Pins???

[Towzend]

Some of you may remember my thread about the tosser that done the bad "setup" on my j200.. well i asked

him about these bone/ivory ect bridge pins, and whats your view.. he said.. well, if it made all that difference

in sound, gibson would have used them as standard? not worth changing them he said?

 

Does he have a point?

[sgTime]

 

Some of you may remember my thread about the tosser that done the bad "setup" on my j200.. well i asked

him about these bone/ivory ect bridge pins' date=' and whats your view.. he said.. well, if it made all that difference

in sound, gibson would have used them as standard? not worth changing them he said?

 

Does he have a point? [/quote']

 

Meh, its like the "wrapping your strings around your tailpiece on a LP" question. It does make a "differance", but it is so slight and you probably never would notice it.

[ballcorner]

Yes, he knows exactly what he is talking about - however, most people here will tell you that you need Bob Colosi's pins and your guitar will suddenly come to life.

 

I have not only collected and used hundreds of different sets of pins in all manner of materials, I have actually paid to have sets made in silver, 10K gold, black onyx etc. and I have had many of these sets tested in isolated environments - and the end result of thousands of dollars spent is this:

 

Fit affects the impact of your pins on the guitar. If they fit well, they can be made of fossilized porridge and do a much better job than pure diamond pins that don't fit properly.

 

But, like I said, most people here will argue the point forever because they "know" the bone sounds better.

[Towzend]

Yes' date=' he knows exactly what he is talking about - however, most people here will tell you that you need Bob Colosi's pins and your guitar will suddenly come to life.

 

I have not only collected and used hundreds of different sets of pins in all manner of materials, I have actually paid to have sets made in silver, 10K gold, black onyx etc. and I have had many of these sets tested in isolated environments - and the end result of thousands of dollars spent is this:

 

Fit affects the impact of your pins on the guitar. If they fit well, they can be made of fossilized porridge and do a much better job than pure diamond pins that don't fit properly.

 

But, like I said, most people here will argue the point forever because they "know" the bone sounds better.

 

[/quote']

 

 

WoW... an expensive way to prove a point!!

 

I think i'll go for the fossilized porridge ones...

[Gitfidl]

Tusq is pretty reasonable when you consider the alternative and molecularly it is probably better than bone or ivory.

[ballcorner]

 

 

WoW... an expensive way to prove a point!!

 

I think i'll go for the fossilized porridge ones...

 

Well, I spent money developing pins so I could sell them, and I did indeed sell many sets. Fossilized porridge is still in development, unfortunately, so the wait is about 30,000 years.

[modoc_333]

Yes' date=' he knows exactly what he is talking about - however, most people here will tell you that you need Bob Colosi's pins and your guitar will suddenly come to life.

 

I have not only collected and used hundreds of different sets of pins in all manner of materials, I have actually paid to have sets made in silver, 10K gold, black onyx etc. and I have had many of these sets tested in isolated environments - and the end result of thousands of dollars spent is this:

 

Fit affects the impact of your pins on the guitar. If they fit well, they can be made of fossilized porridge and do a much better job than pure diamond pins that don't fit properly.

 

But, like I said, most people here will argue the point forever because they "know" the bone sounds better.

 

[/quote']

 

+1. a good fit is the most important. many of the plastic ones get broken over time so something tougher can be better for that. cosmetics count for something. most of the bridge pin marketing is snake oil though. there may be a SLIGHT difference..... but that's about it.

i need to get some just to cover my concerns in reasons #1 and #2 that i gave. but i certainly don't expect the slight difference between 2 things so close to each other will matter when it comes to bridge pins. plastic vs bone saddle? sure. but not pins.

[asmith9509]

 

Meh' date=' its like the "wrapping your strings around your tailpiece on a LP" question. It does make a "differance", but it is so slight and you probably never would notice it. [/quote']

 

Actually, FWIW- I found that top-wrapping my LP strings made a huge difference for feel and playability. I think the difference to tone was less- but still bigger than the difference between bridge pins on an acoustic.

 

As mentioned above, I think proper fit is the key. I also do think that cosmetics count for something, and I have a hard time seeing molded plastic pins with a big nasty parting line on a $2k guitar. Just doesn't seem right.

[macaibhistin]

Yep, I agree. Paying almost 3K for a guitar only to have plastic pins seems ridiculous. It is my only complaint of my Gibson product. How much do the Bob Colosi pins cost?

[rar]

Paying almost 3K for a guitar only to have plastic pins seems ridiculous.

