed instruments. F holes are too percusive sounding in a plucked instrument. 4 single strings are enough unless you tremolo a lot. But the instrument would have to be braced for that. Anyway, that's my 2 cents. I'm not a pro, just been picking and having fun a long time.

Bob A
Sep-06-2004, 11:46am
I've always been a fan of wider necks, until I messed around with some Roman-style instruments. The deep vee is quite comfortable, and the radius makes the narrow fingerboard playable. I have noticed that I tend to dislike necks that are particularly shallow - instrument tends to wiggle too much, and the hand can't get a handle on the mandolin.

vkioulaphides
Sep-06-2004, 12:41pm
Indeed. My modern Calace, with its deep U-shaped neck, fits perfectly in my hand, narrow as the fingerboard may be. My Ceccherini, au contraire, is very, very shallow at the neck; I don't particularly mind it but, as Bob says, it does take some getting used to in order to avoid undesired wiggling. The shallowness of the neck also does something odd —I cannot fully describe it— to the way the fingers land on the frets in the usual martelletto angle.

So many parameters, so little uniformity... Perhaps, as often stated here, that IS part of the "Magic of the Mandolin". http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Eugene
Sep-06-2004, 4:37pm
On the other hand, my left hand approaches the mandolin in a much more classical guitar-like fashion. #I find V necks a bit uncomfortable. #My favorite mandolin (1908 Martin) is 27 mm at the nut (string width: 24 mm) with a nicely rounded neck depth at ca. 20 mm.

margora
Sep-06-2004, 6:36pm
Although I have played classical guitar for many years, I find my left hand on the mandolin has an orientation closer to the violin than the guitar. My Collings A has a sort of V-profile neck which I like very much. But I also like wider necks, as found on some German bowlbacks and on Breedlove's, which I find extremely easy to play.

Rex
Sep-06-2004, 8:20pm
U shaped necks for me. I hate V shaped necks. U shaped necks keep my fingers over the finger board. Vs tend to have me wrapping around like a baseball bat. And make it thick also. Tiny necks are no fun at all. I think folks might have had smaller hands a hundred years ago. Of couse part of this might be due to being a guitar player many more years than mando.

Dolamon
Sep-06-2004, 8:50pm
One other alternative in modern, classical instruments - the remarkable family of flatback Classical Mandolins by Arik Kerman.

These were commisioned by The Kerman Quartet (http://www.mandolin.co.il/index3.html) and - well their skill set is remarkable, the sound is balanced, both in the quartet and orchestra and the instruments are interesting looking. (Listen to Albeniz' 'Asturias' in the MP3 collection.) As for getting them - I've been trying to get in touch with Arik for a year or so ... but they are definately neat looking. (Go to the "About Us Page" in their menu.)

Eugene
Sep-06-2004, 9:25pm
I'm not at all fond of the looks of the Kerman Quartet's instruments. They seem to sound OK. I love their performance of Ysaye's sonata 3, originally for violin. In similar vein, the archtops played by the Melonious Quartet are both a little unsettling in appearence and have a somewhat thin sound to my ears (their CD is still great fun!).

Jim Garber
Sep-06-2004, 9:28pm
Dolamon:
What makes these Kerman instruments structurally and sonically different from the std flatback instruments of yore? Is the bracing different? Are there other construction differences.

Speaking of new designs, has anyone in the Paris area played
this one (http://www.rfcharle.com/HTML/PhotosInstruments/Charles.html)? Looks like a cross between Gibson, Breedlove and Lyon & Healy.

Jim

Dolamon
Sep-07-2004, 5:33am
Jim - I don't really know the answer but suspect it may partially be due to being in the relatively low humidity of Israel. Accomodations seem to have been made (local materials - different glues, bracing, fretboard etc?) to make the instruments stable and loud for concert work in an extreme environment. I haven't been able to get in touch with Arik Kerman ... he has the answers.

As for the Ysaye Sonata - I've tried to grow into his music for a few years ... I'd rather explore Leopold Weiss, Terry Riley or Edgar Meyer. Ysaye seems to be trying too hard to be 'modern' and has left a lot of more traditional music sensibilities behind.

Eugene
Sep-07-2004, 7:37am
S.L. Weiss, eh? Now your speakin' my language! I booked Prof. Michel Cardin (http://www.umoncton.ca/facarts/musique/cardin/) to play here in May 2004. It was a stellar performance and Prof. Cardin is great company with a preference for the interesting local brews whatever place he visits.

PS: I still like Ysaye too.

PPS: I had intended to link the Melonious Quartet (http://www.meloniousquartet.com/melonious.htm) above for ease of visual reference, but somehow overlooked it.

Chris Baird
Sep-07-2004, 8:44am
That quartet certainly has some design issues. Perhaps an artistic or political statement? To the issue of neck shape and size: In the field of egronomics many have found that for every design made to fit the human body in some way that there can usually be drawn up an index of proportionality that can be used to ascertain the proper size and shape for a particular person based on a few personal measurements. I've found that there are wide necks that feel comfortable and also narrow necks. But, the wider the neck the lesser the thickness needs to be and vica-versa with the narrow neck. I can see that what is comfortable to me can be described in terms of proportionality of width/thickness and not in any one width or thickness. Of course, the exact proportions that I am used to playing will have a major impact on comfort, at least for a short time. In the realm of cycling there has been much research into proportionality and it is now quite easy for a good bicycle builder to take measurements off the cyclist and then use the various proportional indexes to build the perfectly suited bike. And often, the cyclist will not understand the designs improvement until some time on the bike. Perhaps the same science could be lent to the fretboard, it seems considerably simpler than many other ergonomic endeavors.

