spiral Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 I just got a Custom Shop L7C in unplayed condition. The bridge is at it's lowest point which gives me slightly higher action than normal. The bridge is already a shorter type than typical replacements so swapping a new one is not an option. I should have some adjustment room either way when it is set to factory specs. I'm wondering: do any other owners have this issue, or if the neck angle is incorrect (the relief is almost totally flat, and OK)? Thanks in advance.
Fringe Lunatic Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Seems a safe conclusion that a neck reset is in order. Bummer. I had a SG once with the same problem - fortunately, I could get the action just low enough for my taste.
spiral Posted March 5, 2011 Author Posted March 5, 2011 Seems a safe conclusion that a neck reset is in order. Bummer. I had a SG once with the same problem - fortunately, I could get the action just low enough for my taste. Even on 2004 reissue? That was my fear but there is no separation at the heel. If the neck angle is wrong, do i have any hope of getting help from Gibson? I have all the original printed materials (including warranty card) but am not the original owner.
Fringe Lunatic Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 The warranty covers the original owner; not transferrable. My best guess is that guitar left the factory that way. Perhaps there's something that can be done to the bridge, like grinding down the mounting points.
L5Larry Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 This sounds like a "defect in materials and workmanship" as built, and may also be the reason the guitar was put up for sale. If the neck angle is wrong, do i have any hope of getting help from Gibson? I have all the original printed materials (including warranty card) but am not the original owner. Unfortunately, the factory warranty is only valid to the original owner. To submit ANY warranty claim you must have the original sales receipt (in your name of course), warranty card and/or registration mean nothing (EVEN if in YOUR name).
Fringe Lunatic Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 FYI: 2/64" at the bridge translates to 1/64" at the 12th fret. So, depending on how much lower you want your action to be, it seems that a custom bridge modification or a custom-made bridge may be the ticket. Certainly less expensive than a neck reset.
spiral Posted March 5, 2011 Author Posted March 5, 2011 FYI: 2/64" at the bridge translates to 1/64" at the 12th fret. So, depending on how much lower you want your action to be, it seems that a custom bridge modification or a custom-made bridge may be the ticket. Certainly less expensive than a neck reset. Agreed. I'm sure i could take a bit off the base of the bridge and it would be close to fine, although this means the break angle of the strings will be altered / wrong. It's mainly just embarrassing for Gibson to be putting out "custom" instruments that are broken the second they leave the Bozeman shop, especially for the price they are asking. I will still call Bozeman, see what they think, and post back. Thanks for the thoughts ... even if they are depressing.
stein Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 i just remembered something: many times when they sell the bridges for an archtop they are actually thicker at the base because the intention is to sand and shape the bottom to conform to the top it is resting on. perhaps the bottom of this bridge has quite a bit of meat left to get there. and you know, while seeing a tall bridge (even though it may be the short version) gives the look that the neck is at the wrong angle, this may be an illusion. before assuming i would measure how tall the bridge is and go from there. so, how tall is it?
spiral Posted March 5, 2011 Author Posted March 5, 2011 i just remembered something: many times when they sell the bridges for an archtop they are actually thicker at the base because the intention is to sand and shape the bottom to conform to the top it is resting on. perhaps the bottom of this bridge has quite a bit of meat left to get there. and you know, while seeing a tall bridge (even though it may be the short version) gives the look that the neck is at the wrong angle, this may be an illusion. before assuming i would measure how tall the bridge is and go from there. so, how tall is it? The bridge that is on it now is the original factory rosewood bridge. The bridge is about 15/16" tall adjusted to its lowest point, measured from the body to the top of the bridge between D & G. The base is already fairly thin but i could probably knock it down another 1/32". The action is decent (but not great) at this lowest point, but the problem is since the entire bridge is making contact with the base, instead of just the metal posts, it has a muddy midrange. If i adjust the bridge up so there is tiny gap between the bridge and base, it cleans up the sound.
stein Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 k..i have a '61. with the tape measure at the back of the bridge on the tailpiece side, measures 7/8" at the treble side and just under 15/16 at the bass side. to me, the guitar apears fine as far as appearance around the neck at the top, but MAYBE a wee bit flat on the top at the bridge area. any one else?
