nut width of BM's July 9 1923 mandolin?

[Mandoplumb]

This thread has taken some sharp turns!

Don't they all?

[doc holiday]

while you're ranting about the thousandth....the rest of the world adopted the metric system a long time ago. BTW....what was the nut width of Bill Monroe's mandolin ;-) ?

[mandotool]

while you're ranting about the thousandth....the rest of the world adopted the metric system a long time ago. BTW....what was the nut width of Bill Monroe's mandolin ;-) ?

27 MM ??

[pops1]

while you're ranting about the thousandth....the rest of the world adopted the metric system a long time ago. BTW....what was the nut width of Bill Monroe's mandolin ;-) ?

[dan in va]

I just received another gracious e-mail from Walter Carter. I was wondering if the wood at the nut (excluding binding) on the old BM fretboard and their July 9 '23 Loar had the same measurement. To quote, "Both fretboards are 1 1/32" at the nut." I reckon this info ought to suit everyone out there, no?

What nice folks the Carters are. It just makes me wanna do more bidness with them. Hmmm...maybe the right taterbug will come along....

[Darryl Wolfe]

July 9 Loars are unquestionably the narrowest and slimmest necks among Loars. They are quite triangular

Mine is 1-1/16" or slightly under

[dan in va]

Thanks for the great info, Darryl. i would like very much to have an accurate drawing of the neck shape in a few places so i can get my Stanley shaped that way.

[HoGo]

My drawings contain set of crossections of Loar neck (April '23) taken from CT scan. Should be quite close to July 9 Loars. Width of the neck is barely 1" without binding at the nut and hair under 1 5/64" (27.3mm) with binding.

[dan in va]

i appreciate the info on the April '23 neck, Adrian. Methinks accurate dimensions of the July 9 neck is the way i'll go because it's somewhat slimmer, according to Darryl.

So, does anyone out there have neck drawings or know where i can get them of the July 9, 1923 Loar neck?

[sblock]

This is getting silly. Maybe an inability (or is it unwillingness?) to convert decimal to fraction, and vice versa, is behind the reason why our country still can't seem to switch to the metric system, used by the entire rest of the civilized world? With calculators so handy on all our smart phones and computers, there would seem to be little excuse for this level of laziness (or is it stubbornness?), it seems to me. This is elementary school math!

Regardless of whether you decide to use thousandths of an inch as your preferred unit of US/English measurement (which is what the vast majority of US machinists use THESE DAYS, despite any older traditions), or try to round all these numbers to fractions of an inch (in powers of two, like 1/8", 1/16", 1/32", 1/64"), perhaps we could all agree that the Bill Monroe's Loar had a nut width of something very close to 1"? If it was truly 1.058", then that value rounds to something very near 1-1/16" (1.0625"), a fraction that is accurate to the nearest 1/64th of an inch.

This nut is just a bit narrower, by a bit over 1/16", than the popular 1-1/8" standard adopted by so many mandolin makers today, and quite a bit narrower than so-called "wide nut" mandolins that are typically from 1-3/16" to 1-1/4" across, or even more, and popular among converted guitarists who can't quite seem to adapt.

And for those who like metric, 1-1/16" is 27 mm, 1-1/8" is 28.5 mm, 1-3/16" is 30 mm, and 1-1/4" is 32 mm, rounded to the nearest half mm.

[HoGo]

Shaun, I understand you fully. Being European I had to learn US measurements after I got into the mandolin building where almost all measurements are in inches, and mostly fractional. But in my latest version of drawings I decided to show all measurements in metric as well, perhaps not many US customers will find it useful but for me it is end to all of the multiplying or dividing by 25.4 .

[Darryl Wolfe]

My drawings contain set of crossections of Loar neck (April '23) taken from CT scan. Should be quite close to July 9 Loars. Width of the neck is barely 1" without binding at the nut and hair under 1 5/64" (27.3mm) with binding.

I inaccurately told Dan that your drawings were from a July 9. I thought they came from a sidebound 7400x

The April necks are somewhat beefier than the July 9's. The nut width on mine is 1.055". The neck depth in front of the nut (top of FB to back of neck) is 0.810" and stays relatively the same to the 5th fret where it gradually increases, but not a whole lot

There is absolutely no skirt of neck that stays as wide as the fingerboard. It falls away in a uniform triangular shape. The Aprils are more of a "C" shape, although narrowish like the July 9's

[dan in va]

Somehow i've always thought of the 7/9/23 batch as being side bound, but i just realized there were some top bound mandolins in that batch. Do both the side and top bound mandolins in that batch have the same neck profile?

Darryl, no worry about the April necks. i figured that out. BTW, i tried to send a reply to your PM, but i'm not sure it got thru.

Adrian, thanks for your contributions.

The 3 different systems of measuring: fraction, decimal, and metric used to bother me, but i stopped whining with conversion charts, bought an econo dial caliper and use all 3 now. However the board is welcome to rant on if'n suits you.

[Oliver A.]

I think we should all settle on the cubit since that is God's measurement. The standard mandolin fingerboard width at the nut would then be 1/16th_c or 1.125" or 1 1/8" or 28.575mm

It is easy to see why God chose the cubit, as it is the simplest way to express nut width perfection.

