nut width of BM's July 9 1923 mandolin?

[dan in va]

Haven't stumbled on this measurement of the Great Picker's famous F5, but remember an interview where he said the neck was "really small". Well...just wondering how small?

[Tobin]

As I recall, the standard nut width of a Loar F5 is 1-1/16".

[CWRoyds]

I seem to remember reading that Monroe's Loar has a 1" nut width.
I only remember that because it seems awful narrow when I read it.
Could be wrong, but I remember that from somewhere, maybe that article about when they gave back the repaired mandolin to BM.

[pops1]

I had a 1918 A with a 1 1/8 nut, and a 1922 with a 1 1/4 nut. I'm wondering if there was a not lot of consistency.

[mandotool]

One way to find out..

https://cartervintage.com/collection...nt=20352291267

[Jeff Mando]

One way to find out..

https://cartervintage.com/collection...nt=20352291267

I'm surprised that hasn't sold.............................................. ......!!!

I also wonder if Wood knew to correct for the intonation error that seems to be mentioned a lot these days......Thile, Gilchrist, etc......

[dan in va]

i appreciate all the replies.

Mandotool, that's a great idea to check out the old F5 fretboatd at Carter's. E-mail sent. Maybe the angle of the photo could make a difference, but the distance from frets 7-9 seems to be the same as the width at the nut. The absence of binding would also change the measurement.

Seems like somebody out there ought to know the nut width at the fretboard, tho.

[Jim Hilburn]

It always looked extra small in pictures with Bill. I speculated that's why he started playing up the neck.

[robert.najlis]

I have heard from people that had first hand knowledge that it was 1", but of course I don't have first hand knowledge myself.

[robert.najlis]

It always looked extra small in pictures with Bill. I speculated that's why he started playing up the neck.

Having a mandolin with a 1" nut width, I can say that it makes it much easier to play out of chord position up the neck.

[Loudloar]

I did play Bill's mandolin (many years ago.) I'm used to the standard-width nut on my mandolin and I didn't notice any difference playing his mandolin. One sixteenth is a noticeable difference on a mandolin neck.

I WAS really struck by the tone of his mandolin. It had that dry woody Bill Monroe tone. Mine is the same era and sounds pretty dang good. But Bill's had a tone unlike any other mandolin; and I've played a lot of those old Loars.

Steve

[f5loar]

That rumor got started based on close up photos of Monroe's hand on the fingerboard in the G position. Monroe had really big hands, that much I do remember and that was really strong too!

[Hendrik Ahrend]

When talking about neck width and feel in a Gibson F5, one might want to not only look at the nut width, but also at the finger board width at the 12th fret, which is wider on Loars than on every recent Gibson F I've seen. BTW the nut width on my '24 Loar is 26.5 mms, thus a bit less than 1 1/16 inch.

[Jim Hilburn]

You would expect they had some form of template and cutting system that insured consistency in making their boards and that there would be no reason to expect Bill's to be any different than any other F-5.

[AlanN]

That rumor got started based on close up photos of Monroe's hand on the fingerboard in the G position. Monroe had really big hands, that much I do remember and that was really strong too!

Yep.

The mandolin was dwarfed in his hands, just like Duffey's was.

- Mooch out

[dan in va]

No answer from Carter's on the old Monroe fretboard, but Walter was kind enough to let me know the July 9th 1923 F5 for sale has a nut width of 1.058", which is a little smaller than the board (including binding) which measures 1.087" at the nut.

It would be nice to know the width of the old fretboard (maybe someone from the Cafe can check when stopping by Carter's), but if it's unbound, i would still be guessing the width. Unless the unbound part of the above Loar could be measured and compared.

Yessir, i've always been impressed with the Monroe and Duffey paws. i wonder how much their size and weight contributed to the tone they got.

[Jeff Mando]

No answer from Carter's on the old Monroe fretboard, but Walter was kind enough to let me know the July 9th 1923 F5 for sale has a nut width of 1.058", which is a little smaller than the board (including binding) which measures 1.087" at the nut.

Not to pick on Walter, but a pet peeve of mine lately has been people referring to measurements in thousandths of an inch -- WHICH BASICALLY TELLS ME NOTHING -- without getting my calculator out and doing the conversion. I know, I know, he is just reading from a digital caliper..........but, for 60 years we have talked in terms of fractions of inches, 1 1/16 inches, 1 1/8 inches, 1 3/16 inches for example -- people, please don't make it that hard. Especially when a potential sale is at stake. I see this tomfoolery on eBay all the time, picturing a digital caliper next to the guitar nut! Same goes with millimeters, yuck! Same goes with cell phones, yuck! Same goes with..........oops, bedtime.

