Forgot How Beautiful F4 Mandolins Are...

[Nalapombu]

Hey all,

I was nosing through the Classifieds and came across an F4. I never really considered these to be as nice or pretty as the F5 is, but after looking at that one, and some others that I Googled, boy I was wrong. Those F4 mandolins are so beautiful. I really like the oval hole, isn't that what makes it an F4?

Anyway, I think there are some other makers that have F4's now, but I am pretty sure they are out of my range. Maybe one day I'll get one. I would LOVE to have a vintage Gibson like the one that caught my eye.

Just wanted to see how many other F4 fans there are here and if you have any pics of yours, how about posting them so others can enjoy them too.

Nalajr


p.s. I have nothing to do with the seller of that F4 in the Classifieds. I just thought it was a really pretty mandolin and wanted to ask others what they thought of this style too. That's all.

[JEStanek]

You should see the THREE point oval hole! Hans Brentrup made the best (most stable) modern version.

Jamie

[RichM]

I have long held the belief that the F4 is perhaps the most beautiful mandolin design ever created. Tonally, I admit to preferring the F-hole sound, but I revere the aesthetics of the F4.

[LongBlackVeil]

Have a look at the northfields. I played one and really loved it. I'd like to own one one day. The black one is especially nice looking

You should see the THREE point oval hole! Hans Brentrup made the best (most stable) modern version.

Jamie

What do you mean by most stable? Is there something inherently unstable about the three point design?

[sunburst]

If we go all the way back to the model F, we see Orville Gibson's design more-or-less as it started. By the time of the majority of F-2 and F-4 mandolins, the design had been modified and standardized for production. There were a few compromises for production, and the scroll was somewhat misshapen after the removal of the third point, but the proportions were pretty good and the design was coherent, for the most part. By the time of the F-5, the body shape was 'chiseled in stone', so to speak, because aluminum (I think) forms had been made and were in use for production building, so the body shape was not adjusted when the longer neck was added, and the proportions suffered, IMO. There are other imbalances that were introduces when the elevated fingerboard showed up and the top carving changed without a corresponding change to the back carving. I think that is why the F-4 (and F-2) appear more pleasing than the F-5 to so many people.

[Tobin]

Just wanted to see how many other F4 fans there are here and if you have any pics of yours, how about posting them so others can enjoy them too.

I've played F5s and A5s for years now, but I've always loved the looks of vintage F4s, especially the red sunburst model Gibsons. Here is my 1918 F4 next to my 1917 H4 mandola. Quite a matching pair!

I have long held the belief that the F4 is perhaps the most beautiful mandolin design ever created. Tonally, I admit to preferring the F-hole sound, but I revere the aesthetics of the F4.

You know, I got into teens Gibson models because I was primarily seeking vintage oval-hole sound. And of course, I've always loved the looks. But the more I look at them, the more I think that F5s look 'weird' with the f-holes on the sides and a bald spot right in the middle. Don't get me wrong, I love my F5 and it's my main instrument for a variety of reasons. But the pure aesthetics of an F4 really does look 'right' to me.

[Timbofood]

I love F-2s and F-4s!

[Steve VandeWater]

I've got my eye on an Eastman 514 to complement my 515. I love the oval hole and it fits more with the style of music I want to play. They are beautiful instruments for sure.

[Jim Garber]

Have a look at the northfields. I played one and really loved it. I'd like to own one one day. The black one is especially nice looking.

I haven't played any of their oval holes but I would guess that they sound a lot different from the vintage Gibsons. These are more hybrids with the bridge positioned to give a longer neck access. I also believe that they x-bracing which would give a very different tone.

[pheffernan]

By the time of the F-5, the body shape was 'chiseled in stone', so to speak, because aluminum (I think) forms had been made and were in use for production building, so the body shape was not adjusted when the longer neck was added, and the proportions suffered, IMO. There are other imbalances that were introduces when the elevated fingerboard showed up and the top carving changed without a corresponding change to the back carving. I think that is why the F-4 (and F-2) appear more pleasing than the F-5 to so many people.

As someone untrained in design, I really appreciated this explanation. Out of curiosity, was any of that sense of proportion regained with the short necked F-7 / F-10 / F-12 models of the 1930's?

[JEStanek]

What do you mean by most stable? Is there something inherently unstable about the three point design?

No... Just they are older and more often in rougher shape.... also, Hans' work is so clean and good. Don't mean to ruffle feathers or imply the old Gibson 3 Points are no good... If i had my choice of one of Hans' or a Gibson one, I would pick Hans in a hot minute.

Jamie

[sunburst]

...was any of that sense of proportion regained with the short necked F-7 / F-10 / F-12 models of the 1930's?

Not in my opinion (and it's all opinion).
(BTW, i don't have any formal design training either, I've just tried to learn why I like what I like by analyzing.)

[Timbofood]

Yeah, I agree with you Jamie, the old ones have been "enjoyed" and show the effect of time. It's not an issue of instability just the best part of a century of use.

[Nalapombu]

Thanks for posting the pics....I'm really enjoying them.

