Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

  1. #1

    Default Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    I've tried searching before posting but couldn't seem to find the answer i'm looking for. I have a chance to potentially get a 68 F5 in a trade. I would be coming out a head in the trade but I can not play it before hand. From research the late 60's and 70's are consider the dark years and where not made very well.A lot of people has said these are terrible instruments but what is that being compared to? Is "bad" being compared to older and even newer F5's that are superior, but are still good instruments just not up to par as other, or is just terrible by any standards and you can get something much better for 1/4 the cost?

  2. #2
    Gibson F5L Gibson A5L
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,526
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Each mandolin is different. I have never played a bad Gilchrist. I've only played three. I've heard many more played and they all have sounded just fine. I've never played a bad Loar period Gibson mandolin. I've played four. Everyone I've ever heard had wonderful tone. I've played and heard many Gibson mandolins from the 60's and 70's some sounded fine some didn't. So much of a mandolins sound is in the hands of the player. My long winded point being you never know until you play and or hear one played how it is going to be. Good and Bad are just not satisfactory descriptions when it comes to tone. Playability is usually an instrument adjustment issue or repair issue. Workmanship and materials are less subjective. If you are getting a great deal on this mandolin it begs the question. Why? It may be a "lemon" .... or it may not ...... Luck.... R/
    I love hanging out with mandolin nerds . . . . . Thanks peeps ...

  3. #3
    Mando accumulator allenhopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rochester NY 14610
    Posts
    17,378

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Cafe´Gibson experts -- and I'm not one –– report that Gibson mandolins of this era are prone to having binding crumble, and have tops that are not well-carved, resulting in inferior sound. There are also esthetic criticisms -- the over-large headstock, block inlays, etc. It's clear that Gibson recognized problems with its F-5's, resulting in the re-engineering that produced the F-5L in 1978.

    Your decision of course should definitely be based on what price you'll be paying for the mandolin. The fact that it's a Gibson F-5, of whatever vintage, gives it significant market value as compared to other comparable instruments of the period (most of which were the first generation of Asian import F-models). Clearly, it would be more attractive if it were either earlier or later. Some owners of F-5's of this vintage have had them reworked by luthiers who specialize in such projects, to try to improve their sound. However, that's a significant investment, the cost of which could easily equal what you're paying for the mandolin.

    You're taking a bit of a chance, and I'd at least get some really detailed photos to check the instrument's condition. IMHO, finding "something much better for 1/4 the cost" isn't realistic, unless you're paying over $3K for the F-5. But as you've found through research, this is a "low point" in Gibson's mandolin quality, and you recognize that.
    Allen Hopkins
    Gibsn: '54 F5 3pt F2 A-N Custm K1 m'cello
    Natl Triolian Dobro mando
    Victoria b-back Merrill alumnm b-back
    H-O mandolinetto
    Stradolin Vega banjolin
    Sobell'dola Washburn b-back'dola
    Eastmn: 615'dola 805 m'cello
    Flatiron 3K OM

  4. #4

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    When I was a teen, I coveted an F, back in the 70's. Out of my price range, then, but I still fondled whenever I could. I am pretty well familiar with these, albeit I haven't played one in hand for at least ten years.

    Here are my thoughts, from trying about half a dozen over the years.

    Pros: imho some are beautiful, light bursts, typically very yellow clear coat, and some have the fancy scroll type inlay, or, blocks;

    I have heard of binding disintegration, but never encountered first hand;

    Some say Gibson in modern block, some The Gibson in script;

    You have a real Gibson "F";
    You may well have a vehicle for resale and ability to make a profit by selling to someone who isn't as up on mandolins who wants a "real Gibson F".

    Playability can vary-I have not played one that I thought was really nice in set up/action. Stiff is the word I would use.

    Cons:
    These, and much from the era, are overbuilt. They are factory boxes, not fined tuned instruments.

    In a word, plinky. In fact if you listen to Dean Webb on Back porch bluegrass, I think that sound is typical. imho

    You have a thing of beauty that simply falls short in terms of sound-ie a daily disappointment.

    Neck angle isn't very steep and that affects the sound a great deal, due to pressure on bridge and to top.

