J45 Adjustable bridge

[pocaloc]

Are the adjustable bridge J45 models considered less desirable than the fixed bridge models? Well, actually, from the price of adj models I already know he answer. What I want to know, is why they are less desirable. I've found a custom shop recreation of a J-45 and it has an adjustable bridge. I really like the looks of it, but I think I can find actual vintage adj j45's for the price they are asking. Are the adjustable bridges that bad?

[larryp58]

Someone here on the Forum will chime in with more knowledge on this subject than I have. The adjustable bridges on the J-45's you speak of are from the "Norlin era" Gibsons. These guitars are the "brutes" that were made when Gibson tried to forget how to make a decent guitar. Some Norlin era guitars were OK, (so I've heard), but I've never played one that was.

[Stubee]

What I want to know, is why they are less desirable.

Most people seem to think they don't sound as good as a fixed bridge (it's really the saddle that's adjustable). If you do a search here or on UMGF on the subject you'll probably find plenty of opinions and reasons behind the logic. It basically boils down to a good fixed bridge transferring string vibrations to the top more efficiently than an adjustable bridge, plus doesn't have detracting elements such as adjustment nuts & bolts. Not a given & I owned one or two early '60s Gibsons that had the original adj. bridge that were fine, and have played others. You can find, say, a 1961 J-50 or whatever w. an adj. bridge that sounds far better than another '61 J-50 with a fixed bridge. But that's just because the bridge is only one of the elements in producing good tone. A wonderful bridge & saddle on a lousy guitar won't make it sound like a great one.

 

That said, I've typically preferred fixed bridge guitars because I see little reason to raise/lower saddle height frequently. If I were looking at a new model I'd not be attracted to an adjustable bridge. YMMV.

[BigKahune]

... It basically boils down to a good fixed bridge transferring string vibrations to the top more efficiently than an adjustable bridge, ...

 

+1

 

I had an adjustable bridge model at one time. IMO it's not much of a problem if you leave the metal adjustment bracket bottomed out and adjust the saddle material itself in the traditional manner. In this case, with the bracket is bottomed out and making complete contact with the bridge and the saddle bottom flat against the bracket bottom, the transfer of vibrations sound board is optimal for the adjustable setup. But if you use the mechanical adjustment to raise the saddle, the bottom of the adjustment bracket is no longer making complete contact with the bridge diminishing the transfer of vibrations to the sound board.

[frenchie1281734003]

Someone here on the Forum will chime in with more knowledge on this subject than I have. The adjustable bridges on the J-45's you speak of are from the "Norlin era" Gibsons. These guitars are the "brutes" that were made when Gibson tried to forget how to make a decent guitar. Some Norlin era guitars were OK, (so I've heard), but I've never played one that was.

 

The adjustable saddle (Which is what it really is) was not a Norlin innovation, and was available as an option on J-45/50`s from 1956 before becoming standard in 1961 (62 for the Epiphone Texan), some time before the Norlin takeover. Pre 56 is more desirable for J-45/50`s due to those guitars having taller scalloped top braces, whereas those post 56 have shorter unscalloped ones. However there are plenty of 56- mid 60`s guitars that sound absolutely amazing, and I include in that, my own 62 Texan (ADJ saddle). One of the very best J-45`s I have heard, is one of the very last round shouldered 69 guitars, and should have by rights, with the unwanted features it carried, been a dog!

 

I would advise trying quite a few out.

 

Steve.

[Guest WiseAxe]

Good points, Steve, and all. And therein lies a bit of a challenge, for those who are up to it. The "inconsistency" stigma

 

of Gibsons can work both ways. The prejudice against ADJ guitars is so prevalent, it's difficult to audition a few in a

 

single setting to find that needle in the haystack. Not many vintage dealers want to have any kind of selection of them.

 

But for those who know a good thing when they hear it, and have an open mind about them, there are great adjustable-bridged

 

Gibsons out there (including the ones with solid rosewood retrofit bridges) waiting for someone to recognize them as such.

 

Great faded Iced Tea sunbursts like no other era, wood played in & aged about 50 years, at a price of at least half of the

 

more highly sought after years. Enjoy the search.

[SoonerBuckeye]

Donovan's J-45 was an adjustable and I thought it sounded pretty darned good. Keith Richard's Hummingbird was also an adjustable and it sounded good. Gordon Lightfoot's B45-12's are adjustable and they sound great.

Bob

[pocaloc]

Thanks for the information. I'll try some out if I can find any locally. I would bet my ear will still appreciate the sound a ADJ model makes, maybe not side by side with the more desirable models, but with just myself and the guitar. In the end I'm probably going to end up getting a J-45 standard or a Hummingbird pro. I just found a custom shop '60's reissue for a decent price that is really nice looking so I wanted to consider it. Can't try it though. Anyway, thanks for the replies. -- Matt

[E-minor7]

Donovan's J-45 was an adjustable and I thought it sounded pretty darned good. Keith Richard's Hummingbird was also an adjustable and it sounded good. Gordon Lightfoot's B45-12's are adjustable and they sound great.

Bob

 

 

So were Lennons and Harrisons. I recently read a Donovan CD cover-note where his stolen 45 was described as "very,very good" by close colleague. Guess the same could be said about Richards (also stolen) H-bird. But we've only heard those guitars recorded, eq'ed and mixed presumably considerable different to what the acoustical reality would have sounded like 1 to 1. Favorite records give a clue, but no guaranties.

My experience with the adjustables is that the ones with saddles entirely made of rosewood, keep the tone damped and unclear, whereas the ceramic versions zzzings up the trebles to a point where I personally don't want to be.

 

February 2016 edit - I have used the original ceramic for over a year now and the guitar sounds better and better with that one back in. Perhaps due to a now broken in new (approx. 2010) bridge and bridge-plate. In fact I am so pleased with the ceramic that I bought an extra the other day just to be on the safe side. Must be said that I dampen the trebs with duck-tape underneath the 3 high strings between the porcelain and the slot-floor.

 

Check the idea for my SJ 63.

 

Story: In recent time the 'born with' adj. plastic bridge was replaced by a luthier in Ohio, who for some reason chose not to penetrate the new saddle groove the whole way to the top of the guitar ?!? Apart from that - and the fact this bridge is rosewood - everything else followed the original concept : The ceramic saddle, the long flat metal thing under the saddle, the 2 screws, 4 nuts and 2 metal rings !

 

But as mentioned, this set-up didn't work for me. Tons of volume, but unpleasantly sharp/thin E'n'B strings.

 

Instead I slipped down a rosewood insert with a common sized bone saddle. Still the highs lacked core and body.

 

Third option was an insert in pure old vase ivory (had that in stock too). The result here was clear and warm - again not right, though. The old guitar couldn't bear the direct power and appeared overexposed. (A bit like an aged madame in semi-transparent evening gown excuse me).

 

The final decision was to call my own doctor and make him create the shown combination 2/3 bone, 1/3 rose ordinary sized saddle in a rose insert. It is the best, so far and there's even a shim below the light half. Though quieter - all 6 strings now sing in relaxed balance and the real scoop of this SJ - the wonderful bass notes are no longer disturbed from above.

 

Take a look and you'll see the thing isn't quite precise. You'll also notice that the ends where the 2 now dismissed lifting screws are supposed to be (or once were), aren't rounded. Well, I phoned in the order and some long distance misunderstandings are the reason for these slight errors.