Hoboken F-30 Bridge shaved down and lifting?

jfilm

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
257
Location
New York City
Guild Total
6
Well I just ordered this one, and need some advice on some condition issues I've noticed (but don't have enough expertise on).

The seller assured me there was no evidence of any repairs having been done (I asked because certain photos were blurry), and no evidence that the bridge had been shaved down or glued. Well it certainly looks to me that the bridge has been reglued, as I can see the glue in the back, and the whole bridge footprint has a white glue outline. If you can see glue like you can here, does this necessarily mean that the bridge needs to be reglued again?

Also, it looks like the fingerboard has some glue where it meets the body, and there's a bit of a gap. Which makes me think a neck reset has been done. However, the bridge itself is very slender, which makes me think it was shaved down- it's only about 3/8" from the strings to the body of the guitar, bridge plus saddle. For contrast, my '56 F-20 has about 5/8" clearance. The wings of the bridge on the F-30 are just about 1/8" tall, and on the F-20 it's 3/16". So I'm sure there is some variance between bridges, and also the F-20 was made 10 years earlier, but, that bridge just looks very thin to me on the F-30. Were the F-30 bridges of this period (1966) thin in general, or has this likely been shaved down?

So it puzzles me that the bridge appears to be shaved down AND some sort of neck reset was done. If so, it seems like perhaps it was done haphazardly- if they were going to go to trouble of resetting the neck, shouldn't they have put a new bridge on while they were at it (unless they really wanted to keep the original bridge, understandable I guess).

All this said, it does sound pretty nice, though the G string buzzes when strummed with force. I guess what I'm wondering is if this if the bridge has just been shaved down too much, should it be replaced, and at that point, it probably needs another neck reset, or, just leave it, but probably reglue the bridge as it appears to be lifting? I'm trying to weigh what the additional costs might be to make this a keeper, or if I should return it.

Hope this all makes sense, thanks for your input!

https://i1273.photobucket.com/albums/y412/jayridgewood/IMG_0515_zpsajs5ljin.jpg
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
That's a tough call from pics only, but f you're positive that's glue squeezing out around the bridge I'd say that's an extremely likely sign of a re-glue.
SInce you say it appears to be lifting, I'd proceed with an alignment check first (link below).
If the alignment's good a bridge re-glue may be all you need, subject to this insight:
Hans Moust has mentioned there was a time when Guild bridges were thinner than what one would traditionally expect (like that F20) but can't recall if it was mid '60's like this one (thought it was early '70's).
Your notes on combined bridge/saddle are great, sounds like you may have seen reference to the "ideal" 1/2" combined height, but don't know for sure if that's applicable to F30's of that period because of the above note.
The saddle height actually looks fairly decent, but the best method for determining good neck angle is the neck alignment test as described by Frank Ford:
http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Musician/Guitar/Setup/NeckAngle/neckangle.html

In any case all that glue extrusion like around the fretboard extension ain't factory work as you rightly suspect.
If it had a "quick and dirty" re-set one might expect to note a telltale break in the lacquer around the heel, since Guild finished over that seam it inevitably gets broken in a re-set and even when finished backl over sometimes leaves telltale clues.
Or it might actually have been a victim of low humidity for too long? Might explain both the bridge and the fretboard "re-glue"
Overall from what I can see it does look like a worthy rehabilitation candidate, though, if you like it enough to justify the potential expense.
 
Last edited:

jfilm

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
257
Location
New York City
Guild Total
6
That's a tough call from pics only, but f you're positive that's glue squeezing out around the bridge I'd say that's an extremely likely sign of a re-glue.
SInce you say it appears to be lifting, I'd proceed with an alignment check first (link below).
If the alignment's good a bridge re-glue may be all you need, subject to this insight:
Hans Moust has mentioned there was a time when Guild bridges were thinner than what one would traditionally expect (like that F20) but can't recall if it was mid '60's like this one (thought it was early '70's).
Your notes on combined bridge/saddle are great, sounds like you may have seen reference to the "ideal" 1/2" combined height, but don't know for sure if that's applicable to F30's of that period because of the above note.
The saddle height actually looks fairly decent, but the best method for determining good neck angle is the neck alignment test as described by Frank Ford:
http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Musician/Guitar/Setup/NeckAngle/neckangle.html

In any case all that glue extrusion like around the fretboard extension ain't factory work as you rightly suspect.
If it had a "quick and dirty" re-set one might expect to note a telltale break in the lacquer around the heel, since Guild finished over that seam it inevitably gets broken in a re-set and even when finished backl over sometimes leaves telltale clues.
Or it might actually have been a victim of low humidity for too long? Might explain both the bridge and the fretboard "re-glue"
Overall from what I can see it does look like a worthy rehabilitation candidate, though, if you like it enough to justify the potential expense.

