The ADJ

[jibberish]

What is your opinion on the traditional bridge vs the adjustable bridge?

To all of the "it's subjective, " ... "which ever guitar you love is the best,". ... etc folks, move on to another topic. 
No **** its subjective. 
If your conscience won't allow you to type a definitive opinion here, that's fine. I'm sure there's plenty of topics about Guitar Center that would love to hear from you.

Nonetheless...

I'm going to get a vintage Gibson. 

There are tiny aspects of these guitars that a vast many people find to be important and variable, such as:

pickguard (teardrop vs longer "wing-style")

bridge (straight rectangle vs belly down vs belly up), and

saddle (traditional vs adjustable).

Feel free to comment on all of the above, however, I am most interested in your opinion on the bridge.

[E-minor7]

Isn't it subjective !? , ,  what on earth is then. The topic is discussed here, on other forums, on various vintage acoustic FB-sites etc, , , and opinions are wide spread. 

All I can tell you is that consensus against them softened up the last 10 years - and that Bozeman even started making the adjustables again.

Ask me, I know - I drew my rapier for them from the very start of the revival. 

[jibberish]

23 minutes ago, E-minor7 said:

Isn't it subjective !? , ,  what on earth is then. The topic is discussed here, on other forums, on various vintage acoustic FB-sites etc, , , and opinions are wide spread. 

All I can tell you is that consensus against them softened up the last 10 years - and that Bozeman even started making the adjustables again.

Ask me, I know - I drew my rapier for them from the very start of the revival. 

huh?

so, yay or nay on ADJs?

[62burst]

23 minutes ago, E-minor7 said:

Isn't it subjective !? , ,  what on earth is then.

It says right in the OP- those of us who think it is subjective should just "move on".

But-

23 minutes ago, E-minor7 said:

Ask me, I know - I drew my rapier for them from the very start of the revival. 

I could vouch for that. He drew his ****** for them then, and is still drawing it.

So that should be worth something.

 

 

[jibberish]

16 minutes ago, 62burst said:

It says right in the OP- those of us who think it is subjective should just "move on".

But-

I could vouch for that. He drew his ****** for them then, and is still drawing it.

So that should be worth something.

 

 

I have no idea what a rapier knife and a guitar saddle have to do with the question.

[duluthdan]

J- Em7 is of the belief that the ADJ is fine. I had a 57 J50 and one of the first things I did was have all the hardware removed and replaced with a fixed bridge. I did not note any appreciable difference in tone. 

[E-minor7]

Guess my answer was too complicated - perhaps because the question was too complicated. All in all too complicated. 

I have hereby taken the advice and moved on. . 

Be glad - find something people like - good luck. . 

[jedzep]

I've concluded that the geometry of top torque and vibration requires minimal hardware and gadgetry. So to some ears there may be no difference, but Gibson has flubbed up before, with double and other goofy, some too big, looking pick guards, weird looking mustache bridges, ladder bracing, and (oversized) belly up bridges, which I consider gimmicky and over reach for a niche.

I think they always struggled to compete with Martin, which tellingly, has never installed any gimmicks.  I own and love both brands, and before I wised up, switched out two Gibson adj for fixed bridges to my satisfaction, but learned from it to just circumvent and go right to the purist design.  If you look around, you'll see it's pretty much the only builder that adopted the modification, and no one chased or copied. 

Two thumbs down, if I had a pick of the two.  When shopping and comparing, there are certainly tone anomalies between identical models of different guitars, so you could find an adj that rings better than a fixed bridge, in which case your ear should choose, but I like my acoustics gadget and bling free.

Fire away, boys! ( Hey, he asked. )

Edited November 14, 2021 by jedzep

[Leonard McCoy]

The adjustable bridge gives the guitar a thumpier attack. It may be a one-trick-pony kind of sound, but it does that really, really well, especially with the ceramic inlays. The structural problems that vintage guitars from the 1960s with those bridges often come with are not so likable, though.

For, if they are made out of injection-moulded plastic (as was the case in 1962 and '63), those bridges often suffer from warping and cracking of the material, and the accompanying plywood bridge plate is likewise often bent beyond the sunshine, if all the while the insides of the guitar didn't detach themselves on their own from the rest of the guitar due to the very brittle urea-formaldehyde glue (not hide glue) being used at the time.

Structurally and sound-wise, I favor the oversized top belly adjustable rosewood bridge of the Gibson Everly guitars, with the strings anchoring through the bridge (no bridge pins). The sound is even thumpier.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Leonard McCoy

[Boyd]

I have a 1965 J-50 ADJ with original rosewood saddle. It's certainly a different sound, but I like it for the variety. About 6 months ago I got a 2020 J-50 60's Original which has the new version of the ADJ bridge with a tusq saddle. I really like this guitar and it's pretty much the only thing I've played since then. Would I like it just as much without the ADJ bridge? Who knows?

