A5 design detail

[Michael Lewis]

Kinda crowds the "sweet spot".

[j. condino]

Another reason why Spruce Bruce is the man!!!

Thanks for posting John's notes for the top. Since you brought it up, post the back for us now! I bet he had that in the shop when I used to live just a few blocks away from him, and never said a word about it. I've had access to that mandolin in the past too; pretty cool.The fret job and setup were a bit rough when I saw it. I never had a second thought about not having a scroll...

Anyone picking around the Asheville area might run into a pretty good forgery of that one out working the trenches. Some days it gets a little confusing when the fake is holding strong right next to a real Loar F5.

j.
www.condino.com

[Darryl Wolfe]

The original A5 has the bridge on the downslope. The one(s) that Gail Hester built does too. The bridge on the original Loar A5 is actually "jacked up" a bit as the neck was apparently set for "X" height above the apex of the top

[Darryl Wolfe]

There is also little if any off centerness to the neck installation. Note that the top of the f-holes essentially align with the tip of the fingerboard

[Darryl Wolfe]

This is the only picture I know of showing the original pickguard. I kinda blew it on the ones I made for Mark Taylor, Prodigal 5. My pattern is just a tad short (does not quite come close enough to the bridge)

The pickguard is not attached in that photo. It is resting canted up on the binding

[Darryl Wolfe]

The peghead binding has only one miter at the tip and is the only Loar triple bound on the face of the peghead in ivoroid. The normal run of trip on the face started in Feb 24 with white celluloid

[Darryl Wolfe]

I played the Hans A5 at Loarfest. Yes it is a remarkable build on his part. In fact I have the Gail Hester A5 in my possession in an effort to more fully shake these details out. It too is a very nice tribute

I really do not think there was alot of extra effort put into the A5 from a design aspect. I spent some time with it in 2002 I believe the back to be carved on the standard A-model form and graduated to the "style 5 dimensions on the spec sheet and I believe the top to be carved mostly on the F5 form and then a simple "wing it" to work it out. This resulted in the downslope aspect and displaced bridge and F-holes. If you will note, the reference crosspiece and fingerboard are placed in relation to the end of the body (F5 style) instead of in relation to the center of the body. This fact, along with the A-model body being longer accounts for all of the anomolies

[Darryl Wolfe]

Here is a crude attempt to illustrate what I meant by the crosspiece

[Darryl Wolfe]

Let's try this again a bit less crude

[HoGo]

Thanks Bruce (and John) for the grads!
Darryl, are you sure that the body shape is the same on the two mandolins?
It seems like the A4 has a bit longer body at the neck joint (disregarding position of crosspiece). I remember Gail H. mentioned two different lengths of A model with approx. 1/4" difference.
Regarding the arching... you should also consider that the arch behind bridge bulges outward when string tension is applied. With this position of bridge the effect may be exagerrated and in long term this can be permanent (even on some Loar F5's the apex migrated considerably back towards tailpiece). You can see similar effect on most cheaper Kentucky A5's with pressed top.
So, the question is what did the arch look like when the mandolin was new? The grads are quite thin for such large area behind bridge...

[Mike Black]

Here are the back graduations that John Sullivan took that Bruce sent me the other day. I hope that you don't mind that I post them.

The thing that I noticed is that the back is thinner than the top.

[Spruce]

Darryl, are you sure that the body shape is the same on the two mandolins?
It seems like the A4 has a bit longer body at the neck joint (disregarding position of crosspiece). I remember Gail H. mentioned two different lengths of A model with approx. 1/4" difference.

I've heard from some sources that the Loar A is the same body shape as an A4 from the same period...

And, I've heard from other sources that it is different, especially around the neck area...

Love some input on this one...

PS...
When are your Loar A5 plans coming out, Adrian??

[sunburst]

I really do not think there was alot of extra effort put into the A5 from a design aspect... I believe the back to be carved on the standard A-model form and graduated to the "style 5 dimensions on the spec sheet and I believe the top to be carved mostly on the F5 form and then a simple "wing it" to work it out...

That's always been my impression of this mandolin, as well as a lot of other things that Gibson did in those days.
I can understand the desire to study and understand this mando and make a "bench copy" or two, put to me it seems that there are so many ways to improve the design that I don't understand why anyone would want to produce them. It's like they decided to make a "Loar" without points and scrolls, and rather than sit down and design one they just 'used what they had' in the production shop 'tradition'.

[Mike Black]

It seems like the A4 has a bit longer body at the neck joint (disregarding position of crosspiece). I remember Gail H. mentioned two different lengths of A model with approx. 1/4" difference.

I believe that the neck joint that Gail was mentioning was the difference between the paddlehead and the snakehead. It's shown in this thread.

[Spruce]

I can understand the desire to study and understand this mando and make a "bench copy" or two, put to me it seems that there are so many ways to improve the design that I don't understand why anyone would want to produce them. .