Martin Jonas
Sep-08-2004, 6:10am
am still left wondering, though, having just measured my Calace. Vintage creatures of the Calace shop were often a good deal wider at the nut; I recall a specimen in Alex' excellent text with a good 29 mm. Others, too... Have the Neapolitan master's models been "Romanized" over the generations?
I've just taken a ruler to my Ceccherini: overall nut width is 28mm, string width is 25.5mm. In other words, the outside strings are really remarkably close to the edges of the fretboard at just over a millimetre. Like Victor's, mine also has a pretty shallow neck. In combination, this means that it is necessary to touch the neck at the sides, not the back, while at the same not impeding the outside strings.

Martin

vkioulaphides
Sep-08-2004, 6:31am
Yes, the actual distance between outer strings IS the salient measurement: My Ceccherini, at 28 mm. neck width at the nut, keeps the strings a good 26 mm. apart. As Martin says, very, VERY close to the edges.

I suspect that becomes mechanically sustainable by the brass nut. I doubt, that is, that a softer (i.e. more fragile) material could risk such an extreme positioning of the strings. I suspect in other words that the tiny bit of material left at the edge, between the outermost strings and the end of the nut would eventually chip away under the strain. Just my suspicion, of course...

Speaking of "snug": Yes,my Calace, at 26 mm. neck-width, keeps the strings a mere 22 apart at the nut! Cozy, veeeeeeery cozy... Au contraire, I know of vintage Calace instruments that are well in the 29-30 mm. neck-width range; hence my talk of "Romanization". Or, to take this observation to another level of hypothesis, is this a step from a ur-lute— to an ur-violin sensibility?

Jim Garber
Sep-08-2004, 6:44am
To add to the discussion: with actual width from the low G to the higher e on my Pandini is 23mm.

It is funny tho. My two favorite instruments for playing classical repertoire are this Pandini and my early Lyon & Healy. The L&H has the longer scale but I don't seem to have any trouble adjusting and finding my way around the fretboard even when switching back and forth. Some pieces I play better on one or the other tho.

Jim

Rex
Sep-09-2004, 4:08pm
That Charles mandolin is shaped like an old Kay, which also happens to be my first mandolin.

Jim Garber
Sep-09-2004, 4:23pm
That Charles mandolin is shaped like an old Kay, which also happens to be my first mandolin.
Has a little more gracefullness IMHO than the std Kay and is an electric so the body looks thinner.

I recall years ago seeing a contemporary made mandolin with an obvious Kay shape. I thought that it was really cool. I would also love to make one with the regal reverse scroll design. Anyone know of any luthiers amking those repros?

Ah, but I digress...

Jim

Mandopolis
Sep-21-2004, 3:56pm
Hello !

I thought you might be interested in the "modern mandolins" designed by the lute-maker Andre Sakellarides - from Marseille, France - for the Melonious Quartet.

Andre Sakellarides (lying)created the first of these mandolins for Patrick Vaillant (left on the picture), who wanted a 'third-type mandolin', not classical nor american.
Then came Patrick's tenor mandola & mandocello (not on the picture), then Thomas Bienabe's mandolin (second from the left), the alto mandola and another mandocello.
On the picture, Andre is holding his latest creation, a new mandolin for Thomas, which is now finished and sounds terrific.

http://www.bastiancontrari.com/photo/mqsakel.jpg

Regards

Celine

Jim Garber
Sep-21-2004, 4:08pm
Celine:
Aside from the odd shapes, how do these instruments by Mr. Sakellarides differ in both sound and structure from the more standard ones. They certainly look different than American or classical ones, but what exactly is the difference. They look like carved top instruments... are they and if so are they braced differently?

Jim

SternART
Sep-21-2004, 4:14pm
Interesting body shapes on the Sakellarides instruments. I just looked him up on the net but no website.
I'm wondering why the added body on the treble side?

I was inspired by D'Aquisto & D'Angelico when I collaborated with Lawrence Smart on my X braced oval hole:
http://www.smithfowler.org/music/mandolin/smart/

Alex Timmerman
Sep-21-2004, 4:19pm
Hello Celine,

The instruments really look nice and certainly look violin side-like made. Indeed a very interesting concept. Not the least because of the mandoliola in the quartet! Please tell us more about the internal constuction of the instruments.


Best,

Alex

Mandopolis
Sep-21-2004, 5:01pm
Well well well... You're asking me something very difficult, as I'm not a lute-maker nor a mandolin player. And my english is not so good at this kind of matters.
Anyway, as far as I can answer, I'll do so...
These instruments are carved top.
They do differ in sound... And the quartet sound is terrific !
Sakellarides is first of all a award-winning violin maker, his speciality being asymetrical violins & violas. Why then ?
Unfortunatly I don't know anything about the internal construction, this must be a secret.
Sorry I can't be more helpful...

Celine

Jim M.
Sep-22-2004, 9:34am
Does anyone have pics or specs of the full quartet that Monteleone built for the Modern Mandolin Quartet? The idea of one luthier building a matched set always fascinated me, back to the days when I used to play string quartet music on violin.

Jim Garber
Sep-22-2004, 9:46am
One very challenging and exciting project was a matched set that John built for the Modern Mandolin Quartet including two mandolins, a mandola and a mandocello. "They wanted a classical presentation that would give their music more creditability.

"The reason they came to me for matched instruments, was that they were having trouble matching the sound of their instruments because of their various personalities and the balance of the way they played. I listened to them play and evaluated how I could build instruments that would provide the balance they were looking for.

"The instruments also were built for a 'classical look' in the way I approached the ornamentation, binding and color. It was a very rewarding project and they were head over heels."

from Mandolin Magazine (http://www.mandolinmagazine.com/articles/monteleone.html)

I could not find anything on a search but I emailed Paul Binkley... maybe he has a photo.

Jim