Lloyd Loar soundboard thickness/

[tdnate]

I am just wondering if anyone has really shared the soundboard thicknesses of Lloyd Loar mandolins? It seems that makers are kind of closed mouthed about it. I understand the need to keep certain secrets, but I wonder if that information will be lost. Are most of the measurements that have been shared target measurements, or real measurements?

[HoGo]

If you google around this site you'll find at least half dozen top/back graduation maps from real Loars. Makers and players are not as "closed mouthed" these days as they used to be few decades ago...

[sunburst]

There are no secrets. There are so many ways to measure things...

[Marty Jacobson]

There's also quite a bit of variation from instrument to instrument, so there is no one definitive geometric spec. You'll definitely find some consistent patterns from example to example, just not as cut and dried as you might think. I think the best way to learn about great instruments and why they work is to look at the relative thicknesses and the location of thinner/thicker regions rather than worrying too much about the exact measured thickness.

[Dale Ludewig]

And the thicknesses of various tops (and backs) need to be different for different pieces of wood. It's not that hard, but it's not hard and dried to get the optimal sound out of particular plate.

[Timbofood]

To be honest, I think that information is pretty freely shared by those around here. "HoGo" has some excellent plans with plate dimension and graduation information. But as said by respected builders above, variation may depend on individual material.

[Ivan Kelsall]

The answer to the original question could very well be - ''which Loar''. As the posters above have suggested,there are many variations. As for being closed mouthed about it,Roger Siminoff's plans have been around for a long while,& those are based on Roger's own measurements of Loars.

For builders,those graduations are simply a starting point. In doing the actual carving,according to the pieces of wood used,you might need to carve either more or less to achieve the optimum graduations,as no 2 pieces of wood are exactly the same,
Ivan

[fscotte]

He just wants numbers. So here's some absolutely free measurements.

So, for the top, .145" - .170" center, to .080" - .150" recurve.

Back, .130" to .170" center to .060" - .110 recurve.

Hopefully this will illustrate that thickness varies and carving to those specs do not guarantee a Loar sound.

I'm sure Adrian has even more variations as well.

[Marty Jacobson]

SHHHHH Wes. You've broken the Luthier's Code by divulging the Sacred Numbers.

[Spruce]

SHHHHH Wes. You've broken the Luthier's Code by divulging the Sacred Numbers.

Here's some Hacks of #75307...

[Oliver A.]

I guess the seal is broken then. I hope we still hang on to the secret handshake.

#76081





'just a thought, why don't we create a "sticky" post for all graduation measurements of Loar F-5s that people have done? 'might be a great resource.

[tdnate]

Wow. You all are great. Thanks for the information. Love the comments.

[j. condino]

The entire content of the opening post makes it seem like they have never looked around any of the threads here. The depth of information sharing and knowledge that folks openly offer up here for no return is unprecedented compared to almost every other community of instrument builders on the web. Is it April 1 already or just an early fall fishing expedition?????

[Bernie Daniel]

Wow. You all are great. Thanks for the information. Love the comments.

But you should have looked (or asked politely) before making unfounded statements like:

"It seems that makers are kind of closed mouthed about it. I understand the need to keep certain secrets, but I wonder if that information will be lost. Are most of the measurements that have been shared target measurements, or real measurements?"

Totally off-base and totally wrong.

[Demetrius]

[Marty Jacobson]

Totally off-base and totally wrong.

I think he was just frustrated... there are many different answers and they are buried deep in discussion much of the time. I don't fault tdnate. Some people haven't spent hundreds of hours digging through past threads like a lot of us here.

[Timbofood]

Good grief, the cat is out of the bag now! There will be a million threads about graduations for the next six months!
This is so much fun.
The offering of the images is even more fun!
Kind, generous folks here.
Most of the time it's kind of difficult to get them to STOP talking about the OP question.

[tdnate]

I really do appreciate all the responses, but I want to assure you I have over the years looked through the archives and such.
My post was an honest, yet I admit, somewhat cynical question as to whether or not the thicknesses shared were truly accurate.
I do apologize if I have offended anyone. That was not my intent.

[Willie Poole]

Wouldn`t have needed to ask that question if Gibson would have kept those specs and allowed them to be made public, they at one time said the factory burned down and they lost all records along with serial number info too...But some how the serial numbers got found and made public and now so are the graduations which most vary from different wood density...."TAP TUNIG?"

Willie

[gep]

Good morning everyone,
I'm a new member and I have been reading some arguments in this forum for a long time. I have been learning mandolin construction reading books by R.Siminoff and others. All drawings in those books are refered at the original F5 Lloyd Loar and in my free time I'm building an F5 model respecting thickness measurements.
I'm using Italian kinds of wood and whereas I believe in tap tuning process I had to reduce a little the thickness of soundboard and backboard to catch the D# 4th octave but arrive to D# 3th octave as explained in the book seems impossible, sounboard would be too thin (less than 0.115 inch in the minimun area). It would be appreciate your suggestions.
Thanks a lot
Enrico

[fscotte]

Is it attached to the rim? Is the neck attached?

[HoGo]

Good morning everyone,
I'm a new member and I have been reading some arguments in this forum for a long time. I have been learning mandolin construction reading books by R.Siminoff and others. All drawings in those books are refered at the original F5 Lloyd Loar and in my free time I'm building an F5 model respecting thickness measurements.
I'm using Italian kinds of wood and whereas I believe in tap tuning process I had to reduce a little the thickness of soundboard and backboard to catch the D# 4th octave but arrive to D# 3th octave as explained in the book seems impossible, sounboard would be too thin (less than 0.115 inch in the minimun area). It would be appreciate your suggestions.
Thanks a lot
Enrico

Welcome to Cafe Enrico.
I'd suggest forget the tuning process at least for few first mandolins and go for numbers. If you search the forums enough you'll find old threads about original specs and also a facsimile of original Gibson specs sheet and discussions about it. Read it all and use those numbers instead of Siminoff numbers, they are quite off (mostly thick) and no real Loar grads I've seen come close to them.
Also for methods of making look for oder threads here on MC some of the best makers share their really cool and effective methods. Some of the methods in Sim. book are weird....
I'd say forget the book altogether and look for suggestions of John Hamlett, A. Mowry and others who post regularly.
PS: 0.115" at the recurve could be quite acceptable in the recurve region if the wood is stiff, just leave it bit thicker under tailpiece and of course under the f-b extension area.

[George R. Lane]

I guess the seal is broken then. I hope we still hang on to the secret handshake. .

As a Master Mason, one should never reveal their secret handshake. The penalty is far too gruesome.

[Timbofood]

It's like the secret "Virginia Boy" neckerchief knot! Those that know.....

[Oliver A.]

As a Master Mason, one should never reveal their secret handshake. The penalty is far too gruesome.