What makes a classical mandolin?

[Tavy]

I'm wondering what design factors you all think makes a classical mandolin?

I've been contemplating this because I'm thinking of taking a break from e-mandos and vintage instruments and building a few more acoustics. I'm naturally drawn to the designs of Kerman/Dean/Ceccherini, and am sorely tempted to build a Kerman clone just to see what they're like. On the other hand, perhaps folks just want a decent sounding instrument and all this extra stuff is superfluous?

So... leaving aside the whole debate over German/Italian/US traditions, what are the main factors you look for? 13" scale and light strings? Anything else? BTW scrolls or bowls are out of the question for the moment... as are Franken-mandos with bowls and scrolls!

[plinkey]

I've been contemplating this because I'm thinking of taking a break from e-mandos and vintage instruments and building a few more acoustics.

Now you've got me worried, since we have one e-thingy on the go now which might end up in your workshop.

[DavidKOS]

I'm wondering what design factors you all think makes a classical mandolin?
......
I'm naturally drawn to the designs of Kerman/Dean/Ceccherini, and am sorely tempted to build a Kerman clone just to see what they're like. )

OK, let's assume you can make a non-bowl scroll-less classical mandolin.

I want the following features:

Typical shorter Italian bowlback scale length; I assume that is for "13" scale and light strings"

At least 27 frets

A neck not too wide but wide enough to play 4 note chords

VOLUME! first and foremost it needs to be a loud instrument.

simple but high quality wood and construction

and if you have found out more about those Kerman mandolins, please share what you know with the rest of us.

I have a friend building a flat back classical mandolin for me right now:

this was it several months ago, it will be ready soon

[Martin Jonas]

There is an old thread started by Robert Margo here on his custom Mid-Mo designed to approximate the tone and playability of modern German bowlbacks: he decided on a combination of wide nut, violin scale and light strings.

Of course, wide nuts are the opposite of what a classical player of Italian bowlbacks is used to -- the nut of my Embergher is well below an inch.

Martin

[DavidKOS]

There is an old thread started by Robert Margo here on his custom Mid-Mo designed to approximate the tone and playability of modern German bowlbacks: he decided on a combination of wide nut, violin scale and light strings.

Of course, wide nuts are the opposite of what a classical player of Italian bowlbacks is used to -- the nut of my Embergher is well below an inch.

Martin

The nut width thing is a real issue - and those Roman fingerboards get very narrow indeed!

I measured a lot of mandolins that I like, and averaged them.

[Jim Garber]

The question, John, is not "What makes a classical mandolin?" IMHO, you make the mandolin to what you hear as a good voicing for the music it will play.

As a companion to the recent Jazz mandolin question there is a fairly wide range of answers. David does list specs for his ideal and my specs would fall into the some of those same specs for playing classical music. However, like any other music it seems like it does depend on the player.

I have gone through a number of mandolins that I have played for classical music. Over the years, playing in the NY Mandolin Orchestra, then attending Carlo Aonzo workshops and a few CMSA conventions, let's see. My evolution was 1923 A2 snakehead with standard phosphor bronze strings-->long scale Lyon and Healy A-->Pandini bowlback with Dogal Calace medium strings-->Embergher N.3-->L&H Washburn short-scale with T-I strings. These last two are my go-to instruments for classical and they could not be more different in terms of sound.

I find it a bit confusing when you mention Kerman/Dean/Ceccherini. I guess all three makers have used double soundboards for some of their instruments. Is that what you are asking? Do you want to make a double soundboard or internal chamber mandolin.

Since few of us live in Israel it is hard to get a sense of Kerman's mandolin but I know that JeffD has actually played one and is in love to the point of saying that it is the best mandolin in the world. I reserve any critique until I actually have a chance to play one or at least hear one in person but from the recordings it sounds wonderful in the hands of Avi and Jacob and other Israeli players. However, I am not so sure that the voicing is so unique. I believe that the voicing is similar to the German-style bowlbacks like Knorr or Woll. These were voiced to be played with T-I strings as were (I believe) the Kerman mandolins.

Kermans have an internal chamber but I am not sure what that contributes to the sound. Perhaps if you have the energy and resources to try building one with and one without an internal chamber you can get a sense of what difference it makes. Double soundboards have been tried for quite some time. I had a violin with one that was nothing to brag about. And then there was the Virzi tone enhancer thing, Selmer Maccaferri guitars, Gelas oddball instruments and probably a few others.