Thanks, that would be useful to know if the bridges of that era were thinner - I added photos of the area around the heel, there is some whitish residue that might be glue.

https://imgur.com/a/NPA3a1U

Interestingly, the back of the neck was also refinished, stripping that reddish color of the mahogany, as you can see in contrast to the back of the guitar, which still has it.
 

wileypickett

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
4,964
Reaction score
4,490
Location
Cambridge, MA
That doesn't look like glue squeeze-out to me. Rather, it looks like there's a layer of something between the top and the bridge, like a piece of double-sided tape, or a thin piece of light-colored wood -- something.

Can't say whether the bridge has been sanded, but my F30 bridge looks quite similar to this in thickness.
 

Bonneville88

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
1,255
Location
St. Louis, MO
Guild Total
40
jfilm,

Was just enjoying my Hoboken-label F20 (serial # AG 1874, circa 1967), and took an LTG break, saw this post.

Pics of the bridge on mine are below - bridge on this
guitar is original and unmolested AFAIK, it does have
a recently made bone saddle.

I don't have it here right now to photograph but a late 70's F20
I own has a much thicker and less-graceful looking original bridge as well.

The difference in the left and right ends of the bridge in the 3rd photo
is interesting to me.

Y1vWvPJ.jpg


Qaj76Zc.jpg

\
LlzPhUn.jpg


kOdL9Dd.jpg
 
Last edited:

jfilm

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
257
Location
New York City
Guild Total
6
That doesn't look like glue squeeze-out to me. Rather, it looks like there's a layer of something between the top and the bridge, like a piece of double-sided tape, or a thin piece of light-colored wood -- something.

Can't say whether the bridge has been sanded, but my F30 bridge looks quite similar to this in thickness.

I took a closer look, I think the back of the bridge is old glue - if you zoom in on the photo, you can see a couple of air bubbles in the glue. But I'll try to get a magnifying glass on it tomorrow. The fingerboard, I'm not sure what's happening there. On the bass side (as seen in the photo), there seems to be a gouged out section where the fingerboard joins the body, then it dips down and touches the top again, then there's a thin gap at the very end leading to the sound hole. The other side, where the pick guard is, isn't like this. There are no gaps I can see. The heel join also looks messier on the bass side- almost like someone scored it but then didn't do anything else - maybe someone thought about resetting the neck, started scoring the heel and fingerboard, but then didn't follow through?
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
I took a closer look, I think the back of the bridge is old glue - if you zoom in on the photo, you can see a couple of air bubbles in the glue. But I'll try to get a magnifying glass on it tomorrow. The fingerboard, I'm not sure what's happening there. On the bass side (as seen in the photo), there seems to be a gouged out section where the fingerboard joins the body, then it dips down and touches the top again, then there's a thin gap at the very end leading to the sound hole.
I'm starting to suspect extreme dryness over an extended period started to twist things up a bit, like the fingerboard.
And/or top may have "shrunk away" from it.
Might explain why the bridge is slightly thinner on the bass side***, an early and very good (clean)shave job? (although now I agree with Wiley it does look "factory" from here, in the new pics )
Or, if a refret was done, part of the process can include planing the fretboard to get it back to true, and perhaps that wasn't done quite right?
Both possibilities may have occurred as well, it might not be possible to determine if one led to the other.
***Oh wait, I think I confused Bonneville's pic with yours, think it's his that actually looks a little thinner on the bass side?
The other side, where the pick guard is, isn't like this. There are no gaps I can see. The heel join also looks messier on the bass side- almost like someone scored it but then didn't do anything else - maybe someone thought about resetting the neck, started scoring the heel and fingerboard, but then didn't follow through?
The only way to be sure is to take that magnifier to the heel join.
The more I hear the more it sounds like the under-humidified poblem could explain all of the factors: wood shrinking enough to separate at the seams, although one would also expect top cracks in that scenario.
Any signs of repaired cracks? Can you get something in there to inspect the inside of the top?
Another issue with the heel seam is that NCL shrinks as it ages and the "rough" seam on the bass side could be nothing more than the natural shrinkage of NCL away from the edges over the years, and on top of that since you mention it looks like the back of the neck was re-finished, it might also be that "cracked" finish underneath a new coat?
NCL dissolves old NCL and re-hardens and can be blended in so that there's no obvious "patch, it's one of its advantages, so a skilled touch-up job might not be readily apparent to the casual observer.
I just remembered, patches should show up easily under a blacklight.
That might show whether there's new lacquer over old, they'd likely show up differently under the light.
All in all I think it's worth taking to a luthier for a skilled eyes-on assessment, if it's easy for you to do.
Interestingly, the back of the neck was also refinished, stripping that reddish color of the mahogany, as you can see in contrast to the back of the guitar, which still has it.
Oh yeah, btw unstained 'hog is surprisingly light when one's used to seeing it under one of Guild's signature dark-stained finishes.
 