As for pickguards, the batwing is the only way to go for me. I also dislike burst finishes, which is why I have three J-50's plus the 1974 J-50 Deluxe that I bought new and gave to my son in law a few years ago because he loved it so much.

[zombywoof]

The only Gibson I own with an ADJ saddle bridge is a '61 B45-12.  I agree with an above post that it does increase the amount of attack you hear.   On this guitar I prefer the rosewood saddle.  To my ears it tends to do for a 12 string flat top what it does for an archtop.  Admittedly though  I am in the minority on this one as pretty much everyone else likes the bone saddle I had installed on the guitar better. 

My take on these guitars though it is if there is a "tone sucker" it is not the saddle suspended by two screws but the oversized bridge plate.  When to comes to bridge plates size matters.  Think in terms of the beating Martin took when they went to that oversized rosewood plate around 1968.   Replacing them with a traditional size maple plate has just about become a cottage industry.  

Edited November 14, 2021 by zombywoof

[cunningham26]

your note on teardrop pickguards reminded me that we've hashed out this convo in a previous thread, so sorry to repeat myself but...

i swapped the saddle on my adj for the bone one from philly luthier and that made a big diff- less thumpy , brighter high end. Since im relatively newer as the caretaker of this guitar, i didn't want to make-non reversible changes to it and the rosewood saddle sits in the case. 

all of these parts have been doing its thing to work together for 53 years, so unless something breaks down (e.g. mummy finger tuner buttons)  i'm not a fan of modifying things for perceived gains.  if it's not giving you the sound you want, maybe it's not the right guitar for you. 

I'd definitely check out the dss-17 or maybe this beard highball? at this point there are enough companies and folks building stuff that it seems a little funny to modify vs. get something custom

[Sgt. Pepper]

On 11/13/2021 at 8:52 PM, jibberish said:

What is your opinion on the traditional bridge vs the adjustable bridge?

To all of the "it's subjective, " ... "which ever guitar you love is the best,". ... etc folks, move on to another topic. 
No **** its subjective. 
If your conscience won't allow you to type a definitive opinion here, that's fine. I'm sure there's plenty of topics about Guitar Center that would love to hear from you.

Nonetheless...

I'm going to get a vintage Gibson. 

There are tiny aspects of these guitars that a vast many people find to be important and variable, such as:

pickguard (teardrop vs longer "wing-style")

bridge (straight rectangle vs belly down vs belly up), and

saddle (traditional vs adjustable).

Feel free to comment on all of the above, however, I am most interested in your opinion on the bridge.

I like Martins. That is my (add bad word here) opinion. Vintage doesn't mean better. There is another opinion for you not about the adjustable bridge.

You got 2 for the price of one.

[jibberish]

2 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

I like Martins. That is my (add bad word here) opinion. Vintage doesn't mean better. There is another opinion for you not about the adjustable bridge.

You got 2 for the price of one.

We know.

We've seen photos of that gaudy pig you own.

[j45nick]

1 hour ago, jibberish said:

We know.

We've seen photos of that gaudy pig you own.

It isn't really good form to trash another member's guitar choices, even if you don't like them.

[tpbiii]

OK then.

There are lots of different kinds of vintage Gibsons.  I have quite a few Js. 

I actually own an equal number of iconic Martins and smaller Gibsons.  We always bought for tone and I have said for a long time that all we own are perfect -- just not for the same thing.  To quote my favorite TV character -- ALF -- "on Melmac, we spend a lot to find out what we cannot do, and then we don't do it. "

All of my guitars have the extra clarity that come with age.  I have one with ADJ bridge -- the 62 HB in the front.  In general if power is your thing, I would not buy after 54.  There are historic genres where power is THE THING, and many of these excel for power.  When I play bluegrass or raw traditional folk (or blues), I would never choose the front line.  But my other genre is folk revival, and for that style and genre that HB fits like a glove.  Rebuilding its bridge could make it stronger, but I doubt if you could ever match the older stuff and the original tone would be lost.   I have used the HB for recording where the power monsters are hard to control, and for the folk music of our youth it is hard to best.

Here is a 53 J-45 with my daughter on more traditional stuff.  Remember, 53 is pretty late if power is your thing.

I would hate to lose either sound.

Let's pick,

-Tom

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by tpbiii

[jibberish]

51 minutes ago, tpbiii said:

OK then.

