Cheaper Mandolin....better tone....louder....can this be for real

[Duane Graves]

Just to say, I have 2 mandolins. One is an Eastman 805D bought new a year or more ago for $1,000 (lists for $1350 or so) I also have a Fender 53S SB bought it several years ago second hand. It lists for around $300. I called it a beater for years and when I got the Eastman I set it aside but recently I started playing it again and to my amazement it sounds "considerably" better than the more expensive Eastman. What about this....isn't it an odd statement or does this happen all the time? --dgg

[Randi Gormley]

Well, YMMV as they say. I'd think 1) you're a better player these days and 2) it might be time to check on the setup on your Eastman. just a thought.

[f5loar]

Eastmans and Fenders and many other brands being import pacrim models can vary considerable regardless of price from really good to pretty darn poor. Set up is crucial in those models and some just can't be set up properly. Between twisted necks, poor fitted bridges and nuts, to really heavy armor coated fireproof non-destructive steel reinforced lacquer these really can vary.

[MandoSquirrel]

Early February I bought an old Kay that has excellent f hole sound & pays wonderfully, & was only a couple of hundred dollars. Aside from playing ability & setup, it can vary greatly from instrument to instrument.

Though personally, I've been not much if any more impressed with the Eastmans I've tried than the Fenders.

[Douglas McMullin]

I got an 805D this winter off Ebay with the intention of using it as a travel mandolin, and this isn't a knock against Eastman in general because I have played some really good ones, but this particular 805D was absolutely terrible sounding to my ear. To call it weak, hollow, and thin would be generous. To me it was so dismal sounding that I could not in good conscience sell it on the Cafe. My point being, that it is possible that you don't have a great sounding Eastman, but as mentioned above a good setup should be completed to help verify this.

[Rodney Riley]

I've had three 52E's. First one with laminated top. As a new mando player, sounded like a mandolin to me:). Sold it when I found one with the solid spruce top. Loved the sound, but the neck was ground so narrow on the top half that the E-string slipped off the fingerboard and the same note played from the 10th fret to the 14th fret:( The solid top GC replaced it with is a great sounding mando. I loan it out to get others interested in playing.

[pelone]

I once had a very well known builder tell me that he was stunned that folks would by a Gibson from a well known site, sight unheard. That if one were to line up ten of them in a row, that 8 would fall fall short of playable. Yet, when viewing the auctions, various Gibson's seem to go for a very good price. I have often wondered if the buyers of these instruments receive mandos that fall short of their expectations. Perhaps they cannot admit that their instruments may fall short of their own instruments. but---I still covet a Gibson. The BEST mando off of the wall was a Fender that I picked on in an obscure shop in Tacoma, Washington. Man===I wish I had gotten that Fender!

[allenhopkins]

I once had a very well known builder tell me that he was stunned that folks would by a Gibson from a well known site, sight unheard...

Is "sight unheard" sorta like "sound unseen"?

As to the OP's dilemma, what sounds "better" is a function of what a person prefers. I don't think my $25 Strad-O-Lin sounds "better" than my Gibson F-5, but it does sound different, and in certain circumstances I might prefer the Strad's sound for a particular application. As a matter of fact, I was at a sing-around with Sid, who brought his 1920's Gibson A-1, and he heard my Strad and said, "That's a good-sounding mandolin!" But would I take the Strad over the Gibson? No.

As to Eastman mandolins, I've had dealers tell me that some of them sound "thin," though to disagree a bit with Tom, I haven't found any Eastmans with "really heavy armor coated fireproof non-destructive steel reinforced lacquer." Rather the opposite. Eastman quality seems to me to be pretty uniformly good, in terms of workmanship and materials, and I've put the differences in sound down to the differences among various pieces of wood. Maybe I'm wrong... The four Eastman instruments I currently own all seem to be very satisfactory, especially for the price.

[pelone]

Allen--my point is that if one wants to find the instrument that is right it may mean a process of sampling in which a few may be chosen and then to determine the one that is dead on target. To buy an instrument with no feedback on how it might sound is likely to be a shot in the dark regardless of its maker. "Sight unheard" means just that---a purchase based on cosmetics or the label on the head stock. "Sound unseen" is a nice twist of phrase. I am not denigrating the Eastman product, rather--I have played one that was outstanding. Also, I have played an assortment of Gibson mandolins of which only two rocked my boat. Rather than buying from ebay I recommend using Mandolin Cafe's "classified" option as the sellers are likely to give you a "try out" period. But, I still say that the Fender was pretty awesome, loud, and woody. That does not mean that all Fenders are home runs.

[JeffD]

it might be time to check on the setup on your Eastman. just a thought.

i gree

[San Rafael]

I once had a very well known builder tell me that he was stunned that folks would by a Gibson from a well known site, sight unheard. That if one were to line up ten of them in a row, that 8 would fall fall short of playable.

If he is "very well known" as a builder, it means that he probably makes a living by competing with Gibson. That doesn't make him a bad guy, or even a particularly dishonest guy. It just means that an ambitious statement like the one above about 8 out of 10 Gibsons not being "playable" should come with a salt shaker.

No disrespect to the poster. Just responding to the reference in the post.

[Fretbear]

Anything can sound like anything; I overhauled an up-until-then unplayable and un-tunable Kay Graciella by replacing everything that could be replaced and sanding down and refinishing the thick candy-apple finish. That thing is so loud you can peel paint with it, and it sounds good too, though it is still ugly.
The idea that something is going to sound good (or bad) because of the name on it (including Gibson) is ridiculous.

[pelone]

"The idea that something is going to sound good (or bad) because of the name on it is ridiculous." I agree whole heartedly. My point, which seems to be continually misunderstood is that a consumer would likely have a better opportunity of discovering a good sounding instrument by sampling a wide assortment. One is not likely to purchase a jacket without first trying it on to see if it fits. However, I think that most folks who buy from a well known auction site ( with perhaps, a limited chance of sending the item back) may be at a disadvantage. Particular players are likely looking for certain sound qualities in a mando. To spend over a thousand dollars on an instrument and to also have the disadvantage of not being able to hear the mando prior to purchase with the hopes that it "might" be on target is hazardous. Also, 10 Gibson's from the same year, lined up are probably going to have a wide range of qualities and variance. I would rather buy from the "classifieds" of Mandolin Cafe or visit a reputable shop that offers mandos and be open to all brands as potential treasures, including Eastman's.

