Question about "Bad" Gibson F5's

[Bernie Daniel]

Thanks Bernie and Jim for helping me get that video up. It didn't seem to be there after I posted it, but it is now.
Anyway, that's what a 1969 Gibson F5 sounds like.
.....Rickker

Nothing wrong that the sound of that mandolin for sure. Cool version of the tune especially the chorus.

[Rickker]

I know this is getting off-topic, but I am not aware or familiar with the large or “fat” headstock that Bernie referred to earlier in this thread. Never thought mine was any different than the others other than the style of the Gibson lettering.
.....Rickker

[Jim Garber]

I know this is getting off-topic, but I am not aware or familiar with the large or “fat” headstock that Bernie referred to earlier in this thread. Never thought mine was any different than the others other than the style of the Gibson lettering.
.....Rickker

I know your photo was at a backward angle from this one of a Loar F-5 but there is a very different proportion.

[Rickker]

Wow! I see what Bernie meant. Never realized that there had been such a difference. Now, at the risk of going further off topic, was this change related to neck and nut width? I recall reading somewhere that the early F5s, whether Loar signed or not, had narrower necks/fingerboards and nut width of only 1 1/8 while later ones were 1 3/16 or even 1 1/4. Anyway I agree the earlier and current slim peg heads are more elegant.
......Rickker

[Jim Hilburn]

I know that by '29 the nut had been incresed to 1 1/8" from 1 1/16" or sometimes even a bit more narrow. But I don't think that had anything to do with the peghead shape. A guess is that archtop guitars had been the big sellers throughout the 30's and 40's and they ( McCarthy?) wanted to bring the mandolin more in line with what had become quite large pegheads on the guitars.

[Jim Hilburn]

Here's a picture from "The Gibson Story". In '58 Kalamazoo was picked as the All American City to represent America at the Berlin Industrial Fair. This is Berlin mayor Willie Brandt holding the F5. The caption lists Rem Wall, Julius Bellson (author of this book), Ted McCarthy, and Kalamazoo mayor Glenn Allen. However, that sure looks like Hank Garland with the guitar.

[Rickker]

Well, that big headstock is sure noticeable in that photo!
....Rickker ��

[f5loar]

Very nice cross picking with great sound on a great song. I will assure you that you have a genuine 1969 Gibson F5 in original finish. I've seen others with the rather odd shape on the headstock, so yours was not a one off mistake. Not their best work for the era, but much better than the F5 made from late 1970 to 1979. Necks were a bit thicker and nuts a tad bite wider. Fat-head is just a nick name given to the F5s made from 1952 to 1969 due to the oversize from the previous 1922 to 1951 headstocks.

[mandolin breeze]

This was my '69 Custom. I purchased it in about 1999 from a recently formed eBay. I'd been playing for a few years, owned a little Washburn A and longed for a "real mandolin" (NOI). This mando had it's pluses and minuses. Nothing about the sound was on the positive side of the ledger > thick dead top, very little curve to the top or back. These Customs are nothing like Gibson ever made before or since, in feel or tone. What I liked: the neck profile is completely different. Not the traditional rounded V, 1 1/16 width. These necks are wider than a traditional Gibson and thinner. They feel like a mando version of a Fender Telecaster - very comfortable and incredibly easy as heck to play, your hand would just glide up and down the neck. The wide frets helped there I think and the block inlays helped to give it that slinky feel. I'd like to see what Jonathan McClanahan could do with one . . . that would be interesting.

[Rickker]

Hey mandolin breeze, are you sure it was made in 1969? Is the serial number anywhere close to mine, 814400?
There were only 40 F5s built in the Kalamazoo plant in 1969. And I’m pretty sure all of them had a curved profile from the tip of the headstock. Virtually all other F5s, Gibson or other have a perfectly straight line from the tip. Have a look at the side by side photos earlier in this thread.
Or, I suppose the previous owner could have had the headstock reworked to the straight line configuration. I had considered doing this until a good friend pointed out that this made mine unique and should remain authentic.
.....Rickker
..... Rick

[mandolin breeze]

Hey Rick - You know what, I'm not positive. It's what was on the listing and that's what I always thought it was, but no, I'm not sure. Here's the serial number.

[Dale Ludewig]

I'm no Gibson expert. But doesn't it seem obvious from the pictures Jim Garber posted that the headstock shape is different because one picture is of worm-under and the other of worm-over tuners? The headstock has to change to give clearance for the tuner buttons.

[FLATROCK HILL]

I'm no Gibson expert. But doesn't it seem obvious from the pictures Jim Garber posted that the headstock shape is different because one picture is of worm-under and the other of worm-over tuners? The headstock has to change to give clearance for the tuner buttons.

I don't think so. Here's a post-Loar Fern (#87346) with worm-overs and non-fat (1929?) headstock.

[BrianWilliam]

I’ve got a bad one.

Not bad meaning bad, but bad meaning good.

[f5loar]

The above 583026 is also a 1969. You really got to understand those Gibson serial nos. from 1964 to 1974 as there were overlaps, different start of lots and duplication. You need to know catalog specs. to figure it out. And yes, they had the straight headstocks in 1969. Most were straight as this one. The funny looking curved ones I've only seen 4 like that. My explanation is by this time there were not that many guys that could build a complete F5 and some rookie got in there with these curved ones and they let it slide. Possible they were sold as seconds too but they usually had a "2" marked on the top of the headstock. The "Custom" truss rod covers does not mean it was custom made, but rather had to be special order. The F5 and F12 during this era were not stock models for dealers, therefore had to be made by a special order from a dealer, hence the Custom truss rod cover. In the 60's there was close to a 2 years wait after you ordered one. When you got it in and you didn't like it , you could refuse to buy it and it would go on the rack for regular sale.

[MikeZito]

I have owned one of these instruments for over 50 years
.....Rickker

I am somewhat jealous that Rickker has found an instrument that he has felt comfortable with for 50 years . . . I am so scattered (and untalented) that usually 5 years is a long tome for me to keep any instrument. Kudos for Rickker for finding his 'forever' mandolin.

[Br1ck]

Sometimes you stumble onto an instrument that works for you, then a couple of decades go by, and getting something "better" just doesn't justify the cost. Like you bought a Flatiron used in 1995, and that Gibson for 7k just doesn't seem worth it.

[mandroid]

SO... were the A 5s better, in the eras that the F5 manufacturing, was just going through the motions

with lump scrolls and such.. ???

[Jim Hilburn]

Reviving this one, but I've been watching some Clarence White / Kentucky Colonels videos on Youtube. In the early 60's Roland was playing a big peghead Gibson with the block inlays. Someone must know more about that than me, but it's a perfect example of the expansion of bluegrass and the lack of good mandolins that eventually lead to the rise in independent builders filling the void that Gibson ignored.

[mando-tech]

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....

....you really mean -..."I [couldn't] care less",...instead of "I COULD care less" !

[Astro]

nevermind...didnt realize this was an old thread and I'd already posted (again)