Loar LM-400 vs Kentucky KM-900

[John Adrihan]

I was doing some searches and found this question asked in a thread on reviewing the 900 but it seems no one answered it so here goes again. Who has played both the KM-900 and LM-400 and how do they stack up against each other?
Thanks

[dan in va]

Still looking for a KM-900, but all of "The Loar" necks were really, really chunky. They are alright for what they are, but the neck was a big time thumbs down for me, and I'm not terribly picky....for example, the Eastman Giacomel knock-off neck was fine, but "The Loar"...not so much.

[Big Joe]

The LM400 necks are not that large. They are far more conventional than the F models. I think you would like the LM 400 neck.

[Rick Cadger]

I love The Loar necks, and I have small hands. Furthermore, some of my first mandolins were Eastmans, so I've certainly been used to narrow, skinny profiles.

The chunkier necks on TLs may take a bit of getting used to for some, but they're very playable once one is over the shock of the new.

[John Adrihan]

How about a comparison between the two Mandolins. I know there is a $500 dollar difference, but just looking for info on how the two are similar and are different.

[Brent Hutto]

I would presume that like other Kentucky models the KM-900 has a fairly slim neck, nut width on the scant side of 1-1/8", just a bit of radius on the fretboard and small fretwire. The LM-400 has a similar neck shape, nut width a full 1-1/8", supposedly no radius (although the edges are rolled slightly) and larger "banjo" fretwire.

I'd suggest the difference in feel is more important than whatever on average difference in tone there may be between the two models. And then there are the cosmetics which are IMO much nicer on the KM-900. But the small fretwire and tighter neck proportions are the bigger deal.