Gibson A4 Mandolin, Is the top caved in?

[mandy52]

Hi all,

I have an opportunity to buy this 1920s Gibson A4 mandolin. I've done some of my own research, and found that it is not all that unusual for the Gibson A style mandolins to have a sunken or caved in tops. Because I'm not an expert and I only have some photos to go by, I was hoping someone can help me with this. I do think that the first photo is telling. It's a side view of the mandolin and it does look sunken in at the bridge. But, I would like to get confirmation that this is in fact the case. And, If it is sunken in, what is the likelyhood of fixing it and at what cost. And lastly, how much would this effect the overall value. Any help is appreciated. I should also mention I can purchase the mandolin for around $700.

thank you for your help

Mandy52

[MikeEdgerton]

It looks like the top has sunk a bit. Tops sink for a few reasons one f them being loose braces. Does it rattle or buzz when you play it?

[Troy Engle]

That's not a 20's mandolin. It's from the 30's. It's actually an A-50. The ones I have had, I remember have had a flatter arch. Just be sure the brace is not loose. That would cause the top to sink. That's a good deal, if it plays good and need no repairs.

[Tavy]

I suspect Troy is correct about that being an A50 - they were only made like that for about a year before they switched them to f-holes. They're nice instruments, yes the tops do sink a little (no tone bars, just one small lateral brace by the sound hole), and no the top isn't caved in. If you can snag it for $700 that's a good deal, just double check that the brace isn't loose when you get it, but I'd say it was probably just fine.

[mandy52]

I suspect Troy is correct about that being an A50 - they were only made like that for about a year before they switched them to f-holes. They're nice instruments, yes the tops do sink a little (no tone bars, just one small lateral brace by the sound hole), and no the top isn't caved in. If you can snag it for $700 that's a good deal, just double check that the brace isn't loose when you get it, but I'd say it was probably just fine.

Thank you for your replies.

I don't have the mandolin in my possession at this point, so some of the things you've asked I can't answer.

I see now that you're correct that it is a 1933 A-50. Were the A-50 models as prone to top sagging as other early gibson mandolins were.

In general (all things being equal) how does an A-50 mandolin compare to a A4 in value?

Does the A-50 have the same small lateral single top brace as the A4 does?

From the photos does the top on this mandolin look to be sagging and if so, how badly on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the worst).

The owner states that the action is good, but I don't know if the bridge has been raised.

Can you tell from the photos if the bridge is original and it it has been raised?

If the bridge is original and it has not been raised and the action is good, would that mean the top hasn't sagged or it is sagged but minimally?

Sorry, for all the questions. I'm interested in buying this mando, but I don't want to make a mistake and buy something that is in bad condition.

thanks you to all

mandy52

[Tavy]

The answer to most of your questions is "don't know" or rather "can't tell". I would say that if someone offered me that one at $700 I'd open my mouth wide and bite their arm off 'cos it's a good deal But... I'm used to fixing things and am not fazed by a bit of top sinkage.

As for value.... A4's are going for $3-4K for early ones, $7-8K for Loar-era snakeheads. A50's more like $1500 tops - but that's for the f-hole model which were made by the bucket load. Either way it's still a good deal, just factor in some $$'s to have a luthier check it over and set it up nice.

[William Smith]

Thank you for your replies.

I don't have the mandolin in my possession at this point, so some of the things you've asked I can't answer.

I see now that you're correct that it is a 1933 A-50. Were the A-50 models as prone to top sagging as other early gibson mandolins were.

In general (all things being equal) how does an A-50 mandolin compare to a A4 in value?

Does the A-50 have the same small lateral single top brace as the A4 does?

From the photos does the top on this mandolin look to be sagging and if so, how badly on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the worst).

The owner states that the action is good, but I don't know if the bridge has been raised.

Can you tell from the photos if the bridge is original and it it has been raised?

If the bridge is original and it has not been raised and the action is good, would that mean the top hasn't sagged or it is sagged but minimally?

Sorry, for all the questions. I'm interested in buying this mando, but I don't want to make a mistake and buy something that is in bad condition.

thanks you to all

mandy52

Hey Mandi, This is my opinion, I've owned and own loads of Gibson mandolins from the 30's, never been too , I'm a fan of all the depression era diversity! That A-50 to me does look like a bit of sagging, but for that price get it because it looks like an elevated fretboard model "fretboard end raised above top" and they sound way better than most A-models to me than the A's glued to the top, granted I've only owned a bunch of the A-50's with elevated boards from 35, the only year they did that with A-F-hole models, I've never seen any others A-F-holes with elevated boards, except raised F's. My point is that cheap if there has been no refinish issues, don't look it to me, may be a great mando for you with some repair to top or neck set, dealers want a little over 2G for the elevated A's, "they haven't been getting that" As our buddy Troy said them A's, must be the round holes have flatter arch, The A F-holes that had elevated boards I had didn't so there may be an issue with the top brace or shallow neck set!
If its a raised board model, but has problems I'D STILL get it, Thats me anyway and get it fixed,
But if you want one to play now you may could do better? Billy Smith

[fscotte]

Just buy it. Its good for that price.