[JeffD]

I would rather buy from the "classifieds" of Mandolin Cafe or visit a reputable shop that offers mandos and be open to all brands as potential treasures, including Eastman's.

That is quite right. I think few people buy totally blind. Even when one has a brand preference, its usually due to having heard many good examples, and perhaps even having played a few at festivals or whatever. Any given mandolin can be great or not, and ultimately its best to try them out.

[Nonprophet]

I've always thought that the ultimate way to buy a mandolin would be to go to a large store with a good selection and bring a friend and a blindfold with you.

Go to a studio room, put the blindfold on, and the friend could hand you random mandos to play and identify them by number only. That way you could really choose the ones that felt and sounded the best to you irrespective of looks, price, and/or brand.

I think the outcome could be very interesting.....


NP

[pager]

The finish on the Eastman line is hand applied and then buffed down to barely being there. They are certainly not thickly coated. If anything, some complain the finish is too thin. You apparently have an exceptional sounding Fender and possibly a tight Eastman.

[Laird]

Looking again at the title, I've heard cheaper instruments that are LOUDER than my Eastman, but without its sweetness of tone. In fact, my own beater (an old Kentucky M150) is louder, but kind of harsh. When I first went from the Kentucky to the Eastman, I was disappointed in the loss of volume, but MandoVoodoo helped (I think)--at least it seemed to bring out some lovely middle and lower ranges. And the difference in playability is huge. I love my Eastman!

[Ed Goist]

Duane, many factors are likely contributing to cause this effect. My guess is the major factors are a combination of the Eastman needing new strings or a new set-up, and an enhanced appreciation on your part for some of the nuances of the Fender.

However, your thread made me think of something from my childhood...

When I was a kid in the early '70s, we had two family cars, a 1968 Chevy Impala & a 1972 Cadillac Coup de Ville. Of course, the Caddy was our "good car". However, the Caddy seemed to break down every other week, while the Chevy just kept going, and going, and going...

My now departed dear Mom (Happy Mothers' Day, Mom!) used to regularly joke that the Chevy must have been built in the middle of the week when all the line workers were at the top of their game, while the Caddy must have been built on Friday afternoon, with the workers all preoccupied thinking about the weekend.

Maybe something like this is at work here :)

[mandroid]

Given: It's made of Wood, and not metal , now metal.. its possible to make consistently Identical things ..

Then when a bunch of things are put together by people, differences arise .. Fiat,Lada, Yugo..

[pager]

Looking again at the title, I've heard cheaper instruments that are LOUDER than my Eastman, but without its sweetness of tone. In fact, my own beater (an old Kentucky M150) is louder, but kind of harsh. When I first went from the Kentucky to the Eastman, I was disappointed in the loss of volume, but MandoVoodoo helped (I think)--at least it seemed to bring out some lovely middle and lower ranges. And the difference in playability is huge. I love my Eastman!

To me, this reply is brilliant. Our guitar player has a low end Kentucky that is really LOUD, but it is also harsh. I will take sweetness over harsh anyday.

Jillian

[Nick Triesch]

The truth of the matter is that buying a mandolin or guitar that sounds great is really luck no matter what the price. I think we have all played $3000 mandolins that sound as nice or better that a $25,000 mandolin. I sure have. Same with guitars. Some of the new Eastman and Stonebridge guitars are just as good sounding as a $3000 HD28. Just the way it is. I know a lady that has a $7000 Gibson F5 that is the best mandolin I have ever heard or played. And then think about the Northfield mandolins that cost $2500!!!! Also I played a $3500 Weber that was just huge!!!! The only reason to spend a ton on a mandolin guitar anymore is either you want a super name brand or custom from a small builder or you want great re sale value. You can now find the sound at a very good price indeed. Nick

[sbarnes]

i have both a fender and an eastman (though not the one mentioned in your post - i have a 515)...to my ears the eastman is far superior to the fender BUT the fender is easier to play - fits my fingers better....whether the flat fingerboard vs radius or maybe the fact that i've played the fender everyday for several years has something to do w/that but the fender is the one i pick up daily to practice....the eastman is the one i go to to record with....

[sgarrity]

.....The only reason to spend a ton on a mandolin guitar anymore is either you want a super name brand or custom from a small builder or you want great re sale value. You can now find the sound at a very good price indeed. Nick

Oh c'mon now. That's an over-generalization if I've ever heard one. Quality instruments are worth the money for a multitude of reasons, tone being one of them.

As to the OP's original question, don't confuse volume with tone. A Flatiron flattop mandolin can be loud but it will have a wildly different tone than a good F5.

[Mike Bunting]

Oh c'mon now. That's an over-generalization if I've ever heard one. Quality instruments are worth the money for a multitude of reasons, tone being one of them.

As to the OP's original question, don't confuse volume with tone. A Flatiron flattop mandolin can be loud but it will have a wildly different tone than a good F5.
I have to agree with Shaun. I tried a The Loar that came through the shop where I teach and of course I had to try it out. It was loud but was harsh and one dimensional. I'd be willing to bet a buck or two, that if you analyzed the tone of one picked note that my Stanley would show a far wider range and a broader reproduction of the overtone series inherent in one note.

[Theo W.]

The other day I played a flat-top Weber with an oval sound hole for about $1200. Then I played a Weber Yellowstone f-style f holes custom which cost around $5500. The flat-top was better sounding to me and way louder. I also have played Rogue mandolins which have sounded better than $500 ones. There are a ton of variables: wood, where did the wood come from?, handcraftiness, etc. Never shun a lower priced instrument, you might just find the one!

