1917 Gibson Artist-Model F-4 Mandolin

Context

A lot happened in the world in 1917.  A few examples: Woodrow Wilson begins his second term as President.  Czar Nicholas II of Russia abdicates and Lenin steps in.  The United States enters World War I.  Race riots erupt in East St. Louis and Houston.  The NAACP protests 36 lynchings.  Scott Joplin dies.  And on a happier note, Columbia Records becomes the first American label to record a major symphony orchestra.  Competitor Victor Records inaugurates recorded jazz with a recording of the "Original Dixieland Jass [sic] Band."  Babe Ruth, then a pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, is thrown out of a game for slugging the ump over a disputed walk.  His replacement, Ernie Shore, catches the walked batter trying to steal and then retires the next 26 batters -- 27 consecutive outs and a perfect game.  The Clark Bar and Moon Pie make their first appearances.  

Panorama of downtown Kalamazoo in the late Teens.  (Click on image for source and larger version)

Background

Gibson was the premier builder of mandolins at the end of the 19^th and beginning of the 20^th centuries. Orville Gibson was a part-time shoe clerk who founded the Gibson Company in 1894 in a one-room shop in Kalamazoo, Michigan. His design departed from earlier mandolin building practices in that the top was hand carved to a curved shape in the manner of violin construction. This early Gibson design was not an unqualified success. The instruments had a carved top and back but the back, unlike the top, was flat across most of its central area and curved only at its periphery. This configuration is reminiscent of a cast iron frying pan, with curved sides and flat bottom. Both a pear-shape and a Florentine body style were available. The tuners featured delicately inlaid buttons. The instruments were relatively large (with a 15" scale length) and heavy; their sound was somewhat brittle. Improvements would follow.

Above, patent drawings for original Gibson mandolin.

Below, Gibson label from about 1907, after Orville sold the company.

Above, Orville Gibson's 1898 patent and examples of early 

Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Co., Ltd. Styles A and F.

Note the flat backs on both models.

On October 10,1902, to quote Gibson historian Walter Carter, “Gibson changed from an individual to a company,” with the signing of Articles of Incorporation by Orville Gibson and Lewis Williams, the man who would run the new Gibson Mandolin-Guitar Co., Ltd. (Orville continued on as a consultant until 1915.) By 1908, the company set aside many of Orville’s design concepts and began making narrower, thinner, shorter-scaled mandolins with lighter, fully-curved, carved backs. Other new features appearing on the post-1908 Florentine models were a more delicate and elegant scroll, replacing the relatively bulbous form of the earlier design, and an elevated pickguard replacing the original, inlaid version. Their sound was widely hailed as an improvement over that of their predecessors. Retained, however, were the two basic body silhouettes that Orville had used: the pear-shaped A-style and the novel and somewhat flamboyant Florentine or F-style. The latter originally featured a scroll and point on the bass edge and two additional points on the treble edge of the instrument. Two scrolls on the headstock profile echoed the curlicue theme, as did the exquisite tuner buttons featuring two intertwined nickel-silver vines with pearl accents.

Gibson's 3-point F-4 (note headstock inlay)

The Florentine silhouette was available in the simpler F-2 and the more elaborate F-4 models. The F-4 was top dog in the Gibson mandolin line and its features were commensurate with that lofty status. These included more elaborate headstock inlay and more extensive binding that framed not only the top, but the back, fingerboard, and headstock as well. Over time, variations in the appearance of the F-4 occurred. Whereas the earliest headstock inlay was a star and crescent motif, this changed, also in 1908, when an ornate flowerpot design made from pearl and wire was introduced. Two years later, the body silhouette was altered when the point on the bass side was eliminated. The result was the “two-point-and-scroll” body style that is used on Gibson F models, and those of numerous imitators, to this day. The following year, the headstock inlay was again changed. The long flowerpot inlay was compressed into a more compact double-flowerpot design to make room for “The Gibson” in pearl script. A few years more down the road, The F-4 became available in a mahogany-red finish with slight shading toward the edges and a golden-red highlight at the center, rather than the solid black or orange-colored finishes that were previously available. These instruments are especially attractive, with the recurring curves of the body and headstock scrolls, the points, and the inlaid tuners all working harmoniously together. 