    Woods were willy nilly, typically not the nicest figuring on maple.

    The issue to me is value/price/intent. If I could get a pristine one for low enough, I might enjoy simply having it to look at as an interesting mando.

    You might get 'a good one'. You might not. All are unique, but, in my experience, limited as it is, simply over built, tight, plinky. Form over substance.

    Blasphemy: id rather have a northfield or A collings, etc for real music making in that price range-which is about 2500+ or -.

    Having something that is beautiful but doesnt deliver can be really frustrating, a love hate affair.
    Trying to fix it up, as mentioned can turn into an expensive nightmare.

    Personally I could care less about the deviations from the Loar design, for designs sake, as I have always liked variations in cosmetics, but, the deviations are much more than merely cosmetic.

    Block inlay, "Custom", red sunburst like a Les Paul, you don't see those everyday, but, other than having a conversation piece, I dunno....
    Last edited by stevedenver; Jul-18-2014 at 9:07am.

  5. The following members say thank you to stevedenver for this post:


  6. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,258

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Too much of a gamble to buy one of them sight unseen or if unable to hold it and play it.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AlanN For This Useful Post:


  8. #6

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    ive had several from the 60 and 70's ,some can be pretty good ,they can be made much better ,by someone who knows what they are doing ,the only thing i have against the 60,s is that huge headstock
    but they can sound pretty good
    Danny
    Danny Clark

  9. #7
    Moderator MikeEdgerton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Howell, NJ
    Posts
    26,875

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    If it's costing you hundreds of dollars you should be fine. If it's costing you thousands of dollars you might want to rethink it. My .02.
    "It's comparable to playing a cheese slicer."
    --M. Stillion

    "Bargain instruments are no bargains if you can't play them"
    --J. Garber

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MikeEdgerton For This Useful Post:


  11. #8
    Registered User Bill Baldridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Liberty, MO
    Posts
    593
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    A pig in a poke is a pig in a poke, and you will be holding the bag if it turns out to be a turkey. My second concern is how much your local music store knows about setting up a mandolin. Most local stores are guitar shops, and although they may be expert on setting up a guitar, know little about the special needs of a mandolin. IMHO, there are several online shops with links to the Cafe who would do right by you, and you could return it if it didn't suit you.

  12. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Gainesville, FL
    Posts
    2,664

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    To add to what Mike says, if the cost is in the thousands I would not purchase it if I could not play it first. There are too many good sounding mandolins available to take a chance on one you can't hold in your hands prior to purchasing. My .03.

  13. #10
    Mando accumulator allenhopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rochester NY 14610
    Posts
    17,378

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Baldridge View Post
    A pig in a poke is a pig in a poke, and you will be holding the bag if it turns out to be a turkey...
    Well, if you let the cat out of the bag you're holding, then the pig may well become a turkey. I'd say, "let sleeping dogs lie," but we all know a bird in the hand (unless it's a turkey) is worth two in the bush.

    Gee, I love old saws, even when they're buzzwords.
    Allen Hopkins
    Gibsn: '54 F5 3pt F2 A-N Custm K1 m'cello
    Natl Triolian Dobro mando
    Victoria b-back Merrill alumnm b-back
    H-O mandolinetto
    Stradolin Vega banjolin
    Sobell'dola Washburn b-back'dola
    Eastmn: 615'dola 805 m'cello
    Flatiron 3K OM

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to allenhopkins For This Useful Post:


  15. #11
    coprolite mandroid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Outer Spiral Arm, of Galaxy, NW Oregon.
    Posts
    17,103

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Each piece of wood is different from another .. so the Builds cannot all be the same sound.

    at least it will say Gibson on the headstock.
    writing about music
    is like dancing,
    about architecture

  16. #12
    Registered User John Kinn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    692

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    I have only played two Gibson F5's from the early seventies, and they were both shockingly bad.

  17. #13

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    I think if you get into it right, tradewise, and you don't like it, someone will always be looking for a Gibson F5 and take it off your hands.