 

It's been awhile since the reason for this has been posted, so maybe it's worth posting again. Gibson figured as follows:

 

There are two kinds of flattop-with-pinbridge players in the world, ones who don't care about what bridge pins are in their guitar and ones who care passionately. Those who don't care are perfectly happy with plastic pins, especially knowing that just about every great flattop guitar Gibson has built since the beginning has come factory-equipped with plastic pins. OTOH, those who care passionately generally have strong pin preferences. No matter what material was chosen for the pins -- Tusq, cow bone, camel bone, rosewood, ebony, fossilized walrus ivory, marginally-legal poached elephant ivory, whatever -- and no matter how they were decorated (or not decorated), the majority of 'em would want something different and would wind up swapping them out anyway. So, why not go with the cheapest and most historically-accurate alternative, viz., plastic?

 

Makes sense to me. If there were anything objectively wrong with plastic pins, that would be different. But there isn't. Some folks even prefer them.

 

-- Bob R

[onewilyfool]

Has anyone here heard of Bob Colosi?????

[powerpopper]

 

It's been awhile since the reason for this has been posted' date=' so maybe it's worth posting again. Gibson figured as follows:

 

There are two kinds of flattop-with-pinbridge players in the world, ones who don't care about what bridge pins are in their guitar and ones who care passionately. Those who don't care are perfectly happy with plastic pins, especially knowing that just about every great flattop guitar Gibson has built since the beginning has come factory-equipped with plastic pins. OTOH, those who care passionately generally have strong pin preferences. No matter what material was chosen for the pins -- Tusq, cow bone, camel bone, rosewood, ebony, fossilized walrus ivory, marginally-legal poached elephant ivory, whatever -- and no matter how they were decorated (or not decorated), the majority of 'em would want something different and would wind up swapping them out anyway. So, why not go with the cheapest and most historically-accurate alternative, viz., plastic?

 

Makes sense to me. If there were anything objectively wrong with plastic pins, that would be different. But there isn't. Some folks even prefer them.

 

-- Bob R

 

[/quote']

 

It all makes perfect sense now.

 

I personally have a problem with buying a guitar for $2k or more and having plastic pins on it. Spoke with the guy who sets up all my guitars and his thought was thus. If you're putting the pins on because you like the way they look or because you feel your <insert name of expensive guitar here> should not be defiled by wearing plastic pins, knock yourself out. His further take on it is that changes in tone based on pin material are either negligible or a myth.

 

Saddle and nut are, obviously, entirely different matters altogether.

[mooseguy]

Mr.Ballcorner:

 

I just flushed all my depressant supressants after reading your really edifying comments

about pin materials. I happen to like Tusq as it works for me in my 69 J200 in conjuction with their saddles. I do notice however that they seem to undersize their pin at least the ones I have received from them. From you pin experience, what constitutes the proper fit? Hammered in tight, loose, semiloose ect.? Your much appreciated suggestion will be followed.

 

Regards,

 

Moose

 

P.S. Just heard (to my utmost relief) that the "Great" Collossi will absolutely not kill an elephant for a single pin order.

[macaibhistin]

I hear the argument (and comprehend it) for putting plastic pins in an expensive guitar. Still don't buy it, though. If I were to buy an expensive sports car, I would not expect it to have the body of a Maserati and then the dash board of a Plymouth Reliant! At least put a nice looking set of slightly more expensive wooden pins in - just for respectability sake. Anyway, those are my final thoughts on the topic. I promise not to bring it up again (for a while )

 

...and what's with the "astrixisation" of the word ridiculous in my original post??? Is that a bad word in the US or something?

[kazzelectro]

Hey. I have experimented with different types of pins, saddles, nuts, strings, etc. I can tell you with complete confidence that changing the material of the pins will change the sound and sustain of your guitar....notably. You may not hear it right away...but change it back to plastic after a few weeks and you'll hear and almost feel the difference. All the manufacturers are using plastics pins stock. Most are using micarta or plastic saddles (except for Martin)...which is a real shame. Although plastic has its place is toning down brighter guitars. Anyhow...back to the pins...do it...don't like em...sell the pins. Doesn't have to be Colosi bone pins either..but they should fit properly (as another member mentioned). You can try ebony, ivory or a number of other pins too...they will have an affect. It's alot of fun.

Gibson's stock pins are some of the plainest and cheapest looking pins out there...only weak spot on their guitars.

