bobby b Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Besides the saw marks <_< ...........it's a 3 ply bridge..... IMG_6737 by bobbyjeepyj, on Flickr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby b Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 I can see the top laminate piece...but not a 2nd. Grain seems to run seamless on the lower piece. I do see a finish inconsistency on the frontal of the lower piece tho - Def 3 layers. Hard to get a good pic, but it is really obvious to the eye. The bottom layer is in-fact a lighter coloured ply, I thought it was a finish or stain line at first too, but that is not the case. There is no finish over the rosewood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Def 3 layers. Hard to get a good pic, but it is really obvious to the eye. The bottom layer is in-fact a lighter coloured ply, I thought it was a finish or stain line at first too, but that is not the case. There is no finish over the rosewood. I can see the three layers clearly. Those are actually jointer marks on the back face, not saw marks. Clearly, the pieces are laminated up, then the edge is trued with a jointer before the bridge blanks are sawn to width. There really is no excuse for leaving those marks on the piece, other than pure laziness. They could have been sanded out on a stationary belt or drum sander in about 10 seconds. I've cut Gibson a lot of slack on these things, but that is pretty embarassing. No new Gibsons for me until they straighten this all up. And don't just blame the feds. They didn't have to make a laminated bridge look so bad: they chose to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Looks wise it wouldnt bother me the slightest, however wondering if there might be some structural issues over time given its clearly a three piece as opposed to one piece of wood on the bridge ... time will tell i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby b Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 I can see the three layers clearly. Those are actually jointer marks on the back face, not saw marks. Clearly, the pieces are laminated up, then the edge is trued with a jointer before the bridge blanks are sawn to width. There really is no excuse for leaving those marks on the piece, other than pure laziness. They could have been sanded out on a stationary belt or drum sander in about 10 seconds. I've cut Gibson a lot of slack on these things, but that is pretty embarassing. No new Gibsons for me until they straighten this all up. And don't just blame the feds. They didn't have to make a laminated brdige look so bad: they chose to. Ahh... not saw marks, jointer marks. Thanks for clearing that up. I agree, the small amount of extra effort would have been nice. As stated in other threads, I am happy with the guitar 'soundwise'....... but this confounded bridge may become a bit of a thorn in my side. This thread is me just pointing out my observation on this ( now contentious ) part. My wife pointed out that the label inside states 'guaranteed against faulty workmanship and materials' ..... I consider this to be sub-par workmanship, ie: 'faulty'. Would you see the 3 ply's as.........faulty materials?? I did email gibson and stated that I thought the bridge was IMO a 'sub-standard' part and told them ( Gibson Customer Service ) I am somewhat upset having paid so much for this guitar only to get what I see as a 'substandard' but very important part.........the reply I got was, frankly, insulting. The link sent back to me has absolutely no mention of 'layered bridges'.....fretboards yes, not bridges. Hello, The Rosewood bridges are currently layered. http://www2.gibson.com/Support/FAQ-Tonewoods.aspx Best regards, Gibson Customer Service I have not included the name of the Customer Service rep that sent the email to me....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 .... the label inside states 'guaranteed against faulty workmanship and materials' ..... I consider this to be sub-par workmanship, ie: 'faulty'. Would you see the 3 ply's as.........faulty materials?? No, not faulty. Knuckle-headed - - - yes. Sound wise - probably no difference. I was somewhat accepting of a two ply bridge, but I just can't get my head past the aesthetics of a three ply bridge. Coupled with the two ply fretboards, this is a troubling discovery. Seeing that at this time no other manufacturer is putting guitars together like this (AFAIK), I won't be buying any new Gibsons without a very close look. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I agree it's not truly "faulty" workmanship, but it is definitely a departure from what has been the accepted as the norm on Gibson guitars. As I've said before, we may well be living the last days of traditional guitar construction methods due to depleting resources. It could be that this is just a bump in the road and one-piece bridges and fingerboards will return someday, but I think that's wishful thinking. It cannot be denied that an over-populated world is making extreme demands on the earth's resources, guitar building woods included. I would expect guitar prices will rise substantially over the next 20 years and who knows, we might be happy to have a two or three piece bridge come 2030. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchristo Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I dont think it would bother me too much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The Jointer marks are sloppy. You'd think that with all the grief coming with the laminated Bridge the factory could at least take a few more minutes on the finish. Sand and stain. The glue is likely stronger than the wood. At this time. No telling over time. That's just my 8th grade woodshop knowledge, I'm not an expert at anything - you can ask my wife, and my boss at work. 3 laminations ? That's surprising. Isn't the American Rosewood available / usable yet ? I'd be a bit disappointed if I ordered a guitar sight unseen expecting maybe the chance of one lamination, but now its beginning to look like they're getting closer and closer to plywood - not cool Gibson. Salesmen in two shops recently tried to steer me away from the Gibson product - mentioning the laminated bridges - and these were shops in little towns - What a dilemna. "How's it sound?" In a few years if I pull one of these off the rack, and it sounds and plays great, I'd probably not give a second thought to even look for a laminated Bridge - but going thru these birthing pains while this switch is made, is tough to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby b Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 The Jointer marks are sloppy. You'd think that with all the grief coming with the laminated Bridge the factory could at least take a few more minutes on the finish. Sand and stain. The glue is likely stronger than the wood. At this time. No telling over time. That's just my 8th grade woodshop knowledge, I'm not an expert at anything - you can ask my wife, and my boss at work. 3 laminations ? That's surprising. Isn't the American Rosewood available / usable yet ? I'd be a bit disappointed if I ordered a guitar sight unseen expecting maybe the chance of one lamination, but now its beginning to look like they're getting closer and closer to plywood - not cool Gibson. Salesmen in two shops recently tried to steer me away from the Gibson product - mentioning the laminated bridges - and these were shops in little towns - What a dilemna. "How's it sound?" In a few years if I pull one of these off the rack, and it sounds and plays great, I'd probably not give a second thought to even look for a laminated Bridge - but going thru these birthing pains while this switch is made, is tough to take. "closer and closer to plywood" ..... No doubt about it, it IS plywood. It sounds really great...... so yeah, as you say, it is 'tough to take' but I'm sure I'll get over it...... I s'pose. BTW....I just masked the top and gave the back face of the bridge a light skif with a 600 grit block and finished with a 1200 grit block....looks good now as far as those jointer marks go. Took about 5-10 mins including mask/un-mask/clean up etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duluthdan Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 "closer and closer to plywood" ..... No doubt about it, it IS plywood. It sounds really great...... so yeah, as you say, it is 'tough to take' but I'm sure I'll get over it...... I s'pose. BTW....I just masked the top and gave the back face of the bridge a light skif with a 600 grit block and finished with a 1200 grit block....looks good now as far as those jointer marks go. Took about 5-10 mins including mask/un-mask/clean up etc... I'm glad you're Ok with the guitar - I probably would be too, but like you I would kick my toe in the sand a bit - glad the sanding worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParlourMan Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 While I can understand the frustration, I very much doubt anyone will ever hear any sonic/tonal differences between a single piece rosewood bridge and a 2 piece (or in this case a three piece) bridge, I would honestly doubt anyone who claimed so... I think it was nailed earlier when it was said that it's a painful transition, especially as the year before people were buying more traditional single piece model for less money. From my very limited knowledge of woodwork I would guess the glue used was stronger than the wood, yours in particular having yet an extra layer of bonding countering most arguments against a 2-piece lamination. Structurally I think it's sound. I think the devil is in the details, you've bought a traditional model with non-traditional details. I think it's a point of principal rather than any argument of structural or sound compromise. I can sympathise with how your feeling about it but would encourage you to process it and forget it, you've bought a great guitar for you sound-wise, while resale might be slightly affected it's certainly not Norlin-esque, the forum's having a bit of drama about it currently but it'll die down, in fact go check my NGD thread in a few minutes regarding my J-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I can see the three layers clearly. Those are actually jointer marks on the back face, not saw marks. Clearly, the pieces are laminated up, then the edge is trued with a jointer before the bridge blanks are sawn to width. There really is no excuse for leaving those marks on the piece, other than pure laziness. They could have been sanded out on a stationary belt or drum sander in about 10 seconds. I've cut Gibson a lot of slack on these things, but that is pretty embarassing. No new Gibsons for me until they straighten this all up. And don't just blame the feds. They didn't have to make a laminated brdige look so bad: they chose to. Hey Nick, after the feds drove them to the desparation that they are in now, they just raised their hands and said....WTF... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Remember when...???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 BTW....I just masked the top and gave the back face of the bridge a light skif with a 600 grit block and finished with a 1200 grit block....looks good now as far as those jointer marks go. Took about 5-10 mins including mask/un-mask/clean up etc... The irony is that this could have been done at the factory, before the bridge was finished and fitted, in about 10 seconds. And that's not an exaggeration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I have a 000-15 Martin that is beautifully made and even better sounding, except for a very similar 'missed bit of sanding or jointer mark' on the whole surface of the inside of the bridge (facing the soundhole). Compared to the rest of the guitar, it stands out even more exactly because the rest is so well done. When I bought it 7 or 8 years ago, after gassing for a week after first trying it, I thought I got a good deal because of my incredible bargaining skills! But the salesman was probably very happy to move it out! I was playing happily away a week or so later when I noticed, and ever since, it is the first thing I notice. I am used to it now, and don't intend to alter it at this stage, but it just shows how the mind can lead the eye! On the laminated bridge scenario, could somebody explain why Gibson just doesn't use a bridge made out of a local problem free wood - I hear everybody saying the saddle is where the sound comes from. Why can't they use a slab of walnut or anything that would stand the 'rigors of the road'? Yes, sales suckered-wise (me), I would rather a better solution than the 'baked apple necks' and 'lamington fretboards'. Just come up with something nice, Gibson, advertise the change and go forward..... Currently digging a bigger and bigger hole for themselves, just me saying! BluesKing777. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobby b Posted April 18, 2012 Author Share Posted April 18, 2012 Well I do remember you posting up this soundclip in the performance thread...nothing wrong with your HB sound on this clip. Killer sound. Indeed...... I love the sound, and that is, after all, the part that matters.. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morkolo Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 The glue is likely stronger than the wood. At this time. No telling over time. That is the killer, two pieces or three glued together can hold a stronger bond over time than a solid piece. The downside to that is those same glue joins can weaken and give way over time depending on how well each piece stuck together. Or if certain chemicals get into the join it can cause the glue to weaken causing the join to separate within no time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffchris Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Why don't they use tusq, like they do on the customs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Why don't they use tusq, like they do on the customs? Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morkolo Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Huh? I've never heard of it either but I know Godin uses Tusq for the base of their bridges on their new Uptown GT model. I'd be interested in how it sounds compared to rosewood or ebony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 The new generation don,t give a **** about 'traditional values and aesthetics'. The plywoods' got to be better, cause its made that way....Jes Sayin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morkolo Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 The new generation don,t give a **** about 'taditional vales and aesthetics'. The plywood got to be better, cause its made that way....Jes Sayin! hey hey hey don't tar us all with the same brush grand skipper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I can see the three layers clearly. Those are actually jointer marks on the back face, not saw marks. Clearly, the pieces are laminated up, then the edge is trued with a jointer before the bridge blanks are sawn to width. There really is no excuse for leaving those marks on the piece, other than pure laziness. They could have been sanded out on a stationary belt or drum sander in about 10 seconds. I've cut Gibson a lot of slack on these things, but that is pretty embarassing. No new Gibsons for me until they straighten this all up. And don't just blame the feds. They didn't have to make a laminated bridge look so bad: they chose to. I agree.....this is just unacceptable.....no new guitars for me either..........maybe this is why Ren left..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 The new generation don,t give a **** about 'taditional vales and aesthetics'. The plywood got to be better, cause its made that way....Jes Sayin! Not quite sure I understand your point here, Rod. I think the whole reaction against laminated parts like bridges and fingerboards comes from our common negative response to changes of this type when it comes to our guitars. I think many here--myself included--like traditional woods in our guitars, and don't react well to changes that are made to the way they are built that are sort of "snuck under the radar". You might consider me a "liberal" on most things--whatever that means--but when it comes to my guitars, I'm pretty conservative by any standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.