  18. #14
    Registered User Ivan Kelsall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Manchester - Lancashire - NW England
    Posts
    14,187

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Yesterday,i found a YouTube vid.of John Jorgenson talking about his Gibson F5 "Fern" Mandolin & he said it was built in the 1970's.Whether it's in it's 'as built' state or whether it's been modified in any way,he doesn't say,but it sounds pretty good,
    Ivan

    He seems to be getting to look more & more like Ricky Skaggs' twin brother - sort of !.
    Weber F-5 'Fern'.
    Lebeda F-5 "Special".
    Stelling Bellflower BANJO
    Tokai - 'Tele-alike'.
    Ellis DeLuxe "A" style.

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ivan Kelsall For This Useful Post:


  20. #15

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    That must be a late 70's F5L he is playing. One like the OP is speaking of would be similar to the other one he held up at the beginning of the video.

  21. #16
    Registered User f5loar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Salisbury,NC
    Posts
    6,468

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Your first problem would be is this a 1968 or an early to mid 70's Gibson F5. You don't give any detail other than you say they say it's a 1968. Gibson's serial numbering system for the mid to late 60's overlaps and uses the same numbers in early to mid 70's. Even long time vintage dealers have problems with what year it was made. That being said if you can be sure it's a '68 and not a '72 to '78 than you might come out in the deal. If you don't know for sure you need to get that serial number from the back of the headstock and on the label from inside which should be the same along with one front photograph and post it here and we will tell you pretty quick what you got. I've seen 1000's of ebay Gibson F5s using the wrong year made based on what they saw from the various Gibson serial nos. listings. You have to know catalog specs with the serial no. to narrow it down and get that from a source you trust.

  22. #17
    Registered User f5loar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Salisbury,NC
    Posts
    6,468

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan Kelsall View Post
    Yesterday,i found a YouTube vid.of John Jorgenson talking about his Gibson F5 "Fern" Mandolin & he said it was built in the 1970's.Whether it's in it's 'as built' state or whether it's been modified in any way,he doesn't say,but it sounds pretty good,
    Ivan

    He seems to be getting to look more & more like Ricky Skaggs' twin brother - sort of !.
    Let me respond to the confusion of this video of Jorgenson's demo on a Gibson F5. I'm not sure why he doesn't know the exact date of these 2 F5s as they both do have a dated and signed label in the lower F hole. I see at the beginning they say 1977 Gibson F5. He mentions of the first Gibson belonging to the museum where he is out and holds it up saying it was built in the early 60's. That's wrong. From what I see it is a 1977 F5. The sunburst on the back sorta gave that away plus the inlays in the fingerboard too it 's at least a 1971 to 1979 model and since the museum people appear to have done the video that is likely where they got the 1977 date for that Gibson F5. But on John's personal F5 I thought he had a late 80's given to him by Gibson during the early days of the Desert Rose Band. I know Chris Hillman got one and assumed John did too at the same time. It sure looked late 80's to me but since he said late 70's it would have to be a 1978 or 1979 F5L Fern model. But again he should know by just looking in at the signed and dated label inside instead of the "I think" statement. John is good friends with Montelone and likely it may have had some after work and set up done to it that would contribute to the good sound but I'm guessing the sound is being from John's hands more so than any mandolin he would play. And for you Monroe fans his 2nd tune was Monroe's "Kentucky Mandolin" instrumental.

  23. The following members say thank you to f5loar for this post:


  24. #18

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    The OP wrote above:
    [[ A lot of people has said these are terrible instruments but what is that being compared to? Is "bad" being compared to older and even newer F5's that are superior, but are still good instruments just not up to par as other, or is just terrible by any standards and you can get something much better for 1/4 the cost? ]]

    My opinion and my opinion only, but if you go through with this trade, don't be expecting too much from the F-5 you receive.

    It will -look like- an F-5, but don't build up hopes that it's going to sound like a Fern from the Darrington/Harvey era.

    No use being long-winded about it. Ask the other party if he/she has -something else- to offer you in trade....