Personally, I use as standard, a nut width of 1/15.766_c or .0634_c. But that's the difference between me and God.

[Jim Hilburn]

A cubit is from your elbow to your fingertip. That way everyone had a measure with them even though there was some variance. Close enough for mud huts, pyramids and arks, though.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

Just like the inch and the foot?

[CWRoyds]

Yeah, I hate inches...
I have been designing and manufacturing wrist watches for 25 years, so everything in my life is millimeters.
Metric is SO much more accurate and simple, especially when dealing with tiny things.
With watches it is essential.

When trying to figure out what the inch references really meant for nut widths, I had to make a diagram so my head didn't explode.
I will attach my visual reference for the few general standard nut widths below.
Note that I had to convert to mm for my own sanity.
I may have converted incorrectly, but that is another matter.
(Not to scale, just for relative width visual).

[Jeff Mando]

As I see it, the reason to continue the use of inches is tradition, of course. That's what they used in Kalamazoo a hundred years ago. If the Gibson F-5 came from some other country, it probably would be in mm. CW, you are actually making a case for the use of inches, by posting such a chart. You are correct, more accuracy with mm, but no more so than thousands of an inch.......? And, with mandolins, that degree of accuracy is totally unnecessary once you get past a 1/32 of an inch. Plus, it is awkward....everybody knows what an inch and an eighth is, but try to picture 28.575mm in your mind........

Actually, playing the devil's advocate here, I did picture framing for years and mostly used mm. No more accurate, just faster -- provided you have the right ruler or t-square handy. But, again, they make rulers with 1/32 and 1/64ths.....I have some. Mostly I was complaining about the overuse of digital calipers and micrometers -- and the presumption of added accuracy -- but if nobody knows what you are talking about WITHOUT having to do a conversion......

I'm guessing Bill's probably started out as 1 1/4, but got worn down by so much play time over the years!

[CWRoyds]

CW, you are actually making a case for the use of inches, by posting such a chart. You are correct, more accuracy with mm, but no more so than thousands of an inch.......? And, with mandolins, that degree of accuracy is totally unnecessary once you get past a 1/32 of an inch. Plus, it is awkward....everybody knows what an inch and an eighth is, but try to picture 28.575mm in your mind........

LOL. Awwww, come now.
Of course the decimals after the millimeters was not completely necessary.
That is what the conversion from the fractions of an inch gave me.
I was being far too accurate, that I give you, and I thought about that when I did the chart.
I thought that was a given, and I gave the decimals just to show if it was close to one mm or the next.
I should have rounded them to 27mm, 28mm, 29mm, 30mm,and 32mm
Certainly those round mm numbers going up is far easier to wrap your head around than all the different fractions of an inch.

When you built something in inches it is not easier to do than if you built it in MM, CM, etc.
Metric is just divisions of tens.
SO much more simple than a convoluted system of fractions.
There is no way to argue inches are more simple than the metric system.

Tradition is fine, but to stick to tradition for the sake of tradition, to the detriment of ease and logic is not always a great idea.
There is a reason the rest of the world went to the metric system.
It is far more logical, easy to use, and more accurate when dealing in small measurements.

BUT, to each his own, as they say.
Stick to the inches if you must, but I am very happy working only in the metric system.

[dan in va]

All the splitting of measurement hairs is well and good. Yet, i'm still wondering if there are differences in the neck profiles in the July 9, 1923 F5 Loar signed batch, between the side bound and top bound mandolins signed on this date. i've PM's F5 Loar and would like to hear from anybody who knows. Could it be these were actually 2 different batches signed on this date? (i have no knowledge of the FON)

So all y'all cab go ahead with your banter. Meanwhile, maybe Tom or another Loar guy will reply soon.

Thanks, everybody....dan

[Dale Ludewig]

Where do hat sizes fit into all this? What unit is a 1 when the hat size is 7 3/8?

[pheffernan]

Could it be these were actually 2 different batches signed on this date? (i have no knowledge of the FON)

I'm no expert, and I don't have the FON's either, but the Mandolin Archive has three pretty complete clusters of July 9 F5's -- 73719-73733, 73747-73755, and 73980-74002 -- with the side-bounds (including Monroe's 73987) in the last group.

http://www.mandolinarchive.com/perl/...pl?f_model:15:

[JFDilmando]

Nut width on 73755 (July 9 Fern) is 1.1 "
Depth of neck just below nut (including finger board is .805 "

[HoGo]

Nut on my drawings is 1.066" wide and 0.685" deep without board, 0.651" at first fret without board. 0.835" at first fret with board. (this mandolin is double side-bound fretboard with extra layer of black veneer under board to crete the black line) 0.832 at second fret (including board), so actually the neck is thinnest somewhere around fret 3. There is smooth transition from neck shaft into both heel and headstock curvature.
The cross-section is quite triangular IMO.

[dan in va]

Adrian, this is the kind of info i'm looking for. Thank you so much!! It would be helpful if more of these were posted.

John D, thank you for the measurements in your post. This will help me also.