Calling All Gilchrist Experts....

[Spruce]

Hi all...

How many Gilchrist Model 4s are out there with the short scale length like the original Gibson F4s??

I'm in possession of a '94 Model 4, and I was recently told that there might be only a few of these out there with the short scale length?

And that the 4s that have been built in the past decade or so have the longer scale length?

Any info would be greatly appreciated.....
Thanks!!

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee22/e_stamp/Gilchrist/P1040072.jpg

[bones12]

Bruce, I have a delightful Gil model four (F4) with a one piece back and all the tone in the world. Doug in Vermont

[Will Kimble]

Hey Bruce, cool mando. :)

F4s and F5s have the same scale length, just a different relative location of the bridge and neck joint. "Short neck" would be a better description. The only short scale ovals I know of are the 13" Lyon & Healys.

I am no Gilchrist expert, but I know there are two long neck (13 or 14 fret? Maybe even 15?) oval holes that were originally made for Andy Statman. As far as I know all of the others are 12 fret necks like the old Gibsons. At some point in the last 5 years or so there was a significant change when Steve started using hard maple for the necks instead of mahogany.

Hope this helps,
Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

[djweiss]

Mike Compton's F4, for instance, has the short neck configuration. I think the recent ones all share that feature, as do the model 1 mandolins...

[Spruce]

F4s and F5s have the same scale length, just a different relative location of the bridge and neck joint. "Short neck" would be a better description. The only short scale ovals I know of are the 13" Lyon & Healys.


Got it, thanks!



At some point in the last 5 years or so there was a significant change when Steve started using hard maple for the necks instead of mahogany.



This '94 has a maple neck too....


Mike Compton's F4, for instance, has the short neck configuration. I think the recent ones all share that feature, as do the model 1 mandolins...

OK, this is what got me confused...
I was under the impression that Mike's (and the other Gil 4s from the past decade or so) had a longer neck configuration than the original Gibson F4s??
Not true??

[Don Grieser]

Not true. 12 fret necks on the ovals except that one for Statman (that I know of). L to R: mine, David Long's and Mike Compton's 2 Fs.

[Spruce]

OK, got it....
Thanks!

[djweiss]

What Don said! I remember the first time I played Mike's F4, it played so well, I commented how much I liked the long neck with the oval hole...he then pointed out to me that it was indeed a short neck...I had just assumed with the feel of it, it was a long neck. At the time, it was the only oval hole mandolin I'd ever played that could "chop".

[Gary Hedrick]

I had a chance to play one at one of the picking sessions/mandolin tasting at my house.....very nice sound....very full and just a delight to play.

[Bill Baldock]

What Don said! I remember the first time I played Mike's F4, it played so well, I commented how much I liked the long neck with the oval hole...he then pointed out to me that it was indeed a short neck...I had just assumed with the feel of it, it was a long neck. At the time, it was the only oval hole mandolin I'd ever played that could "chop".

I had a similar experience with one of Mr. Kimble's short maple neck, oval hole, A-style, mandolins.

[mandophil(e)]

I own an '04 Gil Model 4 with the hard maple neck Will spoke of and a one pice D-log back. Mr. Gilchrist really has the formula for making this particular style of mandolin. Ridiculously toneful, and as other posters in the thread have said, really a pleasure to play. The tone just pours out of it.

[Spruce]

Ridiculously toneful, and as other posters in the thread have said, really a pleasure to play. The tone just pours out of it.

Yeah, this thing is just killing me...

It's been sitting in it's case for over 15 years, so it needed a little banging-on to get it going...
But not much... ;)

It really holds it's own in a large jam (even with b^%$#s), and if there was ever an F4 that was gonna wheedle it's way back into bluegrass, my guess is it would be one of these...

Here tis' next to a '26 F4--also a great sounding 4....

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee22/e_stamp/Gilchrist/P1090361.jpg

[hank]

I've got to stop reading this stuff. I feel like an alcoholic in a wine cellar without a bottle opener. I'm trying to imagine tasting a rich toneful oval bouquet with the exuberance of an F's bottom end. Oh well back to my beer. :crying:

[Don Grieser]

Compton used his Model 4 with NBB for awhile when he first got it. It worked just fine for bluegrass. Compton says Norman Blake has a Model 4 that's the best one he's ever played. Yikes!!

[hank]

Whoa! While we're on the subject of rich tone and pocketbooks those drawer faces are blowing me away as well. Did you make those Spruce?