Last edited:

jfilm

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
257
Location
New York City
Guild Total
6
Thanks, yes, my guitar can be seen here: https://imgur.com/a/NPA3a1U

Though similar, I'd say the bridge on mine does look slightly thinner, particularly in the front, than the F-20 above, and a lot thinner (as I mentioned ) than my own F-20, which can be seen with my other photos using the above link. And you can see a bit of a downward slope of my straightedge compared to the F-20 above photo with the straightedge, which suggests a bit of top dip, possibly as you say, a result of some drying out/environmental conditions over the years.

Another thing is yes, the frets have been redone, according to the seller, and they have hardly any wear. So maybe that project contributed to the rough patches at the end of the fingerboard.

Anyway, according to the Frank Ford link you sent (thank you, very interesting), he does say the neck angle is off if you are under 3/8 " from top of low E string to the top of the guitar, and that in such a case, most likely the bridge has come down (particularly if the saddle isn't all the way down).

Though from a few responses I see people don't think this is much of a concern? I think my main concern right now is that the bridge looks to be lifting, and I don't know what kind of glue/adhesive may have been used in the previous repair, or if the reason you can see a thick layer of glue back behind the bridge is because it isn't sitting right, due to being warped or who knows.
 
Last edited:

Bonneville88

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
1,255
Location
St. Louis, MO
Guild Total
40
jfilm,

What I think I'm seeing is the bridge has been reglued but not quite in
the same position as it was originally - looks like it was moved up a bit toward
the sound hole.

On the several later 60's era Hoboken-label models I own, the bridges are
all thin relative to later Westerly-labeled models,
and the bridge pins are all noticeably angled, with the heads of the pins pointing south toward the
bottom of the guitar.

Comparison photos:

gqKLDuk.jpg


kOdL9Dd.jpg
 

GardMan

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
5,359
Reaction score
959
Location
Utah
Guild Total
5
I think the white "rim" around the bridge is buildup of old polish. I might try using a moist Q-tip to see if some of it would clean off a bit. Perhaps some glue had been used to fill the gap between the back edge of the bridge and the soundboard... but that could have been done 40 years ago. I don't see anything that looks like the bridge is currently lifting (if that is glue, it doesn't look like it has lost adhesion or "broken."

I have no clue what is going on with the fretboard extension... I don't see any evidence of a quick/dirty reset in the pic of the neck joint... I don't see steam damage or discoloration around the heel or fretboard extension, and the neck joint finish really doesn't look different than on my '72 D-35, which has not had a reset.

I'd also point out that my '72 D-35 has a very low bridge... maybe only 1/4" at its highest point. It has never been shaved (at least not to my knowledge... I bought it new). Its strings are only about 3/8" above the soundboard.

My own philosophy... if it is structurally sound, and you can get it set up to play and sound the way you like it, leave well enough alone and play it as is!

So, I would check/adjust the relief, check/adjust the nut slot (especially on the G string), and then check and set the saddle height... you might even be able to go with a slightly taller saddle.

Good luck, enjoy!
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Another thing is yes, the frets have been redone, according to the seller, and they have hardly any wear. So maybe that project contributed to the rough patches at the end of the fingerboard.

Anyway, according to the Frank Ford link you sent (thank you, very interesting), he does say the neck angle is off if you are under 3/4 " from top of low E string to the top of the guitar, and that in such a case, most likely the bridge has come down (particularly if the saddle isn't all the way down).
I think that's gotta be typo, I see:
"If there's less than 3/8" between the string and the top, then there's neck angle trouble", but that's why I pointed out in this case the alignment check of the straightedge to the top of the bridge is a better gauge, because your F30 was probably designed and built with a lower-than-typical (thinner bridge/lower saddle) combined height of 1/2", going by the other feedback here on similar era Guilds, now.
Thing is, Guild set the necks first and then selected a bridge from a range of pre-milled blanks to match the height dictated by the neck angle.
So if a straightedge hits the top of the bridge you're golden.
If it falls significantly below the top of the bridge (after proper preparation for measurement including humidification and verifying bridge isn't lifting), then a reset might be in the offing. In the case of an already thin bridge you don't have a lot of leeway, although you may have sufficient saddle to address the problem by lowering it a bit.
Though from a few responses I see people don't think this is much of a concern?
I get concensus that yes this is the period when Guild bridges were "thin" and that's why not too much worry, pending a real alignment check.
I think my main concern right now is that the bridge looks to be lifting, and I don't know what kind of glue/adhesive may have been used in the previous repair, or if the reason you can see a thick layer of glue back behind the bridge is because it isn't sitting right, due to being warped or who knows.
True that 'visibly thick" layer does appear to be evidence of a re-glue, but if you can't slide a piece of paper into the crack it's not lifting.
If it's plain old Elmer's then yeah it might actually be stretching a bit and IS allowing lift, but I kind doubt it'd still be showing "squeeze out" in that case.
If it's Titebond or hideglue, both are easily released with either heat or a combo of heat and moisture, it's not a particularly worrisome job, it's just important to be sure the top and the bridge are fully cleaned of old glue before re-gluing, and Titebond isn't as easy as hideglue in that regard..
Let's just hope it's not epoxy.
(I see Gardman posted while I was composing and I agree with his assessment 100%, sometimes old polish buildup is deceptive)
Again, a skilled tech or luthier should be able to make a non-invasive assessment.
Let us know where you are and there's likely to be somebody here who could give a local reference.
It might be a good time to mention our member Fixit who runs Jacobs Custom guitars and has universal good revirews from members here for the magic combimation of timely/very reasonably priced and excellent quality of service and was in fact a Guild employee back in early '80's IIRC the date correctly.
He's no stranger to F30's and will give some preliminary assessment over phone, too:
http://www.jacobscustomguitars.com/
Reference thread (of many):
http://www.letstalkguild.com/ltg/showthread.php?183377-News-from-Florida
 
Last edited:

jfilm

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
257
Location
New York City
Guild Total
6
I think the white "rim" around the bridge is buildup of old polish. I might try using a moist Q-tip to see if some of it would clean off a bit. Perhaps some glue had been used to fill the gap between the back edge of the bridge and the soundboard... but that could have been done 40 years ago. I don't see anything that looks like the bridge is currently lifting (if that is glue, it doesn't look like it has lost adhesion or "broken."

I have no clue what is going on with the fretboard extension... I don't see any evidence of a quick/dirty reset in the pic of the neck joint... I don't see steam damage or discoloration around the heel or fretboard extension, and the neck joint finish really doesn't look different than on my '72 D-35, which has not had a reset.

I'd also point out that my '72 D-35 has a very low bridge... maybe only 1/4" at its highest point. It has never been shaved (at least not to my knowledge... I bought it new). Its strings are only about 3/8" above the soundboard.

My own philosophy... if it is structurally sound, and you can get it set up to play and sound the way you like it, leave well enough alone and play it as is!

So, I would check/adjust the relief, check/adjust the nut slot (especially on the G string), and then check and set the saddle height... you might even be able to go with a slightly taller saddle.

Good luck, enjoy!

Thanks for that, it's definitely helpful to know that you got your D35 new and the bridge is also low and the strings just 3/8" above the soundboard- as I said earlier, my F-20 has a much taller bridge, but it's also 10 years older. I'd say the only part of the bridge that I can see to be lifting is the corner on the back bass side, which you can see by zooming into the 2nd photo here: https://imgur.com/a/NPA3a1U
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
I'd say the only part of the bridge that I can see to be lifting is the corner on the back bass side, which you can see by zooming into the 2nd photo here: https://imgur.com/a/NPA3a1U
I can't see any lift on the what I'd call the back bass side (edge facing the lower bout) and I've got a nice 22" diagonal display to blow up on.
There might be a little gap at the front, which would have to be simply a gap the glue never fully covered.
 

jfilm

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
257
Location
New York City
Guild Total
6
I think that's gotta be typo, I see:
"If there's less than 3/8" between the string and the top, then there's neck angle trouble", but that's why I pointed out in this case the alignment check of the straightedge to the top of the bridge is a better gauge, because your F30 was probably designed and built with a lower-than-typical (thinner bridge/lower saddle) combined height of 1/2", going by the other feedback here on similar era Guilds, now.
Thing is, Guild set the necks first and then selected a bridge from a range of pre-milled blanks to match the height dictated by the neck angle.
So if a straightedge hits the top of the bridge you're golden.
If it falls significantly below the top of the bridge (after proper preparation for measurement including humidification and verifying bridge isn't lifting), then a reset might be in the offing. In the case of an already thin bridge you don't have a lot of leeway, although you may have sufficient saddle to address the problem by lowering it a bit.

I get concensus that yes this is the period when Guild bridges were "thin" and that's why not too much worry, pending a real alignment check.

True that 'visibly thick" layer does appear to be evidence of a re-glue, but if you can't slide a piece of paper into the crack it's not lifting.
If it's plain old Elmer's then yeah it might actually be stretching a bit and IS allowing lift, but I kind doubt it'd still be showing "squeeze out" in that case.
If it's Titebond or hideglue, both are easily released with either heat or a combo of heat and moisture, it's not a particularly worrisome job, it's just important to be sure the top and the bridge are fully cleaned of old glue before re-gluing, and Titebond isn't as easy as hideglue in that regard..
Let's just hope it's not epoxy.
(I see Gardman posted while I was composing and I agree with his assessment 100%, sometimes old polish buildup is deceptive)
Again, a skilled tech or luthier should be able to make a non-invasive assessment.
Let us know where you are and there's likely to be somebody here who could give a local reference.
It might be a good time to mention our member Fixit who runs Jacobs Custom guitars and has universal good revirews from members here for the magic combimation of timely/very reasonably priced and excellent quality of service and was in fact a Guild employee back in early '80's IIRC the date correctly.
He's no stranger to F30's and will give some preliminary assessment over phone, too:
http://www.jacobscustomguitars.com/
Reference thread (of many):
http://www.letstalkguild.com/ltg/showthread.php?183377-News-from-Florida

Thanks, I'm feeling better about the bridge, in that the height, at just about 3/8" from the strings to the soundboard (yes, it was a typo, good catch! I fixed the error), isn't particularly out of the ordinary, indeed GardMan's guitar is built that way and he got his new, and the F-20 posted by Bonneville88 is similar, a bit higher than 3/8" but then he has more saddle than I do. And your anecdote about the factory would explain some variances in the different heights of bridges. As for the straight edge test, this guitar passes that test, and the action is good. I might need to loosen the truss rod to address the buzzing G string. If the truss rods on these are adjustable?

And GardMan's assessment of the neck/heel situation is good to hear.

The bridge glue, well, I always thought you should see the bridge and top meet and not see any space in between, and that a thick layer of glue means that the bond is not very strong between the two pieces of wood, or is a sign of just empty space with dried glue, since the two surfaces are not really in contact with one another, not bonded, if you can see a thick layer of material between them. So in this case, dried glue is blocking me from sliding paper under the bridge, but, if this is just filler then it doesn't matter (in other words, if the paper could slide under, it would be sliding between the guitar top and some dried glue, not two pieces of wood- the amount of glue I see in the back is much thicker than a single piece of paper).