[Capt. E]

It is not an A-50. There was never an oval hole A-50, which did not appear until the '40's. A-50's always had f holes. The last oval hole Gibson was about 1933.

[brunello97]

It is not an A-50. There was never an oval hole A-50, which did not appear until the '40's. A-50's always had f holes. The last oval hole Gibson was about 1933.

Cap'n, Paul Fox shows an oval hole A-50 on page 118 in his "Complete Guide to Gibson Mandolins". He lists them in production from '33-'39 and says the "50" designation came from their original price: $50!

Check it out.

Mick

[mandroid]

I have a '22 A4 with a TR, I expect it was introduced then, as the TRC is nickel plated brass

to highlight it's being there.


...

[mandy52]

Cap'n, Paul Fox shows an oval hole A-50 on page 118 in his "Complete Guide to Gibson Mandolins". He lists them in production from '33-'39 and says the "50" designation came from their original price: $50!

Check it out.

Mick

Thanks again everyone for all your insights.

Here is some information I have garnered about this mandolin.

It is a 1933 A-50 with the raised fretboard. 1933 was the first year for the A-50 and the only year the A-50 had the oval sound hole. From the 1934-1971 the A-50 had f-holes. I've attached copy from a 1933 Gibson catalog showing the introduction of the 1933 A-50.

I've attached a couple of new photos I received of the mandolin, one is showing the mandolin sitting in it's case and the other is showing a side angle. Now here's where it gets interesting. If you look closely at the photo of the mandolin sitting in it's case, you see a clear well formed top arch. You also, see that the bridge fits precisely to the arch. The two things suggests to me that the top is nicely arched (not flat). If you look at the next photo showing a good side angle of the top, there is "no" arch visible. This has me baffled. Tell me what you think regarding these two photos. regards mandy52

[William Smith]

Yes for sure an A-50! Right before they switched to F-holes in 35 I think. Like you said pry a 33-34 depending on FON#? I don't believe I've seen a 34 with F-holes, the 34's I've seen have been round hole. Looks like a nice one, I'd STILL buy it at that price, your 2 pix have me wondering also,by the side view it looks like some top warp/sinkage but unless I had it in my paws, don't know, It could be OK depending on neck angle, It can be fixed, not ready for the fire yet.

[pops1]

If you look at the side view the binding is the start of the side, the bridge foot is above the binding level by a fair amount, if there is any sinkage it must be minimal. The foot of the bridge is not the top of the arch by any means. It doesn't look like a high arch, but then a lot of mandolins don't have a high arch.

[Capt. E]

Ok. I know the '30's was a mixed up era for Gibson mandolins. Now that I think about it, I do remember the oval A-50's of the 30's
. They didn't make many (didn't make many mandolins at all. Question is, when did the A-50 become an f hole instrument? I have owned a couple of A-00s made '36-37. The A-00 is what confused me.

[William Smith]

Ok. I know the '30's was a mixed up era for Gibson mandolins. Now that I think about it, I do remember the oval A-50's of the 30's
. They didn't make many (didn't make many mandolins at all. Question is, when did the A-50 become an f hole instrument? I have owned a couple of A-00s made '36-37. The A-00 is what confused me.

In 1935 the A-50's got the F-holes and inherited the elevated board for just that year, I haven't seen anymore A-50's with elevated board after 35, Gibson did have an A-75 with elevated board with F-holes,that had different wood,finish,inlays than the A-50. With Gibson back then anything was possible, there were the wide bodied A-50's with flowerpot peghead inlays along with F-7 fretboard inlays, I think Gibson was using whatever they had leftover and what some customers wanted as maybe custom work? and making cheaper models it was the depression.

[Bob A]

OK, the issue is top sinkage.

I can only speak to my own experience, which may be of some benefit.

I have a 1921 F4. At some point early in my possession of it, I noticed a slight "dishing" of the top, under the bridge. Looking inside, I saw that the transverse brace had come partially detached. I de-tuned it and took it in for repair. The brace was re-glued; it's possible the luthier did a bit of steaming to minimise the sinking, but I don't recall.

Since that time, I've had no further issues regarding the top. It plays and intonates well. If you tilt it to the side and light it across the top, you can see there is a little depression in the area of the bass foot of the bridge. It's hardly noticeable, unless you're looking for it, and even then it's barely measurable.

So long as the bracing remains intact, there will be no further sinking. So long as the sinking has not adversely affected the string height, and is stabilised, I don't think that a bit of sink is a big deal, based on my experience. I've tried to measure it, but it's difficult. I'd guess my sinkage is in the area of .003-.005", or less than half the diameter of the thinnest E string.

I measured it by applying a straightedge tangent to the top, and noting the distance between the edge and the top of the instrument. I eyeballed the gap, and attempted to duplicate it with a micrometer, so it's not the most accurate of measurements, but I'm convinced it's close.