With regards to a member comments about spending $2000 on a guitar...I find it amazing how many people out there buy guitars for from 2 or 4K and they haven't a clue how their guitar was manufactured. It's a real shame...guess I'm just a little anal

[Jayla]

I also disagree with the argument for Gibson's using plastic pins outlined above, which seems specious to me, frankly. A lot of people also change or even remove their pickguards, swap out their saddles, tuners, and nuts. Why not just go with the least expensive there, too? Those who don't care will probably never give it a thought and those who do will replace them with the stuff of their choice.

 

Personally, I would have preferred that my Gibson at least have a bone nut and saddle, as most fine guitar makers' instruments do. I wound up having them put on myself. If tusq were truly sonically (or "molecularly" as I've read here) the superior material, wouldn't all guitar makers wanting to make their instruments sound as good as possible (and I suppose that's all of them) be using it? Wouldn't most high-end guitars have tusq saddles? I would imagine so, only that's not the case.

 

My personally feeling is to use whatever gives you the sound you want from your instrument, and if that's plastic pins and tusq saddles, more power to you. But I also feel that it's somewhat disingenuous to say that you're going with a cheaper material out of concern -- and not financial concern, either -- for the customer.

 

My 2 cents.

[ballcorner]

Mr.Ballcorner:

 

From you pin experience' date=' what constitutes the proper fit? Hammered in tight, loose, semiloose ect.? [/quote']

 

Hey Moose!

 

When the ball end is properly trapped, the pin should be straight in the hole, not leaning, which means the pin is too small, and not raised above the bridge. The collar (that ring below the pin button) should almost be making contact with the bridge - but should not need to be pressed into place with any great amount of pressure.

 

Bridges expand and contract, to some extent, so a proper set of pins is also going to need a properly humidified bridge for exceptional fit.

 

Will

[ballcorner]

 

A lot of people also change or even remove their pickguards' date=' swap out their saddles, tuners, and nuts. Why not just go with the least expensive there, too?

[/quote']

 

Because the saddle and nut have a direct impact on the tone of the guitar - especially the saddle. The pickguard can also impact tone if the material used to make it has resonant properties.

 

Tuners, as well, can impact sustain if they are not properly and securely installed - not to mention potential slipping problems.

 

Pins are not this important. Pins hold the string in place. As long as they fit properly and hold the string securely - their job is done and can't be done better.

 

Changing pins for aesthetic reasons I can totally relate to. Obviously a nice set of inlays looks much better than white plastic - but make sure they fit properly or the change can do more harm than good.

[Jayla]

Because the saddle and nut have a direct impact on the tone of the guitar - especially the saddle. The pickguard can also impact tone if the material used to make it has resonant properties.

 

That was part of my point. If the best tone is the goal' date=' then why use tusq? If tusq is hands down the best material, why are all high-end guitar makers not using it? Why do Gibson themselves use bone on many of their higher end guitars? I don't mean these as snotty questions, but expressions of true puzzlement -- it don't make sense!

 

Tuners, as well, can impact sustain if they are not properly and securely installed - not to mention potential slipping problems.

 

I would say "ditto what I said above" here, but for fear of causing a riot. I mean, the stock Klusons are fine, but don't seem as well made as some of the Gotoh tuners or Waverlys. Again, look at many of the high-end guitar makers. More seem to be using the latter two than the former. Why might that be?

 

Changing pins for aesthetic reasons I can totally relate to. Obviously a nice set of inlays looks much better than white plastic - but make sure they fit properly or the change can do more harm than good.

 

I actually like the plain white look, and replaced my plastic pins with plain, white (well, as white as I could get) *bone* ones.

 

Though it may sound the opposite, I'm not complaining about the quality, tone, or playability of Gibson guitars, which I love. What I don't understand is why they don't simply say that they are using some materials, the plastic pins for example, because they are the most cost effective, as opposed to using them out of concern for their customers.

[powerpopper]

Makes me wonder if the use of bone in the higher-end guitars is just because it is expected, not because it is necessarily better? Similarly, I think I've only met one person who didn't rave about Waverly tuners. When you see them on a guitar, one just assumes it's a nice touch. Kind of like buying a car with luxury add-ons...you know, real wood, rich Corinthian leather, that kind of thing...

[Towzend]

Ok.. so it seems the "MAJOR" objective is to have the pins to fit the bridge holes exactly.. but i cant see how this

can happen?

when we remove a pin, you see its taper with a grouve running up the lenth of it, right! now.. if the hole in the

bridge is exactly the same taper as the pin, then theres no room for the ball-end of the string to be trapped?

and no way is the grouve in the pin big enough to accomadate it either?

