Mandocello conversion... soon

[NotMelloCello]

So I was finally able to lay hands on an Eastman AR804ce archtop guitar for a reasonable price. As soon as it arrives, I'll commence converting it over to a mandocello. I've got high hopes for it! It's a great way to finish off this year with a bang, and head into next year's exciting and fresh adventure.

So, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all on this forum!

[Rob Zamites]

So I was finally able to lay hands on an Eastman AR804ce archtop guitar for a reasonable price. As soon as it arrives, I'll commence converting it over to a mandocello. I've got high hopes for it! It's a great way to finish off this year with a bang, and head into next year's exciting and fresh adventure.

So, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all on this forum!

Awesome! I look forward to watching the process - and Happy Holidays to you as well!

[Mandobart]

I really enjoyed seeing other folks' conversions of old or inexpensive arch tops. But those Eastman guitars are so nice...seems a shame.

[NotMelloCello]

What's a shame is the mandocello market is underserved and underappreciated.

[Bernie Daniel]

I really enjoyed seeing other folks' conversions of old or inexpensive arch tops. But those Eastman guitars are so nice...seems a shame.

I take a somewhat different view. I think a mandocello is as "worthy" as a guitar so as long as the conversion is done properly all is well with doing it If one is only permitted to do conversions on old or inexpensive guitars then then it will not be possible to create a high quality mandocello that way. The old adage that you "can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" comes to mind.


After converting two mid-level vintage arch top guitars to mandocellos in order to perfect my methods and to be prepared for any problems one might encounter in the conversion I ready to make my "ultimate" mandocello.

So I bought a 1942 Gibson L-50 with a broken neck and converted it to a K-5 style mandocello. I think it turned out great and I'm very satisfied with it. As a mandocello (i.e., a K-50) the instrument is immediately much more scarce than an L-50 (you can find 4 -5 of those in eBay ANY day) so the loss of a vintage L-50 to make a K-50 is not a big deal IMO.

Of course I used the guitar with a broken neck because it was relatively cheap and I had to modify the neck and headstock nyway, but I would have done the conversion on an intact L-50 had I not found that one.

[Bernie Daniel]

deleted --duplicate post!

[Jim Garber]

I am just curious what you paid for the Eastman guitar. Are you aware that Eastman makes a archtop guitar-based mandocello? I have one in my living room right this minute. Actually there are problems with that one (and others) -- the fretboard is on the wide side and the string spacing is off as well IMHO. Hey, if you got a super deal on the guitar then it might be worth the extra work of adding tuners etc. I believe that the Eastman MC goes for around $2000.

Actually, I see you commented on my thread on the one I have here, so you must have gotten a great deal on the guitar.

[NotMelloCello]

Are you aware that Eastman makes a archtop guitar-based mandocello?

No kidding. Think I just bought one of those.

[Bernie Daniel]

No kidding. Think I just bought one of those.

OK so now I am confused.

Your original post said that you just bought an Eastman AR804ce arch top guitar and that you were going to convert it to a mandocello.

Jim asked you if you knew that Eastman made a mandocello. Which of course they do.

So you also bought an Eastman mandocello? If so why not just re-work the neck on that rather then convert an arch top guitar?

Much less work.

[NotMelloCello]

OK, Bernie - enough.

MY BAD, folks. Read my OP again - conversion of Eastman archtop guitar into an Eastman archtop mandocello is imminent.

Yes, Jim - I know Eastman makes mandocellos, and it's none of your business what a great deal I got.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME - not everyone thinks Eastman necks are too wide. I happen to think they are GREAT.

No, I do not mind being perceived as a crank.

[Bernie Daniel]

OK, Bernie - enough.

MY BAD, folks. Read my OP again - conversion of Eastman archtop guitar into an Eastman archtop mandocello is imminent.

Yes, Jim - I know Eastman makes mandocellos, and it's none of your business what a great deal I got.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME - not everyone thinks Eastman necks are too wide. I happen to think they are GREAT.

No, I do not mind being perceived as a crank.

Well, I'm glad you don't mind being seen as a crank.

But on the other hand I expect I am not alone in wondering why you seem to go out of your way to be confrontational and combative when it is not called for. Generally this is a FRIENDLY forum for exchange of ideas on a hobby we are passionate about.

I merely inquired why you said you bought an Eastman mandocello (which you implied) when you stated the thread saying you bought an arch guitar. That does not SEEM like at attack to me.