Examples of classical Ionic capital, Renaissance architectural detail with sinuous vines in the surround, and a curvy, asymmetrical Art Nouveau drawing by Beardsley.

These fluid design motifs are evocative of Neoclassical, Renaissance, and Art Nouveau decorative styles.  For example, the scrolls evoke Ionic capitals; the ornate tuner inlays, Renaissance flower-and-vine ornamentation; and the asymmetry (only the shape of the tailpiece cover and the location of the tuners are bilaterally symmetrical) and curves, the Art Nouveau styles of Aubrey Beardsley.

Gibson F-4 Headstock with Double Flowerpot,

"The Gibson" script, and Handel tuners.

By 1918, with World War I in full bloom, Gibson was no longer able to obtain the beautifully inlaid, German-made Handel tuners.   Plain ivory-colored buttons were used from that point forward, a sad if understandable turn of events.  Roger Siminoff, in a 1981 issue of Frets, notes:

The 'Handel' machines featured bone knobs that were fancily inlaid with mother-of-pearl, abalone, and fine wire.... Because the knobs were cemented onto the shafts, they are very difficult to remove; so you have to think of the knobs and their attached gears as a unit.  It was originally believed that the gears and backstraps were made in this country, then sent to Germany for the Handel firm to install the inlaid knobs; but Handel actually did the entire job overseas....  They were quite beautiful, and the workmanship was excellent.

Lew WIlliams (left) and Lloyd Loar (right), after both had left Gibson.

The first change was really a combination of modifications introduced in A and F-style models or, in one case to A-styles only. Perhaps chief among these was the introduction, in about 1921, of a steel truss rod to reinforce mandolin necks. THe second innovation, introduced shortly thereafter in the full line of instruments, was a two-piece adjustable bridge, featuring two thumb wheels that allowed the height of the string-bearing portion to be raised or lowered. The third actually was a direct result of Loar's coming to Gibson, although the invention itself was not his.  It is the Virzi Tone Producer, which Loar licensed from the Virzi Brothers, an oval-shaped, flat, resonant piece of wood with two carved C-shaped soundholes that was suspended under the instrument's top.  This was an option available on both A and F-style mandolins.  The fourth modification affected A-styles only. They acquired a new headstock shape, the so-called snakehead. None of these modifications were introduced by Loar. The truss rod was invented by Thaddeus J. (Ted) McHugh; the adjustable bridge, was developed by McHugh and Lewis A. (Lew) Williams, and the snakehead configuration by Williams.

The second, and more significant change to the mandolin line was the introduction of a new model that was a radical departure from other mandolins. This innovation carried Orville Gibson’s original mandolin/violin metaphor a step further than earlier designs. Unlike the oval soundhole of the F-4, the new F-5 had double, f-shaped sound holes similar to those on a violin. This Gibson “innovation” is also credited to Williams, rather than Loar (and appeared on Waldo mandolins as early as the 1890s). The new F-5 mandolins produced an especially loud, fundamental-rich tone that later, in the hands of Bill Monroe, was to become the definitive bluegrass mandolin sound.

The New Kid:  Loar-Era F-5.  

Note the single-flowerpot inlay.

Digression on Violin-like Design: The violin analogy bears examination. Gibson’s marketing team frequently compared their company’s mandolins to Stradivarius violins. One of their catalogs proclaimed on its cover, “The Principle of Stradivarius Arching and Graduation Applied to Fretted Instruments.” Inside, they asserted, “Stradivarius was among the first to develop the graduated sounding board and back board which so vitally influences beauty of tone...” Marc Montefusco, writing in the May/June 1977 issue of Mandolin Notebook, examined the similarities and differences between a violin’s functional design and an F-5s. He noted far more significant differences than similarities. Among the former were unequal internal volumes; one functional air chamber on the mandolin vs two on the waisted violin; and placement of sound holes in the widest area of greatest top vibration on the mandolin rather than the narrowest area of least vibration, as on the dual-chambered violin (see diagram below). He also noted that violin features were optimized for bowing, not plucking. While an F-5 is different functionally from most plucked instruments, it is also functionally different from a violin. Montefusco concludes that, “as a plucked instrument, the F-5 is neither fish nor fowl.” Luthier/scientist Dave Cohen, who has studied the vibrational modes of mandolin plates by means of TV holography, also regards the mandolin-violin analogy as far from perfect.  In a recent article in Mandolin Quarterly profiling his work, Cohen observes that, "the mandolin is much more closely related to the guitar in terms of its modes of vibration than it is to a violin, despite its physical similarity to the violin."  Perhaps even more telling is Stradivari’s own determination of what design is best for a plucked instrument.  As mandolin sage Eugene Braig has observed, Stradivarius actually made some mandolins – and fitted them with a flat top, round soundhole, and bowl back. No one would argue that the characteristics incorporated into the F-5 or other Gibson mandolins have been a failure – far from it. But the reason for the success of the design appears to have little in common with the violin.