I'm not able to judge the sinkage in your instrument from the photos, so all this is of limited value. While I'd not hesitate to buy a mandolin in the same condition as mine, I've been offered - and rejected - an instrument with what I recall to be a considerable more compromised top.

There are ways to repair these things, but sometimes the wood fibers are too compromised by crushing to respond. It's a determination that can probably only be made by having the instrument in hand, examined by a professional.

While I doubt this post will be at all useful, bear in mind that the world is full of mandolins. If it turns out that you pass on this one, another will be out there, with your name on it.

[acousticphd]

Thanks again everyone for all your insights.

Here is some information I have garnered about this mandolin.

It is a 1933 A-50 with the raised fretboard. 1933 was the first year for the A-50 and the only year the A-50 had the oval sound hole. From the 1934-1971 the A-50 had f-holes. I've attached copy from a 1933 Gibson catalog showing the introduction of the 1933 A-50.

I've attached a couple of new photos I received of the mandolin, one is showing the mandolin sitting in it's case and the other is showing a side angle. Now here's where it gets interesting. If you look closely at the photo of the mandolin sitting in it's case, you see a clear well formed top arch. You also, see that the bridge fits precisely to the arch. The two things suggests to me that the top is nicely arched (not flat). If you look at the next photo showing a good side angle of the top, there is "no" arch visible. This has me baffled. Tell me what you think regarding these two photos. regards mandy52

I think what you're describing as "baffling" is fairly normal and common for a 75+ year old oval hole mandolin.
Obviously the top is carved and arched. At the same time, the bridge down-pressure has somewhat flattened out the peak. All of my older mandolins show this to some degree (oval or f-hole). Sometimes the flattening or dipping is more pronounced on one side (bass or treble). Your photos seem to show that the treble side of the bridge is raised higher than the bass side (you can see the top of the bass-side screw, but not the treble). I would suggest having the brace checked, but my prediction is that it is fine. If it was loose and the top really "caved", I would expect to see the bridge standing a lot higher (a lot of space between the foot and the saddle).

Also, the model pictured in the catalog photo is not identical to the the one in question - it has an unbound fingerboard.
This is plus, btw, as you don't have to worry about the binding loosening (something you see on a lot of old A50s).

I'm also not convinced from the photos that I see an "elevated" FB, but this isn't really clear.

I would all be over this mandolin if I had the chance! This one has all the attributes I love combined together: the oval soundhole and wider fingerboard of that period, a nice sunburst, plus (big bonus) an adjustable truss rod that most of the teens-twenties A-styles lacked. I'm not familiar with the 1930s Gibson "oval hole sound", if it differed at all. But these days common A50s are (over)priced by hundreds more than this everywhere you look. You have a chance to get something quite rare for a fair price. I'd do it.

[brunello97]

I'm also not convinced from the photos that I see an "elevated" FB, but this isn't really clear.

Has this been verified? I agree with Jeff that the OP's photo is a bit unclear about that.

Mick

[acousticphd]

If these fingerboards were "elevated", it wasn't anything like the degree that an A5 fingerboard is elevated.
If there is space between the FB and the top, it is pretty thin.

[William Smith]

If these fingerboards were "elevated", it wasn't anything like the degree that an A5 fingerboard is elevated.
If there is space between the FB and the top, it is pretty thin.

No for sure not the degree of an A5, Yes on the elevated boards on the round holes there really isn't much room, there is on the 35 elevated F-hole A-50's as long as they don't need a neck set, at least the ones I've owned.
On one post Mandi said it was elevated, I couldn't tell from the photos I clicked on, but like you said the space is pretty thin. I think Players Vintage Instruments have around same year A-50 and Mandolin World Headquarters also has one that you can really see how small the space is between the mando top to bottom of extension..I'd still buy it at that price... bummer in the pix posted it doesn't have original case and tailpiece cover!

[Troy Engle]

If these fingerboards were "elevated", it wasn't anything like the degree that an A5 fingerboard is elevated.
If there is space between the FB and the top, it is pretty thin.

This is a pic of the last 30's A-50 I had. Yes, they are elevated, and so much so that they have a support under the fingerboard extension ala an F-5 or A-5.. If you've never owned one of these or seen one in person, why speculate about what you don't know about. The amount of incorrect info on this thread is amazing.

[Roger Adams]

To the OP: If you don't buy this instrument, message me the contact details, and I will buy it in "a New York Minute"! Cheers!

[NEH57]

To be honest, this began to feel like an advert.....

[acousticphd]

This is a pic of the last 30's A-50 I had. Yes, they are elevated, and so much so that they have a support under the fingerboard extension ala an F-5 or A-5.. If you've never owned one of these or seen one in person, why speculate about what you don't know about. The amount of incorrect info on this thread is amazing.

Thanks for this photo; it certainly makes clear what the photos of the Craigslist instrument do not. Interesting that yours also did not have the bound FB in the catalog description and illustration.