I've been looking at the Eastman and Northfield mandos, their F5 and F4 models. They are really pretty too.

What would a 1918 F4 like the one posted by Tobin, in good playable condition, go for these days?

It would be so cool to have one of those, even cooler if I could play it like it deserves to be played. That would take me quite a while...

Lets see more pics. Feel free to post 3 points too. Lets not discriminate.

Thanks everyone.

Nalajr

[Tom Coletti]

What I really like about the F4's is that the colors tend to shift towards a richer reddish hue, rather than the less-saturated brown bursts that are more common on the F5s.

The F4's certainly sound beautiful as well, with a richer tone that matches their richer appearance:



--Tom

[LongBlackVeil]

Something I've noticed. And maybe it's just anecdotal

But I notice a bigger difference between say an f4 vs an A4 than I do between an a5 and an f5.

F4s seem to sound a little bigger than their A style counterparts. Has anyone else had the same experience? I'm not really trying to speculate on WHY that is. Because I'm not qualified, but it seems to be a much more indentifiable difference in oval holes as opposed to f holes

[darrylicshon]

I really like the look of a three point will have to get one someday

[Tom Coletti]

Something I've noticed. And maybe it's just anecdotal

But I notice a bigger difference between say an f4 vs an A4 than I do between an a5 and an f5.

F4s seem to sound a little bigger than their A style counterparts. Has anyone else had the same experience? I'm not really trying to speculate on WHY that is. Because I'm not qualified, but it seems to be a much more indentifiable difference in oval holes as opposed to f holes

Interesting. I've never noticed a consistent difference between the A4's and F4's, usually just a difference between F4's and other F4's or A4's and other A4's.





It may just be individual differences between voicing, construction, etc., since they weren't as standardized as the later models.

--Tom

[JeffD]

I have long held the belief that the F4 is perhaps the most beautiful mandolin design ever created. .

I admit to a strong fondness for the F4. That and the three point oval holes are really really beautiful.

[Tobin]

Interesting. I've never noticed a consistent difference between the A4's and F4's, usually just a difference between F4's and other F4's or A4's and other A4's.

I can't claim to have heard enough old F4s and A4s in person to be able to claim any pattern whatsoever, but the thing that strikes me about these old Gibsons is that they all have vastly different personalities. Aside from construction differences between years and models, they have all had close to a hundred years (more in some cases) to age differently, under completely different circumstances. Some have been stored under a bed for decades with no playing. Some have been rode hard and put up wet most of their lives. Some have their original parts, some don't. Some have been damaged and then repaired or restored. As time has gone by, the variables in the equation have increased to the point where I doubt any two will sound the same. It's one of my favorite things about them, to be honest!

[LongBlackVeil]

Interesting. I've never noticed a consistent difference between the A4's and F4's, usually just a difference between F4's and other F4's or A4's and other A4's.





It may just be individual differences between voicing, construction, etc., since they weren't as standardized as the later models.

--Tom

Yeah like I said it's probably anectdotal and maybe it was just the few that I played.

That's why I was asking because i know a lot of you guys have played way more examples of these than I have

[Jim Garber]

What I really like about the F4's is that the colors tend to shift towards a richer reddish hue, rather than the less-saturated brown bursts that are more common on the F5s.

Then again, there are the rarer Cremona brown finished F4s. I have a friend who owns 2 both from 1921, very similar to this one dated 1922 from the archive.

[hank]

i love to play this old girl. Miss Phoebe is a 1923. The tone and ease of play is a little more sophisticated and sweet in comparison to my 1913 A4 which is maybe a little louder with a more booming fundamental voicing. The two are very different but both still have that old Gibson ringing long sustaining tone as compared to Yellowbell's(my Goldrush)woody dry cutting voice.

[Backlineman]

If we go all the way back to the model F, we see Orville Gibson's design more-or-less as it started. By the time of the majority of F-2 and F-4 mandolins, the design had been modified and standardized for production. There were a few compromises for production, and the scroll was somewhat misshapen after the removal of the third point, but the proportions were pretty good and the design was coherent, for the most part. By the time of the F-5, the body shape was 'chiseled in stone', so to speak, because aluminum (I think) forms had been made and were in use for production building, so the body shape was not adjusted when the longer neck was added, and the proportions suffered, IMO. There are other imbalances that were introduces when the elevated fingerboard showed up and the top carving changed without a corresponding change to the back carving. I think that is why the F-4 (and F-2) appear more pleasing than the F-5 to so many people.

Well put. The proportions of the body size and the neck length, does for some reason, seem more pleasing to the eye on F-2's and F-4's than on F-5's. I also think the F style body shape looks better with the oval hole than with the F holes. Purely form a visual stand point, in my opinion.

[red7flag]

As many of you know I had Gail Hester make me a red replica of a 1923 F4. Some differences though, the neck while not F5 slender is more slender than the 20s necks pre-Loar or Loar. It has a truss-rod like the Loars. The tone of this beauty is simply awesome. It plays very easily and pushed tone. This is my instrument of choice for most genres outside of bluegrass. I have encluded a pictures of my baby.