Early trapeze tailpiece

[tfaux]

Collective wisdom,

 

I'm the new owner of an old guitar--a 56 ES-225. It has an early trapeze bridge/tailpiece, like the early Les Pauls.

The guitar came set up with the strings wrapping over the top of the tailpiece, which seems reasonable, but I've seen Les Pauls with the strings wrapped under. Quick and dirty research says that this was a point of contention between Gibson and Les himself.

 

Anyone know anything about this?

 

Is there any advantage to wrapping the strings under? I like palming the bridge, and it seems to me it would make playing more awkward.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks.

Tom

[pippy]

It was not the fault of the trapeze tailpiece. It was due to a glaring mistake in the construction of the earliest LPs.

 

The early (first run) Les Pauls had the neck set at far too shallow an angle in relation to the top-carve / deck.

Even when adjusted as low as it could go the t'p could not go low enough to allow for a 'good' action with conventional stringing.

Because of this fault the only way to get the guitars to be playable was to raise the t'p and string under the bar.

 

Many of these LPs have subsequently had their necks re-set at a 'correct' angle; i.e. one which allows for palm-muting style of playing, for instance.

There are also (nowadays) aftermarket t'ps which have a lower bar and which allow the guitar to be played with the original neck-set angle.

It is only (generally speaking) the 'Collectors' who keep the original neck-set and t'p. But then again; they don't tend to play them much...

 

But all this is only pertinent to the first run LPs. Your 225, happily, will not have any issues with the conventional over-strung method.

 

And we like to see pictures...

 

P.

 

EDIT : OK, saw the snaps in the other thread. Very Nice. Good Score!

[retrorod]

Yeah

 

What pippy sez!

 

 

 

[tfaux]

Thanks!