Vega Mandolin--Which One to Get

[Cliff Seruntine]

I posted recently that a friend of mine who is a serious musical instrument collector has offered me my choice of two lovely Vega cylinder backs.

1. One is their presentation model: flamed maple back and sides, beautiful floral mother-of-pearl inlay. It has probably more use and been more stressed in its roughly century of existence since it has required several repairs in the soundboard over the decades. Other than that, there is some wear and scuffing of the body but nothing significant. Because all the repairs have been in the soundboard, however, I worry it may be slowly buckling, but who knows, it could last a long time yet. Or not.

2. The other Vega cylinder is pristine: little wear and no damage, all original parts, all excellent shape. It is one of the models without inlay. It has a mahogany back (and, I think, sides). No signs of buckling or stress in the soundboard.

Sound: 1, the presentation model is brighter. 2, the mahogany back, is warmer and sweeter. Neither is loud but both have good volume. The presentation model (1) is distinctly brighter and a little louder than the mahogany model (2).

I am debating between getting 1 or 2.

I am probably going to get one and was wanting input. I know I am going to be asked what kind of music do I play and why do I want it. I live in Nova Scotia and play Celtic music (Scots and Irish) almost exclusively, maybe now and then some classical, Gypsy, etc, but 99% Celtic. That's where my heart's at.

I also am not a collector so I'd like to avoid maintenance issues as much as possible. I like the idea of a vintage, unique instrument but my real goal is something with a special tone, and both these Vegas have that in spades.

So, my question is: Is it better to get the maple back presentation model even with its repairs for its additional loudness and brightness, or get the warmer, slightly less loud but pristine condition mahogany back model?

Your thoughts, as always, are appreciated.

He lives several hours away and I don't have pics. Here are some he sent me. He's a remarkable musician but a lousy photographer, so I apologize for the photos in advance. (Laughing as I say this, don't take it too seriously, if you see this.) The one with the floral inlay on the pickguard is the Vega Presentation model, and second is the Vega mahogany back.

[Jim Garber]

The pearly fancy one is a style 207. The simple mahogany one is a 202. I believe that the simpler one was made later indicated by the star on the peghead and the sunburst finish.

As I noted on another thread about vintage instruments you started, the prime problem with these cylinder back mandolins is the warpage of the top. I took your friend's photos and lightened and put them together to compare. I assume that the soundboard repairs on the 207 have to do with that sinkage. It is hard to tell from the photo but it looks to me that the bridge was shimmed on the treble end which would indicate some serious warpage.

The 202 looks all right though I am not sure that the bridge on it is original. Most Vega bridges on these are much more elegant looking. That one looks pretty chunky. On the 202 models usually they are all ebony and pretty slim and longer. This one also looks high which might indicate some top warpage or sinkage or possibly a need for a neck reset. Below is a shot of an earlier 202 with original Vega bridge.

Frankly, I would ask your friend for some clearer and lighter photos, especially since you cannot actually go and look at these mandolins before you buy. Ask him to take some photos from the side showing the top and also showing the neck angle and action. The more photos the better and, if possible, to take them in good light, preferably outside in daylight.

These are lovely instruments but there are some issues in the design that a buyer should be aware of. From the photos I would say that if you had to pick one, I would go for the 202 tho I would make sure there really are no issues. I do love the look of the 207 but it looks to me like it had had a hard life.

[Cliff Seruntine]

Frankly, I would ask your friend for some clearer and lighter photos, especially since you cannot actually go and look at these before you buy. Ask him to take some photos from the side showing the top and also showing the neck angle and action.

These are lovely instruments but there are some issues in the design that a buyer should be aware of. From the photos i would say that if you had to pick one, I would go for the 202. I do lobe the look of the 207 but it looks to me like it had had a hard life.

That's much what I was thinking. The bling isn't a big deal to me. But I live in very, VERY rural Nova Scotia. The closest luthier is hours away, so I need to try to avoid a frequent need of one. If I get one, I am also leaning toward the 202.

I saw your post about the potential for top warpage. It was a good point. John has been very straightforward about all the faults he suspected in the instrument: "Crack repaired here, there, another here that you can't even see but it's there..." But I thought since all the repairs were on the soundboard that it was probably buckling.

If I buy the 202, I will go down to see it, or perhaps he can mail it to me to try out. I want to compare it to my KM-272. I know this will sound weird, but I have found very few instruments to compare in tone and playability to that fairly inexpensive Kentucky model. I actually went to Halifax a few months ago, willing to spend a couple grand, but nothing short of a classic Gibson costing about $5k appealed to me as much (bare in mind, that's Canadian dollars--it probably wouldn't cost so much in the States).

Thanks for your effort on this, Jim. Here are a couple other pics of the 202 from the side and back. I would love your opinion.

[Jim Garber]

Noah Miller posts here from time to time and he has a nice web site with excellent photos of his collection of fine vintage fretted instruments. He has one page with a 202 very similar to the one you are considering. Note that that bridge does not resemble the one that is on your friend's.



BTW it sounds like you have played both of those CBs. Do you like either of them better than your Kentucky? Of course, I would assume that the Kentucky sounds very different from these.

BTW are you aware of two very interesting luthiers in NS: Brian Dean (in Sydney) and Otis Thomas in Cape Breton. Of course, neither is close to you but if you have some money to spend perhaps you can have one of them build exactly what you want. Neither of them, AFAIK, build "standard" F-5 mandolins and you might have the sound you prefer.

[Seter]

My gut would be to go for the 202 if you're going to being playing it, the 207 with its additional bling but more fragile state might be better for him (or whoever) to use as a display piece. I think the 202 looks great itself though.

[Bob A]

I concur with 202. The more bling, the more things to repair, and you're long miles from a luthier.

Regarding comparisons, comparing a cylinder-back to any other mandolin style results in the apple/orange issue. Their sound is pretty much unique, IMO.

[Cliff Seruntine]

Thanks for all the information. It was very helpful. I also agree. The 202 would be my choice.

[Dacraw54]

There’s a Vega CB in the Classifieds that looks identical to the 207 but is listed as a 205 with no repairs...