Shaving bridges

[blindboygrunt]

Does shaving a bridge , providing it's done professionally , cause any structural issues ?

[fp]

If the bridge is shaved down too much it could be a problem. Martin bridges tend to be on the thicker side as opposed to vintage Gibson bridges. It's not unusual to see a Martin bridge as thick as 3/8 of an inch. If that is the case then shaving down to 5/16 inch shouldn't be a problem. I see original bridges on some vintage Gibson's as low as 1/4 inch or a hair less. Id not want to shave one of those any thinner. Modern Gibson's I've seen tend to have thicker bridges then their vintage relatives.

If the guitar is a high end make then it's always best to spend the money for a neck reset. If it's an inexpensive guitar that doesn't warrant the money for a neck reset then I say go ahead and lower the bridge.

[j45nick]

If the bridge is shaved down too much it could be a problem. Martin bridges tend to be on the thicker side as opposed to vintage Gibson bridges. It's not unusual to see a Martin bridge as thick as 3/8 of an inch. If that is the case then shaving down to 5/16 inch shouldn't be a problem. I see original bridges on some vintage Gibson's as low as 1/4 inch or a hair less. Id not want to shave one of those any thinner. Modern Gibson's I've seen tend to have thicker bridges then their vintage relatives.

If the guitar is a high end make then it's always best to spend the money for a neck reset. If it's an inexpensive guitar that doesn't warrant the money for a neck reset then I say go ahead and lower the bridge.

 

 

What he says.

[dhanners623]

What he says.

 

Ditto. I'll admit I'm no expert, but it has been my experience that if it is a good guitar having issues, it'll probably need a neck reset for other reasons at some point anyway, so you might as well bite the bullet and deal with it now. The body-neck joint is made to be taken apart and reworked. Once you start shaving a bridge, you're basically stuck with what you wind up with. (Granted, bridges can be removed and replaced...)

[blindboygrunt]

It's a guitar I'm maybe going to see .

Apparently the bridge has been shaved a little , done by a decent guy , not a hack .

When I read about shaving bridges there is the opinion that , as long as too much isn't taken off , leaving the bridge too thin and risking splitting etc (obvious) then its fine

But there always a comment about it being a quick fix that is only postponing a neck reset . I'm wondering why , if the bridge can handle a little shave , that it's still heading toward a neck set ? As in 'quicker than any other guitar is heading for a neck set'

 

Can someone explain this train of thought , or is it just typical Internet forum hyperbole ?

 

Anyone out there has had a bridge shaved and had concrete results for me , rather than 'oh my , I wouldn't be doing that' chicken little theory

[j45nick]

It's a guitar I'm maybe going to see .

Apparently the bridge has been shaved a little , done by a decent guy , not a hack .

 

 

Bridges usually get shaved as a quick and dirty (and cheap) alternative to a neck re-set. Do you know how much has been taken off? How thick is the remaining bridge, and how much saddle is there? If you look at it, check the depth of the saddle slot if possible to make sure there is enough support for the saddle.

 

My concern (not based on any first-hand experience) is that when and if you someday do a neck re-set, you may not have enough saddle support to get the strings at a good height off the soundboard.

 

The other thing you might want to do is project a straightedge along the fretboard to the bridge, just to see where you end up. Check to see if the guitar has the right gauge strings on it, and have a look at the neck relief as well.

 

On one of your guitars that has good volume, tone, and playability, measure the action height at the soundhole. Do the same thing on the guitar you are looking at to see how they compare

 

Just use some common sense, and you should be OK.

 

No one can predict how the neck will continue to move in the future.

[OldCowboy]

My 1955 J-45 has been with me since 1971-72. The neck set is good, as it has always been. I did, however, have the bridge shaved around 1992. Ran mediums on it instead of my usual lights (don't ask) for a 5-year interval, and the top came up a bit/action became higher. My luthier pronounced the neck set good and told me that the bracing didn't need attention. So we decided to take the bridge down a bit (from the bottom, not the top) and it's been fine since then. Went back to my usual light strings and all is well. So, I can't tell any horror stories and wouldn't be afraid to go that route again.