Avi plays his Kerman mandolin in this video and he talks about it here around 6:45:



Here is my overall take on all this. The most impressive makers get the tone in their heads first and try to voice their instruments to achieve that. I don't know if it is necessary to bother with the double soundboard to get to that. In the US I look to the work of Rolfe Gerhardt and his Phoenix mandolins. Rolfe makes basically the same design for all but they all sound different. They are carved top instruments and the Neo-Classical is a fine-sounding one voiced to be strung with T-I strings. Marty Jacobson is another maker who works similarly.

As far as what I would like in a classical mandolin, I do agree with David on short scale, fretboard extension. I would not characterize the need for volume (and certainly not at the expense of tone) but more the ability of the mandolin to project. I know that many carved top players characterize bowlbacks as low in volume but I really think that the best made of the bowl back mandolins do have that projection and I know that is what Emberghers are know for.

One other aspect of a fine-toned instrument to me is that it has excellent tone as well as evenness through its range. Easy to do in the lower positions but hard to do in the stratosphere. The best Embergher has that sweetness up the neck but I also find that in the Lyon & Healy and (yes!) the few Loar F-5s I have played.

BTW I know that you don't want to build a bowlback but one other possibility is to build a boatback, essentially a deeper flatback. Mozzani made some excellent and sweet-sounding ones. (see below)

Anyway, it is an interesting question, John. I look forward to hearing what other have to say.

[Jim Garber]

Here are a couple more players with videos to get a sense of tone (Caterina Lichtenberg, Marisa Carroll, Carlo Aonzo):

[DavidKOS]

Since few of us live in Israel it is hard to get a sense of Kerman's mandolin but I know that JeffD has actually played one and is in love to the point of saying that it is the best mandolin in the world.
.....

....
As far as what I would like in a classical mandolin, I do agree with David on short scale, fretboard extension. I would not characterize the need for volume (and certainly not at the expense of tone) but more the ability of the mandolin to project.

I have not yet played a Kerman....I sure want to!

Perhaps "ability to project" is what I mean by "volume". Unless I'd play unaccompanied solo only, I would want a mandolin that be heard in an ensemble - or even better, be heard over an ensemble if I was the soloist.

I guess it is a combination of tone color, volume and such that allows an instrument to project well.

[Tavy]

Now you've got me worried, since we have one e-thingy on the go now which might end up in your workshop.

Don't worry, my "for hire" sign is still firmly planted, just looking to move some time away from:



and even from:



And towards something more classical mandolin oriented.

VOLUME! first and foremost it needs to be a loud instrument.

Volume is an interesting subject in it's own right - I'm not sure that most bowl backs (for example) are loud in the absolute sense, but like all mandolins they do "cut through" very well. There's also the whole subject of what I would describe as "volume profile", of two folks who tried out my main goto mandolin recently, one complained it was too quiet, the other too loud. The difference between the two players was their picking technique and what they were used to in terms of volume for given level of attack - some mandolins are very loud very quickly but then "max out", others need thumping rather hard to achieve anything much... of course the best let you express yourself without running out of volume headroom or being difficult to play quietly and with subtlety.

Here is my overall take on all this. The most impressive makers get the tone in their heads first and try to voice their instruments to achieve that. I don't know if it is necessary to bother with the double soundboard to get to that.

Now, this is actually the heart of my question: and yes I do have a sound in my head, and it's a lot like the Kerman's, but also some of the US made bowls (Vega et al) are an inspiration (in point of fact I do have a most of a set of plans drawn up for a bowlback, I'm just not convinced I can afford the time for something that complex).

Still cogitating yours...

[DavidKOS]

Volume is an interesting subject in it's own right - I'm not sure that most bowl backs (for example) are loud in the absolute sense, but like all mandolins they do "cut through" very well. There's also the whole subject of what I would describe as "volume profile", of two folks who tried out my main goto mandolin recently, one complained it was too quiet, the other too loud. The difference between the two players was their picking technique and what they were used to in terms of volume for given level of attack - some mandolins are very loud very quickly but then "max out", others need thumping rather hard to achieve anything much... of course the best let you express yourself without running out of volume headroom or being difficult to play quietly and with subtlety.

That's an interesting experience - the same instrument is both "too loud" and "too quiet".

