Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Bridgeplate Problem on TV Bird?


littlejohnny

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody,

 

I put some new strings on my 2013 H'bird Tv. As I tried to make sure the balls ends of the strings were tight on the bridge plate, my finger felt some sort of groove between the holes of the d and g string. It felt strange, so I tried to take some photos. Here is what came to light:

 

Bridgeplate1_zpsc2cb5b6b.jpg

 

Bridgeplate_zps2fc800a9.jpg

 

No matter how hard I tried to locate the ball ends correctly, they always seem to slip into the groove. Could not make a phote with strings on, since I could not get the camera inside of the guitar with the strings on? What do you guys think about this. Will this be a problem in the near or not so near future?

 

Thanks for your considerations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Silly question perhaps, but why is the plate made of such a soft wood? Wouldn't it be a good candidate for a harder wood, even from a vibration transference perspective?

 

Wondered same thing myself .

 

The holes on that plate look almost so big that the ball could almost fit through them.

 

Bit of a difference in that and The martin in the other thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty ugly. It almost looks to me like the bridge pin holes were drilled with no backing caul in place. Not sure if that is standard practice, but it would almost inevitably lead to tear-out.

 

Hard to tell if this was a factory shortcoming, or something else. Did you buy the guitar used? I've seen 40 year old guitars with less bridgeplate damage than this.

 

Gibson bridgeplates are normally maple, and that's what this looks like. Maple is a reasonably hard wood, and should vibrate well with the rest of the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's pretty ugly. It almost looks to me like the bridge pin holes were drilled with no backing caul in place. Not sure if that is standard practice, but it would almost inevitably lead to tear-out.

 

Hard to tell if this was a factory shortcoming, or something else. Did you buy the guitar used? I've seen 40 year old guitars with less bridgeplate damage than this.

 

Gibson bridgeplates are normally maple, and that's what this looks like. Maple is a reasonably hard wood, and should vibrate well with the rest of the top.

 

Even used, Nick, how does a 2013 made model get so tatty so quick? To palm off the blame on variables here seems like it would be a cheap exit. There's no way a guitar as recent as that coming from the Bozeman plant should be close to that state after mere months up to 1 year of use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even used, Nick, how does a 2013 made model get so tatty so quick? To palm off the blame on variables here seems like it would be a cheap exit. There's no way a guitar as recent as that coming from the Bozeman plant should be close to that state after mere months up to 1 year of use.

 

 

I don't disagree. I would just like to know what went wrong here, and don't want to point fingers without more info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree. I would just like to know what went wrong here, and don't want to point fingers without more info.

 

No, I totally understand, nick. Finger pointing would be a bit early at this point, but it would need one heck of an explanation to take them out the equation.

 

Lack of pride in someones workmanship.

 

If pushed for an assessment with the current level of detail we have I'd have to draw the same conclusion. Extremely poor for a guitar so new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first time I heard of torrified maple fretboards, and how the process made the wood harder, I thought that it should be used for maple bridgeplates, for just this reason. I guess it would just be one more process adding to the cost of an instrument and since it isn't seen (yeh, right) why do it? But I think it would work better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure the people in bozeman are to blame ... how often do you change strings ?

Are they a heavy gauge ? . Did you ever reach under there and feel the same thing ?

 

 

 

Talk to the dealer you got the guitar from and show them these photos ... maybe they can get bozeman to replace the bridge plate

 

 

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibson did use spruce for the bridge plates on some guitars in the 1960s but that was a deviation from the norm and I agree with J45nick that the one on the HB looks to be the standard maple.

 

I may be dead wrong but I have always assumed what chews up bridge plates has npothing to do with string guage but with not anchoring the ball end of the string correctly. I got in the habit early on of bending the strings slightly about 3/4" from the ball end to try and make sure it is pulling up on the bridgeplate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure the people in bozeman are to blame ... how often do you change strings ?

Are they a heavy gauge ? . Did you ever reach under there and feel the same thing ?

 

Talk to the dealer you got the guitar from and show them these photos ... maybe they can get bozeman to replace the bridge plate

 

 

JC

 

Just out of curiosity, JC, why not? Surely the guitars are made with an understanding that the customer expects to change the strings often and for the guitar to survive with structural integrity intact for a long time. Essentially we're talking about a guitar that is months up to 1 year old. Unless this is some anomaly or is down to some factor that can be reasonably explained it suggests the guitar is manufactured with a bridge plate that is not up to the job.

