New Gibson Bill Monroe Hall Of Fame Model?

[HoGo]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I just cannot understand why David doesn't fix the fingerboard so that frets 21 & 22 line up with the horizontal binding of the transition phase of the fingerboard/extension.

It always jumps out as just looking "wrong" compared to the Loars. And could probably be fixed in one afternoon. (maybe I'm wrong)

But especially on a reproduction "Hall of Fame" model!

I would not mind it on THIS model as Monroe had the fingerboard replaced by Gibson before the vandalism and it no longer had original style board...

The back of Monroes Loar can be seen here,
http://www.mandolinarchive.com/gibson/serial/73987
the wear pattern was similar but on this new mandolin the exposed wood is way too bright and surrounding varnish way too dark.

[mtucker]

Not a dead ringer finish-wise obviously because Bill's was roached. I assume someone looked at his before going to work with dremel and chains. The wear on the back does look odd to me but who knows, I'm no expert on Monroe's or other Loar-era F5's for that matter.

[William Smith]

David sent me a nice photo of Monroe holding and looking at the back, it is close but yes the new one is brighter but that being a prototype, I'm sure they'll iron out some of those things? I hope David can post a sound clip because I was stunned at how Loarish it sounds, It is way better sounding Loar wise to the F-5 that Ricky Skaggs did/had done on that demo he did for Sweetwater? I think that's what it was, His is a Great sounding F-5 but this Monroe one way different! I'd like to know what David and the team did different, in plate graduation, or tone bar placement or is it just the same and the woods used made it freakish?

[Mandolin Cafe]

Here's one video but guessing there may be others. Need to click on the image to activate it... it's a FB thing.

[fbv]809165199467368[/fbv]

[mtucker]

Love to see the photo if you'd care to share. Perhaps the wood has been torrified for that worn-in sound, the wood has certainly been terrified...

[re simmers]

Did all of the Skaggs, Lawson, Bibey, Benson, Steffey models sell? Were they in the $20k price range?
Sorry, I haven’t kept up with Gibson prices.
$25k is a lot of money.
Does it include a rattle from Oklahoma? That might be the deal breaker for me.
Bob

[Hendrik Ahrend]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I just cannot understand why David doesn't fix the fingerboard so that frets 21 & 22 line up with the horizontal binding of the transition phase of the fingerboard/extension.

It always jumps out as just looking "wrong" compared to the Loars. And could probably be fixed in one afternoon. (maybe I'm wrong)

But especially on a reproduction "Hall of Fame" model!

I see what you mean. The mandolin may sound wonderful. And heck, I love Gibsons, and Monroe. But this MM is heart breaking. The head stock is modeled after Charlie Derrington's redo on Monroe's F5. (Why didn't Charlie seriously try to reconstruct the old head stock veneer instead of redesigning it?) The fingerboard looks like StewMac. The front of the body scroll is not quite as ugly as the eagle beaked back side. But still, the opening is way too wide for my taste and reminds of the worse recent Gibson F5 scrolls instead of 1920s F5s. (I guess it's due to the one large router bit they have and use until deep into the scroll.)

All this is so unloarish and clearly visible from afar, that there is no risk at all for possible forgery discussions or fraudulent use. I'd like to know, why Gibson never really tried to copy a vintage F5 or at least mixed Loar F5 details for that matter. (I'd suggest using Adrian Minarovic's plans or consulting Jamie Wiens or Mike Kemnitzer.)
If they don't want to copy, but instead come up with their new Gibson F5 version/interpretation/development, that's fine. But then don't try to lure the customers into believing they get something close to the original.

And "all Loars where different" would be a cheap excuse in this case - IMHO.

[JAK]

The price is close to the same as a new Gilchrist?

[re simmers]

There’s a used Gil for $19.5 right now. I could buy that Gil and another Buckeye for $25k.
If I had it!!!
Bob

[Luna Pick]

I respect the heck out of the talent to make the repro, the sound, and the distressing, and hope Gibson sells as many of these models as they can. But the fingerboard, case, and Monroe name premium price are lost on me. But, that's just my dos centavos.

[jeff_75]

It's nice and all, but before I cough up that much scratch, I want the distressing process to be authentic as well and involve actual smashing by a fireplace poker followed by repair.

[marbelizer]

It's nice and all, but before I cough up that much scratch, I want the distressing process to be authentic as well and involve actual smashing by a fireplace poker followed by repair.

That would be fine, but then we're talking what, about $35 - $40K?

[William Smith]

Yes I wouldn't spend that much on a new/newish mandolin! I'd rather buy vintage, for just a few more bucks you can have a late 20's early 30's Fern? Or for that price a late 30's early 40's F-5 flowerpot, fluer-de-lis, or one of the few of that era with the fern? But I for sure can see hardcore Monroe fans going for these neat tribute F-5's, I know the sound I heard on this one was very impressive! Like I said I want to know what was done different to the MM to get that sound because they are all not like that, Even Mr. Ricky's while great sounding sure doesn't sound like this Monroe example!
And even if you don't like the looks of it, KUDOS to David Harvey and helpers who aged that thing! I can't imagine the countless hours to get that thing to look so close to Big Mons!

