Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gibson Adjustable Bridge
145 views
Skip to first unread message
JimLowther
Apr 22, 2013, 5:52:30 AM4/22/13
to
Kevin's recent comments on unusual things Gibson has done with
acoustics over the years got me thinking again about the LG-2 I was
given (not with which is was gifted). I have had it for a few months
now and it has realy grown on me. I probably would never have bought
a cherry sunburst finish guitar, but I have managed to overcome
aversion, and I rather like the patina and "old guitar" smell. The
tone is woody but suitably complex enough for the fingerpicking I do.
I am still not sure what to do with this adjustable bridge thingy.
For its age this guitar is really in great condition. I don't really
want to replace the bridge like many have done, but the plastic saddle
nags at me (as do the black plastic bridge pins--easier solution for
that). I have bought a Tusq saddle that looks to be a drop in
replacement--so far so good. However, my thought is that I would be
better off to let the saddle rest on the bridge slot rather than the
adjusters to give better tone, although I do not even know if this is
an option, as I have not yet had the strings off to investigate.
I thought I'd ask first and muck around with it after.
Does this make any sense at all?
Best wishes,
Dr. Jim Lowther
acoustics over the years got me thinking again about the LG-2 I was
given (not with which is was gifted). I have had it for a few months
now and it has realy grown on me. I probably would never have bought
a cherry sunburst finish guitar, but I have managed to overcome
aversion, and I rather like the patina and "old guitar" smell. The
tone is woody but suitably complex enough for the fingerpicking I do.
I am still not sure what to do with this adjustable bridge thingy.
For its age this guitar is really in great condition. I don't really
want to replace the bridge like many have done, but the plastic saddle
nags at me (as do the black plastic bridge pins--easier solution for
that). I have bought a Tusq saddle that looks to be a drop in
replacement--so far so good. However, my thought is that I would be
better off to let the saddle rest on the bridge slot rather than the
adjusters to give better tone, although I do not even know if this is
an option, as I have not yet had the strings off to investigate.
I thought I'd ask first and muck around with it after.
Does this make any sense at all?
Best wishes,
Dr. Jim Lowther
Tony Done
Apr 22, 2013, 3:07:40 PM4/22/13
to
the saddle down tight onto the shim. I don't doubt there are better
solutions, but it was better than the original set up.
--
Tony Done
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456
http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/
Kevin Hall
Apr 22, 2013, 4:54:00 PM4/22/13
to
"JimLowther" <JimLo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2379d44a-56ef-4afa...@i5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
I don't know how old the gtr. is. If it's early '60s, say around '63
through '65 it may be plastic, done up to look very much like satin ebony.
Those are an abomination in the sight of the lord, and to anyone else
looking at or hearing 'em. If it is old enough to be real wood then you
have a couple of options. The obvious one is to remove the bridge and all
the sound-sucking adjustment and retaining hardware, plug the extraneous
holes in top and plate, then replace the bridge with a rosewood repro made
to look exactly like the original, but fitted for a solid saddle.
There aren't many true collectors of those small entry level Gibs, and they
are fairly common so most folks think the considerable sound boost gained
with this operation outweighs the possible negative price impact of straying
from originality.
The less permanent fix is to remove the adj. saddle and it's two supporting
legs, fill in the gap in the original bridge with a suitable bit of
rosewood, glued in of course, then re-rout the slot for a more normal
width of solid bone saddle. If possible this job should be done during a
normal bridge job, since with the bridge off you can remove the hardware;
two little machine screws lurking under pearloid dots, two big heavy nuts
with lock washers, and the two 3/8" dia. brass hollow bolts into which the
adjuster legs screw. Getting rid of all that stuff lightens the top up
considerably of course.
You keep all that junk, just in case someone wants to put everything back
to 'kosher' in the future. That's possible, but extremely unlikely.
