J-45 ADJ Saddles

[jibberish]

1) How much does it cost to convert an ADJ bridge/saddle into a standard one with bone saddle?

2) What are your thoughts and/or experiences on this modification?

[Boyd]

I left my 1965 J-50 with the original rosewood adjustable saddle, I prefer the original character of the guitar and don't want to turn it into something else. 

[E-minor7]

There are lots of threads on this theme on the pages behind us - and I continue to believe the best solution on all levels is to get a rosewood insert with an ordinary sized bone saddle.                                That way you can rewind anytime you like - experiment back'n'forth without devaluating the original quality/value, , , ,

                                                                                                          and of course regret it all for then to enjoy the unique miracles adjustable ceramic saddles are able to present 😎                           

[dhanners623]

Here’s Frank Ford’s take on the job:

http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luthier/Technique/Guitar/Bridges/HumBirdBr/hbirdbr1.html
 

I had it done years ago to a J-45 ADJ. can’t recall the price. The guitar sounded better afterwards and I was not sorry I did it.

[j45nick]

I had one done about 10 years ago on one of my J-45s. It was essentially done like Frank Ford does it, with a few differences. 

In that case, however, I was taking it back to the original bridge configuration. The adj had been put on by the Gibson factory as part of a repair many years previously.

At the time the adj was removed, it was part of a much larger job on the guitar, so I suspect the price charged for that part was lower than it might have been as a stand-alone job.

He removed the old bridge, laminated bridgeplate, and all the ADJ hardware. Plugged the holes in the top, put in a new maple bridgeplate, made and installed a new belly-up bridge with slot through bone saddle, as the guitar was originally.

I think that part of the job was about $600 back then.

It was worth it to me to get the guitar back to the way it began life.

Whether you do it or not depends on the age and condition of the guitar. I prefer to keep a guitar as original as possible.   Em7's approach is a good one, too.

[bobouz]

A vote here for keeping it as is if you like the tone.  The adjustable saddle changes how string vibrations are transferred to the body - in effect creating more of an archtop bridge relationship.  Typically, this results in a slightly metallic quality that many players enjoy, including myself.

Frank Ford’s comments in the link above are common luthier-speak.  They always rip this design to shreds from an ideal-construction perspective.  But in creating this goofy design, Gibson also created a wonderfully unique tone.

So if it is structurally stable & you enjoy the tone, I would leave it be.  Change it out & the tone will change, but perhaps to something your ears find less desirable - and I say this from having experienced it first hand.

 

[zombywoof]

I believe that the idea that certain guitars are "better" dominate  every discussion regarding the virtues and evils of the ADJ saddle bridge to the point that people are hearing what they are told to expect and not what their ears tell them.   

While I have played more ADJ saddle bridge Gibson 6 strings than I can recall I have never lived with one so am not qualified to say much of anything other than my impression has been it was the oversized stiff laminate bridge plate which was the problem.  Having little flexibility It is just not very efficient when it comes to transferring energy to the top.

That said, I have  owned a '61 and '63 B45-12.  Based on them I agree with Bobouz that the adjustable saddle suspended by a couple of screws increases the amount of attack you hear and does everything for a flattop 12 string that an archtop does for a regular 6 string.  I also agree that it makes the top end in particular a bit thin or tinny sounding.  I know people though who will tell you  that sound nails the pre-Sgt. Pepper Beatles tone.  

Edited April 22, 2021 by zombywoof

[cunningham26]

Wow a lot of answers on this topic! For the OP- clearly as you have read and maybe knew already, it's not just the rosewood saddle that people complain about on the ADJ bridges- it's the thick bridge plate and all the hardware that is perceived to dampen vibration of the top.

I have a '68 j45 adj with the adj bridge, and rather than change the whole thing permanently, i opted for a $20 drop-in bone saddle from philadelphia luthier supply. it took 15 minutes to install, and the original bridge is in a little bag in the case for if and when i want to swap it back in or my descendants sell it for beer money.   

tonally it brightened up the mids and highs but kept the overall sound of the guitar in tact. Im very happy with it.