[Hendrik Ahrend]

The price is close to the same as a new Gilchrist?

John, Steve Gilchrist never tried to copy the Loar sound, as lovely as his F5s are in most any respect. So if you prefer a Gibson F5 sound (sound spectrum, I should say), a Gil wouldn't be the mando you'd turn to. Steve would be the first to admit, I believe.

[Astro]

Ya have to remember, their not building them for you.

Their building them for the 1% who can barley discern the difference between 5k and 50k and If they want something it doesnt matter much if the decimal place moves left or right a place or two.

[f5loar]

Before I order mine, I'll wait for Tom I. to get his and post a review...

I've got an authentic Barber Shop Edition. I will wait for the pre-poker 1979 edition (the peak of distress before Gibson repaired the headstock the first time). If I remember the price difference use to be $6000 between the MM and the DMM , so the price is about spot on. I find the signature label 22 years after he died, to be the icing on the cake here. One thing for sure, Monroe is not signing anything these days.

[DataNick]

Great article in Bluegrass Today: Gibson Bill Monroe Hall of Fame Mandolin that gives more backstory and Gibson's production plans!

[f5joe]

My turn.

I find nothing interesting about the mandolin. If you like it, buy it. However, I find having Monroe's actual signature in a reproduction he actually never authorized to be extremely creepy. Extremely.

[John Adrihan]

I actually like the instrument and wish I could afford to buy one. With that said, after really wanting to own a Gibson, and after buying two Ferns and sending both back, I have some advise for Dave and Gibson.... Instead of making all these different models in an attempt to appease what seems a bunch of different cost points, just make a mandolin like they did in the the twenties (loar style) and I guess if you really have to go ahead and make your ferns, but I want a Gibson with a flower pot and a good scroll, no scooped florida (let me do that if i want to) good bindings. Go ahead and have options for tuners and such and then sell it for a reasonable price. I guarantee that your mandolin sales will skyrocket and at least for the folk or acoustic part of the business most troubles will go away. Disclaimer- this is my opinion.

[DataNick]

My turn.

I find nothing interesting about the mandolin. If you like it, buy it. However, I find having Monroe's actual signature in a reproduction he actually never authorized to be extremely creepy. Extremely.

This deserves some pushback for the following reasons:

1. You assume the contractual language between Gibson and Bill Monroe for the Monroe Model prohibits any future usage of the signature labels in future iterations. How do you know that to be the case? Have you talked to Henry J., or Steve Carlson, or Bruce Weber, or James Monroe?
Have you seen the signed contract between Mr. Monroe and Gibson?
Don't you think that David Harvey has the business acumen to have checked on that, or at least gotten James Monroe's blessing?

2. You assume that Mr. Monroe would have been against such usage...again have you talked to James Monroe?

It certainly appears that after Charlie D. put his mandolin back together that Mr. Monroe would have gladly endorsed any such attempts at honoring him and his mandolin...your creepy statements to me are just that:creepy...YMMV

[Phil Goodson]

F5joe didn't say illegal. He said 'creepy'.

[DataNick]

F5joe didn't say illegal. He said 'creepy'.

And I never intimated "illegal"..he stated "I find having Monroe's actual signature in a reproduction he actually never authorized to be extremely creepy..."

Without knowledge of what I stated earlier, his comments are full of hot air and misplaced righteous indignation...

[f5joe]

And I never intimated "illegal"..he stated "I find having Monroe's actual signature in a reproduction he actually never authorized to be extremely creepy..."

Without knowledge of what I stated earlier, his comments are full of hot air and misplaced righteous indignation...

First, I was only expressing my opinion. This is a discussion forum. That's all.

Second, Gibson/Monroe are free to do anything they choose.

Third, I am a huge Gibson fan as evidenced by my ownership past and present.

Fourth, "righteous indignation" seems a bit harsh ..... but, OK, that's your opinion.

And ...... I still find it creepy. JMHO, that's all.

[re simmers]

There’s a buyer for everything I guess. Big Mon’s signature endorsement of another mandolin pasted inside of one made 20+ years after his death is not something I would buy, even with a video tape of Bill giving his blessing to mandolins made after his death......but I don’t have $25k anyhow. However, I’m kind of a cynic of marketing gimmicks. The original Monroe signature and the distressing.....for $25k....confirms that PT Barnum knew what he was talking about.
But, hey, that’s just me.
Bob

[DataNick]

First, I was only expressing my opinion. This is a discussion forum. That's all.

Second, Gibson/Monroe are free to do anything they choose.

Third, I am a huge Gibson fan as evidenced by my ownership past and present.

Fourth, "righteous indignation" seems a bit harsh ..... but, OK, that's your opinion.

And ...... I still find it creepy. JMHO, that's all.

No harm, no foul Joe...however when one enters the kitchen of a discussion forum armed with an opinion that apparently has no basis of fact, beware of the heat caused by pushback...and after all pushback is just saying "No"...amazing how as a society we become so defensive when someone challenges us with a simple "No"...

Carry on lest this thread gets closed