Comparison of Fiddle and F-5 Mandolin

Construction (see accompanying text).

Adapted from Montefusco, 1977

Stadivari mandolin - No carved top or f-holes.

(click on image for source)

Suddenly, the F-4 was no longer the top of the line. It remained a wonderful and highly admired instrument, however, until its discontinuation in 1943. The F-5 quickly established itself at the top of the pecking order. It is worth restating that Loar did not develop the characteristic features of the F-5. One of the innovations he did introduce, but not invent, was the Virzi Tone Producer. His other, more important, innovation was tuning various components of the F-5 – the tone bars, top thickness, and soundhole size – so that each reinforced the acoustical properties of the other. It seems likely that the new design posed some challenges that needed Loar’s attention as an acoustician. Siminoff states that, “Loar was involved in instrument aesthetics and playability, in expanding the instrument musically....” Clearly, Loar’s efforts were directed primarily at optimizing the new F-5.

The front line of this late-1800s combo all sport Waldo mandolins.

They had f-holes decades before the F-5 appeared.

(Photo courtesy of Paul Ruppa)

When people speak of Gibsons from the Loar era, they often talk about greater care in graduating top thicknesses and a higher degree of individual attention to each instrument. Earlier instruments, they might point out, were sometimes remarkably good, but with less consistency in tonal quality. Comments of this sort amount to an assertion that quality control improved during the Loar era, that attention to detail eliminated small errors or inconsistencies in manufacture. This very well could have been a direct result of Loar’s assuming the role of production manager at Gibson.  For instruments as well-made as early Gibsons, the relevant distinction is between very good and excellent quality control.  This is very hard to judge retrospectively.  It involves comparisons of subtle and subjective features on roughly 80-year-old instruments.  Instruments cannot be measured to determine consistency because the goal is consistency of sound not dimension.  Differences in sound after 80 years may not reflect how two instruments compared when they left the factory.  Nonetheless, there is a sense among at least some observers that the A-style Gibsons from the Loar era are more consistent than those made at other times.  Whether this is fact or fiction is difficult to determine but the prevailing wisdom among musicians shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  There may have been an improvement in consistency during the Loar years.

It is worth noting that quality control as a source of improvement on pre-Loar models (i.e., other than the F-5) probably would have had its greatest impact on Gibson’s lesser instruments, the As. High-end models, destined for astute and demanding customers including professional musicians, could never have gotten away with very much carelessness. Reputation would have been compromised. Johnstone, among others, would have had the greatest interest and probably would have paid the most attention to the F-style models (he, himself, played an F-2).

Above, a mandolin ensemble featuring F-4s.  

Johnstone played his F-2 in similar groups.

On the other hand, beginner’s instruments – those thousands of mandolins that over the decades dealers put into the hands of neophyte mandolinists lured by the appeal of mandolin orchestras – perhaps could get by with slightly less rigorous control standards. We’re not talking pieces of junk here; we’re merely talking about instruments that lacked the magical spark of more carefully crafted examples. This is consistent with the common observation (which seems to be more true of pre-Loar As) that some vintage A-1s are great and some are not so great. If quality control is an important element in the Loar era supremacy, it is likely applicable in inverse proportion to the cost and status of the particular model, with A-1s benefiting more from consistency than A-4s or F-4s. For the new F-5s, quality control could not have improved under Loar’s leadership simply because they hadn’t been around before then.

Another criterion is to look at the design changes that the Loar era ushered in and to judge whether or not they were notable improvements. For A-styles, several changes took place, although they existed on paper prior to Loar’s affiliation with Gibson and were not his designs.

The Paddle (left) and Snakehead (right) headsocks found on A-styles.

Note that neither has a truss rod cover.

One was the adoption of the so-called snakehead headstock, narrower at the far end than at the nut. This provided a straighter path for strings from the tuner shafts through the nut grooves. It also made the instruments of that period instantly recognizable, at least until the snakehead design was re-introduced years later. I like the look of snakeheads and the one I owned had a wonderful sound. I have no idea what in particular accounts for that sound. No one, I suspect, would argue that the snakehead was a functional (as opposed to cosmetic) change for the worse. So, it is either a neutral change or an improvement, in all likelihood. The adjustable bridges popularized during the Loar era are also nice and undoubtedly an improvement, but can easily be added to earlier instruments. Thus, it is harder to make a case that they, by themselves, would make Loar-era instruments special. 

The most "Loar-esque" change to occur was the one least heralded - the Virzi Tone Producer, pictured above.  These produce a warmer, more complex but less loud voice.  I have never played a Virzi-equipped Gibson but have heard them played and very much like their tone.  But most mandolin enthusiasts, especially bluegrassers, seem to want nothing to do with the Virzi.  This may be because they favor volume and penetration over mellowness in their instruments, which is a perfectly reasonable point of view.  The other significant modification was the installation of an adjustable truss rod. It is an open question how much these prevented necks from warping. Mandolin necks made of woods such as mahogany, birch, and maple are quite stable. There are lots of vintage non-Gibson mandolins out there that do not have pretzel-like necks (and some that do). Even simple, unlaminated mahogany necks seem capable of going a century or more without warping. Neck wood may actually have been of higher quality and selected more carefully prior to the introduction of truss rods.  A quote from the Gibson truss rod patent (#1,446,758) is noteworthy:  

By this arrangement of parts [i.e., the truss rod], I am also enabled to use wood 

which has not been heretofore considered satisfactory for the manufacture of necks,

on account of its not having sufficient strength and rigidity,

and further, great care in selecting stock is not necessary.

If minor warping were to occur, however, a truss rod might provide a convenient option for correcting the problem. It might also allow for slight adjustments in the amount of relief in the fingerboard.  Some folks argue that the truss rod adds something to tone, that the added mass creates greater sustain or that the resonance of the metal rod makes instruments sound better. Could be. At any rate, on an A-1, for example, there really isn’t any obvious down side to the truss rod. Same for the adjustable bridge and snakehead. And, if quality control was actually improved in the Loar era, the typical A-1 would certainly have benefited from that, as well.

The second point that people argue in favor of Loar-era Gibsons is the supremacy of the F-5 over all other mandolins. F-5s from that period are spectacular instruments.  These were the instruments to which Loar devoted his most careful attention, and it shows.  Whether they are better or worse than F-4s, however, is a matter of opinion and an issue I will return to.

The Loar Era – Better Than After? Interestingly, most Gibson enthusiasts believe that Loar era instruments are also better than the ones made later, say, in the late 1920s, `30s, or `40s. The structural changes introduced in the early 1920s were still used after the Loar era, so why are subsequent instruments perhaps not quite as good? Three possibilities come to mind and at least one will sound familiar: (1) the benefits of age per se, (2) deterioration in quality control, and (3) mystique. Let’s consider each in turn.

Most builders and players agree that age improves a good instrument. But, as a percentage of total age, the difference of a decade in an 80-year time frame doesn’t seem like a whole lot. Does the addition of an eighth decade really add something that the preceding seven decades failed to achieve? This seems unlikely.  Besides, F-5s built in 1925 are often regarded as inferior to (and certainly demand lower prices than) those built in 1923, a difference of only about 2.5%.  Something else must account for the perceived differences.