[red7flag]

With the drive that Mike Compton has I think he could make almost any mandolin instrument work in a bluegrass setting. That being said, his F4 is one powerful sounding instrument. Way more volume than any teens or 20s F4 I have played or heard. I must admit that I thought, by the volume and tone that it was a long neck. I was just wrong. I have never played that instrument, but was in a small room with him playing a few times. I actually did not really care for the tone as it was very similar to his F5. I look for a different tone in F4s. Again, that may well be the way he attacks any instrument and pushes every single note. Like many have said before, what you here when you hear Mike Compton play is more him than the instrument. I have heard him play an tenor guitar on my front porch. It sounded like Mike Compton.

[Rob Fowler]

Here tis' next to a '26 F4--also a great sounding 4....

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee22/e_stamp/Gilchrist/P1090361.jpg

Where did you take that photo, Spruce? Is that a Kimble 2 pointer in the background along with some Collings? Man, that Gil looks spot on like that 26' from that one photo.

[Spruce]

Where did you take that photo, Spruce? Is that a Kimble 2 pointer in the background along with some Collings? Man, that Gil looks spot on like that 26' from that one photo.

Yesterday here at Wintergrass....
Will, your 2-pointer is the best sounding mandolin on the table, by a long shot...
Just a killer instrument...

[Will Kimble]

Thanks Bruce, that is good to hear. Wish I could've been there!

Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

[mtucker]

I actually did not really care for the tone as it was very similar to his F5. I look for a different tone in F4s.
i think you've got this a little mixed up regardless of liking it or not.. What's commonly referenced with Mike's Model 4 is that it has the volume/power/projection of a Model 5, not tone. That in part, is why people dig them ... give a listen to Mike, Stephen and David Long.


OTcPmUqFE0c

[mtucker]

sorry, double post.

[Pete Martin]

Very cool pic of Dan and the two F4s. Both are wonderful.

Don't sell it Spruce!!!!!

[mandophil(e)]

I noticed in the clip above that when Gilchrist is offered the two mandolins (models 5 and 4) he jumps at the oval hole. The guy knows his mandolins!

[Spruce]

Don't sell it Spruce!!!!!

I'm trying...... :crying:

[red7flag]

I spent a few days thinking about a response. Personally, I prefer the traditional Gibson F4 sound as a compliment to the F5 sound. I find the the Gil F4 is too similar in feel to the F5. I know the power and the tone is why people like it so much. I understand the appeal. It just does not do it for me. I would prefer the F4 I have or one by Gail Hester or Bill Bussman. I am not saying they are better, but fit what I look for in tone feel and mojo in an F4.

[Perry]

I'm no expert but I've played some old Gibson's (nice A2Zs among them) and used to own a 1912 Gibson F2 that had what I would consider a authentic Gibson oval hole tone.

My Gilchrist Model One has "the oval hole sound" but if you want to lay into it has got power in reserve. Yet I can pick on it soft without calling upon it's power. To my ears it's a little more articulate and does not get swallowed up in it's own bottom end. It's big and fat and crisp. Maybe in that way it's not authentic Gibson? I imagine the Model One sounds somewhat like the Gilchrist Model 4 without the scroll.

[Spruce]

I find the the Gil F4 is too similar in feel to the F5.

Not this one...
I think it's the finest sounding F4 (of any make) I've ever had my paws on...

[hank]

For me my decision would be based on whether I could have one or more mandolins. If I could have the classic F hole voice and classic oval hole voice that is what I would want. If I was a one mandolin guy I would be very interested in a hybrid that had elements of both. I have an A4 and an F5 but if one had to go it wouldn't be the F5. The A4 has that sweet ringing sustain that I love but my F5 also has a tone to die for with faster response and power that makes the A4 seem pale in comparison.

[sgarrity]

I've often thought about going to just one mandolin and buying a Gil. This F4 would be at the top of the list too. But then I start thinking about the instruments I'd be selling in order to do so. Maybe one of these days..............

[Spruce]

But then I start thinking about the instruments I'd be selling in order to do so.

Exactly the problem I'm facing...
Oh well.... ;)

[mtucker]

I think it's the finest sounding F4 (of any make) I've ever had my paws on...
You got that right, Spruce. My Model 1 is the best sounding oval I've owned and similar to your Model 4. Rediculous. Supreme sound ..but like Perry said, doesn't get mucked in the lower end when you lay in it..keeps on ticking... Steve's definitely got the formula.

[Spruce]

Here's (http://vimeo.com/20575656) a taste of that Gil...

[Don Grieser]

Sounds like a keeper to me.

[Will Kimble]

It is my opinion that Steve Gilchrist has made the finest oval hole mandolins that have ever been built.

And to put that statement in perspective, I don't think any of us have eclipsed the original Loar F5s yet.

Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

[Pete Martin]

I spent a few days thinking about a response. Personally, I prefer the traditional Gibson F4 sound as a compliment to the F5 sound. I find the the Gil F4 is too similar in feel to the F5. I know the power and the tone is why people like it so much. I understand the appeal. It just does not do it for me. I would prefer the F4 I have or one by Gail Hester or Bill Bussman. I am not saying they are better, but fit what I look for in tone feel and mojo in an F4.

I bet if you play this one Spruce is talking about you wouldn't feel that way. I've played and owned many F4s, Gibson and a lot by modern makers. This is the nicest I've had in my hands ever. The second nicest is its brother, which I get to see regularly.

[mandophil(e)]

What Will said. I've owned a lot of great mandolins, and I have never enjoyed playing one more than the Gil 2004 model 4 I now own.

[red7flag]

I guess I am humbled. BTW, I just want to say that I am a big fan of Gils as an instrument and Steve as a person. I had the absolute pleasure of having breakfast with him at a Mike Compton workshop in Bloomington, IN. I was pretty ignorant with regard to mandolins at the time. He fielded my stupid questions with more grace and dignity than they deserved and provided me with a lot of great insight. He is a gem.
My prospective on his F4 is from listening to Mike play his and not from playing it myself. Maybe not trying it myself has saved me from eternal MAS.

[mtucker]

It And to put that statement in perspective, I don't think any of us have eclipsed the original Loar F5s yet.
Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com
ahh c'mon you're being too modest! In my feeble mind, that's maybe a tbd, at best .. steve makes great F5's and, so do you. Let's wait 75 years to answer to that question.... ;):grin:

[Scotti Adams]

Here's (http://vimeo.com/20575656) a taste of that Gil...

No doubt that mando is the finest of the finest but I dont know how a conclusion can be made from that clip. Not much there. At least to my ears.

[Goodin]

It is my opinion that Steve Gilchrist has made the finest oval hole mandolins that have ever been built.

And to put that statement in perspective, I don't think any of us have eclipsed the original Loar F5s yet.

Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

Hey Will - That says alot coming from such a fine oval hole builder as yourself. Do you think Gil ovals are even better than the original Gibson oval's?

[Spruce]

No doubt that mando is the finest of the finest but I dont know how a conclusion can be made from that clip. Not much there. At least to my ears.

I'd agree with that...

Let me see if I can do a bit of recording with this puppy and post some clips....

[Will Kimble]

Hey mtucker, thanks for the kind words. And to answer Goodin's question - yes, I think the Gilchrist oval holes are better than the original Gibsons. When I build an f-hole mandolin I am trying to emulate a Loar F5. When I build an oval hole mandolin I am trying to emulate a Gilchrist.

Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

[Spruce]

When I build an oval hole mandolin I am trying to emulate a Gilchrist.


How does Steve's take on an F4 differ from an original??
Bracing, thicknesses, etc??

This one is weird in that it sports quilted Bigleaf maple, which you'd never see in a Gibson, and maybe even another Gil...
Also Red Spruce on the top, but some of those Gibbies might have that species as well...

[Nat]

I own a Model 1 from the 2009 batch.

I also own a 1923 snakehead A that I am particularly enamored with, and I have played and considered many other Gibson snakeheads.

I believe the Gilchrist is superior to any Gibson oval that I've played. Both of my mandolins are equally easy to play, but the Gilchrist has an evenness, depth, and precision that puts it, almost objectively, in another league. The adjective that springs to mind is "professional."

[hank]

I wish there weren't so many that will spend so much to put these and other great instruments so far out of reach for the rest of us. It kind of reminds me of big buck developers that go into an nice area and change the reality into one that only the elite may participate.

[Mike Bunting]

I wish there weren't so many that will spend so much to put these and other great instruments so far out of reach for the rest of us. It kind of reminds me of big buck developers that go into an nice area and change the reality into one that only the elite may participate.
Without these benchmark mandolins and the people who can afford them, there would be no incentive for any makers to strive to produce the best instruments that they can and thus improve all the instruments down the line.

[Glassweb]

Hank... you've got to remember that Steven Gilchrist earned his reputation through years and years of super-dedicated research and building of mandolins. This has included countless hours working on and restoring Loar-era mandolins. It was and is US... the mandolin playing/purchasing public that has, in essence, decided what the price of his new and secondary market instruments will be. There's no-one to blame for his enormous success or our overwhelming praise of his work. He's that great...

[Will Kimble]

Hey Bruce,

It was Mike Compton's Gilchrist F4 that got me excited about building oval hole mandolins. It might be helpful to talk about the "why" a little before we talk about the "specs"... To my ear, most old Gibson oval holes have roaring open G strings that are barely controllable. And they tend to get a flat (not round) tone on the E strings, which gets worse as you go up the neck. Mike's Gilchrist had a "round" tone all the way up the E string, and projection more like an F5. The low end was controllable, and the tone was still unmistakably traditional. The volume and responsiveness were like the best of the old ones, and then you have this fantastic neck, slim and shaped like an F5.