Jim suggested that you must have bought that guitar for a good price -- he did not ask you what you paid for it. So a simple "yes I did" or "not really" would answer it?

BTW, I just looked up Eastman arch top guitars and was surprised to find out how pricy that are --did not know that.

Actually, if you read it, in post #5, I DEFENDED YOUR DECISION to modify a guitar and make a mandocello.

Right now I am wondering why I bother to reply to ANY of your comments. This is not a fun "conversation"?

[Jim Garber]

Well, your alias is NotMello -- I suppose we can accept your crankiness then. I don't truly care how much you paid at all however was just curious as to how it was worthwhile to get a guitar (and guessed that a good deal would make that worth it). Of course if you pald close to retail for one than it would be some extra work to get it to be a mandocello. That was what I was asking.

My main point about Eastman mandocelli is that they spaced the strings oddly, esp the two lower courses. The one I have is nearly impossible to play on those strings without lots of buzzing. Those strings are the individual courses are spread way too far apart. I have written to the Eastman rep but this is a long term problem. Most owners of these have to recut the nut and bridge in order to have proper set up. For some reason they do not want to deal with this in China or wherever they do the final set up.

[Eddie Sheehy]

I gave up on Nutella shortly after he joined this forum. I passed up on an Eastman MC recently for $1,200 - just not worth the hassle of redoing the neck, nut and bridge and still have to use those guitar strings on it - it will never have the boom of a real MC. Will an Eastman Archtop guitar be able to take the high tension of standard MC strings - with .074 for the C course? That standard MC set on a 23" MC runs at about 33lbs tension per string. An OM and guitar are about 23lbs per string...

[George R. Lane]

OK, Bernie - enough.

MY BAD, folks. Read my OP again - conversion of Eastman archtop guitar into an Eastman archtop mandocello is imminent.

Yes, Jim - I know Eastman makes mandocellos, and it's none of your business what a great deal I got.

AND FOR THE LAST TIME - not everyone thinks Eastman necks are too wide. I happen to think they are GREAT.

No, I do not mind being perceived as a crank.

My Mom always told me "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing".
So I will say nothing.

[Marty Jacobson]

FWIW, I am reworking one of these right now. Aside from the playability issues, which are indeed real, it is a very good value for an instrument which is quite responsive and has what I think is very good mandocello tone. Their oval-hole instruments would probably have been a better choice for their "mandocello" model, but the f-hole model is pretty and plenty solid enough for .070" C course. Boom and rumble are not a problem.

Here is the string spacing I came up with. It works pretty well as far as I'm concerned.



PDF:

[Bernie Daniel]

FWIW, I am reworking one of these right now. Aside from the playability issues, which are indeed real, it is a very good value for an instrument which is quite responsive and has what I think is very good mandocello tone. Their oval-hole instruments would probably have been a better choice for their "mandocello" model, but the f-hole model is pretty and plenty solid enough for .070" C course. Boom and rumble are not a problem.

Here is the string spacing I came up with. It works pretty well as far as I'm concerned.

Yes that looks very good to me. You essentially have the spacings that would looked totally balanced on a 1.50" nut -- and that is essentially how Gibson believed the mandocello should be back in the day. Too bad Eastman could not address this -- but NotMelloCello pointed out in an earlier string that they probably do not make enough of these instruments to warrant investing in a production line change.

In the course of converting four guitars to mandocellos I think I made close to a dozen mandocello nuts -- many of them of course declared DOA. After a while I got smarter and wrote up a small interactive program in Exel that allowed me to set the nut length, the string diameters, the inter-course spacings, and distance from the edge of the nut to the first and last string. The program would them draw a diagram of the nut and string spacings. It saved me a lot of trial and error.

On a mandocello the total width of each course (i.e., the distance between the two outer edges of the course) can't be constant because of the large difference in string gauges but I do feel the inter-course distances should be very close -- like you have on your modification (i.e., 0.25" to 0.30"). That is the distance I find ideal as well.


Obviously it will play a lot better now!!

[Marty Jacobson]

Thanks Bernie, I did in fact base it around a 1.5" string spread and then just worked proportionally from there. The customer plays mandolin, but is also an accomplished upright bassist, so he can handle a wide fretboard. If it were for myself, I'd be working from a 1.4" string spacing.