[Jeff Budz]

Could be your Eastman is a dog (maybe the 2 points are all bad?), or that it needs setup and strings. To be fair, you should get setups and strings on both instruments, then do a A/B. You should also try holding the Eastman in a way that your body doesn't damp the front and back plates while playing - this makes a huge difference in the 3 I own, but made no difference at all on some of the less expensive mandos I've owned (Rogue, Trinity College). Perhaps on the Fender it doesn't matter and on your Eastman it does. Since mine sound way better without damping I've added Tone-Gards and arm rests so I can get that sound I like without having to hold it a special way. Final thought is that my Eastmans sound better now than when I bought them, thanks to lots of playing hours. My MD515 went from "cold and glassy" to "warm and woody" over the period of a few months, but if I don't play it for a week it seems to revert to "cold and glassy." Mandolins are funny little people...

[Mike Bunting]

-There are a ton of variables: wood, where did the wood come from?, handcraftiness, etc.!
Not to mention the subjectivity in the ear/eye of the beholder.

[Nick Triesch]

Come on back! I went to one of our high end guitar shops a while back and I played a super less expensive mando on the wall. ($3500) It was clearly the best sounding mandolin in the shop. The sales guy told me it was a real sleeper but it did not have the "complex" tone of say a $7200 Collings MF5. Give me a break! So I said "complex to you is a much thinner and less volume sounding mandolin then?" Now to be fair, I have played many nice sounding Collings mandos. But $3000 difference?

[Nick Triesch]

What I am saying is that a lot of quality mandolins do not have great tone. Just nice tone.

[Mike Bunting]

What I am saying is that a lot of quality mandolins do not have great tone. Just nice tone.

That would be merely your subjective opinion. That's OK.

[Nick Triesch]

It is no different than saying that Angelina Jolie is better looking than Roseanne Barr. Subjective does not work in many cases. I have a $300 Kentucky A type that you can hardly hear compared to my Weber Fern. That is because it is made of plywood. My point is that just because a mandolin is made in China and sells for $2500 does not mean it cannot sound better than a $25,000 mandolin. What used to be true is not true any longer. Did you listen to the experts on the Northfield site? Holy Smokes! Remember years ago when a dud Martin D28 was called a turkey? That was not subjective, they either sounded good or they did not. Nick

[Mike Bunting]

Sure, you're right.

[JeffD]

The truth of the matter is that buying a mandolin or guitar that sounds great is really luck no matter what the price.

Well....

There is some variablility mandolin to mandolin absolutely. In terms of sound and playability.

But the more expensive models did not get their reputations randomly, and while hype exists in the world, so does quality, attention to detail, repeatability, aesthetics.

So if someone puts 5 figures down on a mandolin, pretty sure it will sound great. Might that person have been able to get as good a sound and playability for significantly less, well it depends. It would be an anomaly, but certainly not impossible.

The hoofbeats you hear in Montana could be zebras, but I would bet they are horses.

[Mike Bunting]

Removed.

[Mike Bunting]

So if someone puts 5 figures down on a mandolin, pretty sure it will sound great. Might that person have been able to get as good a sound and playability for significantly less, well it depends. It would be an anomaly, but certainly not impossible.

The hoofbeats you hear in Montana could be zebras, but I would bet they are horses.
What I don't get is why would anyone put their money down on anything if it already sound great to you.

[Ed Goist]

In my limited experience, I'd have to say that mandolin quality tracks very well with price.
Of course there are exceptions: individual sleepers and over-performers that are exceptional values, and of course, over-priced duds.
However, I'd have to say that generally value tracks quite well with price in the mandolin world...Much more so than in the guitar world, IMO.

[Nick Triesch]

Jeff, I really do not think an anomaly. I think Northfields are just the beginning. Folks are finding better ways to get sound out of a mandolin. Happened years ago to guitars. Guys like James Goodall and Taylor In (in San Diego) started to use thinner tops and lighter construction to make very responsive guitars. That is the reason I sold my D28 30 years ago. My Martin just did not even come close to the sound and playabilty of my Goodall standard. I even bought my Wife a small body Goodall and it sounded way better to the D28. But look what it has done! Today Martin guitars are far better sounding over all than they were 30 years ago. And you can adjust the truss rod to boot! It is really true, At Buffalo Bros in San Diego I played a $3500 Weber and a $25,000 mandolin and the $3500 one was better. By far! You will start seeing this more and more I think Nick

[Nonprophet]

A local luthier told me that while he's heard many sub-$3,500 mandolins that were superb, he's NEVER heard the owner of a $10,000+ mandolin say: "You know, your $3,500 mandolin sounds better than mine!" Not because it didn't sound better, but because most people tend to assume that if it costs more it must be "better."

Like I said in my post above, I think many people would be surprised by a the results of a blind test....


NP

[Ed Goist]

Another thing to throw into the mix here...

On more than one occasion, it has been stated here on the Cafe that there is a price point above which qualitative tonal differences between mandolins basically disappear. As I recall, the general consensus was that this occurs somewhere in the $3,500 to $5,000 price range. Based on this, it seems quite believable that some $3,500 mandolins will sound better than some $10,000 mandolins.

Above the "price/quality threshold" (whatever it is, $4K, $5K?), the prices of mandolins are being driven by non-tonal considerations, such as brand recognition, collectability, and market demand.

[sgarrity]

Another thing to throw into the mix here...

On more than one occasion, it has been stated here on the Cafe that there is a price point above which qualitative tonal differences between mandolins basically disappear. As I recall, the general consensus was that this occurs somewhere in the $3,500 to $5,000 price range. Based on this, it seems quite believable that some $3,500 mandolins will sound better than some $10,000 mandolins.

Above the "price/quality threshold" (whatever it is, $4K, $5K?), the prices of mandolins are being driven by non-tonal considerations, such as brand recognition, collectability, and market demand.

Pure and total conjecture. There is no general consensus about the dollar value at which tonal differences disappear. I'm sure someone has thrown the $5k figure out there but you'd be hard pressed to call it a general consensus. This is one of those areas of life where experience is everything. You gotta get out there and play everything you can get your hands on and form your own opinions. It also takes time to be bale to appreciate all the nuances of a fine instrument. When I got my first mandolin, a plywood Kentucky KM620 F5, I was a happy boy. But as my playing progressed and I learned more about music, tone, and mandolins I quickly realized that while the KM620 could make music, other mandolins definitely had something on it. Keep in mind that there is more to playing a mandolin than just what the listener hears. There is the feel and response of the instrument to the player. And I guarantee you in a blindfolded test I could tell the difference between my A5 and a Pac-Rim import.