 

So, the hole in the bridge "has" to be larger than the "pin size" to allow for the ball-end to jam inbetweem

them!

So, i cant see how a pin can fit exactly?

 

Or am i thinking out my arss!!

[rar]

What I don't understand is why they don't simply say that they are using some materials' date=' the plastic pins for example, because they are the most cost effective, ....[/quote']

 

??? That is what they say. See my earlier paraphrase of their argument:

 

So' date=' why not go with the cheapest and most historically-accurate alternative, viz., plastic? ... If there were anything objectively wrong with plastic pins, that would be different. But there isn't.[/quote']

 

I expect the reasoning is similar for Tusq. Bridge and saddle material is more crucial, but the difference in cost and quality between Tusq and bone is relatively small. The savings in using a Tusq saddle are significant, plus the Tusq saddles come compensated, so a Tusq saddle makes sense. The savings in using a Tusq nut are less significant, and swapping the nut is a bigger pain than swapping a saddle (which just requires calling Bob Colosi :D ), so a bone nut makes sense. I expect that's why a lot of recent Gibsons has come with a Tusq saddle and bone nut.

 

-- Bob R

[rar]

So' date=' the hole in the bridge "has" to be larger than the "pin size" to allow for the ball-end to jam inbetweem

them! [/quote']

 

No, the purpose of the pin is to push the ball end over so that it makes solid contact with the bridge plate. A pin that is small enough to allow the ball to be trapped between the hole and the pin will result in a damaged plate in pretty short order.

 

-- Bob R

[kazzelectro]

I suppose the cost of manufactring plastic pins is ultra cheap and the process easy. The most amazing thing I find is that most consumers just don't care. It's the same guys at this forum (as well as the other guitar forums) that re-hash the same topics over and over again. We are the folks in the know...who give a damn. Most consumers look at the shiny finish, the exotic woods, fancy pickguard and they are sold. My friends and I are constantly experimenting with materials in order 'find the sound' that best suits a particular guitar. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to deciding on bridge pins (or any other hardware). Bone is more expensive and more difficult to manufacture. When guitar manufacturers pump out the thousands of guitars they build every year ...it's a pretty clear choice to go with what they can get away with ...because most purchasers just don't care to know. Had I know how my Taylor 614ce was built before I bought it several years ago...there is no way that I would have bought it. Know that I know better ...as far as mass produced guitars go...not too much beats a Gibson or Martin. The build quality is fantastic and if you're into it ....have fun changing the various parts of a guitar that can be changed with ease...now it's your creation.

[modoc_333]

I suppose the cost of manufactring plastic pins is ultra cheap and the process easy. The most amazing thing I find is that most consumers just don't care. It's the same guys at this forum (as well as the other guitar forums) that re-hash the same topics over and over again. We are the folks in the know...who give a damn. Most consumers look at the shiny finish' date=' the exotic woods, fancy pickguard and they are sold. My friends and I are constantly experimenting with materials in order 'find the sound' that best suits a particular guitar. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to deciding on bridge pins (or any other hardware). Bone is more expensive and more difficult to manufacture. When guitar manufacturers pump out the thousands of guitars they build every year ...it's a pretty clear choice to go with what they can get away with ...because most purchasers just don't care to know. Had I know how my Taylor 614ce was built before I bought it several years ago...there is no way that I would have bought it. Know that I know better ...as far as mass produced guitars go...not too much beats a Gibson or Martin. The build quality is fantastic and if you're into it ....have fun changing the various parts of a guitar that can be changed with ease...now it's your creation. [/quote']

 

this entire post really suggests that you can't hear the differences. they only seem to matter when you "know" the difference. i am a tone hound. i will change all sorts of things, on all types of guitars to get the tone i want. the reason some people care about other details but not the pins is b/c they really don't make nearly the sonic difference that is suggested here on this forum. they just don't. that's why great guitar tones have been had over the decades from players who mostly are using plastic pins.

your comment on the Taylor is what seals it. you liked it until you found out how it was made? does that mean that it suddenly didn't sound as good as you thought it did? it's all about the placebo effect. either it sounds good or it doesn't. personally, i don't like the way taylors sound. i do believe it is partly b/c of how they are built... however, i didn't like the sound BEFORE i knew how they were built.

you seem to just be following the crowd.