Quality control changes seem like a possible explanation. Loar seems to have been something of a perfectionist and his diverse responsibilities at the Gibson Company may well have introduced changes that weeded out little slip-ups in the manufacturing process. Also, after Loar (and Lew Williams) left, Gibson management was primarily the responsibility of financial, rather than musical, experts – the dreaded bean-counters. In the case of Guy Hart, who ran the company from 1924 to 1948, contemporaries describe him as being hated by workers and eroding morale. This isn’t the best formula for quality control. So, post-Loar quality control very well could have declined or become more variable.

Finally, there is mystique. A Loar-signed F-5 has some serious mystique going for it. Prices for these instruments approach six figures and such prices may soon be the standard for any Loar F-5. The mystique has rubbed off, to a lesser degree, on other instruments of the same period, although not with as dramatic an effect on price. Are these instruments “better” simply because people believe they are better and are thus willing to pay more for them? That is a personal judgment. In fact, the introduction of the F-5, which Lew Williams had hoped would revive the prominence of the mandolin, had no such effect and it continued its decline for decades. Many have suggested that a blind listening will not consistently identify Loar-era instruments as superior to those from other time periods. The differences between Loar-era instruments with and without the Virzi Tone Producer are more discernable to most ears than those between Loar and post-Loar instruments of the same configuration.  Also, several Gibson notables were not that impressed by the F-5.  Walter Carter notes that Jimmie Johnstone, who had ample opportunity to compare various models, continued to play his F-2 even after the F-5's introduction. Gibson historian Julius Bellson, another player with extensive comparative information, also preferred the oval-hole F-styles to the Loar F-5. Carter goes on to describe the vociferous opposition of professional mandolinist, Walter K. Bauer, to the F-5. He quotes Bauer as saying, “I detest that [F-5] mandolin. Oh, horrible! It was the most blown-up advertising thing ....”  Bauer, by the way, doesn’t appear to have favored any of the Gibson designs, preferring a Maurer mandolin.

Bill Monroe playing his famous F-5 

When did the Loar mystique begin? Loar-era F-5s weren't always the treasured objects they would eventually become.  Loar biographer Roger Siminoff, writing in Carter’s 1994 history of Gibson, notes that Loar’s F-5s, “weren’t considered to be great until bluegrass music began to find a wider audience in the 1960s and `70s.”  Jim Hatlo, writing in the January, 1981 issue of Frets, notes that Bill Monroe bought his trademark F-5 from a Florida barbershop for $150 in 1942. That’s $100 less than what it would have sold for new and without a case, supporting the argument that Loar F-5s were not instantly recognized as something special. On the "Bluegrass Mandolin Extravaganza" CD set, Frank Wakefield tells the story of how he came by his 1922 F-5:  In the 1950s, Pee Wee Lambert, the mandolinist with the Stanley Brothers, had left the F-5 on a couch and somebody sat on it, damaging the neck.  Although it was fixable (and was eventually repaired and traded to Frank for a newer F-12 by the guy who fished it out of the trash), Pee Wee just tossed it out. Apparently he felt it wasn't worth the trouble or expense of a neck re-glue.  Frank bought a 1923 Loar in the early 1960s from a delighted seller for the same price Monroe had paid a couple of decades earlier, $150.  He was also offered an F-4 at the time for $100.  Walter Carter quotes David Grisman who observed that when he acquired his F-5 in1964, no one referred to such instruments as “Lloyd Loar F-5s.” They were just used mandolins. So, for more than 40 years, Loar F-5s were considered good, but not particularly special, mandolins. 

Pee Wee Lambert (left) with the 1922 F-5 that wound up in the trash

It is also interesting that the type of instrument Loar preferred -- with the Virzi installed -- is generally less favored, presumably because of its somewhat softer and mellower tone.  The F-5s made after the Loar era, such as the late-`20s ferns (with a fern-like inlay pattern on the headstock), arguably had less quality control than mid-teens F-4s, yet they are still preferred by many and, short of the Loar-era models, are among the most sought-after of mandolins.  There is no denying the hallowed reverence that the Loar name evokes, and appropriately so. It is hard to separate fact from lore (and Loar) here, but that period did herald important changes for most of Gibson’s mandolin line. The introduction of the F-5 (and, to a lesser degree, the changes to A-style Gibsons) was a major achievement, if not one entirely attributable to Lloyd Loar. The A models of that period may well be the best ever made. It is hard to see any respect in which Loar's efforts had a detrimental effect on the A-styles. The case is far less clear for the F-4, as I shall discuss next.