[Elliot Luber]

I vote for having it set-up first, but if the Fender still sounds better you should probably sell the Eastman.

[JeffD]

Another thing to throw into the mix here...

On more than one occasion, it has been stated here on the Cafe that there is a price point above which qualitative tonal differences between mandolins basically disappear. As I recall, the general consensus was that this occurs somewhere in the $3,500 to $5,000 price range. .

One can't decide these things by consensus.

These things are determinable, objectively. Double blind tests etc.

[JeffD]

Jeff, I really do not think an anomaly. ... You will start seeing this more and more I think

I agree that technology has put awesome sound into the range of regular folks. And repeatability too. The best of today instruments are as good as the best vintage, but today the luthier can do it again more reliably.

But still, today, there is a difference. The difference is beyond what I might be willing to spend, and in some cases beyond what I can discern or appreciate. But for the most part there is a qualitative difference corresponding to large differences in price. And if, as you are thinking, this is going to be diminishing in the future, (about which I am skeptical), then the large price differences in new instruments would go away too.

What I mean is that if in ten years the large price differences are there, it will be because the qualitative differences are still there.

[Mike Bunting]

Not because it didn't sound better, but because most people tend to assume that if it costs more it must be "better."

That would be an assumption on your part.

[Ed Goist]

One can't decide these things by consensus.
These things are determinable, objectively. Double blind tests etc.

Agreed. Unfortunately, (like in the wine world) such tests are very unlikely to ever take place with ultra high-tier brands participating. This is because the ultra high-tier brand producers and owners stand to gain nothing by participating in such tests.
And actually I don't blame them, these brands have earned their reputation and price point, and they do not have to justify it.

[JeffD]

What I don't get is why would anyone put their money down on anything if it already sound great to you.

I probably made my case awkwardly. What I mean is that someone purchases an expensive instrument because they determine it does what they need. The question here is, could that person have found the same quality for 20% of the price. (And I maintain that perhaps, but not very likely.) Not that he would keep looking, but that it might exist and he never knew it. Because if he knew it he would have purchased the less expensive one.

I also think as we play with these eight string wonders over time our ears get better, more discerning, more refined. Similarly we better define and articulate what we want regarding neck shape, length, width, action and feel. So with experience, what was good enough before may nolonger be good enough. Or at least we can discern a difference between madnolins we could not before, whether we decide the difference is worth it is an individual thing.

[Nonprophet]

Agreed. Unfortunately, (like in the wine world) such tests are very unlikely to ever take place with ultra high-tier brands participating. This is because the ultra high-tier brand producers and owners stand to gain nothing by participating in such tests.
And actually I don't blame them, these brands have earned their reputation and price point, and they do not have to justify it.

Well, yes and no. As depicted in the (excellent!) movie "Bottle Shock," the world's leading wine 'experts' pretty much walked in lock-step behind the belief that French wines were vastly superior to wines from the U.S., until they did blind tests!

I think this is the reason why high-tier brands shy away from blind tests, they've spent years and years and millions and millions positioning themselves at the top of the market and they certainly don't want an annoying little thing like the truth to knock them out of position.....

If the mando world is anything like the photography world, there are a fair number of people with lots of money who always strive to have the "best" and they keep the market inflated by buying the latest and greatest. These guys can tell you all about the "creamy bokeh" of their Leica lens vs a lowly Canon lens, and they can cite sensor data retrieval rates and frames per second, and all that--but they couldn't take a decent photograph if they tried--even thought they have "the best" equipment that money can buy...

NP

[JeffD]

If the mando world is anything like the photography world, there are a fair number of people with lots of money who always strive to have the "best" and they keep the market inflated by buying the latest and greatest.

Sure absolutely. But I find it hard to believe there are enough of them in the mandolin world to be able to impact the market, either in absolute numbers or as a percentage of mandolinists.

[JeffD]

Agreed. Unfortunately, (like in the wine world) such tests are very unlikely to ever take place with ultra high-tier brands participating. This is because the ultra high-tier brand producers and owners stand to gain nothing by participating in such tests. .

I don't think the big names, either brands or luthiers would have trouble participating. They know what they can do.

I think it might be hard to find accomplished and discerning mandolinists willing to participate, unless individual results were not correlated with individual judges and everything kept anonymous.

And I think, as in everything else, there will be some people that can be fooled all the time, and everyone can be probably be fooled some of the time. And there might also be that anomolous instrument that happens to be way better than ever conceived of or expected.

But I don't think many of the great luthiers would hesitate, all things being equal.

Interesting idea....

[Ed Goist]

Good post NP! Lots of insightful and well-reasoned stuff posted to this thread.

I think it's really interesting that so many discussions on the Cafe like this one boil down to what I'll call the "Price Quality Dichotomy". As I see it, this dichotomy comes from the incorrect belief that quality drives price. What drives price is the market, and more specifically consumer demand.

The quality of a thing often tracks fairly well with it's market demand, but not always.

Bottom line: A $10,000 mandolin costs $10,000 not because of its quality, but because someone is willing (and often waiting in line) to spend $10,000 for it.

[Mike Bunting]

One can't decide these things by consensus.

These things are determinable, objectively. Double blind tests etc.
Don't believe it can be done. If you are talking about selecting instruments (and how are they selected) and having 100/500/1000/10000 people pick the one that that group decides has the best tone, by whatever method, then it means nothing other than just the tone that those particular people like. Why would I base my choice on what they like? Over the years, I have played or heard up close (in a close listening environment) among others, a Wood, Ellis, Red Diamond, a Loar (NOT a The Loar), Brentrup, Triggs,assorted other Gibsons, my Collings and my Stanley as well as all the lower end stuff that comes through the shop where I teach, Eastmans, The Loars, Kentucky's, JBovier, Fender, Johnson etc.,and I have developed my own opinions on the tone that I want to hear. I'm not saying that any tone is better than any other, just that I'm pretty sure of what I'm looking for in tone but I'm not about to put much stock in what some "scientific" group of folks decide is the best tone.