  25. #19

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Quote Originally Posted by stinkoman20xx View Post
    I've tried searching before posting but couldn't seem to find the answer i'm looking for. I have a chance to potentially get a 68 F5 in a trade. I would be coming out a head in the trade but I can not play it before hand. From research the late 60's and 70's are consider the dark years and where not made very well.A lot of people has said these are terrible instruments but what is that being compared to? Is "bad" being compared to older and even newer F5's that are superior, but are still good instruments just not up to par as other, or is just terrible by any standards and you can get something much better for 1/4 the cost?
    My first Gibson F-5 was a 1977 that I got from Gruhn for $1750,-a bad mandolin, but I was too inexperienced to know ! He told me upon purchase that he would allow me the purchase price on trade-in if I ever traded UP ! He kept his promise when I traded for a 1992 Fern ! When we speak of mandolin qualities , to me it all comes down to three things, --volume, volume, volume !,...if you aint got VOLUME you aint got nothing ! During the 26 years I have had it, it has been to the luthier's shop many times for fret-dressing/replacement, etc. , the saddle/bridge assembly has been swapped out and tinkered with, it has been buffed,I continue to buff it regularly, all in the effort to get a better sound,...-really I mean VOLUME ! (not the mando in the pic at left, that is an F-5, but not a Fern, its a Flowerpot)

  26. #20
    ===========
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,628

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanN View Post
    Too much of a gamble to buy one of them sight unseen or if unable to hold it and play it.
    Ditto!

    Every mandolin is different - play first if you don't want to be disappointed. Last year I bought a recent Gibson F-9 (2012, I think) from a Cafe sponsor, and I HATED it.

    Lesson learned.

  27. #21

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Mike wrote above:
    "Last year I bought a recent Gibson F-9 (2012, I think) from a Cafe sponsor, and I HATED it."

    Just wonderin'...
    What didn't you like about it?

  28. #22
    Teacher, repair person
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Southeast Tennessee
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Albert View Post
    Mike wrote above:
    "Last year I bought a recent Gibson F-9 (2012, I think) from a Cafe sponsor, and I HATED it."

    Just wonderin'...
    What didn't you like about it?
    I don't know about Mike's mandolin, but the last recent issue Gibson that came through my neighborhood shop, an F-5G [I don't remember the year], had an extremely narrow neck with very steep sides that did not fit my hand at all. As far as the tone and projection, it was out-classed by both a better grade Weber and an Eastman 815. We did a blind test with the store owner . . .

    Not all Gibsons are good. I hear their current Master Models are good, but you can't find one in this part of the country.

    I don't believe that Gibson is making many mandolins at all these days. Except for one 2015 F-5G at Gruhn's, the most recent Gibsons in this area are more than 10 years old.
    Last edited by rcc56; Sep-14-2018 at 1:28am.

  29. #23
    Registered User f5loar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Salisbury,NC
    Posts
    6,468

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Gibson is doing today what it has done since giving up the Bozeman plant production of the F5L, etc. And that's not that many F5 being put out, but enough to keep the quality up and sell every one they make. I toured the factory in Nashville this year and was most impressed with what I saw going on today. And i've been touring the factory many times since the early 80's so I've seen a lot of the changes that went on in the mandolin dept. While the Gibson mandolins from post war 1949 to about 1999 were a hit or miss in terms of being really great or not so great, the ones today are much more hits than misses. Can't say I've played a new in the past 5 years that was not great.

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to f5loar For This Useful Post:


  31. #24
    ===========
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,628

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Quote Originally Posted by J.Albert View Post
    Mike wrote above:
    "Last year I bought a recent Gibson F-9 (2012, I think) from a Cafe sponsor, and I HATED it."

    Just wonderin'...
    What didn't you like about it?

    It may sound stupid, but the honest answer is: 'Almost Everything'.

    The action was uncomfortably uneven almost all the way up and down the fretboard - despite numerous adjustments to the bridge, (the neck already looked good). The tone was highly unspectacular, and even sub-par. Everything else about the mandolin was just as unspectacular to me as well. Eventually I just gave up REALLY trying to make it work, and sent it back.

    Someday when I become a real mandolin player, I will try to upgrade again.

  32. #25

    Default Re: Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

    Well that just goes to show why there is more than one builder. The one new F9 I played was wonderful, provided you want that Gibson chop. Nothing I've played like it.
    Silverangel A
    Arches F style kit
    1913 Gibson A-1

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •