trapeze tail vs. stop tail

[ac1dt3st]

i notice that perhaps the most common modification to vintage ES models of various types is swapping out the trapeze tail for a stop tail, often a fine-tuning piece, but not always.

 

i'm wondering why that is. i can understand the benefits of a fine-tuning tail, but is a stop tail in general preferred for some reason? i.e., easier to keep in tune than a trapeze? do the trapezes get bent easy, start to corrode, etc...?

 

or is it mostly personal preference? personally, i like the appearance of the trapeze must better on a vintage model. but is there a practical reason some people prefer a stop?

 

i'd appreciate any knowledge or insight people have on this.

[sok66]

Among some other changes to 335s in '65, the trapeze replaced the stop tail because so many players of the day wanted a Bigsby, and by removing the stop tail the unsightly stud holes were visible. It was cheaper for Gibson to build that way, too. Players quickly began to note that the trapeze reduced sustain and contributed to tuning problems with lighter gauge strings. We started having them converted to stop tails almost immediately, which entails not only the risky drilling operations, but routing a ground wire between the lower bushing and the wire shielding. Quite an endeavor, and not cheap, but well worth the benefits to blues & rock players. A bit more challenging on post - 65s as well, due to the shallower neck pitch, which necessitates moving the stop tail back a bit (see Larry Carlton's #1 vs a '59, etc.) else the strings will rest on the back edge of the bridge. Takes a patient & knowledgeable luthier to do the conversion correctly. There's also the issue of all the holes in the end of the body, which tend to be left alone.

[ac1dt3st]

thanks for the info. since i've seen a number of ES-335s from the '60s and '70s, for example, that have had the trapeze tail replaced by a stop tail "post-production", it sounds like two of the main drivers for players doing this would be a desire for increased sustain, and some tuning issues when using lighter strings...

[Murph]

I know I prefer a stop tail.

[milod]

Well, I've had over the years a number of variations of bridges on hollow, semi-hollow and even flat tops.

 

The stop tail to me is a major benefit to helping keep a guitar in tune, if nothing else. I don't think it's so much a "floating" bridge as lengthening the tension draw of the strings in a sense.

 

Wood will change expand and contract with changes in weather/humidity; the lighter the wood and the longer the "draw" of the strings, the greater the changes.

 

The stoptail on a semi seems to lessen that effect significantly - at least to a light string user such as myself.

 

I don't care for trem tailpieces much either although they seem to have less of a problem than some of the solidbody built-in trems. Perhaps that's because most installations I've seen seem to have the rather heavy chunk of metal actually on the body of the guitar and, in the case of a semi, that seems to lessen the "weather change" condition.

 

I'm sure some have had no problems with full-hollow archtops, especially with heavier strings, but I've yet to use one that wasn't awfully sensitive to temps and humidity. On a semi I'd far prefer a stoptail for reasons mentioned here and by others.

 

m

[Hall]

I'll take 'em any way I can get them.

[milod]

Hey, if somebody wants to pass on a hollow or semi... I'll take it too.

 

All kidding aside, I've had some difficulties with weather conditions helping to detune a hollow, but... it's still my "baby."

 

So many guitars, so little time, so little money.

 

m

[sok66]

Wanted to add that back in the late 60s, early 70s we special ordered a number of 335s with stop tails and I imagine we weren't the only store to do so. They are out there in small numbers. Our Gibson rep was none to happy about us deciding to redesign "his" guitars, but they were good sellers when we could get them. Sent quite a few out to a local luthier be converted, too.

[lpdeluxe]

I understand that the 347s more than they would have due to being the only stop tail semi-hollow at the time. I almost got one, myself, in '82, but found myself seduced by a Country Gent with a Bigsby, instead. The Gretsch is now gone, replaced by a 335 with the proper "stop" -- I'm just as glad I didn't get a 347, due to their TP6 fine tuners.

[bobv]

You can really tweak the slinkiness of the strings by raising or lowering the tailpiece. There's a whole category of threads on "top wrapping" and suffice it to say that players have their preference. The point being that you can adjust the feel and it's almost like changing a half-gauge up or down on your strings. Besides, trapezes look and feel clumsier to me.

[sok66]

Trapezes on 335s always looked cheap & out of place to me. Only took 'em about 15 years or so to reverse the error.

[milod]

Yeah, there's something "cheapie-looking" on a lotta tailpieces. I think that's one reason Rick and Gretsch did their own fancy ones and Gibson always had nicer-looking ones on the fancier boxes. Somehow just a cupla wires and a bar to hold the string-ends never looked that neat to me, either. I've changed out a number of them for better looking stuff when possible.

 

Actually if the tailpieces had a little "class" as on the Gibbie jazz boxes, I think it would have looked much better.

 

m

[sok66]

It was just such an obvious cost-cutting measure we all groaned the first time we took one out of the shipping box.

[Rigormortis]

One reason commonly given was that the trapeze "got in the way" of the strumming done for rock-n-roll.