Bridge re-and-res are considered normal maintenance on those old boxes, so
it's not a big deal to reverse the process should someone really have a
burning desire to have one of the mere 6 billion or so of those things with
'original' parts. ;-)
You mention a plastic adjustable saddle. As far as I know those old Gibs
were only issued with two types of adjustable units; one made of rosewood
and one made of hard ceramic; the same material used in several types of
knife sharpeners these days. The latter are noticeably better sounding
than the wooden ones, but both are greatly inferior in sound production to
a well fitted solid bone part. The non-adjustable bridge models mainly had
saddles made of an early, course form of micarta. You can see the weave of
the linen in those if you look closely. Some have an early form of what
appears to be perspex, similar to the milky stuff Martin employed for a
couple of years during the '60s. Neither are worth a damn.
The plastic bridges came in both adjustable and non-adj. variations. both
were held on with 4 self-tapping screws from under the bridgeplate, and 8
washers. Those should all be removed, thrown over a hedge, and the holes
filled. That bridge design already had the pin holes very close to the
back edge of the bridge, then the situation was aggravated by 4 further
screw holes. The adj. models had 6 pin holes, two more for the little
machine screws under the dots, and 2 whacking big 'uns to house the adj.
hardware. It's like a Swiss cheese under there, but folks still wonder
why so many of those bridgeplates fail. ;-)
KH
JimLowther
Apr 22, 2013, 7:15:12 PM4/22/13
to
On Apr 22, 3:54 pm, "Kevin Hall" <timberl...@webhart.net> wrote:
> "JimLowther" <JimLowt...@aol.com> wrote in message
kevein,
I do worry about all those holes lining up at the back of the bridge.
It seems like a crack would be inevitable, but this one has not so
far. If it ever should I would think more about replacing the whole
thing with a more sensible design. I took a peak at Frank Ford's
always helpful site at his enounter with a Gibson Humming Bird (http://
www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luthier/Technique/Guitar/Bridges/HumBirdBr/hbirdbr1.html)
and note the considerable savings of weight in replacing the bridge
and hardware of the original. (BTW, take a look at the bridgeplate he
pulled from that one!)
Until such a time as it really needs replacement my thought is to use
eith the Tusq or a bone saddle shaped for the slot, perhaps remove
that spring metal carrier, either shim under the saddle or find/shape
one tall enough to fit without the shim, and lost snug the adjusting
screws down on the bridge. That doesn't realy address the weight
issue, but I would feel better about both better saddle material and
greater contact area between the saddle and ridge. I tend to agree
with the opnion that this whole design was one of those really bad
ideas out of Kalamazoo.
Have you seen what those ceramic saddles go for on eBay?
> "JimLowther" <JimLowt...@aol.com> wrote in message
I do worry about all those holes lining up at the back of the bridge.
It seems like a crack would be inevitable, but this one has not so
far. If it ever should I would think more about replacing the whole
thing with a more sensible design. I took a peak at Frank Ford's
always helpful site at his enounter with a Gibson Humming Bird (http://
www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luthier/Technique/Guitar/Bridges/HumBirdBr/hbirdbr1.html)
and note the considerable savings of weight in replacing the bridge
and hardware of the original. (BTW, take a look at the bridgeplate he
pulled from that one!)
Until such a time as it really needs replacement my thought is to use
eith the Tusq or a bone saddle shaped for the slot, perhaps remove
that spring metal carrier, either shim under the saddle or find/shape
one tall enough to fit without the shim, and lost snug the adjusting
screws down on the bridge. That doesn't realy address the weight
issue, but I would feel better about both better saddle material and
greater contact area between the saddle and ridge. I tend to agree
with the opnion that this whole design was one of those really bad
ideas out of Kalamazoo.
Have you seen what those ceramic saddles go for on eBay?
JimLowther
Apr 22, 2013, 7:23:36 PM4/22/13
to
theme, although I did not pay too much attenion because Gibson
acoustics were not my "thing." I have also seen a wooden saddle
(cannot remember if it was Ebony or Rosewood) trimmed down and slotted
to take a standard straight sided bone saddle. I would think this
latter likely to split. It sure seems to me that all this fuss saves
little from the minimal effort to adjust the height of a traditional
saddle.