There are lots of different kinds of vintage Gibsons.  I have quite a few Js. 

I actually own an equal number of iconic Martins and smaller Gibsons.  We always bought for tone and I have said for a long time that all we own are perfect -- just not for the same thing.  To quote my favorite TV character -- ALF -- "on Melmac, we spend a lot to find out what we cannot do, and then we don't do it. "

All of my guitars have the extra clarity that come with age.  I have one with ADJ bridge -- the 62 HB in the front.  In general if power is your thing, I would not buy after 54.  There are historic genres where power is THE THING, and many of these excel for power.  When I play bluegrass or raw traditional folk (or blues), I would never choose the front line.  But my other genre is folk revival, and for that style and genre that HB fits like a glove.  Rebuilding its bridge could make it stronger, but I doubt if you could ever match the older stuff and the original tone would be lost.   I have used the HB for recording where the power monsters are hard to control, and for the folk music of our youth it is hard to best.

Here is a 53 J-45 with my daughter on more traditional stuff.  Remember, 53 is pretty late if power is your thing.

I would hate to lose either sound.

Let's pick,

-Tom

 

Excellent answer.

Thank you.

Sounds as though you've gone through a great many Gibson dreadnaughts in order to achieve the perfect lot that you have. That begs my question: In your experience with the guitars that did NOT make the cut, can you generalize on their inadequacies as far as adj saddle, or bridge shape, or pickguard size?

[tpbiii]

Well I have all these guitars for a complex set of reasons.  I collected them with my late wife -- we made music together for more than 50 years.  We loved the vintage tone we found and we invested a big portion of our retirement funds in vintage instruments -- it turned out that was a good investment, so it was rational.  We were also into traditional music, sound science (my actual profession), and we loved the "hunt" (it was entertainment) -- we searched flea markets, pawn shops, garage sales, small music stores, early ebay and later some internet.  We loved variety and we identified with the musical history where the different models had had an impact -- we used them often when we did the materials associated with the different kinds of instruments.  We were jammers and played all kind of music with most anyone who wanted to play.  In addition to the tonality, we loved voices and harmonies (mostly close and simple) -- we were never all that good, but we loved it all.

If you have a lot of instruments, you have the advantage that you can compare them at will.  Tone perception is so fragile and sometimes fleeting that is the only way I found to really stay grounded.  We got most of the instruments in the 80s and 90s and a few in the 2000s.  We could find and play a lot of old instruments in those days when many were just old instruments -- it is much harder to do now.  Most of ours were bought in person -- we had years to do it, and my natural travel (mostly to technical conferences) allowed a wide search.

The most obvious thing about old instruments is the same models and years often do not sound the same.  Some of this may relate to condition and repair, but a lot of it just seems to have to do with the particular pieces of wood used.   There are good ones and bad ones.

What I found in terms of features was not all that different from conventional wisdom.  It is easy to hear the difference between B&S woods -- rosewood, mahogany, maple, etc.  I never was able to identify any consistent effect of bridge shape or materials.  I found that odd -- but it has not changed.  The size of the bridgeplate definitely make a difference.   Setup -- particular bridge saddle height and the neck angle -- makes a huge difference.  This was a bit surprising to me when I learned it many years ago.  I can hear almost no difference on old guitars between BRW and EIRW (I can in new guitars), and I find excellent instruments with all the different spruce varieties.  But they do sound a bit different. 

Historically Gibsons lost power decade by decade, starting in the 1930s (which were the strongest).  Most of the stuff starting about 1955 (after they stopped scalloping the braces) were somewhat less powerful and the late 60s and 70s were pretty bad in that dimension.  That was true across the board for all US acoustic guitars brands.  However there were still some paint peeling Gibsons out there -- we found a 59 LG-1 and a F-25 that can stand in with the 30s.

So there is a quick summary off the top of my head.

Best,

-Tom

[jibberish]

6 minutes ago, tpbiii said:

Well I have all these guitars for a complex set of reasons.  I collected them with my late wife -- we made music together for more than 50 years.  We loved the vintage tone we found and we invested a big portion of our retirement funds in vintage instruments -- it turned out that was a good investment, so it was rational.  We were also into traditional music, sound science (my actual profession), and we loved the "hunt" (it was entertainment) -- we searched flea markets, pawn shops, garage sales, small music stores, early ebay and later some internet.  We loved variety and we identified with the musical history where the different models had had an impact -- we used them often when we did the materials associated with the different kinds of instruments.  We were jammers and played all kind of music with most anyone who wanted to play.  In addition to the tonality, we loved voices and harmonies (mostly close and simple) -- we were never all that good, but we loved it all.

