Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Has anyone seen a bridge like this?


J-45Girl

Recommended Posts

This the bridge on my old square shouldered J-50 Deluxe, it was made in 1980 and I bought it around 1982-83. I didn't know much about guitars at the time and never noticed the area around the bridge pins. I have never had any work done to the guitar aside from a general setup around 1986. The bridge is also very thin compared to my other guitars, if I didn't know better I'd say it had been shaved down at some point. They seem like odd repairs for a guitar that was less than 3 years old, so I was wondering if it had come this way from the factory. Does it look like a standard rosewood bridge?

 

Sorry the picture isn't clearer, I only have my phone camera available at the moment.

 

bridge1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That looks very much like the standard belly-down bridge I've seen in pictures of square jumbos such as the Blue Ridge from the 70's and later, but I'm not sure about that inset around the pins, as I haven't seen these close-up. In the few photos I have, the bridges do look fairly thin. Maybe Gibson was under-setting necks at that time.

 

The bridge shape, pin placement, and saddle placement are quite different in those bridges compared to earlier Gibson belly-down bridges. That may have been dictated by the top bracing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This the bridge on my old square shouldered J-50 Deluxe, , , ,

Seems to be the real deal, no complications.

It's called a lower-belly bridge due to the curve goin' south, not towards the sound hole.

I had one of these a loooong time ago – in fact my first Gibson.

Areyou satisfied with yours. . . .

Arhhhh, first now I see the zone under the pins. Makes me less sure. Can't remember that detail.

Though it's not a model owned by many here, hopefully somebody will ring in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks - the serial number is 80910050, which I believe is 1980? The label says made in Kalamazoo, model J-50 Deluxe. I have seen a few other square shouldered J-50's with the belly down as well, I was wondering more about the insert thing around the bridge pins, I've not seen it on any other guitars.

 

I love it, though it sounds more like a Hummingbird than a J-45/50, I'm assuming because of the square shoulders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intersting that all of these bridges from the 70's-80's seen to have a similar bridge shape, but different pin placements. Some seem to have the "plastic" insert around the pins, others not. What's that all about? Having a softer material around the pins seems a bit counterintuitive, but we are talking Norlin here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the info, that's really interesting!! I am going to have the neck re-set later this year, should I keep the bridge as original or is there any compelling reason to have it changed to a possibly thicker bridge, or one without the insert? I'm thinking it must not have caught on, as they were only made like that for a few years...

 

As far as the age, can anyone confirm it's a 1980? I thought I looked it up a few years back, did I get it wrong? The serial number is 80910050.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the info, that's really interesting!! I am going to have the neck re-set later this year, should I keep the bridge as original or is there any compelling reason to have it changed to a possibly thicker bridge, or one without the insert? I'm thinking it must not have caught on, as they were only made like that for a few years...

 

As far as the age, can anyone confirm it's a 1980? I thought I looked it up a few years back, did I get it wrong? The serial number is 80910050.

 

 

Serial number says 1980. First and fifth digits are the year in that numbering system, which I believe began in 1979.

 

I'd probably leave the bridge as-is, unless you have reason to believe it affects the tone, or if the pin inset is showing wear that prevents the pins from seating properly. How high is the top of the saddle above the soundboard?

 

Normally, you will need a new saddle after a neck re-set if the saddle has been taken down over the years to correct for the changing neck angle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How high is the top of the saddle above the soundboard?

 

Normally, you will need a new saddle after a neck re-set if the saddle has been taken down over the years to correct for the changing neck angle.

 

There is hardly any saddle left, although the string break angle isn't bad as the pin holes seem to be slotted and ramped. I don't want a shallow neck angle when it's re-set, I was thinking a saddle at full height might not be able to sit deep enough in this shallow bridge for it to be secure. I'm sure the luthier will be able to advise me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you taken a mirror to the inside of the guitar? There might be some wiring intact or some other clues under the top.

Watch out J-45Girl, now we begin.

Soon you'll hear j45nick talk about black light and other members cross issues like label colors'n'shapes, hidden stamps, 2 X's, and pronounce strange words like Norlin, tanks and socks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is hardly any saddle left, although the string break angle isn't bad as the pin holes seem to be slotted and ramped. I don't want a shallow neck angle when it's re-set, I was thinking a saddle at full height might not be able to sit deep enough in this shallow bridge for it to be secure. I'm sure the luthier will be able to advise me...

 

 

The slot in the bridge for the saddle may be fairly deep, so there isn't necessarily any reason you couldn't do a tall saddle. You won't know until you pull the saddle.

 

I don't know that there is any fixed rule of thumb of saddle height vs. slot depth. If the saddle fits tightly in the slot it should be well-supported. Most of the force on the saddle is compression, even with a big break angle, where the strings also apply bending moment to the saddle.

 

This is the untouched factory saddle on my L-OO Legend. You can see how tall it is. This bridge is tapered, so that it is thicker at the bass end than the treble end. You get some idea of how shallow the slot must be relative to the height of the saddle from this picture.

 

colosipins.jpg

 

And, by the way, your J-45 SHOULD sound more like a 'bird, because aside from the label, that's basically what it is. All the Gibson square dreads use the same box design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest J-Doug

According to Gibson's Fabulous Flat-Top Guitars: An Illustrated History and Guide, the area around your bridge pins is a fiber material intended to prevent splitting between the bridge pins. It is stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for all the info. I may just leave the bridge as it is, as a bit of quirky Gibson history. I will chat to the luthier about it first, I'll be taking it to Robbie Gladwell at the Guitar Surgery that was recommended on this forum.

 

I noticed the frets have hardly any wear on them, though I played the guitar hard for 25 years before it went into storage. Were they made of something particularly hard? Also they are the lowest frets I've seen, compared to my Martin and Larrivee. It's not a problem, just an observation, could that be why there is so little wear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may just leave the bridge as it is, as a bit of quirky Gibson history.

Probably a good idea - if nothing is wrong and you are satisfied with the guitar, why fix it.

How about posting a few pictures of the old darling. Some filt-pen letters are seen just below the flat bridge - could be the word LOVE, , , don't know, but I feel slightly curious.

 

 

Aaarh no, they are not hand-written - looks like a serious print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again for all the info. I may just leave the bridge as it is, as a bit of quirky Gibson history. I will chat to the luthier about it first, I'll be taking it to Robbie Gladwell at the Guitar Surgery that was recommended on this forum.

 

I noticed the frets have hardly any wear on them, though I played the guitar hard for 25 years before it went into storage. Were they made of something particularly hard? Also they are the lowest frets I've seen, compared to my Martin and Larrivee. It's not a problem, just an observation, could that be why there is so little wear?

 

 

The frets at that time were typically the wide frets with fairly flat crowns, almost like electric guitar frets. Since they have more surface area, the wear is spread over a larger area, and is not as pronounced. In other words, the string contacts more surface area when you fret it. I have a '68 ES 335 with these frets, and they show zero wear. My J-45 was also re-fretted with these in 1968, and they show very little wear.

 

In contrast, I have a five-year-old Martin with tall, narrow frets, and they show some wear, even though the guitar is not played that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...