Personally I prefer a mandolin that is responsive to a range of dynamics but as you put it does not "top out" by running out of volume headroom.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

The mandolin in the picture in my earlier post is based on these smallish flatbacks that have great projection but a sweet overall tone.

[margora]

"There is an old thread started by Robert Margo here on his custom Mid-Mo designed to approximate the tone and playability of modern German bowlbacks: he decided on a combination of wide nut, violin scale and light strings."

I thank Martin for revisiting this old thread. As it happens, I sold the mandolin in question (a custom Mid-Mo, violin scale, wide neck) a few years later. Subsequently I was able to acquire a 1984 Reinhold Seiffert flatback, one of maybe a dozen that he made for the US market and sold through Norman Levine (of CMSA). It is essentially the same as a regular Seiffert except for having a flat back. These are superb instruments. The Seiffert has a 330mm scale and a wide neck.

My other main instrument is a 2015 Dave Cohen oval hole, with a 13.75 scale and a 1.25 inch neck. Both instruments are strung with TI. I can use either for anything (see below) but tend to prefer the Cohen for contemporary music (e.g. a Kioulaphides piece for solo mandolin) and the Seiffert for baroque (e.g. Vivaldi, Bach). Early 20th century sounds fine on either.

In the near future (next 1-2 years) I anticipate purchasing or placing an order for a professional quality modern German, assuming I can find what I want without a 10 year waiting list (e.g. Woll).

"I'm wondering what design factors you all think makes a classical mandolin?"

I would say that 95-98 percent of the variance is explained by the player's technique, not the instrument -- give a weak player a good instrument, and the player will still sound weak. I can make a Calace prelude sound like I want (conceptually) on virtually anything. What is truly crucial is the setup -- I prefer a setup that makes playing the most difficult passages effortless, whatever those might be. If I have to struggle in the slightest in a difficult passage I move on to the next instrument. The setup interacts with the design (see below) but is a separate issue

That said, of course, I have preferences on sound and so forth like anyone else. I can make my Calace prelude sound like I want it to an Embergher style instrument, but doing so is normally a pain in the a-- which has everything to do with the way Emberghers are constructed (and sound). It is a pain in the a-- for some of the reasons David mentioned -- the very narrow fingerboard, for example. I would add the excessive V-neck, the excessive radius of the fretboard, the deliberate sharpening of notes up the neck. Life being short, why bother? I can also make it sound like I want on a Gibson F-5 but I find these uncomfortable to play for other reasons so again, why bother? If I decide to play said piece on modern American instrument, I'll choose my Cohen or a Collings MT2, which is perfectly adequate to the task (and which I have used for said purpose in concert).

The number of frets is also far less important than people generally think. The reason for this is the sound that high up the neck is rarely good in an absolute sense (that said, some makers are better at this than others. My Cohen has 29 frets on the E string, and 25 or so on the A string). Having a lot of frets is a vestige of thinking that the mandolin is supposed to be a plucked violin. If the notes are off the fingerboard it is, again, a matter of technique -- one can make them sound more or less correct. Having a lot of frets can interfere, as we all know, with right hand technique, so there is a trade off involved.

As far as what I like (or what makes an instrument easy to play for me, assuming the setup I want) is a rounded neck, not a sharp V; a slight radius to the fingerboard; and a somewhat wider fingerboard. The sound concept I am looking for emphasizes clarity and evenness across the registers (which is why I generally do not play Italian instruments, because I have yet to find one with this particular characteristic). Perhaps because I come to the instrument from the classical guitar, I am personally drawn to the sound of German instruments, but that concerts taste, not a design essential.

I don't have strong preferences on bracing, or wood for the top or back. I do think that classical guitar construction has evolved considerably over the past 100 years or so and there are various experiments in classical guitar construction that might be profitably explored on the mandolin.

"Since few of us live in Israel it is hard to get a sense of Kerman's mandolin but I know that JeffD has actually played one and is in love to the point of saying that it is the best mandolin in the world. I reserve any critique until I actually have a chance to play one or at least hear one in person but from the recordings it sounds wonderful in the hands of Avi and Jacob and other Israeli players."