If you have a lot of instruments, you have the advantage that you can compare them at will.  Tone perception is so fragile and sometimes fleeting that is the only way I found to really stay grounded.  We got most of the instruments in the 80s and 90s and a few in the 2000s.  We could find and play a lot of old instruments in those days when many were just old instruments -- it is much harder to do now.  Most of ours were bought in person -- we had years to do it, and my natural travel (mostly to technical conferences) allowed a wide search.

The most obvious thing about old instruments is the same models and years often do not sound the same.  Some of this may relate to condition and repair, but a lot of it just seems to have to do with the particular pieces of wood used.   There are good ones and bad ones.

What I found in terms of features was not all that different from conventional wisdom.  It is easy to hear the difference between B&S woods -- rosewood, mahogany, maple, etc.  I never was able to identify any consistent effect of bridge shape or materials.  I found that odd -- but it has not changed.  The size of the bridgeplate definitely make a difference.   Setup -- particular bridge saddle height and the neck angle -- makes a huge difference.  This was a bit surprising to me when I learned it many years ago.  I can hear almost no difference on old guitars between BRW and EIRW (I can in new guitars), and I find excellent instruments with all the different spruce varieties.  But they do sound a bit different. 

Historically Gibsons lost power decade by decade, starting in the 1930s (which were the strongest).  Most of the stuff starting about 1955 (after they stopped scalloping the braces) were somewhat less powerful and the late 60s and 70s were pretty bad in that dimension.  That was true across the board for all US acoustic guitars brands.  However there were still some paint peeling Gibsons out there -- we found a 59 LG-1 and a F-25 that can stand in with the 30s.

So there is a quick summary off the top of my head.

Best,

-Tom

Tom,

You are a fountain of knowledge and, even more importantly, well-written in your expressions.

Thank you.

[Sgt. Pepper]

On 11/14/2021 at 5:23 AM, Leonard McCoy said:

The adjustable bridge gives the guitar a thumpier attack. It may be a one-trick-pony kind of sound, but it does that really, really well, especially with the ceramic inlays. The structural problems that vintage guitars from the 1960s with those bridges often come with are not so likable, though.

For, if they are made out of injection-moulded plastic (as was the case in 1962 and '63), those bridges often suffer from warping and cracking of the material, and the accompanying plywood bridge plate is likewise often bent beyond the sunshine, if all the while the insides of the guitar didn't detach themselves on their own from the rest of the guitar due to the very brittle urea-formaldehyde glue (not hide glue) being used at the time.

Structurally and sound-wise, I favor the oversized top belly adjustable rosewood bridge of the Gibson Everly guitars, with the strings anchoring through the bridge (no bridge pins). The sound is even thumpier.

Do you seriously play it like that and if so it must have the lowest action possible.

[fortyearspickn]

What is your opinion on the traditional bridge vs the adjustable bridge?

To all of the "it's subjective, " ... "which ever guitar you love is the best,". ... etc folks, move on to another topic. 

 

A conundrum.     So, I will move on to another topic...  

But first, 

The only non-subjective info I can add is that a rapier is a sword, not a knife. 

 

[E-minor7]

12 minutes ago, fortyearspickn said:

The only non-subjective info I can add is that a rapier is a sword, not a knife. 

Thanx for clearing that up - what I thought too, , , ,

and used* when defending the adjustable saddle/bridge during the cascades of attacks especially a decade ago.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Kalamazoo was daring, but also highly innovative when introducing the 2 new concepts : Adjustable rosewood or ceramic saddle and Tune-O-Matic ditto.                                                                              Yet they did an exciting job and offered the public, not least the recording professionals, some alluring and very useful new acoustic sounds.

The plastic bridge - seen on the group photo Hummingbird - however was something different.                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I have one on a J-45 here and like it a lot. But yes, it's far more controversial and only suited for heavy nerds and corner-devotees. 

 

*Note - the weapon above was never swung in reality and is only used as a metaphor. Guitars shall be treated with and in PEACE. 

[pohatu771]

On 11/14/2021 at 5:23 AM, Leonard McCoy said:

Structurally and sound-wise, I favor the oversized top belly adjustable rosewood bridge of the Gibson Everly guitars, with the strings anchoring through the bridge (no bridge pins). The sound is even thumpier.

 

It's perfect timing that you mention this combination of adjustable saddle and pinless bridge. I just got an Epiphone Bard with the same setup (though obviously 12-string) and am enjoying it.

My only other adjustable saddle model (Epiphone Cortez) lost it when the plastic bridge was replaced, and I didn't care enough to pay extra to retain it.