Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Technical Side of Things' started by freddyfingers, Feb 17, 2020.
Here’re is a photo or two. Seems to be just under an inch at the top of the bail.
Then I should be able to do that, no?
1" seems tryable to me with a B6.
I will see if i can get a spare saddle and bridge to slide in there some how. From what i read, a b6 should line up with existing screw holes, but i will find a diagram and measure.
Is there a difference between the b6 and the b6c, other than the c is chrome? I assume the b6 is slightly lighter.
I’m also thinking maybe a sturdy tail piece. That would add less weight than a bigsby. I just dont like the standard wire ones some come with.
I agree with the others that it's looking good for a B6 and standard archtop bridge. That's enough height at the bridge, but I think it will ultimately depend on the contours of the top. It's been done before, so I don't see why not on this one.
Really? That seems like it would be an extraordinary coincidence.
Bigsby model suffixes are confusing. I don't think any US-made Bigsby is actually chrome plated, other than the flat arms. The basic B6 body is always the same (usually painted, sometimes not). Then it's a choice of handle and hinge plate. Most come with the large triangular one with the elongated strap button hole, but you can find them with the smaller Gretsch-style plates too. And you can also swap them if need be.
Or i sell it and move on. These types of guitars don’t move quickly. Small market. Who knows. Held a gold b6 today. Its only 11 ounces , but it feels like a bowling ball when added to the guitar, or at least that was my impression, and i dont do many impressions.
Fred, I’m intrigued by your claim the bridge moves while playing. Looks like it rests on fixed studs. How does that work?
They are not fixed to the body. String pressure holds it in place. Tailpiece and bridge are same unit. It doesn’t move a lot. I can play it for a while and it’s fine. I just noticed that it was slightly off set. So I pushed it back. That bothered me. Probably wouldn’t bother most.
Ah, so it really is historically accurate...
You might be familiar with the lore surrounding this tailpiece. According to Lester Polfus himself, Gibson screwed up his original design by ommitting the fixed posts. And running the strings straight through instead of over the bar explaining the shallow neck angle. I’m not so sure, but there it is.
Thats part of the price tag. I could be me, I might have too heavy a hand when picking. I tend to rest my palm on a bridge of a guitar to mute and control volumes. Maybe I push too much.
My first thought was the B6/Melita bridge combo too. But I was going to say B11 and Synchro Sonic, not that there's much difference.
I put double back tape on the feet of mine and it worked for a long time.
The practical person would agree. One day i will be practical. Tape costs a few cents. Bigsby and bridge and work is expensive. Its not good unless its expensive. One day i will be practical. One day i will be practical, If i keep saying it, it may stick.
I think "lore" is the right word. I've never heard the fixed post part before, but the whole strings under the bridge thing with early Les Pauls certainly is peculiar. Was the bail tailpiece really his idea? It was already on the ES-295, which was released before the Les Paul, although close enough in time that they would both have been in development at the same time. But why on earth did the get it right on the ES-295 before releasing the Les Paul and then subsequently get it wrong on the Les Paul, and not just for a little while, but about a year. Very strange. It seems like somebody must have thought the strings under the bridge was a good idea. If it was just a mistake, as some have said, then it could have been rectified much more quickly than it was.
Perhaps a new for sale posting.
So expensive you want? This looks cool
I’m desperately trying to recall where I got it from. It might be from one of the interviews they conducted in Lester P’s basement/shed in the ‘90s. (One look at that mess and I knew he couldn’t have invented the Les Paul).
According to other lore, in late ‘51, ol’ Polfus requested Gibson to spruce up a ES175 for a sick vet with a gold finish and floral pickguard, that would become the ES295.
Looks like he used the same coat hanger type wire which he used for his patented harmonica holder to fabricate the long trapeze. So this suggests a plausibility at least.
I did a quick search and found this Tony Bacon interview with Ted McCarthy(Geez I’ve never heard anyone use the word “pulchritudinous” before?) and Ted flat out states the only contribution Lester ever made was the long tailpiece.
According to Ted the LP guitar was already designed by his team when they approached Lester. (No mention of a certain O. Appleton though. http://www.owappleton.com/ Interesting in this context is in reference to that time Lester claimed it was still a flat top).
Strictly from what I remember reading the strings under the bar routine was out of pure desperation. Originally the strings were intended to go through the bar which was just silly. When logic and physics prevailed and people started wrapping them over, the action was obviously too high.
I read it was designed to have the strings go over the bar in the first place, but somehow I doubt it. Neck angle is guitar construction 101. How do you screw that up after decades of well respected guitar manufacturing?
As to why it took a full (and a half) year to correct, I do not know. Gibson works in mysterious ways perhaps?
I will look into that. It looks like it sits on the top.