I have not personally played a Kerman but I have heard them up close and personal -- i.e. sitting about 4-5 feet away. In this particular case, I thought the instrument was certainly of professional quality but, overall, nothing special. It worked fine musically in baroque (Vivaldi, Bach) but not so much in contemporary music (Kuwahara). Again, to say this is due to the mandolin's design characterstics versus the player that I heard (Avi Avital) would be highly questionable as a conclusion. Modern Israeli classical mandolin technique is highly idiosyncratic compared with other mandolin cultures and it is unclear to me how much of what is being heard is the mandolin versus the style (at least, I have not seen this discussed in any depth).

[DavidKOS]

"I'm wondering what design factors you all think makes a classical mandolin?"

I would say that 95-98 percent of the variance is explained by the player's technique, not the instrument -- give a weak player a good instrument, and the player will still sound weak. ....

..... It is a pain in the a-- for some of the reasons David mentioned -- the very narrow fingerboard, for example. I would add the excessive V-neck, the excessive radius of the fretboard,
.......


I have not personally played a Kerman but I have heard them up close and personal -- i.e. sitting about 4-5 feet away. In this particular case, I thought the instrument was certainly of professional quality but, overall, nothing special. It worked fine musically in baroque (Vivaldi, Bach) but not so much in contemporary music (Kuwahara). Again, to say this is due to the mandolin's design characterstics versus the player that I heard (Avi Avital) would be highly questionable as a conclusion. Modern Israeli classical mandolin technique is highly idiosyncratic compared with other mandolin cultures and it is unclear to me how much of what is being heard is the mandolin versus the style (at least, I have not seen this discussed in any depth).

Interesting. I'd like to learn more about both the Israeli instruments and the modern school of technique.

[margora]

"Interesting. I'd like to learn more about both the Israeli instruments and the modern school of technique"

I cannot help on the instruments, as I have not found them of sufficient interest to investigate personally. I did not call the techniques used by the various Israeli players "modern" -- the word I used was "idiosyncratic". This is evident by paying close attention to any of the (hundreds) of available videos and compare with, say, any of Gertrud Weyhofen from, ca. 20 years ago (not on YouTube, but available. There are a few recent videos of Gertrud on YouTube which are useful in this regard but her instructional video from Plucked String is much more important, as is a video that she made with her then husband Michael Troester of an in-studio concert in Japan).

[DavidKOS]

I did not call the techniques used by the various Israeli players "modern" -- the word I used was "idiosyncratic".

I stand corrected.

[Charlieshafer]

Well, one of the foremost classical (and jazz players in the world right now is Joe Brent, and he plays a custom Dean (Labraid). You can catch him occasionally with the San Fransisco orchestra among others, or with is current project, 9 Horses. Here's his:

[Jim Garber]

I would say that 95-98 percent of the variance is explained by the player's technique, not the instrument -- give a weak player a good instrument, and the player will still sound weak. I can make a Calace prelude sound like I want (conceptually) on virtually anything. What is truly crucial is the setup -- I prefer a setup that makes playing the most difficult passages effortless, whatever those might be. If I have to struggle in the slightest in a difficult passage I move on to the next instrument. The setup interacts with the design (see below) but is a separate issue.

As Bob Margo so ably noted above, the player's technique is of utmost importance. I played Joe's first Dean/LaBraid Grand Concert model pretty soon after he got it but I only played it briefly. Joe can evoke whatever music he needs from it and does it quite expertly. That design is certainly not for me but I am not virtuoso. The design is very eccentric:

(From Joe's web site)

She has a walnut top, maple sides and false back, and a resonating interior true back made of Carpathian spruce. Besides her intriguing mix of tonewoods, she also features such unique aspects as an inlaid pickguard, overhanging f-holes (to facilitate some sound projection upwards towards the player's ears), and a zero fret.

Of course, the Grand Concert in Joe's hands sounds very nice and he is an amazing player. I believe, IIRC, that this mandolin has a longer scale possibly close to 15 inches.

BTW tho of no comparison at all to Joe's instruments, Lloyd Loar's ViViTone mandolins have a spruce back with f-holes but I don't think they have a double soundboard like any of the ones discussed here.

[JeffD]

One other aspect of a fine-toned instrument to me is that it has excellent tone as well as evenness through its range. Easy to do in the lower positions but hard to do in the stratosphere.

I agree exactly.

... but I also find that in the Lyon & Healy ... .

Yes I have a Lyon and Healy, strung with Thomastiks, and it is wonderfully even up and down the neck.

[crisscross]

Yes I have a Lyon and Healy, strung with Thomastiks, and it is wonderfully even up and down the neck.