[f5loar]

Bobby Osborne has a heafty hand and his late 20's Fern does have a bit more width than Loars. I'd worry more about how the overall neck/fingerboard feel to you than what others say it feels to them.

[William Smith]

Exactly Tom, I've played quite a few old 5's "not nearly as many as some of you guys" But ya have to check the overall neck picture! some have different shapes as well, some not to comfy! I ran into this when I was playing a few 30's F-5's, one from 37 had such a big V type neck well I sure didn't get that one, plus it needed some serious work, necksets aint cheap! I was lucky on my 36 fern, I got it unseen pretty much but trusted the seller by telling him what I like in a neck and he was spot on and I love the neck on the 36! A club neck may be fine if your Monroe or the big man DUFFEY but even Duffey's old 7 conversion has a small round neck!

[Mandoplumb]

Not to pick on Walter, but a pet peeve of mine lately has been people referring to measurements in thousandths of an inch -- WHICH BASICALLY TELLS ME NOTHING -- without getting my calculator out and doing the conversion. I know, I know, he is just reading from a digital caliper..........but, for 60 years we have talked in terms of fractions of inches, 1 1/16 inches, 1 1/8 inches, 1 3/16 inches for example -- people, please don't make it that hard. Especially when a potential sale is at stake. I see this tomfoolery on eBay all the time, picturing a digital caliper next to the guitar nut! Same goes with millimeters, yuck! Same goes with cell phones, yuck! Same goes with..........oops, bedtime.

I agree Jeff. This digital crap in photography, recording, and measurement is a whole lot of what is wrong with the world.

[Jeff Mando]

Unrelated to this discussion, but another pet peeve I have that I see often online is folks making reference to the action at the 12th fret on guitars as being 5/64th of an inch on the big E and 4/64th of an inch on the lil E............c'mon people who ever heard of 4/64th's -- you always reduce the fraction, right? It should be 1/16th! Simple. Sometimes, (well, daily, in fact) I just shake my head and think where in the world did these people go to school???????????

[mandotool]

Point of order..
The introduction of the thousandth of an inch ( 0.001 “ )as a sensible base unit in engineering and machining was introduced around 1844, it continues to be universally used in North American manufacturing where specifications of certain products are important …
Unless of course a more exact unit of measurement is required … Then you bump over another decimal place to ten-thousandsth’s of an inch ( 0.0001)..
Beyond that you go to microns…. which we can all agree…. are just plain silly..

Measuring in thousandth's of an inch is the appropriate way to document
Monroe's Loar ...most here would agree it is an item of some importance..

[pops1]

Unrelated to this discussion, but another pet peeve I have that I see often online is folks making reference to the action at the 12th fret on guitars as being 5/64th of an inch on the big E and 4/64th of an inch on the lil E............c'mon people who ever heard of 4/64th's -- you always reduce the fraction, right? It should be 1/16th! Simple. Sometimes, (well, daily, in fact) I just shake my head and think where in the world did these people go to school???????????

While I understand taking a fraction to it's lowest denominator, and I do it in other ways, I tend to make my measurements in 32's. I reference to that as it is what I am familiar with and use. So instead of saying 1/16 I will say 2/32. My ruler has 32's on the edge and it is easier and more accurate for measurements, I have gotten accustom to it. I have also been know to use 2.5/32 instead of 3/64. Since I would have to find a different place on my ruler that is not as easy or impossible to use to be able to use 64's I stay with what I am reading on the ruler. If I say 2.5 it is not exactly accurate as I am eyeballing the half way, but works for me.

[Mandoplumb]

[QUOTE=mandotool;1593451]Point of order..
The introduction of the thousandth of an inch ( 0.001 “ )as a sensible base unit in engineering and machining was introduced around 1844, it continues to be universally used in North American manufacturing where specifications of certain products are important …
Unless of course a more exact unit of measurement is required … Then you bump over another decimal place to ten-thousandsth’s of an inch ( 0.0001)..
Beyond that you go to microns…. which we can all agree…. are just plain silly..
Measuring in thousandth's of an inch is the appropriate way to document Monroe's Loar ...most here would agree it is an item of some importance..[/QUOT

My Dad was a machinist he never would have said one thousandth it was ten ten thousandth. When talking minute measurement it was always ten thousandths. He was also a musician and if asked the width of a mandolin nut he would have said an inch and an eighth. The term used was dependent on how precise a measurement was needed. He would never have said he needed a five hundred ten thousandth sheet of plywood.

[BradKlein]

This thread has taken some sharp turns!