[Nonprophet]

At some point in the price structure of some goods they become valued more as status symbols than they are actually worth in terms of actual use. And that's the point IMHO that any testable, demonstrable difference in quality usually goes right out the window and the "Emporer's New Clothes Syndrome" kind of takes over.

I've seen dozens and dozens of examples over the years, anything from wine, to camera lenses, to speaker wire, to televisions, etc. where blind and/or other scientific tests proved that the so-called "best" really weren't--even though they were usually the most expensive.

That my friends, is what they call "marketing"........


NP

[michaelpthompson]

Bottom line: A $10,000 mandolin costs $10,000 not because of its quality, but because someone is willing (and often waiting in line) to spend $10,000 for it.

Would somebody seriously drop ten grand on a name instrument when they could get the same quality for $3500? We talk a lot about testing mandos before you buy, play as many as you can, choose what sounds good to you. Somebody in the ball park for something in the ten grand or more range is going to be a serious player. hard to think they'd be fooled by a name. Also hard to believe a brand gets the rep to be able to sell in the ten grand range without turning out some serious quality instruments.

I'm sure there is a bit of placebo effect, and maybe a few people with more money than sense, but I do find it hard to believe those are the rule rather than the exception.

[Mike Bunting]

At some point in the price structure of some goods they become valued more as status symbols than they are actually worth in terms of actual use. And that's the point IMHO that any testable, demonstrable difference in quality usually goes right out the window and the "Emporer's New Clothes Syndrome" kind of takes over.

I've seen dozens and dozens of examples over the years, anything from wine, to camera lenses, to speaker wire, to televisions, etc. where blind and/or other scientific tests proved that the so-called "best" really weren't--even though they were usually the most expensive.

That my friends, is what they call "marketing"........


NP
That's quite cynical. Really, you are talking about the people who may be buying mandolins, not the mandolins.

[Nonprophet]

That's quite cynical. Really, you are talking about the people who may be buying mandolins, not the mandolins.

I don't think it's cynical at all really, just reflective of how marketing affects people's buying decisions.

Why would someone pay $3.50 for a bottle of Windex when you could make your own window cleaning solution in about 3 minutes with ammonia or white vinegar and water for about 15 cents?

Answer: marketing!


NP

[Jim]

Why would someone pay $3.50 for a bottle of Windex when you could make your own window cleaning solution in about 3 minutes with ammonia or white vinegar and water for about 15 cents?
There is that nifty little spray container and the time & effort to consider as well.
I am a big believer that more expensive is not necessarily better but it does increase the odds of the product being better. I recently spent $40 on a Johnson and then put about 6 hours into fitting the bridge, leveling the frets and recutting the nut. It now plays like a mandolin that would have cost alot more. But if I charged myself for my time it would cost alot more.

[Ed Goist]

Would somebody seriously drop ten grand on a name instrument when they could get the same quality for $3500?

Sure. This happens all the time, with products of all types. Do all the people who own a $250,000 Lamborghini worry that it is a higher quality car than a $90,000 Porsche? I doubt they even think about the question. They wanted the Lamborghini, it's a better "fit" for them (for whatever reason), and they got it.


We talk a lot about testing mandos before you buy, play as many as you can, choose what sounds good to you. Somebody in the ball park for something in the ten grand or more range is going to be a serious player. hard to think they'd be fooled by a name...snip...

Again, I don't think this is a question of being fooled. It's a question of fit. I'm saying that there is a broad and complex range of reasons why people choose a particular instrument over another, and that the instrument's raw quality is not the sole (or even the main) reason.

What about professional performers who play relatively modestly priced instruments? Have these players been "fooled" into playing a lesser quality instrument when they could afford a "better" instrument?

I think we often get too hung-up on quality as a driving factor for instrument selection. Nuance and subjective factors (most completely independent from quality) have a lot to do with it.

Why on earth doesn't Willie Nelson buy himself a new, expensive guitar? :)

[allenhopkins]

Would somebody seriously drop ten grand on a name instrument when they could get the same quality for $3500?...

There's more to selecting an instrument for purchase than just its musical qualities. If we don't limit the discussion to new instruments, there's the entire "vintage" market to consider, where rarity, provenance, and reputation are as important to some as the instrument's sound. There are re-sale and/or investment considerations -- which, of course, sorta beg the question, since what happens is that someone makes a musically "irrational" purchase in the expectation that when he/she wants to sell the mandolin, the market will be equally irrational. (E.g., I pay more for a Gibson than a Shmergel of equal quality, because if and when I want to sell or trade, I know that potential buyers will be as dumb as I was, and pay more for the Gibson.)

There is also reputational value, and I think it's unwise to dismiss this aspect. Most of us have noted that when we show up at a jam with our Gibson F-5, we are immediately considered to be of a certain status. Showing up with a Shmergel Devastator, which may peel the paint off the Gibby, doesn't carry the same weight. Some are willing to pay more for the status.

One of the problems of micro-economics is that it often assumes that "utility is linear with price" (if I have that right), and that a purchaser will inevitably and automatically choose to buy a "good" at the lowest available price. The whole idea of branding, marketing, and packaging, is to subvert that line of reasoning. Developing "brand loyalty," which is what billions of advertising dollars are supposed to do, means that you'll buy Brand X even if Brand Y is better for the same price, or cheaper for equal quality. Some instrument manufacturers have built up brand loyalty by producing superior products for over a century. Now they can take advantage of that history, by selling their products at a premium. So when I buy a guitar made of Formica, with Felix the Cat emblazoned on its top, just because it says "C F Martin" on the headstock, I'm embodying that brand loyalty. Even though Shmergel makes a cheaper version, with Underdog graphics...

[Nick Triesch]

What I think most of us are looking for in a mandolin (or guitar) is an instrument that plays like glass and is Loud and responsive. Really , loud is what we are really talking about here. Not complex tone or sweet high notes. It is loud. That is what we need when we play bluegrass or anything else for that matter with these tiny instruments. That is why when I asked the guy at Buffalo Bros what was the sleeper on the wall and he took down the Weber bitteroot. It was huge sounding! Never played another Weber like it since. A rare bird. It was $3500. Should have bought it! Had the same kind of sound as my friends Gibson F5 at $7000 used. Also very rare sounding. I just think times are changing and makers like Northfield have found a way to make most of their mandolins have this rare , responsive, loud sound the new norm at a great price. We are in for some fun times! I want one! Nick

[JeffD]

What I think most of us are looking for in a mandolin (or guitar) is an instrument that plays like glass and is Loud and responsive. Really , loud is what we are really talking about here. Not complex tone or sweet high notes. It is loud.

