Hey, Muttley!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zaphod B
  • Start date Start date
Zaphod B

Zaphod B

Raccoons-Be-Gone, Inc.
I'd like your comment on a new Gibson Custom Shop release, particularly the bridge. It's the Les Paul Tribute 1952 reissue, and the bridge is (allegedly) faithful to the original bridge patent.

Link at Gisbon: http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Les-Paul/Gibson-USA/Les-Paul-Tribute-1952.aspx

From what I can gather the bridge floats on the top of the body and is only anchored at the bottom of the body. (The description online says, in part, "The guitar’s resonance also benefits from not having any bridge or stopbar holes.")

Whaddaya think?
 
It's a bit crude for my personal taste but wraparound systems can and do work just fine. I'd approach it from a different angle but that's not to say Les himself was wrong. Always take the claims Gibson or any other makers make about resonance with a HUGE pinch of salt. Firstly as I'm fond of saying, people don't know what resonance means and second there is no better or worse just different.

The bridge does look kind of cool though.

LPTBGTCH1-Features-Bridge-jpg.aspx
 
muttley600 said:
It's a bit crude for my personal taste but wraparound systems can and do work just fine. I'd approach it from a different angle but that's not to say Les himself was wrong. Always take the claims Gibson or any other makers make about resonance with a HUGE pinch of salt. Firstly as I'm fond of saying, people don't know what resonance means and second there is no better or worse just different.

The bridge does look kind of cool though.

LPTBGTCH1-Features-Bridge-jpg.aspx
Click to expand...

There are many definitions and applications of Resonance. Everyone is familiar with feedback, that is an example of Resonance.
VP
 
muttley600 said:
Always take the claims Gibson or any other makers make about resonance with a HUGE pinch of salt. Firstly as I'm fond of saying, people don't know what resonance means and second there is no better or worse just different.

The bridge does look kind of cool though.
Click to expand...
That bridge is calling my name. To me the whole guitar is a visual knockout.
 
Victory Pete said:
There are many definitions and applications of Resonance. Everyone is familiar with feedback, that is an example of Resonance.
VP
Click to expand...

There is one definition of resonance in musical acoustics terms and we have been over this before.

Now where are the pics of your workshop? The list of companies you are a dealer for? The reason you insulted Drew so readily?
 
Wish I could get my hands on one to see how it plays and sounds.

I may have to hock one of my children. And by "one of my children" I mean "several other guitars." :D
 
muttley600 said:
There is one definition of resonance in musical acoustics terms and we have been over this before.

Now where are the pics of your workshop? The list of companies you are a dealer for? The reason you insulted Drew so readily?
Click to expand...

I told you about the 2 reasons. If I had a copy of the PM I might post it. send it back to me.
VP
 
Zaphod B said:
That bridge is calling my name. To me the whole guitar is a visual knockout.
Click to expand...

The thing about it that would intrigue me would be the effect of the rigidity of the tailpiece. I've done hundreds of floating bridges over the years but none that anchor the saddle and tailstop as one. Sure the old Les Pauls had similar but it was passed over from a playing point of view. I'm not sure why they'd want to revisit. I like to have as little mass as possible there in an attempt to drive the top as much as possible. Admittedly not as critical on a solid body but that tailpiece is going to be an energy sap. I haven't seen one yet but would like to see how the feet are fitted. If you don't have good contact thats going to drain even more of the wood tone out of it. You want to get the string to take on the higher partials that the wood produces as it vibrates.

Like I say I haven't seen one yet so jury is out. I like to keep things light and stiff around the bridge.

Here's my take on the floating bridge and tailpiece design that I've just about settled on for my archtops these days. I've done them with all sorts of curves and lines but like to keep them light and simple. Not a great pic but the best I could rustle up right now. I have some better somewhere.
 

Attachments

  • tailpiece.webp
    tailpiece.webp
    16.6 KB · Views: 100
Victory Pete said:
I told you about the 2 reasons. If I had a copy of the PM I might post it. send it back to me.
VP
Click to expand...

I'll post it right after you have posted pics of that workshop of yours and told us all what companies you are a dealer for?

Suck it up VP.
 
I see what you mean about the bridge and tailpiece being a relatively rigid assembly and how that could attenuate the strings' energy. I also wondered about those feet but the pictures make it impossible to see what kind of contact they are making with the body.
 
muttley600 said:
I'll post it right after you have posted pics of that workshop of yours and told us all what companies you are a dealer for?

Suck it up VP.
Click to expand...
He's a dealer now, too? When did that happen? :confused: :rolleyes:
 
Zaphod B said:
I see what you mean about the bridge and tailpiece being a relatively rigid assembly and how that could attenuate the strings' energy. I also wondered about those feet but the pictures make it impossible to see what kind of contact they are making with the body.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that Les Paul was essentially an archtop guy. He grew up playing them in both his Country and Jazz days. Gibson claim it is based on his original design and there is no reason to doubt that. It is almost certain that his influence would have been the traditional archtop floating bridge.

At the time he was also looking to get a pure sustain from his designs owing to the fact that his early pickups where pretty inefficient, at least on his prototype stuff. He swapped out nearly all wood components for metal wherever he could, However wrong he was in that is not the point. The fact that he did it and made it work eventually is the great thing.

My guess is that it is pretty true to his original concept and as such it gets a thumbs up from me if only as a tip of the hat to a man that took things apart and put them back together his way and made it work.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top