The first (pre-Loar) chronological change to the two-point F-styles was the1918 discontinuation of Handel tuner buttons, those elegantly inlaid little gems that give earlier instruments a distinctive character. There is no way that any Gibson mandolin got better by virtue of losing those gorgeous buttons.  Tony Williamson makes the eminently reasonable case that 30's era tuners, with the pinion gear under the worm, are superior because the pull of the strings draws the two tuner components closer together.  (Those later tuners also necessitated a reshaping of the headstock, which didn't sit well with traditionalists.)  But no one has suggested that the Loar era tuners were esthetically or functionally better than the Handels.

Above, an early F-4 headstock with Handel tuners (left),

a later instrument with plain tuners but double-flowerpot (center),

and a no-frills F-2 (right).

The adjustable bridge probably was a plus on even the F-4. But, as noted, it is very easy to slap one on a pre-Loar F-4 if one really believes that it is superior. Most players of older F-4s seem not to feel the need.  The adjustable bridge's main advantages over a well-fit unadjustable bridge is the ability to accommodate changes in string gauge or playing style. If that is a significant issue, a retrofit with no permanent modification is easily accomplished.  Having said that, I can't imagine anyone would argue that an unadjustable bridge is better for any reason other than its authenticity on an older instrument.

Catalog illustration of adjustable bridge.

I believe the strongest argument  for an improvement to the F-4 during the Loar era is the Virzi.  Yet, the strongest proponents of the Loar-era Gibsons would not necessarily agree.  What they regard as the essence of that time period is the powerful, cutting sound of the F-5, an effect attenuated by the Virzi.  One can also argue that the F-4 is already a very mellow instrument and that the addition of a Virzi makes for too much of a good thing.  Once again, a subjective judgment that each listener and player should make individually.

If the design changes of the Loar era had little unambiguously positive impact on the F-4,what about quality control? Although consistency to a high standard is unquestionably a good thing, I believe that the F-4, during its run as top dog, already enjoyed it, as noted earlier. With the arrival of the F-5, F-4's status declined noticeably. The F-5 was the Master Model and Loar was its master.  No other mandolin was as significant to him as was the F-5.  In the Loar era, an A-1 sold for $50 while an F-4 sold for $150. But an F-5 sold for $250! In other words, the premium for an F-5 over an F-4 was the same as for an F-4 over a lowly A-1, leapfrogging over the A-2, A-4, and F-2 entirely. Loar seems to have invested more energy into perfecting and optimizing consistency for the yet-unproved Master Models than in improving the more established models whose “bugs” had already been worked out. A reasonable goal concerning the latter would have been to make sure even the lower grades passed muster. This all suggests that enhancements in quality control for the F-4 (unlike lesser models) did not accompany the arrival of Lloyd Loar at Gibson.  

More generally, these points support the idea that the Loar era was not the zenith for the F-4 that it was for the A-1 and F-5.  

DIGRESSION ON BRIDGE CREEP:  It isn't unusual on vintage instruments to see their bridges moved back from their original positions in order for the instruments to intonate properly. Often, this is more pronounced on the bass than treble side.  Typically, the relocation of the bridge in this way is evident from the exposure of a visible bruise to the finish, above the bridge's new location, indicating where the bridge had been originally placed.  The following image shows the bridge location and finish bruise on this instrument.

A recent discussion on the Mandolin Cafe message board Builders section confirmed my observation that this is common on vintage instruments.  The discussion initially concerned  another F-4, from 1914, on which the bridge required relocation rearward to obtain proper intonation.  This determination had been based on an extremely accurate Conn Strobotuner.  The original poster, tone wood expert Bruce Harvie, further stated that he had seen a bridge readjustment, on an F-4 listed for sale on the internet, identical to the one he had performed -- about 3/8 of an inch, with the bass side further back than the treble.  Later, Charlie Derrington, Gibson master luthier -- the man who repaired Bill Monroe's smashed 1923 Loar and the driving force behind Gibson's new Master Model Loar replica --  stated that he has observed this sort of creep on every Loar he's seen.