??? :disbelief:

As long as I am loud enough to be heard in a group (and all my mandolins can do that, even the bowlbacks), I go with complex and sweet, creamy, what ever you want to call it, every time.

I don't think I am in a minority, but perhaps. In any case that is your taste. Which is fine. It helps me understand some of your other posts. Optimizing for volume one need not spend the high end money.

In a jam session or any group ensemble I can agree with you, because the tone is much harder to hear. Also when chopping, I think the complexity of the tone is missed by most of the audience because when chopping, everyone's focus is on the melody instrument or vocals.

But in small ensembles, solo playing, playing in an intimate venue or at home to please yourself, family, friends, and a couple of pets, the tone quality makes it for me.

[Nick Triesch]

I think you are kidding yourself. Think about all the jams and festivals you have been too. think about when someone came over and had a huge sounding mandolin. Most folks say things like "Man, that is a killer mandolin!" Or "Great Chop" or "What a voice" Or with guitars "nice axe!" Years ago a high end guitar dealer came to my house with two Martin D35 guitars. Both very new in great condition. I played the 1st one and it was nice but very OK sounding. Then I played the 2nd and it was huge with great bass and wonderful overtones. He told me that because the 2nd one was so good it was $800 more than the 1st guitar. Also, I think you are wrong about the loud thing....over the years I feel it is very hard to make a thin sounding mandolin loud. If it is weak, then it is just weak. Read the zillion posts on the Cafe. Folks do not want creamy and sweet, they want super loud mandolins! You read about them everyday. Maybe a little A type for celtic. Last year a friend let me borrow her Gibson Doyal Lawson. I had some friends over and I played a song on my Weber fern. Then I played a song on the Gibson. I asked the folks what they thought and they told me that my Fern sounded like a toy compared to the Gibson!!!! That toy cost me $3500 8 years ago!! Nick

[JeffD]

Don't believe it can be done. If you are talking about selecting instruments .

That is absolutely not the way to go about it. What can be done though, is to take one $15,000 instrument, and two that go for under say $1500. And blindfolded players have to play each instrument for a fixed amount of time, and then tell "which of these things is not like the others". Determine which one is the high end instrument. We are not so much interested in individual taste per se, but is the difference discernable by discriminating players.

[JeffD]

I think you are kidding yourself. Think about all the jams and festivals you have been too. think about when someone came over and had a huge sounding mandolin. Most folks say things like "Man, that is a killer mandolin!" Or "Great Chop" or "What a voice" Or with guitars "nice axe!"

Nah. Not my experience. Yea there are some that confuse the volume and tone, but I don't think its most folks.

I have had the experience, in a jam playing an Eastman, where I was asked to play more softly. Not, "what a voice" or "killer", but "hey a little softer, you are drowning out the fiddles".

Among my favorite guitars is the Martin 000-15 and the 000-28. I am not a guitar sound aficianado by any means, and there are guitars that are louder, the D-41 for example, but the quality of the sound from the 15 and the 28 are just some how richer. Volume to spare, that is a given, but you gotta be more than loud to get my attention.

If volume were all that we wanted, the resonantor instrument would be the only one anyone would get. You cannot beat how they blow your hair back and send banjo players looking for cover. But that resonator sound is not always what you want.

And with a microphone and a small battery amp you can play louder than any mandolin accoustically, so the strategy would be to spend under $100 on the intrument and a few hundred on an amp, and just crank it up. If its only the volume why not.

Nick I get what your saying, and I think it might be true for some people, but I don't think it is true for most.

[Ed Goist]

...snip...to take one $15,000 instrument, and two that go for under say $1500. And blindfolded players have to play each instrument for a fixed amount of time, and then tell "which of these things is not like the others". Determine which one is the high end instrument. We are not so much interested in individual taste per se, but is the difference discernable by discriminating players.

Jeff, check this out! Here's your exact experimental model put into practice with guitars!
The price differentials here aren't as extreme (about 50%), but they pretty much use your model to a "T", except that they have 2 higher tiered guitars and one lower tiered guitar in the experiment.
BTW, I played a Hohner Essential Parlor and was pretty amazed by it. Impressive little axe for $250.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkTuCEeFi3s

[Chip Booth]

I don't care how much it costs, the Shmergel Devastator is where it's at!

When a cheap instrument ends up sounding better than what should be a good sounding more expensive brand I like to say that falls under the heading of "everybody screws up and gets one right now and again".

[Ed Goist]

Chip; it's also called the "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while" model.
Oh, and I played a Shmergal Devastator once...It crushed!

[JEStanek]

I'm gonna say three words to fire up your MAS. Distressed Shmergal Devastator.

Jamie

[Tom C]

The other day I played a flat-top Weber with an oval sound hole for about $1200. Then I played a Weber Yellowstone f-style f holes custom which cost around $5500. The flat-top was better sounding to me and way louder. I also have played Rogue mandolins which have sounded better than $500 ones. There are a ton of variables: wood, where did the wood come from?, handcraftiness, etc. Never shun a lower priced instrument, you might just find the one!


To compare a flat-top oval with F style with F holes is not much of a comparison between instruments. Obviously you must just like the tone of an oval hole mandolin compared to F hole.

[JEStanek]

You'll hear more of an oval hole's sound yourself than you will of an ff hole's sound. That's why it is always a good idea to play and have an instrument played at you when considering them... that and personal preference comes into play and set up...

It's difficult to evaluate two instruments when they aren't set up to their potential well at the same time.

Jamie

PS, Like Jeff, I'm not looking primarily for loud. I like the tonal quality better. Then again, I don't really play in jams often (like almost never) and I play home alone. I don't need to rattle the neighbors windows to hear myself.