So, this being said, I'm in NYC, and a bridge re-glue here is about 250 I believe. As for the back edge of the bridge (your recent post I just saw as I was writing this), I may be describing it badly. The edge where there's a tiny lift is in the back of the bridge, left corner if you are facing it (looking up toward the soundhole, neck, etc.). It doesn't show up in the first picture in the series, only in the second. And the angle might not be great- it's subtle in the photo, you can see outlines of the glue on the corner facing the back of the bridge and the side of that wing. But in person, it's more noticeable that this is a separation (a crack in the glue) and here, a piece of paper will go under this glue.
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Thanks, I'm feeling better about the bridge, in that the height, at just about 3/8" from the strings to the soundboard (yes, it was a typo, good catch! I fixed the error), isn't particularly out of the ordinary, indeed GardMan's guitar is built that way and he got his new, and the F-20 posted by Bonneville88 is similar, a bit higher than 3/8" but then he has more saddle than I do. And your anecdote about the factory would explain some variances in the different heights of bridges. As for the straight edge test, this guitar passes that test, and the action is good. I might need to loosen the truss rod to address the buzzing G string. If the truss rods on these are adjustable?
Yes," righty tighty lefty loosey" when looking at the adjusting nut from the top of the headstock towards the saddle.
A little goes along way, suggest no more than 1/4 turn and allow to "react" overnight before checking again.
Oh PS, technically the truss is used to adjust relief, and in fact that may be exactly what you need, but loosening it does have a side-effect of raising action ever-so-slightly.
To raise action the real fix is to replace the saddle with a taller one)
The bridge glue, well, I always thought you should see the bridge and top meet and not see any space in between,[/wuotoe and that a thick layer of glue means that the bond is not very strong between the two pieces of wood, or is a sign of just empty space with dried glue, since the two surfaces are not really in contact with one another, not bonded, if you can see a thick layer of material between them. So in this case, dried glue is blocking me from sliding paper under the bridge, but, if this is just filler then it doesn't matter (in other words, if the paper could slide under, it would be sliding between the guitar top and some dried glue, not two pieces of wood- the amount of glue I see in the back is much thicker than a single piece of paper).
Right, gotta admit that's still a bit of a head-scratcher. I can't recall ever seeing such a thick glue layer either, and now wondering if it is a fill job.
But if it's consistent thickness all the way 'round them must be either "Factory" or a full re-glue.
Maybe even possible a super-thin shim of some type was used to actually raise the bridge a bit?
Thinking about it, I can recall specifically some of the earliest 12-ers even got a superthin shim underneath the fretboard extension, F-212's and -312's from exactly that same time period.
Nonetheless at least the structural integrity appears to be there?
The purpose of full contact of bridge to top (besides durability of bond) is to enhance fullest transmission of vibration from bridge to top.
So there's a possibility that if the glue doesn't transmit vibration as well as a really tight hideglue bond, then the tone might be a little compromised.
Don't recall ever seeing discussion of that, if various glues enhance or impede depending on "thickness".
And it's possible that if it IS hideglue then vibration transmission isn't hampered at all, as the stuff is crystallized when dry.
So, this being said, I'm in NYC, and a bridge re-glue here is about 250 I believe.
Yikes!
We have discussed geographic market price variation for repairs but that seems pretty over-the-top to me. For balance I've seen members cite $50.00 in low cost-of-living areas a few years back and that struck me as probably a bit low. I wouldn't be surprised at $150.00 today here in high-cost Silicon Valley though, especially if it was to allow for potentially bothersome prep and clean-up work, and a very good luthier rep and turnaround time.
There's a bit of skill required to ensure the bottom of the bridge is properly sanded to match the radius of the top (which is not truly flat, they've all got a bit of radius even though called "flattops").
As for the back edge of the bridge (your recent post I just saw as I was writing this), I may be describing it badly. The edge where there's a tiny lift is in the back of the bridge, left corner if you are facing it (looking up toward the soundhole, neck, etc.). It doesn't show up in the first picture in the series, only in the second. And the angle might not be great- it's subtle in the photo, you can see outlines of the glue on the corner facing the back of the bridge and the side of that wing. But in person, it's more noticeable that this is a separation.
Got it, and suspect it may be just a gap where glue never fully bonded, if that's actually still a factory job.
Here's another known "cause":
In Westerly they finished the tops before installing the bridge, and then cleared off an area with a slightly smaller footprint than the bridge itself for the glue pad.
It was to ensure a nice clean appearance but sometimes it was a little too small.
That's what Tom meant by "Didn't glue all the way to the edges".
Actually they did, but there was always an overlap of the bridge glue on the finish.
The glue bond to the finish is stronger than the finish bond to the top, so sometimes the stress on the back of the bridge does pull up the finish which creates a small gap.
I've got it on my F65ce, and it's been stable for around ten years at least.
(Which, btw , also has an exceptionally thin bridge compared to the 2 dreadnoughts, but only by about a 32nd)
:friendly_wink:
 
Last edited:

jedzep

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
691
Location
Cooperstown
My lord, what a thread! I'm exhausted. You guys are just chock full of details.