Several theories were offered, including the possibility that, over time, the forces acting on the instrument effectively shorten the scale length by a fraction of an inch, thus necessitating the bridge relocation to restore it.  For now, this remains just a theory but a good deal of collective experience underscores the common necessity of moving the bridge backward on an old mandolin to restore proper intonation.

Golden Era of the F-4: Based on this line of reasoning, the period from1908 to 1917 is a strong candidate for the F-4's “Golden Era,” when it attained its highest level of artistry and was still the crowning glory of Gibson mandolin manufacture. Some musicians and collectors find the tone of the earlier 3-point F-4s to be inferior to the later 2-point models. In the booklet accompanying his 1995 Christmas Collection Volume II CD, stringed instrument collector and performer Gregg Miner, in comparing the two styles of F-4, had this to say about the 3-point model: “Though extremely rare and beautiful, it’s [sic] playability and acoustic properties are less desirable than the more common later versions...” Adherents to that view might contract the Golden Era , setting 1910 (when the 2-pont body debuted) as the beginning. The following year saw the addition of “The Gibson” to the headstock inlay. No doubt, some observers would see this as a change for the worse because it necessitated the diminution of the most elaborate of all F-4 headstock inlay styles.   Others would reach the opposite conclusion.  Those who have come to revere the trademark Gibson script inlay, accordingly, might define the Golden Age of the F-4 even more narrowly, from 1911 through 1917. Although it's a hard call, I fall into the last camp and regard the 1911-1917 period as the Golden Era for the Gibson F-4. 

Designating the 1911-1917 period (or any other) as the F-4's Golden Era is clearly somewhat arbitrary. My classification scheme is heavily influenced by aesthetic changes that occurred after 1917. Acoustically, there is less basis for bounding the Golden Era at 1917.  But then, some have argued that aesthetics are what F-styles are all about. For example, Marc Montefusco suggests that, “to believe that the Florentine design itself has some hidden acoustic superiority is to misunderstand its origin. Its florid scrollwork and striking lines were primarily visual considerations.”  F-4 mandolins made before 1910/1911 or after 1917 are certainly still magnificent instruments but, arguably, they are less quintessentially F-4.

Comparisons between the F-4 and F-5 are inevitable, if ultimately fruitless. The notion that the F-5 is different from, not better than, an F-4 has considerable support. In the November,1978, issue of Pickin’, George Gruhn notes that, “there are many classical and old-timey mandolinists who prefer the sound of the oval hole models.... They have even been used quite successfully in bluegrass. Bill Monroe, for example, used an F-4 on his recordings of ‘Hornpipe’ and ‘Gotta Travel On’.”  Curley Sechler, the mandolinist for the Foggy Mountain Boys (fronted by Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs) also played an F-4.  Bluegrass historian Fred Hill described the Foggy Mountain Boys at the most successful bluegrass band in the business. Curley probably could have gotten an F-5 had he felt it necessary.  Many bluegrass musicians who played oval-holed Gibsons (Joe Val and Roland White come to mind) quite successfully in the `50s or `60s gravitated toward the F-5 with the passage of time.  So, the data suggest that the mystique of the F-5 is relatively recent. I strongly suspect that the mystique’s origins have as much or more to do with people wanting to sound like Bill Monroe as wanting the sound only a Loar F-5 has. Over time, the two have become inseparable, if not indistiguishable.  The fact that it is loud and cuts through the sounds of other instruments make the F-5 excellent for bluegrass, especially the sort played before today's sophisticated sound systems were available.  The F-5 sound has become what bluegrassers expect a great mandolin to sound like. David Grisman has similarly wooed listeners to the F-5.  He describes it as his favorite, although he has performed on many instruments – including the F-4 – and has a distinctly and superbly Grisman-esque quality on all of them. Loar F-5s do have a great, great sound. To say an F-5 sounds better than an F-4 amounts to disclosing the influence of Monroe on one’s musical tastes, in my opinion. Bluegrass mandolin is the most popular form at present and may account for the undeniably greater popularity of the F-5 rather than the F-4.  Although not to the same degree as the F-5, the F-4 has a bit of its own mystique. In describing what the ultimate collection of Gibson instruments would include, George Gruhn (in Carter’s 1994 Gibson book) includes three mandolins: an Orville Gibson (primarily because it all started with them), a Loar F-5, and an F-4.  