That's what I was thinking spontaneously: there are already lots of bowlbacks out there, but a nice mandolin with the essential features of a L&H at an affordable price would surely find its followers.

[Tavy]

Very interesting discussion, many thanks to everyone who's contributed! A few factors stand out:

Nut Width: several of you have expressed a preference for a wider nut, which somewhat surprised me. Now in the interests of full disclosure, I like a wide nut myself, in fact my main mandolin has a 34mm nut which is about as wide as you can go and still be a mandolin I suspect? Hard to tell from photo's but Woll's instruments seem to have fairly wide nuts, and even L&H at ~30mm are a little wider than the usual 28mm or less.

Higher register: despite the requirement for a decent number of frets, I always find most bowlbacks (for example) less than easy to play in the higher registers due to the 10th fret body join. The Kerman design has the same issue, maybe even exaggerated due to the bulbous body?

Technique: you are all of course dead right on that being primary. It is of great regret that I always sound like me, no matter what I'm playing on

Neck profile: Like others I also find a very sharp V rather painful to play on, I can do it, but a broader rounder neck is just more comfortable for me. That said, there are only really two mandolin neck profiles: V or club, it's just a question of how sharp the V is!

Thanks again, John.

[Martin Jonas]

Nut Width: several of you have expressed a preference for a wider nut, which somewhat surprised me. Now in the interests of full disclosure, I like a wide nut myself, in fact my main mandolin has a 34mm nut which is about as wide as you can go and still be a mandolin I suspect? Hard to tell from photo's but Woll's instruments seem to have fairly wide nuts, and even L&H at ~30mm are a little wider than the usual 28mm or less.
[...]

Neck profile: Like others I also find a very sharp V rather painful to play on, I can do it, but a broader rounder neck is just more comfortable for me. That said, there are only really two mandolin neck profiles: V or club, it's just a question of how sharp the V is!

"Wide" nut is all relative. I have a Mid-Mo with the wide nut option, and the width is 31mm. I presume Robert's custom Mid-Mo was the same. On the other end of the range, my Embergher has a nut width of 24mm. So, the range between a distinctly wide nut and a distinctly narrow one is only about 7mm and these differences don't necessarily follow through into string spacing, depending on how the nut is cut.

I have instruments with a shallow U-shape neck (Ceccherini), deep club neck (Mid-Mo, Gibson Ajr) and distinct V neck (Embergher) and the differences don't particularly affect my technique or playing comfort -- probably a reflection of my non-virtuoso level of playing. The V-neck is probably the most comfortable for me as it follows my hand shape the best, but it's no biggie.

Martin

[crisscross]

"Wide" nut is all relative. I have a Mid-Mo with the wide nut option, and the width is 31mm. I presume Robert's custom Mid-Mo was the same. On the other end of the range, my Embergher has a nut width of 24mm. So, the range between a distinctly wide nut and a distinctly narrow one is only about 7mm and these differences don't necessarily follow through into string spacing, depending on how the nut is cut.

But 3mm can make a huge difference, at least to me. On my Suzuki, the nut width is 28 mm, on my new Jacob it is 31 mm.
I always liked the Milonga by Marlo Strauss, which consists of a crosspicking pattern with broken chords.
There's one chord d(0)-b flat(1)-e(0) that I never got right on my Suzuki. No matter how I put the first finger, it either muted the D-string or the e-string.
With my new Jacob mandolin, it's no problem to play the b flat on the a-string and have the two adjacent open strings ring.
So I guess it's a matter of what you intend to play on your mandolin:
-if it's mostly melodic stuff, a narrow nut will do
-if there are broken chords included, where every note is supposed to ring out, something like 3mm fits nicely
Something like that, that's why most German Bowlbacks have a wider nut.

[Jim Garber]

Nut Width: several of you have expressed a preference for a wider nut, which somewhat surprised me. Now in the interests of full disclosure, I like a wide nut myself, in fact my main mandolin has a 34mm nut which is about as wide as you can go and still be a mandolin I suspect? Hard to tell from photo's but Woll's instruments seem to have fairly wide nuts, and even L&H at ~30mm are a little wider than the usual 28mm or less.

<snip>

Neck profile: Like others I also find a very sharp V rather painful to play on, I can do it, but a broader rounder neck is just more comfortable for me. That said, there are only really two mandolin neck profiles: V or club, it's just a question of how sharp the V is!