L5Larry Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 The optimal string break/bridge height per 40's design on these "Grand Auditorium" or "Advanced" archtops is 1". All the above mentioned measurements are WELL within acceptable range. As has been mentioned, I would be looking at the bridge and/or base. There are a few different ways to address this, the two most obvious and easy are shaving the TOP of the base (not the bottom), shaving the BOTTOM of the bridge, or a combination thereof. Could we see pictures of the bridge assembly in question. I can take some measurements off a couple of Gibson archtop bridge assemblies and post them here tomorrow, which may give an idea of acceptable thickness etc.
stein Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 ty for that. i wasn't worried but now, somehow, i feel better! but, correct me if i am wrong, the bottom of the bridge should at least be initially done properly to comform to the top? that is highly important to prevent undue pressure points on the spruce top, yes?
spiral Posted March 5, 2011 Author Posted March 5, 2011 The optimal string break/bridge height per 40's design on these "Grand Auditorium" or "Advanced" archtops is 1". All the above mentioned measurements are WELL within acceptable range. As has been mentioned, I would be looking at the bridge and/or base. There are a few different ways to address this, the two most obvious and easy are shaving the TOP of the base (not the bottom), shaving the BOTTOM of the bridge, or a combination thereof. Could we see pictures of the bridge assembly in question. I can take some measurements off a couple of Gibson archtop bridge assemblies and post them here tomorrow, which may give an idea of acceptable thickness etc. Thanks for the data. I measured all of my other archtops and the bridges were at about 1 1/16" and the action is just where i like it. All of them have room to go further down. It sounds like the Gibson bridges are shorter. but, correct me if i am wrong, the bottom of the bridge should at least be initially done properly to comform to the top? that is highly important to prevent undue pressure points on the spruce top, yes? You are not wrong. Since my last post i spent the last 2 hours sanding and fitting. I sanded down the bottom of the bridge, sanded the base on the guitar top (to match the curve), and cut the metal posts shorter (they were sticking up because the bridge was so low and were always catching my sleeve). I needed to have the base sanded to fit better anyhow, but was going to wait until i had the guitar set up. What a PITA. I could probably get some more room by sanding the top of the base as you suggested, Larry. For now it is where i like it, which is lower than Gibson spec. The manual says 6/64" @ the 12th fret on the 6th string. I'm at about 3/64" (though i don't have an actual guitar gauge). This additional room also gave me enough play to set the tension on the neck correctly so it has some relief. It had none at all before. So that's good. Thanks for all the encouragement / advice. I didn't realize that vintage guitars had shorter bridges / different break angles than modern ones. At any rate i'm starting to get the guitar dialed in. Now i just need to age it 20 years very quickly.
L5Larry Posted March 5, 2011 Posted March 5, 2011 Sounds like you may have your dilemma solved, but.... From the bridge pic you posted there is plenty of thickness on the base and the bridge to gain plenty of additional adjustment room (if needed, or wanted). Both pieces, as shown, are much thicker than the ones on older Gibson Archtops. Once you have the bottom of the base fitted properly to the top of the guitar, you can gain additional adjustment by planing off the top of the base, and/or the bottom of the bridge itself. I have a bridge project in the works for my L-5. I'm going to hand carved a compensated wood bridge to replace the ABR-1, from a beautiful chunk of ebony that I got from a violin maker. Wish me luck, I'll try to keep the chisels out of my fingers.
Hammertone Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Reviving an old thread.... The bridge adjustment on the above-mentioned L-7C was entirely successful. The action is now plenty low, the bridge does have some play for further adjustment, and there's plenty of wood left for further bridge mass reduction if ever necessary. There is nothing wrong with the neck angle. The guitar sounds excellent as an acoustic archtop, and has compared favourably to a variety of pre-war Gibson Advanced-body archtops in direct A/B comparisons. The main difference is that it sounds "newer" - unlike the older ones, it doesn't have 75 years of aging and play. I should know, since I now have that guitar. Which leads me to a few questions about the model in general: This instrument is serialized from the very beginning of 2004, stamped on the back of the headstock with a conventional serial number, but it does not have a paper label inside the body, not does it appear to have ever had a paper label. - Is the lack of a paper label normal? - When did this model begin to get a paper label? - When was the L-7C reintroduced by Gibson in Bozeman?
L5Larry Posted November 26, 2012 Posted November 26, 2012 Glad to here all's well with your L-7C and bridge. My bridge carving project also turned out well, intonates perfectly and added just the right amount of "woody" sound.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.