Well, half-assed design or not, it's probably the best sounding Loar I've ever played...

Or was I hallucinating?

[Gail Hester]

Well, half-assed design or not, it's probably the best sounding Loar I've ever played...

It is very loud and it will peal paint but not necessarily in a good way at least to my ears (although I have trouble with telecasters on the bridge pickup running through a twin reverb on ten also).

I think those graduations were really whacky and did not try to duplicate them nor have I tried to copy the Loar A5 exactly. I graduate my A5s like I would an F5. As Michael mentions, the sweet spot shifts a ways up the neck but everyone seems to get used to that quickly.

[Spruce]

...although I have trouble with telecasters on the bridge pickup running through a twin reverb on ten also...

Ahhh, that's why I liked that mandolin...

[sprucetop1]

As the OP I stand back in awe at the resultant discussion....

So I'm thicknessing the top tomorrow.....advice on grads please........John

[sunburst]

...advice on grads please...

Not too thin.
I'd have to have my hands on the wood you have to get some idea of how I might graduate it, but I wouldn't go under 3mm around the edge of the top while leaving the previously mentioned thicker areas in the string line. The center thickness could be anywhere from less than 4mm to over 5mm depending on the wood and the sound you want. Probably somewhere between 4mm and 5mm. The back can be thinner, but there is even more variation in back wood stiffness and density than top wood, so that's about all I can say. I've carved stiff hard maple backs to slightly under 2mm around the edge, but that's rare, they're usually thicker than that.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Purely as an (very) interested bystander to this discussion,which my friend John, 'sprucetop', began,i can't help feeling that there's something 'not quite right' in this A-5 design,& that Gibson have (sucessfully mind you), cobbled together a longer scale Mandolin based on a shorter scale body.The result being,that the bridge no longer sits at the apex of the top,but back towards the neck,in an area of lessened vibration. ( If i'm talking BS - please tell me,i can take it.)
Do all builders of their own design A-5 style instruments,place the bridge in this position,or do they try to place it on the apex of the top contoured area ?.
Taking my reasoning to it's ultimate,ludicrous conclusion,if they'd made the scale so long,that the bridge was now up against the neck,you'd have a traversty of an instrument !.
I'm playing 'devil's advocate' here to an extent,in an effort to try to understand the quirky bridge placement on the Loar A-5. Please don't send the guys in black suits around just yet,i'm trying to learn something,
Ivan

[HoGo]

When are your Loar A5 plans coming out, Adrian??

Well Bruce, give me the mandolin for a week or a CT scan of that thing and some time.... :D
I do have some simple drawings of it at home, but without having enough direct measurements it's PITA.

Darryl, could you elaborate about the binding, please? I'm not much into dating or chronology of Loars, but there are those IBW top-bound headstocks... where do they fit in timeline? Of course I could have a look into the archive but are there any generalizations?

I wouldn't generalize about shape of body and era or model since G likely used several A body moulds and they were not exactly same. They were made of aluminum and were used for years. The only known original F mould doesn't perfectly fit all Loar F5's in some areas (though nowhere as much as 1/4").

[Darryl Wolfe]

HOGO yes there were IBW bindings that mostly showed up with the first Fern Loars. The later instruments in the Feb 18, 24 batch had a mix of IBW and WBW on the face of the peghead. Prior to that point most every May 29, 23, July 9, 23, Dec 11, 23 and earlier Feb 18, 24 were triple bound on the side of the PH in IBI. The A5 is simply bound on the face with that same binding. Prior to May 29, 23 they were single and double bound in I or IB on the side

[Darryl Wolfe]

Have I specifically measured the A5? No. But I have held the A5 in one hand and a '23 A4 in the other. I see no difference in the rim set other than the 1-3/8 vice 1-1/2 tall deal. If you look closely at the comparative picture I posted, you can see the same assymetry on both mandolins. The right hand upper bout dives lower and faster than the left and has a less graceful radius where the head block portion transitions into the main body. This cannot happen by chance. It happens by building them both in the same form.

[Hans]

Keep in mind that Loars were pretty thick compared to some mandolins being made today. Modern builders have had to take into account the idea that many customers want instant gratification in a mandolin, and it's been my experience that you can't have both a Loar sound and a fantastic sounding mandolin right away. Instruments built to Loar specs are very stiff to start and take a lot of pounding to break in. They are not that resonant to begin with. It comes through playing.
Now, you can build an instrument for instant gratification that will be very resonant, sound excellent right out of the box, but will never sound like a Loar. The choice is yours.
Let me also say that you are safer building a thicker instrument. It'll hold together. Builders making "IG" mandolins are close to the edge of collapse, but know through experience how far to go.
John is also right that the wood will tell you how far you can go. I know that sounds a lot like "Figure it out for yourself!" but it's actually called experience.
I'd stick close to the grads given to you. Use red spruce and red maple.

[Darryl Wolfe]

I could not agree more with that post by Hans