Kevin Hall
Apr 22, 2013, 10:45:06 PM4/22/13
to
news:c9867f04-db73-43db...@q9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Jim; You might want to check the bridgeplate inside with a mirror and see
if it's cracked or not. If it is, chances are excellent that the top is
also cracked across the holes.
You can usually undo the big heavy nuts which retain the brass inserts, and
getting them out of there along with the big lock washers under them reduces
weight drastically. It's also less to work loose and cause mystery rattles.
This doesn't involved removing the bridge or any other permanent mods.
Rather than making a whacking great Tusq, bone or other material saddle the
size of the adjustable insert you're better off making a close-fitting
rosewood one then installing a more conventionally sized plain saddle,
preferably bone.
Gibson bridgeplates through this time period were astounding things. Some
were hard maple plywood about 3/16" thick and they still broke up. Others
were rosewood, one or two piece, often varying greatly in thickness from
one end to the other. Gibson used a very brittle glue at this time, and I
have a suspicion than a large amount of their trouble with various plates
was due to failure in that glue, coupled with plates which were much too
stiff to do the job properly. On the maple ply plates you often find that
the pin holes were drilled too fast so the bit tore out chunks of the inner
layer of ply. This effectively reduced the strength of the plate right
across the pin holes by approx. 1/3.
Haven't looked at Ebay prices for ceramic saddles for a few years, but I
did sell a bunch of 'em that way about 5 years or more back. In the 70s
guys were paying us to convert from those adj. jobs to solid saddle bridges
on a regular basis. Few of them ever wanted the parts back, since those
mid to late 60s Gibs were considered just 'working guitars' and they needed
more grunt any way they could get it. During a shop cleanup a few years
ago I came across a box of the things and just out of curiosity I tried a
few on Ebay. I was amazed when bids went over $100 each. Turned out that
Japanese collectors who had taken to the reissue J-160Es Gibson knocked out
a few years back were not happy that Gib. had used wooden saddles instead of
the ceramic ones which the Beatles had had in their 160Es. They were quite
happy to pay what I thought was silly money for the old ceramic cast-offs.
That made me chuckle, since the original J-160E was a terrible guitar with
ladder bracing and a plywood top ( with the exception of a handful of very
early production jobs). It sounded bad acoustically of course, and when
plugged in it just became a bad, cheap sounding electric. I guess they
were after that original, true replica shitty sound and didn't care what
they had to pay for it.
One of the guys from the old group Shanana bought about 3 of them to upgrade
the sound of some of his old wooden saddled Gibs. One mans' junk....
KH
if it's cracked or not. If it is, chances are excellent that the top is
also cracked across the holes.
You can usually undo the big heavy nuts which retain the brass inserts, and
getting them out of there along with the big lock washers under them reduces
weight drastically. It's also less to work loose and cause mystery rattles.
This doesn't involved removing the bridge or any other permanent mods.
Rather than making a whacking great Tusq, bone or other material saddle the
size of the adjustable insert you're better off making a close-fitting
rosewood one then installing a more conventionally sized plain saddle,
preferably bone.
Gibson bridgeplates through this time period were astounding things. Some
were hard maple plywood about 3/16" thick and they still broke up. Others
were rosewood, one or two piece, often varying greatly in thickness from
one end to the other. Gibson used a very brittle glue at this time, and I
have a suspicion than a large amount of their trouble with various plates
was due to failure in that glue, coupled with plates which were much too
stiff to do the job properly. On the maple ply plates you often find that
the pin holes were drilled too fast so the bit tore out chunks of the inner
layer of ply. This effectively reduced the strength of the plate right
across the pin holes by approx. 1/3.