[Alex Orr]

Wait...didn't we just have this discussion a month ago :crying:

FWIW, I've played three or four Fenders at guitar stores and they all sounded like junk. Maybe the OP got a one-in-a-million, maybe his Eastman sucks, maybe he can't tell the difference...who knows. I've never been blown away by any Eastman I've played either, but like I said, my experience with Fenders is that they sound lousy with poor tone and weak volume.

In terms of the usual claim from someone in this type of thread that it's all a cynical ploy to get people to pay more for a status symbol, I still think that in the world of mandolins, that's a real stretch. Sure, some folks may shell out $10k when they couldn't tell the difference between a Rogue and a Fern...but that buyer is IMO a rare and unique person. The mandolin is a niche instrument. Once you're at the point where you're willing to shell out several grand on an instrument that most of the world thinks is a miniature guitar, you're probably not just some shallow soul looking to impress the world with his spiffy new Pomeroy or Sam Bush model Gibson. Using the comparison of name-brand cleaning goods at a grocery store is a ludicrous comparison for many reasons, not the least of which is the unique characteristics of the niche market for high-end mandolins.

In terms of people paying a little bit extra for something flashy that offers no real benefit, I would suggest the most common culprit is lower end F-scroll models. Someone who's been playing a year or two on a cheap A and decides to move up to a cheap F is, IMO, basically doing it for the looks and the feeling that if it has a scroll, it's fancier, and thus better, than the model without the scroll.

[Mike Bunting]

Wait...didn't we just have this discussion a month ago :crying:

FWIW, I've played three or four Fenders at guitar stores and they all sounded like junk. Maybe the OP got a one-in-a-million, maybe his Eastman sucks, maybe he can't tell the difference...who knows. I've never been blown away by any Eastman I've played either, but like I said, my experience with Fenders is that they sound lousy with poor tone and weak volume.

In terms of the usual claim from someone in this type of thread that it's all a cynical ploy to get people to pay more for a status symbol, I still think that in the world of mandolins, that's a real stretch. Sure, some folks may shell out $10k when they couldn't tell the difference between a Rogue and a Fern...but that buyer is IMO a rare and unique person. The mandolin is a niche instrument. Once you're at the point where you're willing to shell out several grand on an instrument that most of the world thinks is a miniature guitar, you're probably not just some shallow soul looking to impress the world with his spiffy new Pomeroy or Sam Bush model Gibson. Using the comparison of name-brand cleaning goods at a grocery store is a ludicrous comparison for many reasons, not the least of which is the unique characteristics of the niche market for high-end mandolins.

In terms of people paying a little bit extra for something flashy that offers no real benefit, I would suggest the most common culprit is lower end F-scroll models. Someone who's been playing a year or two on a cheap A and decides to move up to a cheap F is, IMO, basically doing it for the looks and the feeling that if it has a scroll, it's fancier, and thus better, than the model without the scroll.
Well said, I agree 100%;

"instrument that most of the world thinks is a miniature guitar," nowadays it's often compared to a ukulele. :grin:

[Nick Triesch]

Why do you think Martin came out with the HD28? Why do you think guys like Taylor and Goodall created large body guitars with very light tops and bracing? To make loud guitars. Same with Northfield making the slightly larger body on the " Big Mon" F5. Folks want loud. I think it is true for most. I have heard it all my life at guitar shops and jams. Everywhere. Nick

[JeffD]

Folks want loud. I think it is true for most. I have heard it all my life at guitar shops and jams. Everywhere.

Then why wouldn't everyone just buy an Esteban guitar and an amp and go at it. Makes no sense to do otherwise if all you want is volume.

Nick, You use a lot of guitar examples. Guitars are a much bigger market. I think Alex is onto something in his comment above that

The mandolin is a niche instrument. Once you're at the point where you're willing to shell out several grand on an instrument that most of the world thinks is a miniature guitar, you're probably not just some shallow soul looking to impress the world with his spiffy new Pomeroy or Sam Bush model Gibson.

There are not enough of us to be a cross section of the general population. We mandolin players are more discerning, more musical, more sensitive, less prone to marketing hype, than the guitar purchasing public in general. ...works for me.

:)

[Mike Bunting]

. We mandolin players are more discerning, more musical, more sensitive, less prone to marketing hype,
Seems to be changing though.

[Nonprophet]

Apparently Braid Laird did a blind test in 2009 featuring a 1980 Gilchrist F-5, a 1938 Gibson F-5, a 1926 Gibson F-5 Fern, and a 1985 Flatiron F-5 Artist.

Anyone care to guess which mando won?


NP

[dcoventry]

Flatiron?:confused:

[Nick Triesch]

What do you mean that there is not enough of us! Here in San Diego alone I know of at least 3 other mandolin players!! man, sometimes.... Nick

[JeffD]

What do you mean that there is not enough of us! Here in San Diego alone I know of at least 3 other mandolin players!! man, sometimes.... Nick


:))

[birdman98]

Well....WHO WON?!?!?! Come on, man!

I will guess the Flatiron, as well.

[Ed Goist]

My money is on the 1980 Gilchrist.

[Nonprophet]

Flatiron?:confused:


DingDingDing! We have a winner!!! Just goes to show you that people's perceptions of "quality" can be and are influenced by marketing and preconceived notions......

NP

[JeffD]

Just goes to show you that people's perceptions of "quality" can be and are influenced by marketing and preconceived notions......


These people in this test at this time. I don't think it supports the conclusion that most people are manipulated most of the time. Because, indeed, if that were the case there would be no quality at all, just the tools to manipulate our percetptions.

I recall a test conducted to determine why Heinze ketchup was so thick. The conclusion? They used more tomatoes.

[Mike Bunting]

Because, indeed, if that were the case there would be no quality at all, just the tools to manipulate our perceptions..
Sadly, I'm thinking that it is the case in the life of everyday North America.

[Bernie Daniel]

It is no different than saying that Angelina Jolie is better looking than Roseanne Barr...[snip]...That was not subjective.....

I agree Nick! That is pretty objective for sure! :)

[dcoventry]

The Flatiron won, cool! It's a pretty educated guess if you look at the pedigree of the team that was making them back then. They got some mojo working fo' sho'. :mandosmiley:

dave.