Just to address a couple of things. Personally, I prefer the average neck width 1-1/8" (28.5mm) and can deal with 1-1/4" (31.75mm) if I have to. Of course my Embergher is even narrower but that is all right. I adjust to that. I think the German approach stems from its relation to guitar playing and a different technique vs. the Roman more from violin playing hence the more triangular and narrow neck (tho of course violins do not have a sharply triangular neck).

[Martin Jonas]

But 3mm can make a huge difference, at least to me. On my Suzuki, the nut width is 28 mm, on my new Jacob it is 31 mm.
I always liked the Milonga by Marlo Strauss, which consists of a crosspicking pattern with broken chords.
There's one chord d(0)-b flat(1)-e(0) that I never got right on my Suzuki. No matter how I put the first finger, it either muted the D-string or the e-string.
With my new Jacob mandolin, it's no problem to play the b flat on the a-string and have the two adjacent open strings ring.
So I guess it's a matter of what you intend to play on your mandolin:
-if it's mostly melodic stuff, a narrow nut will do
-if there are broken chords included, where every note is supposed to ring out, something like 3mm fits nicely
Something like that, that's why most German Bowlbacks have a wider nut.

I find that I play double stops and chords differently on the Embergher compared to the Mid-Mo. The Embergher is so narrow that it's entirely possible to cleanly stop two adjacent courses with one fingertip with a minimum of flattening out or changing attitude. On the Mid-Mo, there is enough space to play the same chord with two separate fingers, with neither muting the adjacent strings.

The "standard" nut width is somewhere in between, and to some extent that's the least favourable compromise for adjacent fifths and chords: you can't cleanly stop two courses with one finger and don't have enough space to fit two fingers next to each other.

All depends on the width of your fingertips and the angle of your fingers to fretboard, of course -- the violinistic hold has fingers at 45 deg angle to the frets, and the Embergher is optimised for that, whereas the guitaristic hold has the fingers more or less parallel to the frets which is impossible with an Embergher.

Martin

[DavidKOS]

But 3mm can make a huge difference, at least to me........
With my new Jacob mandolin, it's no problem to play the b flat on the a-string and have the two adjacent open strings ring.
So I guess it's a matter of what you intend to play on your mandolin:
-if it's mostly melodic stuff, a narrow nut will do
-if there are broken chords included, where every note is supposed to ring out, something like 3mm fits nicely
Something like that, that's why most German Bowlbacks have a wider nut.

That's the compromise - good neck feel and nut width for melodic lines but wide enough to play chords cleanly.

I think the German approach stems from its relation to guitar playing and a different technique vs. the Roman more from violin playing hence the more triangular and narrow neck (tho of course violins do not have a sharply triangular neck).

Good point about violin-based technique and guitar-based technique. I feel I use a mixture, being a pro guitarist and a barely-competent violinist.

On mandolin I may favor a slightly more violinistic approach.

The deep-V Roman necks seem to really want you to use a left hand position closer to violin than guitar.

All depends on the width of your fingertips and the angle of your fingers to fretboard, of course -- the violinistic hold has fingers at 45 deg angle to the frets, and the Embergher is optimised for that, whereas the guitaristic hold has the fingers more or less parallel to the frets which is impossible with an Embergher.

Martin

Good way of expressing it.

I find myself mixing it - melodic stuff I tend to play more like violin position, chords more guitar fashion.

This is a great thread, thanks everyone.

[Hany Hayek]

Wow this discussion is great.
I have to agree the world you are coming from will make all the difference. If you played violin you'll like everything smaller
I come from the violin world and I too find the narrow neck of my Italian bowl backs very comfortable. I have a Vincenzo Miroglio e figli with approx 26 mm nut width, a round neck, and found it very comfortable to play. My second bowl back a Cramelo Catania with a nut of 28 is the max my small hands can handle. both have 33 cm scale.
Then I got my flat back Egildo, and he copies the Embergher although mine is a flat back, but from description I read here, I have a V neck and 26 mm nut and that is really comfortable for meto play. The 34 cm scale bothers me a little.
With only 33 cm scale the Vincenzo has a very clear sound all the way up to the 17th fret as it does not have an extended finger board. So far the Munier books I used never got me beyond the LA at fret 17
Although it's clear to me after 5 years of playing that it is not a violin, I will always think of my mandolin as a fretted violin played with a pick. I even got myself a violin teacher