Haven't looked at Ebay prices for ceramic saddles for a few years, but I
did sell a bunch of 'em that way about 5 years or more back. In the 70s
guys were paying us to convert from those adj. jobs to solid saddle bridges
on a regular basis. Few of them ever wanted the parts back, since those
mid to late 60s Gibs were considered just 'working guitars' and they needed
more grunt any way they could get it. During a shop cleanup a few years
ago I came across a box of the things and just out of curiosity I tried a
few on Ebay. I was amazed when bids went over $100 each. Turned out that
Japanese collectors who had taken to the reissue J-160Es Gibson knocked out
a few years back were not happy that Gib. had used wooden saddles instead of
the ceramic ones which the Beatles had had in their 160Es. They were quite
happy to pay what I thought was silly money for the old ceramic cast-offs.
That made me chuckle, since the original J-160E was a terrible guitar with
ladder bracing and a plywood top ( with the exception of a handful of very
early production jobs). It sounded bad acoustically of course, and when
plugged in it just became a bad, cheap sounding electric. I guess they
were after that original, true replica shitty sound and didn't care what
they had to pay for it.
One of the guys from the old group Shanana bought about 3 of them to upgrade
the sound of some of his old wooden saddled Gibs. One mans' junk....
KH
JimLowther
Apr 23, 2013, 1:38:33 AM4/23/13
to
expensive. Truly amazing.
Collectors are collectors and they have their own psychology when it
comes to adding to their collections.
Tony Done
Apr 24, 2013, 5:56:04 PM4/24/13
to
On 22/04/2013 7:52 PM, JimLowther wrote:
the right size (Kevin?). The bottom corners are chipped, but it looks OK
from the top, and I have put a bit of hard steel (hacksaw blade) under
the length of it to provide better support for the screws.
JimLowther
Apr 24, 2013, 7:37:30 PM4/24/13
to
Tusq saddle I already have or use bone. I am still thinking all this
through. Even the saddle alone is much heavier than a traditional
saddle, and I suspect te ceramic is heaviest of the three (ceramic,
Tusq, bone).
Besides, I would just end up selling it on eBay for $70. ;-)
Kevin Hall
Apr 24, 2013, 8:08:18 PM4/24/13
to
"Tony Done" <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:kl9kdp$4mk$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
a slight upgrade on old Gibs that came with the wooden versions. There is
an audible difference between the two, and the instrument is still
considered 'unmolested' by collectors.
The ceramic saddles came with little metal strips, notched at the ends to
accomodate the adjustment screws. They fit under the ceramic saddles but
over the flanges on the adjusters, there to protect the very fragile ends
of the saddles from exactly the damage you describe.
Stick it on Evil Bay and harvest the rewards if you don't need it. Or use
it to sharpen your penknife. ;-)
KH
Benoit Meulle-Stef
Apr 25, 2013, 4:28:50 AM4/25/13
to
Some time ago I cam with a compromise for a customer he was not happy with the sound but wanted the transformation to be reversible, so I used a tusq 3.2mm saddle and 2 shims of rosewood to hold it on the middle of the groove. Worked ok and the customer was happy...
If you find this bridges bad try the J200 with built in tune o matics!!!
Benoit
Kevin Hall
Apr 25, 2013, 12:03:05 PM4/25/13
to
"Benoit Meulle-Stef" <b...@bmsguitars.com> wrote in message
news:8ff6f847-24df-46ee...@googlegroups.com...
When the owner whanged on the Bigsby handle the whole top moved up and down.
;-)
KH
Tony Done
Apr 25, 2013, 4:54:30 PM4/25/13
to
On 25/04/2013 6:28 PM, Benoit Meulle-Stef wrote:
>
> If you find this bridges bad try the J200 with built in tune o matics!!!
>
> Benoit
>
Yeah, I like the reversibility thing. I would have done exactly the same
>
> If you find this bridges bad try the J200 with built in tune o matics!!!
>
> Benoit
>
as you, except I would likely have glued the wood to the saddle.
While we are on the topic, one mod I did on these saddles was to have a
machinist friend make an aluminium channel the same size as the original
saddle, in which sat a brass insert about the same size as a Martin
saddle. I finished the channel section to sit on the adjusting screws,
and added a UST under the brass insert. I looked neat and worked well as
an amplified acoustic, in the days before SBTs would likely have
provided a better solution.