[QuestionMark]

At one point I had only Gibsons with fixed bridges.  I added a  2006 1964 J-45 Custom Shop guitar with an adjustable bridge to my collection.  It’s  not an either/or thing.  Each has its uniqueness.
 

QM aka “Jazzman” Jeff
 

 

[jibberish]

11 minutes ago, cunningham26 said:

Wow a lot of answers on this topic! For the OP- clearly as you have read and maybe knew already, it's not just the rosewood saddle that people complain about on the ADJ bridges- it's the thick bridge plate and all the hardware that is perceived to dampen vibration of the top.

I have a '68 j45 adj with the adj bridge, and rather than change the whole thing permanently, i opted for a $20 drop-in bone saddle from philadelphia luthier supply. it took 15 minutes to install, and the original bridge is in a little bag in the case for if and when i want to swap it back in or my descendants sell it for beer money.   

tonally it brightened up the mids and highs but kept the overall sound of the guitar in tact. Im very happy with it.

Correct.

All of that has to do with my personal preference and precondition to have my guitars as lean as possible. By that, I mean that a bulky and heavy bridge/saddle and components would go. I also prefer the teardrop pickguard. I also get rid of any heavy Grover mushroom tuners and replace with tuners with buttons. 

Would I do this on a guitar that I adored and couldn't imagine fiddling with? Of course not. But all things being equal, what I just said is my conviction.

Aesthetically (which is more deeply subjective and personal), I find everything I just mentioned to be quite ugly. I am quite sure there are people that would hear and feel my guitars and find them equally ugly.

[jedzep]

I wouldn't buy or live with an adjustable saddle setup, as they feel/sound like there's a rattling in there somewhere. I only changed one guitar out to a fixed saddle belly bridge, a B25 from the 60's, and was happy with what I heard as being a notable improvement.  The other thing that irritates me is that they look proportionately too large for the body, though there isn't much that can be done about that with the bridge footprint once removed from the top.

A professionally swapped out bridge and fixed saddle wouldn't affect value significantly. If done right there would be no instant way of detecting the mod either.

[cunningham26]

1 hour ago, jibberish said:

Correct.

All of that has to do with my personal preference and precondition to have my guitars as lean as possible. By that, I mean that a bulky and heavy bridge/saddle and components would go. I also prefer the teardrop pickguard. I also get rid of any heavy Grover mushroom tuners and replace with tuners with buttons. 

Would I do this on a guitar that I adored and couldn't imagine fiddling with? Of course not. But all things being equal, what I just said is my conviction.

Aesthetically (which is more deeply subjective and personal), I find everything I just mentioned to be quite ugly. I am quite sure there are people that would hear and feel my guitars and find them equally ugly.

why would you buy a guitar you need to transform to suit your preferences? If you swap everything out you're washing out vintage value even if you think at the time it's a universally-perceived positive upgrade by messing with the originality. I'd say move on and maybe get a waterloo that is constructed more to your tastes and has similar aesthetics?

[jibberish]

1 minute ago, cunningham26 said:

why would you buy a guitar you need to transform to suit your preferences? If you swap everything out you're washing out vintage value even if you think at the time it's a universally-perceived positive upgrade by messing with the originality. I'd say move on and maybe get a waterloo that is constructed more to your tastes and has similar aesthetics?

Well, I wouldn't swap a pickguard out, and the tuners (on vintage guitars) wouldn't be Grovers anyway, and only swapped if they didn't work. Nuts, saddles, tuners. 

The body of a guitar has an inherent sound. That may be either improved or worsened with an ADJ saddle. So if I don't like the sound of the guitar to begin with, I wouldn't buy. If I loved the sound of a 1962 ADJ J-45, I buy it and improve it.

And I will always save $3-5 for a 1958-68 J-45 rather than a Waterloo.

[Dave F]

I think I would make a rosewood insert to fill in the slot that would accept a standard drop-in bone saddle. Sounds like a fun project to see if you like the sound. If you like it you could glue in the insert or have a luthier fill it in with rosewood dust and re-cut the saddle slot.