Having seen the numbers you've posted over the past few years definitely helped.
Going through multiple iterations of string spacing is a lot easier for me since I can just cut out a nut in about two minutes and have it be accurate to .001". I've wasted a lot less bone (and time) since switching to this method.

[NotMelloCello]

Going through multiple iterations of string spacing is a lot easier for me since I can just cut out a nut in about two minutes and have it be accurate to .001".

Come on, Marty! Two minutes? And within .001?

I've been doing guitar repair since 1977 for the local music stores, and I've never made a nut in two minutes. And since I trained as a tool and die maker, I'm pretty well acquainted with close tolerances. I might believe .005, but less than that? In two minutes?

Methinks you are stretching the truth more than a wee bit.

[DavidKOS]

My main point about Eastman mandocelli is that they spaced the strings oddly, esp the two lower courses. The one I have is nearly impossible to play on those strings without lots of buzzing..

A few old-timers told me because of string rattle that they would only use a single low C on their mandocellos (mandocelli?).

I've set up a few cheap archtops as mandocellos, and have always used a single low C. Lately I set up an old Harmony as a single-course liuto, CGDAE, as a test before I commit to more proper alterations.

So far the single low C works well for me....just an idea.

[Marty Jacobson]

Come on, Marty! Two minutes? And within .001?

I've been doing guitar repair since 1977 for the local music stores, and I've never made a nut in two minutes. And since I trained as a tool and die maker, I'm pretty well acquainted with close tolerances. I might believe .005, but less than that? In two minutes?

Methinks you are stretching the truth more than a wee bit.

No lie. I cheat.



Machining is actually less than one minute, but it has a tool change, so it's about 2 minutes.

[NotMelloCello]

AH! If I had a CNC in the garage, I might do it your way. Guess I'll stick to the old school methods.

[billhay4]

Marty not only cheats, he's a bit of genius at it.
Bill

[Martin Jonas]

A few old-timers told me because of string rattle that they would only use a single low C on their mandocellos (mandocelli?).

I've set up a few cheap archtops as mandocellos, and have always used a single low C. Lately I set up an old Harmony as a single-course liuto, CGDAE, as a test before I commit to more proper alterations.

There have been a few references to the low C strings rattling against each other on the Cafe, but I haven't really had that problem on my Suzuki 'cello. When I was trying out the d'Addario MC strings, I did find that fretting the C cleanly was difficult and a source of fret buzzes. It caused me to switch back to the Thomastik strings that were on the Suzuki when I bought it, and I think that is the solution. There simply aren't any fret buzzes with these strings even if the fretting is a bit off centre (which it invariably is given the gauge and spacing of the bass strings.

Martin

[Jim Garber]

That standard MC set on a 23" MC runs at about 33lbs tension per string. An OM and guitar are about 23lbs per string...

AFAIK the Eastman 805 MC has a 25" scale which is prob the same as the guitar. Specs are here. I don't know if they reworked the bracing at all on the MC -- prob not since it looks like they neck width at the nut and other specs are the same as their AR805 guitar.

A few old-timers told me because of string rattle that they would only use a single low C on their mandocellos (mandocelli?).

I've set up a few cheap archtops as mandocellos, and have always used a single low C. Lately I set up an old Harmony as a single-course liuto, CGDAE, as a test before I commit to more proper alterations.

So far the single low C works well for me....just an idea.

I am aware of that little trick -- some old timers in NYMO told me that years ago. However that is not the problem with the Eastman. That would be a problem it the strings were too close together but with the Eastman they are too far apart. On G strings for instance I often find my fingers going thru the middle of the course and spreading the strings apart. My fingers are not very fat but that distance is way within the course is off as compared to my old Gibson. See the prior thread on this subject.

I actually considered removing one string from each course for the moment. If it were my instrument (it is on loan) I would also replace or adapt the tailpiece for looped strings as well, as Eddie noted.

[Mandobart]

A few old-timers told me because of string rattle that they would only use a single low C on their mandocellos (mandocelli?).

I've set up a few cheap archtops as mandocellos, and have always used a single low C. Lately I set up an old Harmony as a single-course liuto, CGDAE, as a test before I commit to more proper alterations.

So far the single low C works well for me....just an idea.

You all may remember that I use octave pairs on my Eastman; having a thick and thin string together on the C, G and D also seems to prevent the rattles; I've never experienced it.