JimLowther
Apr 26, 2013, 6:26:10 PM4/26/13
to
That is pretty much what I envision doing for now. Thanks.
JimLowther
Apr 26, 2013, 6:34:33 PM4/26/13
to
I am not sure why the concept of an adustable bridge on an acoustic
really appeald to the customer. Yes, I rmember the days of cheap
acoustics that at times had seemingly impossible to correct bad
action, but at the price point at which most Gibsons sold a buyer
should have been able to find a guitar well set up that would have
eliminated the need for these bridge gadgets.
Benoit Meulle-Stef
Apr 27, 2013, 3:59:45 AM4/27/13
to
A funny part about this topic: Have you noticed that EVERY BAD idea from Gibson was immediately copied by all the German/Japanese/Italian makers?
:-)
Benoît
:-)
Benoît
Kevin Hall
Apr 27, 2013, 10:48:00 AM4/27/13
to
news:3d0baef8-0198-4241...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
The adjustable saddle was ( and is) purely a sales gimmick, much like
pre-cast 'compensated' saddles which seem to be de-rigeur these days. At
least the crenellated 'compensated' jobs are less destructive to sound. To
me it's a classic case of the sales dept. taking precedence over the design
guys, who may actually have a clue what they're doing.
I remember the short-lived Micro-Frets electric guitars, which were
reasonably well made and offered a workable solution to fine intonation
troubles during the early '70s. They had nuts which were adjustable for
intonation as well as the adjustment at the saddles. In theory it made some
sense, but in practice it only proved the old axiom " If you make something
adjustable, some damned fool will adjust it whether it needs it or not".
That rule was perhaps one of the reasons Martin were so reluctant to move to
adjustable truss rods until the early '80s.
We would take great pains to set those Micro-Frets up to within an inch of
their lives, getting the intonation as close to perfect as is possible on
fretted instruments, then someone would buy 'em and within about a week
would bring 'em back in complaining that they couldn't get them to play in
tune. Of course the hour or so spent on the bench with the huge old strobe
tuners of the day was gone with the wind as soon as the new owner got home
and started playing with the various adjustments. As a rule they'd come
back in so far out of whack that they couldn't get back on the bus.
After a few months of that nonsense it was easier to quit selling the damned
things than it was to keep re-setting them after owners' meddling. ;-)
KH
pre-cast 'compensated' saddles which seem to be de-rigeur these days. At
least the crenellated 'compensated' jobs are less destructive to sound. To
me it's a classic case of the sales dept. taking precedence over the design
guys, who may actually have a clue what they're doing.
I remember the short-lived Micro-Frets electric guitars, which were
reasonably well made and offered a workable solution to fine intonation
troubles during the early '70s. They had nuts which were adjustable for
intonation as well as the adjustment at the saddles. In theory it made some
sense, but in practice it only proved the old axiom " If you make something
adjustable, some damned fool will adjust it whether it needs it or not".
That rule was perhaps one of the reasons Martin were so reluctant to move to
adjustable truss rods until the early '80s.
We would take great pains to set those Micro-Frets up to within an inch of
their lives, getting the intonation as close to perfect as is possible on
fretted instruments, then someone would buy 'em and within about a week
would bring 'em back in complaining that they couldn't get them to play in
tune. Of course the hour or so spent on the bench with the huge old strobe
tuners of the day was gone with the wind as soon as the new owner got home
and started playing with the various adjustments. As a rule they'd come
back in so far out of whack that they couldn't get back on the bus.
After a few months of that nonsense it was easier to quit selling the damned
things than it was to keep re-setting them after owners' meddling. ;-)
KH
Tom from Texas (The Tom Risner Fund for Deserving North Texas Guitarplayers is not liable
Apr 27, 2013, 2:13:57 PM4/27/13
to
and causin' yer much consternation. The Fund would like to offer to
take this guitar off yer hands so ye can get back to important stuff
like what beer goes with good chili.
Tom (Fund Comptroller and Problem Resolver) from Texas
PS Don't thank me... we do it cause we care
0 new messages