Frank: What year did the Chicago/U.S. Manufacturers start bracing for steel strings?

[Kerry Krishna]

 I photo I put up on one of my Facebook sites has started some questions about this. It is a photo of the ladder bracing of a Stromberg/Voisinet from about 1929.  I'd love to read what you your thoughts are. Thanks! 

[Doc Rathwell]

Well, I'm not Frank but just to help...if I can; I believe the Larson Bros had developed the first instrument handling what we'd consider "steel string" tension, in the late 1800's. Gibson made the first factory production steel-string: the L-5, in 1922. In 1929 is when Martin started producing more steel-strings. 

Hopefully Frank will pipe in to verify this...

Doc

[Frank Ford]

Gibson's first instruments were made for steel stringing.  Far as I know that includes Orville's handmade ones, and everything made by the factory starting in 1902.

And, I agree - the Larson brothers are generally credited with being among the first makers of flat-top guitars for steel stringing.

Martin started right after the Great War with Hawaiian models, notably the 2-17.

[Doc Rathwell]

Thanks for the clarification on the Gibson factory. I don't know where I came up with the L-5, 1922 date but far as I know, you're far more knowledgeable about this stuff than I. Now to scribble something new into the book ☺

Thanks,

Doc

[onewent]

I've had some Benary (Tilten knockoffs) guitars from the late 1800s that were braced for steel.  Tom

[el squir]

I'm a couple years late, here. But, in 1891, Imperial guitars patented and launched what may be the first guitar advertised for steel strings, i.e. a combined bridge and tailpiece made of metal. See John Church Company, Cincinnati, Oh.   

[Roger Häggström]

I actually own one such Imperial guitar, nice to have such a special one. The top is very thin and have a tendency to buckle in in the soundhole area, I dare not use any thicker strings than a 0.10 set. The bridge and tailpiece actually sounds very good on this guitar, no metallic sound at all :-)

https://www.leavingthisworld.com/imperial-guitars-approx-c-1880-c-1...

[Ed Minch]

Roger

Very interesting guitars.  In the last example on your site - with the replacement pin bridge - it looks like the tailpiece was never attached to the original bridge,  Why do you suppose the tailpiece extended as far as it did up the top?

Ed

[el squir]

Not all Imperial guitars had the patented feature. Other Imperial were made, as common at the time to relieve stress and alter the sound, with regular tail-pieces (and, many tail-pieces were lost and/or replaced with other non-original tail-pieces). A couple of the guitars at Charles' website look like the tail-piece had been either replaced, or removed entirely in preference of a fixed bridge/pins. I think a lot of people (for a variety of reasons) experimented with and/or prefer a fixed bridge/pins instead of the tail-piece - especially a metal tail-piece. But, I've got 2 of these, and I agree with Roger... no real 'metallic' sound, though quite crisp on the attack.

The rest of the build was very much like a John C. Haynes.         

[Roger Häggström]

The metallic sound is defeated by the thickness of the sheet metal and the sheer weight of the saddle/tailpiece. The fact that it is screwed down in the top is another reason. The hard attack is a natural consequence of the hard metal seating of the ball ends of the strings.

All in all, not a bad solution. Better than a standard thin sheet metal tailpiece and a floating bridge :-)

My guitar is BTW made with some kind of light colored fruit wood in the back and sides.

[el squir]

Yeah... its a pretty solid feature. I haven't had any inclination to remove it. 

1 of mine is a one-piece ?maple? back/sides; the other 1 of mine is one-piece ?rosewood or mahogany or some fruit wood? back/sides - not sure.