[Laird]

Folks want loud. I think it is true for most. I have heard it all my life at guitar shops and jams. Everywhere.

Not my experience. I already mentioned that my beater Kentucky M150 is much louder than my Eastman but sounds nowhere near as good. I've played plenty of loud mandos that don't hold a candle to the mellower tones of some higher quality mandolins. No, volume is a consideration, but not the primary one. After all, most of us who play out are miked in one way or another. Tone is key. Playability for sure. What I'm looking for, if I ever get around to upgrading, is a deeper, richer sustain, and maybe more consistent tone all the way up the neck.

[mandolino maximus]

So many facets, so many mandolins to cover them with. Maybe I should get a Flatiron, a 38 Gibson, a 26 Fern and a Gilchrist, just to be sure. (That's not a bad idea, but I hate to leave out the bowlbacks.)

Scientficially, I'm not sure the next guy can repeat the Flatiron test and get the the same results. In terms of status, I'd be too ashamed to admit on this site that I paid $20K for a Flatiron. I also still doubt that every Flatiron sounds and plays better than the Gilchrists that I've heard Mike Compton and Matt Flinner play up close in a concert in a guitar store. Even if its Flinner and Compton on the Flatirons. But, does anyone know if Flatirons are the red-headed step child of mandolins?

Luck has to enter into it if someone sits down with a number of mandolins and finds the vastly cheaper one more suitable to him/her for non-price reasons. And I think you can be lucky that way. Just don't count on it.

So, are more expensive picks better? If we can solve that one definitively, I've also been looking at golf clubs.

[draino]

One thing I never understand about these threads: people always talk about "marketing" being what is driving prices on the $20k+ instruments. What marketing?!?!? My understanding is that Gilchrist spent a lot of time selling newly built mandolins for substantially less than what his mandolin's were selling for on the used market. He would have been a fool not to raise his prices to that level, even if he himself didn't think the instruments were worth that much.

So how did the price of the used instruments climb so high? Was there a famous player playing one early on that drove the demand up (clearly this was in effect with Dudenbostel - not saying his instruments are any less good - just that there defintely seems to have been a Thile-effect there)? Or was it simply folks hearing those instruments at festivals and jams and loving what they heard/saw/felt? So maybe there was some marketing involved in terms of giving an instrument to a high profile player (dunno if Compton, Flinner, Thile, Marshall, et al. paid for their instruments or not) -- but I can't imagine any of those players playing something they weren't very happy with, particularly if they aren't being paid to play the instrument (and I'm sure none of those builders have a spare "marketing budget" for endorsements). But that's it?

Surely the ramblings of folks on internet fora is not enough to keep prices as high as they are for these instruments? Surely there aren't THAT many random rich folks that decided to pick up the mandolin, did a search of the internet for "most awesome tone mandolin" and found a bunch of blathering about Gilchrest, Heiden and Dudenbostel, then called up Gruhn's or Elderly and said "hey, I want one of them Gilchrest's - you got one? Ya do? $20k? Sounds like a bargain considering what all those folks on the internet are sayin'!!!"

[draino]

Ya know, I went back and read the thread as a whole, and I have no idea what from this thread inspired the earlier post. But its something I've considered writing in other threads, so I'll just leave it there.

[Laird]

[QUOTE=draino;926373]One thing I never understand about these threads: people always talk about "marketing" being what is driving prices on the $20k+ instruments. What marketing?!?!? [QUOTE]

I guess that counts as a point well taken.

[Nonprophet]

One thing I never understand about these threads: people always talk about "marketing" being what is driving prices on the $20k+ instruments. What marketing?!?!?

I guess that counts as a point well taken.

Marketing takes many forms, it's not at all limited to paid advertising. Endorsements, word of mouth, jam sessions, etc are all forms of "marketing."


NP

[Mike Bunting]

Marketing takes many forms, it's not at all limited to paid advertising. Endorsements, word of mouth, jam sessions, etc are all forms of "marketing."


NP
To me, "marketing" implies an intent to sell something. Are you saying that in your country, certain people who sell mandolins actually organize jams to influence peoples choices?

[Martin Stevens]

Here's my opinion (coming from a college kid with not a ton of extra cash to throw around)

I had a Gibson F5G from when I was about 12 till I was 22... A very good mando, but once I got a little older I became aware that there was room to upgrade if I wanted to. So from about age 15 on I tried just about every mando I saw at shops or festivals, trying to find the "best one I'd ever played (and wasn't already owned by someone ;) )

When I went to gruhns last september I played quite a few that I liked more than my gibson, including ones that were cheaper than the Ellis that I ended up buying, and ones that were more expensive (and would have been more of a status symbol). I assure you that I did not spend well over 7 years looking for a mandolin and put myself in to YEARS and YEARS of debt to make myself look cool or impress people at jams because I bought a status symbol. I bought it because it was hands down the best mandolin I've played (for my style and taste) besides 1 Dudenbostel and 1 Loar.

I'm sure that there are people out there who are well established financially and have money to throw at big names when they maybe could get something just as good or better for cheaper, but I highly doubt that's a large percentage.

[mandolino maximus]

Marketing could be broadly defined to mean any type of exposure or publicity that influences perception of a product or service. Which can include attending a jam and having a new model passed around. A new luthier hopes for good "word of mouth" and I am looking for the new mando luthier who can be had cheap and grow into acclaim. You know, buy the equivalent of a F5 Loar new from Gibson for $250. If Loar had worked for himself and had only made 5, that same instrument would be unknown, unplayed by Monroe or Apollon, and worth a few hundred dollars.

Marketing in the broad sense has a lot to do with price. If you rely solely on marketing, though, you limit yourself. Like Martin Stevens (I bet you will always love your new one), I sat down with a number of instruments and found one that I had never heard of for a $1,000 less than some good respected brand models. It played and sounded better to me and to someone with me. I have been in workshops with Gilchrists and Nuggets and even went to other stores to play Collings v. my mando. I haven't found a reason to replace the one I bought.

But did you guys see the classified today for the Dearrington signed A5 for $2,000? Never heard it. Bet it's great.