[fp]

My 1955 J-45 has been with me since 1971-72. The neck set is good, as it has always been. I did, however, have the bridge shaved around 1992. Ran mediums on it instead of my usual lights (don't ask) for a 5-year interval, and the top came up a bit/action became higher. My luthier pronounced the neck set good and told me that the bracing didn't need attention. So we decided to take the bridge down a bit (from the bottom, not the top) and it's been fine since then. Went back to my usual light strings and all is well. So, I can't tell any horror stories and wouldn't be afraid to go that route again.

 

From the bottom is a good way as long as the wings of the bridge are thick enough. A competent person that shaves a bridge down from the top, should be able to get the contours shaped to make the bridge look correct.

[jedzep]

I'm confused. Am I correct in thinking the only reason to shave (sand) from the top is to gain some break angle on an otherwise short saddle w/o removing and replacing the bridge? I frankly never thought of attacking it that way.

 

I try to think but nuthin' happens.

[Dave F]

I have an older USA Martin D12X1 12 string that's not worth that much. Nowadays they (the Mexican version) sell for about 600 new.

 

It needed a neck reset but it's not worth it and I have no sentimental attachment.

 

The bridge was very thick. My luthier sanded down the bridge removing an 1/8". He said it was rough, that richlite is hard to sand. He then deepen the saddle slot.

 

The result is an bridge still 3/8" thick and nice low action.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[QuestionMark]

One should add that some 70's Gibsons often had a very low saddle to begin with a higher action from the onset. And, that a neck reset will not do all that much because the original specs were just a higher action towards the soundhole. However, if the action gets way higher a neck reset may be in order as the saddle can go no lower, but it will not result in a low action guitar up and down the neck because of its original specs. Keeping in mind of course that some of the original spec higher action produced a pretty good loud volume and tone on those 70s instruments, despite the double x bracing.

 

Just thought this should be added.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

[OldCowboy]

One should add that some 70's Gibsons often had a very low saddle to begin with a higher action from the onset. And, that a neck reset will not do all that much because the original specs were just a higher action towards the soundhole. However, if the action gets way higher a neck reset may be in order as the saddle can go no lower, but it will not result in a low action guitar up and down the neck because of its original specs. Keeping in mind of course that some of the original spec higher action produced a pretty good loud volume and time on those 70s instruments, despite the double x bracing.

 

Just thought this should be added.

 

QM aka Jazzman Jeff

Not a bad thought to add. 1970s Gibson flat-tops are notorious for underset necks. And thus follows the rest - as you say, the original specs.

[blindboygrunt]

I'm confused. Am I correct in thinking the only reason to shave (sand) from the top is to gain some break angle on an otherwise short saddle w/o removing and replacing the bridge? I frankly never thought of attacking it that way.

 

I try to think but nuthin' happens.

 

Yip Jed

That's pretty much what happens

Apparently fairly often.

[Murph]

I was actually sort of afraid to click this thread.

 

Knowing how some of you think.....

[Cougar]

But there always a comment about it being a quick fix that is only postponing a neck reset. I'm wondering why , if the bridge can handle a little shave , that it's still heading toward a neck set ? As in 'quicker than any other guitar is heading for a neck set'....

 

A shaved bridge won't speed a guitar toward the need for a neck reset, but practically every acoustic guitar is eventually headed for a neck reset for the simple reason that the strings in tension are constantly trying to collapse the guitar. And most guitars will collapse - slowly - over time, which raises the action. Shaving the saddle is typically the first solution, but this affects the break angle. If the saddle has been shaved, and now the bridge is also shaved and the action is still high, it's time for a neck reset, but now you should replace the bridge and saddle too (otherwise you're not getting the full benefit of the neck reset). Talk of neck resets is much more common over at letstalkguild than here at gibson, I'm guessing because of gibson's shorter scale length....