Members of the Milwaukee Mandolin Orchestra play almost exclusively oval-hole instruments, including an F-2 

(Photo by John Hall).

There are many fans of both instruments.  Even present-day mandolin orchestras often favor the F-4 for their repertoires. Bluegrass and country musicians will nearly always prefer the F-5.  Both are superb examples of Gibson's best work.  Each has its own distinct sound characteristics that suit it ideally for certain musical roles.  Which is better?  Wrong question.

Description

This instrument, serial number 33432, dates from 1917, what I regard as the Golden Era when all the positive changes in F-4 design had been implemented but before the less attractive cosmetic alterations were introduced. It is an excellent example of the F-4 from that time period. Back and sides are maple. George Gruhn, in the March, 1983 issue of Frets, notes that in this time period, only the F-4 mandolin used maple. Catalog claims notwithstanding, all other instruments used birch. 

The back of this mandolin is an attractively-grained, but not extraordinary, single piece of maple. According to luthier and repairman Frank Ford, all Gibsons prior to 1925 had varnish finishes. During this era, the F-4 was finished in a subtle sunburst, mahogany-red over most of the top and back but fading to a reddish-gold at the center of the plates. The finish shows some wear, as would be expected to occur over a period of more than 85 years, but is still lustrous and very handsome. Structurally, the instrument is intact with a small, carefully-mended crack under the pickguard being the only evidence of repair. Typical for the period, this mandolin features the pointed heel cover, Handel inlaid tuner buttons, and elaborate double-flowerpot headstock inlay. All are in excellent condition. The neck is straight, with low action and very serviceable frets that were recently leveled and dressed. The tuners are not only beautiful but also work very well. They are easy to operate and hold pitch superbly.

This top-of-the-line instrument plays very easily and has a rich, full tone. It seems noticeably louder than the 1924 A-1 I used to have, although side-by-side comparisons were not possible. It has a surprisingly good “chop” for an oval-hole instrument but its true beauty is most evident in other musical contexts.

Balance is excellent. There are no weak spots in the tone scale. Intonation is also very good, aided by the fairly low action, which remains buzz-free even when the strings are driven hard. The instrument responds willingly to a light touch but is also capable of handling a much stronger attack. The tone is excellent through a very wide dynamic range, not becoming brittle at low or grating at high volume. The sound is very mature, as one would expect from a top-of-the-line vintage Gibson. All told, this instrument is visually and aurally as satisfying as any I have owned.

Sources

Carter,W. (1994).  Gibson guitars: 100 years of an American icon.  Los Angeles: General Publishing Group.

Fowler, I. (1979).  The master's mandolin.  Frets, 1(3), 25.

Gruhn, G. (1983).  The vintage catalogue: Mando-family instruments.  Frets, 5(3), 59-60.

Gruhn, G., & Carter, W. (1993).  Acoustic guitars and other fretted instruments.  San Francisco:  Miller-Freeman.

Hill, F. (1980).  Grass roots: An illustrated history of gluegrass and mountain music. Rutland, VT: Academy Books.

McCullough, M. (2001).  Luthier profile: Dr. David Cohen - A scientific approach to mandolin construction.  Mandolin Quarterly, 6 (4), 30-33.

Montefusco, M. (1977). Gibson F-5:  The ultimate design?  Mandolin Notebook, 1(1), 12-13.

Siminoff, R. H. (1979).  Lloyd Loar: A genius ahead of his time.  Frets, 1(5), 38-43.

Siminoff, R. H. (1981).  Questions.  Frets, 3(4), 39.

Wakefield, F. (1999).  Bluegrass Mandolin Extravaganza, (ACD-35).  Disc 2, track 17.  San Rafael, CA:  Acoustic Disc.  (The interview is at the end of track 17, well after then end of the musical portion of the track.)

Back to Mandolin Family page.

Contact me at:  rdevelli@bellsouth.net                                                                                        Last updated 12/14/02