 

As some have said, on a 40-50 year old guitar fair enough, on a guitar who's existence can still be counted in days without jumping into the ridiculous it's fairly shocking. If it was being strung with shipping cables and tuned up like Nashville tuning OK, if it's been strung with lkights/mediums at concert pitch it's downright unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I may be dead wrong but I have always assumed what chews up bridge plates has npothing to do with string guage but with not anchoring the ball end of the string correctly. I got in the habit early on of bending the strings slightly about 3/4" from the ball end to try and make sure it is pulling up on the bridgeplate.

 

 

I do the same thing, and always check that the strings are anchored properly afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I mean It could have been a bad piece of wood from the start

... this is the first time since I have joined the forum that I have seen a

faulty bridge plate but I do remember someone who had a custom j 200 that had a bad mustache bridge that cracked from one side of the mustache an it was sent back to the factory and he got a replacement ... this may be a similar case.

 

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I mean It could have been a bad piece of wood from the start

 

 

Isn't part of their job determining what's good and bad wood that can be used in production? The flip to your argument is that we're paying them not just for parts and labour but for parts, labour, craftmanship, skillset, brand power and so on, we're in premium territory here or we should all go out and get kitted up with Chinese Kit for a fraction of the price.... That all goes out the window if they were to try to hide behind a 'bad piece of wood'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridge plates are fairly fundamental, Gibson needs to pay a bit more attention to getting them right 100% of the time! the OP example is another indication of less than premium work / material. Remember the bridge-plate hole discovery from last year. They need to get their act together.

s1146.photobucket.com/user/duluthdan/media/SJBridgeplate_zps44f7321d.jpg.html]SJBridgeplate_zps44f7321d.jpg[/url]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't part of their job determining what's good and bad wood that can be used in production? The flip to your argument is that we're paying them not just for parts and labour but for parts, labour, craftmanship, skillset, brand power and so on, we're in premium territory here or we should all go out and get kitted up with Chinese Kit for a fraction of the price.... That all goes out the window if they were to try to hide behind a 'bad piece of wood'.

PM ,

 

what I mean is that you can't always know that a piece of wood is going to do it's job correct ... I remember reading that post on the cracked moustache bridge ... I'm sure if the guy who put on the bridge knew it was going to crack he would have put something else on ... and I believe in this case the same thing ... I could be wrong and maybe the guy who put on the brige plates hates working at gibson and he strives to put faulty bp's on the guitars ... but from what I heard about the crew in Bozeman that's not likely .

 

if any case if the OP talks to the dealer I'm sure they can work something out with the repair department in Montana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridge plates are fairly fundamental, Gibson needs to pay a bit more attention to getting them right 100% of the time! the OP example is another indication of less than premium work / material. Remember the bridge-plate hole discovery from last year. They need to get their act together.

That locating hole between the D and G string hole bugs me! Why is it so close to the actual bridge pin holes

 

My D string on my J-35 wont anchor straight because of the locating hole being too close.

 

Maple is the right material for the bridge plate, just a bit more care is needed. I just had the bridge plate replaced on my 1943 LG-2. Originally the gals drilled the holes too close to the edge of the plate. So over time it only made sense that it would crack, and it indeed did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted an addendum to my thread on my new Martin about the differences between Gibson bridge plates and Martin. The Martin is pristine. My new Gibson Songwriter was horrible. Then I saw GillianGirl's brand new SJ bridge plate and it was worse than horrible.

 

So I'm guessing this is standard practice and not some anomaly. Bridge plates are usually hard wood - maple. But when drilling them, the factory should be using a caul rather than punching through the material. Plus, Gibson seems to have some kind of partially drilled registration holes (big one between the D and G string holes - like a round indentation - and two smaller ones off to the sides). The big one can actually interfere with the D and G string holes, causing the ball ends to slide to the insides as in DuluthDan's photo above. The small hole on one side is probably the hole for the UST pickup line.

 

I've also noticed that Gibson bridge plates are plywood and the one by Martin looks like a solid piece of maple.

 

Edit: In relooking at the photos, GG's SJ and my J200 are solid pieces of wood. It is my 2004 Songwriter that is ply. Interesting it also has "Songbird" stamped on the bottom corner of the bridge plate.

 

GillianGirl's SJ Bridge Plate:

DSCF2193.jpg

 

My Songwriter's Bridge Plate:

DSCF2106.jpg

 

My J200's Bridge Plate:

A394E041-4C1B-4190-89E0-72BC32BADC03.jpg

 

Martin 000-17sm Bridge Plate:

96AB4676-F617-46AB-BF3B-64B52F2041DD.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...