Bridge Plate grain orientation, and sizing

[fred huang]

I completetly agree with Frank Ford's choice on bridge plate grain orientation. It just makes sense - the plate doesn't get cracked along the grain by the string end rings (what are these things called anyways)

But, then why, do all the big makers do it like that? Is it cost saving in wood? Is there tonal difference?

Also, Mr. Ford advocates making the bridge plate 1/2" distance beyond the string hole. OK, I agree, that it would be stronger, and maybe counteract bellying better.

But I've seen bridge plates where the back end of the plate is very near the string holes... like on a Gibson LG3. Is it because of the bridge screws they use, will counteract string pulling pressure. Or is made smaller to get more top tone? The old Yamaha "Red Label" guitars are like this, but they also have a bigger bridge on the top.

[Eric Steven Johansen]

Not really clear on your question but here's my basic bridge plate rules of thumb. Stock should be quarter sawn , .09" to .10" thick, grain oriented perpendicular to the top, and sized so that the plate extends about 1/8" beyond the bridge front and rear. Best choice of wood is Rock Maple IMHO. Hope this helps.

[Murray MacLeod]

[quote]Not really clear on your question but here's my basic bridge plate rules of thumb. Stock should be quarter sawn , .09" to .10" thick, grain oriented perpendicular to the top, and sized so that the plate extends about 1/8" beyond the bridge front and rear. Best choice of wood is Rock Maple IMHO. Hope this helps[/quote]

Given that the main function of the bridge plate is to counteract the pull from the ball-end of the strings, I would have thought that slab-sawn maple would be more effective than quarter sawn, , but, if quartersawn, then the grain orientation should be less than perpendicular to the grain of the top, so that the holes for the strings do not lie in the same "fault line".

[Frank Ford]

Gibson's bridge design changed substantially over the   years, and the least understandable one is the "reverse belly" where the bridge pin holes are lined up right at the back edge.  That position allows for virtually no gluing surface behind the pins, and chronic bridge looseness can be a problem.

Regardless of bridge design, I don't see a point in having the bridge pin holes at the back edge of the plate, and in the many instances I've seen, I attribute that positioning mostly to manufacturing error - plain and simple.   As a matter of fact, we received a new Nick Lucas model from Gibson years ago, and it had the bridge plate mistakenly placed so far forward that the bridge pins actually missed the back edge of the plate.   When I called to complain a manager there told me that quite a number went out that way before they were able to correct the situation.

[Eric Steven Johansen]

If that doesn't say "factory" all over it. Leave it to Gibson to send them out anyway.

[Paul Verticchio]

Is there ANYONE still awake at Gibson that gives a damn about their reputation?  The one's I've seen lately are even worse than last year's batches.

Henry J.: >> Q.C. Learn it, live it, love it!

fred: Gibson acoustics as a group, are not good guitars to "copy" from.  There are some GREAT sounding vintage Gibson acoustics out there, but their unit to unit consistency is non existent.

Some of their "innovations" (plastic bolted on bridges, ladder bracing on jumbo bodies, a tune-o-matic on a J-200, etc) are simply ridiculous.  There's a reason most builders use pre-war Martins as their "gold standard" for design & construction.

Best of luck(:

[Mark Pollock]

I've played a fair number of new Gibsons recently, and they all sound like someone left a bunch of shop towels in the body and nobody did anything about it. The A-string is dead, the sound is muffled, and the prices are outrageous. The difference between these and any off-brand guitar is the name on the headstock, there is no difference in sound or playability. It's pretty sad when I can pull a J-200 off the wall at Guitar center, play it, then walk over to a beat up Hondo lookalike, and the difference in sound is very little. Perhaps my expectations are too high, or are not the same tonally as what these guitars are meant to produce, but I don't see how having a dead A-string and sounding like a wet towel is worth $2,000. They sure look purty, though.

[Mark Pollock]

Remember, these guitars weren't made with the idea that some bunch of guys would be debating their manufacturing techniques on a forum 70 years later. They were made to be sold and played immediately. They had to last long enough to be sold and played for a few years. They had to play well and sound decent, and not collapse on the way to the store or while being toted around. 

If we had the opportunity to re-engineer these plates, I'm sure we could some up with all kinds of nifty solutions, such as a harder surface for the ball-ends to rest on, or even a way to remove the tension of the ball ends from the top yet keep the tension firmly on the bridge saddle. (I've been working with a buddy on a re-design of the autoharp, and we've come up with a couple really neat ideas for mitigating string tension.)