Did you mention how much you paid? I lost track. Bridge issues are usually solvable w/o breaking the bank.

These are among the best 1K guitars out there. They pretty much all sound great, in a 60's Martin 000 kinda' way, only not quite as soft sounding.

You said it's got the tone. That's a big deal.
 
Last edited:

jfilm

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2015
Messages
232
Reaction score
257
Location
New York City
Guild Total
6
Yes," righty tighty lefty loosey" when looking at the adjusting nut from the top of the headstock towards the saddle.
A little goes along way, suggest no more than 1/4 turn and allow to "react" overnight before checking again.
Oh PS, technically the truss is used to adjust relief, and in fact that may be exactly what you need, but loosening it does have a side-effect of raising action ever-so-slightly.
To raise action the real fix is to replace the saddle with a taller one)

Right, gotta admit that's still a bit of a head-scratcher. I can't recall ever seeing such a thick glue layer either, and now wondering if it is a fill job.
But if it's consistent thickness all the way 'round them must be either "Factory" or a full re-glue.
Maybe even possible a super-thin shim of some type was used to actually raise the bridge a bit?
Thinking about it, I can recall specifically some of the earliest 12-ers even got a superthin shim underneath the fretboard extension, F-212's and -312's from exactly that same time period.
Nonetheless at least the structural integrity appears to be there?
The purpose of full contact of bridge to top (besides durability of bond) is to enhance fullest transmission of vibration from bridge to top.
So there's a possibility that if the glue doesn't transmit vibration as well as a really tight hideglue bond, then the tone might be a little compromised.
Don't recall ever seeing discussion of that, if various glues enhance or impede depending on "thickness".
And it's possible that if it IS hideglue then vibration transmission isn't hampered at all, as the stuff is crystallized when dry.

Yikes!
We have discussed geographic market price variation for repairs but that seems pretty over-the-top to me. For balance I've seen members cite $50.00 in low cost-of-living areas a few years back and that struck me as probably a bit low. I wouldn't be surprised at $150.00 today here in high-cost Silicon Valley though, especially if it was to allow for potentially bothersome prep and clean-up work, and a very good luthier rep and turnaround time.
There's a bit of skill required to ensure the bottom of the bridge is properly sanded to match the radius of the top (which is not truly flat, they've all got a bit of radius even though called "flattops").

Got it, and suspect it may be just a gap where glue never fully bonded, if that's actually still a factory job.
Here's another known "cause":
In Westerly they finished the tops before installing the bridge, and then cleared off an area with a slightly smaller footprint than the bridge itself for the glue pad.
It was to ensure a nice clean appearance but sometimes it was a little too small.
That's what Tom meant by "Didn't glue all the way to the edges".
Actually they did, but there was always an overlap of the bridge glue on the finish.
The glue bond to the finish is stronger than the finish bond to the top, so sometimes the stress on the back of the bridge does pull up the finish which creates a small gap.
I've got it on my F65ce, and it's been stable for around ten years at least.
(Which, btw , also has an exceptionally thin bridge compared to the 2 dreadnoughts, but only by about a 32nd)
:friendly_wink:

Thanks, I found the right tool to adjust the truss rod (after a quick search on LTG threads), and loosened by 1/4 turn - the truss rod moved easily, so that's good. This morning I found the G string buzz mostly gone other than with exaggeratedly hard plucking. Action at 3/32" at the 6th string.

Yes, NYC is an extremely expensive place to live. I paid 250 for the bridge reglue on my F-20 and another 75 for the new bone nut. This was four years ago. I guess they've got to pay the rent (and this wasn't even a shop in Manhattan, but Brooklyn). I've been looking again at the back of the bridge in the sunlight, I think that's definitely glue filling a gap, and not finish build up pushed against the back of the bridge. This judging from the air bubbles. So anyway, as long as it isn't epoxy (not sure how to tell), I can get this addressed for the cost of a bridge reglue.
 
Last edited:
Top