I borrowed a similar Gilchrist F4 from a friend and studied it pretty closely. My observation is that there is nothing particularly unusual about the graduations or carving, except of course that they are skillfully executed. I did notice that the hole was a little north of the Gibsons I had measured - I reference the hole location relative to the fretboard and I think it was a fret higher. Not obvious to the eye. Nothing unusual about the brace, although it is probably the same amount north on the body. Trying to get the brace a little farther away from the bridge, I think.

To me the breakthrough is the hard maple neck & back. It is my opinion that the stiffer neck tightens things up a lot, adds clarity, and in conjunction with the hard maple back it completely changes the shape of the trebles and the way they project.

I was able to spend some time with an earlier Gilchrist A4 that had a mahogany neck, it was fabulous and sounded just like the best of the old Gibsons. But the newer ones with the maple necks are the ones I am trying to emulate.

On that note, it does sound unusual that yours has a bigleaf back, and quilted for that matter. But you said it had a maple neck, right? My guess is that the one you have might fall somewhere in the middle between one of his straight copies with a mahogany neck and one of his recent oval holes with a hard maple neck & back.

Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

[red7flag]

For you Gil F4 knowledgeable people, how does the change from mahogany to rock maple change the tone?

[Goodin]

Hey Bruce,

It was Mike Compton's Gilchrist F4 that got me excited about building oval hole mandolins. It might be helpful to talk about the "why" a little before we talk about the "specs"... To my ear, most old Gibson oval holes have roaring open G strings that are barely controllable. And they tend to get a flat (not round) tone on the E strings, which gets worse as you go up the neck. Mike's Gilchrist had a "round" tone all the way up the E string, and projection more like an F5. The low end was controllable, and the tone was still unmistakably traditional. The volume and responsiveness were like the best of the old ones, and then you have this fantastic neck, slim and shaped like an F5.

I borrowed a similar Gilchrist F4 from a friend and studied it pretty closely. My observation is that there is nothing particularly unusual about the graduations or carving, except of course that they are skillfully executed. I did notice that the hole was a little north of the Gibsons I had measured - I reference the hole location relative to the fretboard and I think it was a fret higher. Not obvious to the eye. Nothing unusual about the brace, although it is probably the same amount north on the body. Trying to get the brace a little farther away from the bridge, I think.

To me the breakthrough is the hard maple neck & back. It is my opinion that the stiffer neck tightens things up a lot, adds clarity, and in conjunction with the hard maple back it completely changes the shape of the trebles and the way they project.

I was able to spend some time with an earlier Gilchrist A4 that had a mahogany neck, it was fabulous and sounded just like the best of the old Gibsons. But the newer ones with the maple necks are the ones I am trying to emulate.

On that note, it does sound unusual that yours has a bigleaf back, and quilted for that matter. But you said it had a maple neck, right? My guess is that the one you have might fall somewhere in the middle between one of his straight copies with a mahogany neck and one of his recent oval holes with a hard maple neck & back.

Will Kimble
www.kimblemandolins.com

Very informative Will. I played a new Gil A and the F4 junior at Gruhn's a few months ago. They we're fantastic instruments. I would have to agree with you on all counts as far as the tone. I will disagree with you partially on the roaring G on the old Gibson oval's. while my '25 Ajr. has that deep, loud, throaty G strings, my '24 F4 is very round and well balanced all across the strings and up and down the frets. Maybe mine is exeptional, but i think in general old Gibson F-4's were better balanced and more rounded than the A ovals. Maybe I can bring my F-4 and stop by your shop next time im in Cinci. Im a Gibson oval fanatic, and aspiring builder.

[hank]

Don't some of the old F4's and the snakeheads have a maple back? Were all old Gibson necks either birch or mahogany? It sounds like between the wood type and length and dia. of the neck your old gibsons only have part of the formula that Mr. Gilchrist has perfected.

[hank]

Will does the body F, A, 2Point, etc. seem to change anything in this same line of thought?

[Spruce]

On that note, it does sound unusual that yours has a bigleaf back, and quilted for that matter. But you said it had a maple neck, right?

Yep....
Unusual for '94, no?

And the quilted Bigleaf is unusual too...
But I think I might have specified that, as it was a special tree to the fellow who wound up with the mandolin.....
Harder and heavier than most quilted Bigleaf, if I remember correctly...

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee22/e_stamp/Gilchrist/P1040088.jpg

I'm gonna try to record this mandolin today, and post some samples....

[Mark Seale]

For you Gil F4 knowledgeable people, how does the change from mahogany to rock maple change the tone?

The harder woods create clarity and responsiveness/punch.