Bluesbird serial number

zulu

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
1,855
Location
NV west of Los Angeles
Guild Total
4
coastie99 said:
zulu said:
Beautiful guitar. 8)

I saw that one listed, and wondered if there was a reason the strings are wound through the stop tail like that. :?:

Firstly, there's a theory that top - wrapping the strings over the tailpiece like that, improves sustain. Maybe, maybe not.

And, with the two BB's and the Blues 90 that I have, all had the strings fouling the rear of the bridge when I received them. Perhaps that diminishes the sustaining ability of the guitar, perhaps not. I have no opinion to offer.

But, I have so far top - wrapped one of my Birds ....... just in case. I'd have to say that I'm nowhere sufficiently qualified to offer a judgment if that made any difference to the way the guitar sounds.

But, I have many-times wondered; is this a BB design fault ??

Thanks for the info, coastie.

the strings fouling the rear of the bridge

Do you mean that the break angle from the saddles to the tailpiece was so steep that the strings were contacting the rear of the bridge? If so, that seems like a design flaw to me.
 

Zelja

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
357
Location
Sydney, Australia
coastie99 said:
Firstly, there's a theory that top - wrapping the strings over the tailpiece like that, improves sustain. Maybe, maybe not.
I have always heard the greater the break angle over the bridge the more sustain ones gets. Top wrapping would lessen the break angle though.

I actually tried top wrapping on my Orville LP & I felt the tone had less definition & maybe less attack. Interestingly the guitar seemed to feedback easier as well. Feel seemed to be different - maybe a bit looser as you would expect, easier to bend strings. I changed it back next string change & preferred it. A very subjective thing though & I'm sure others would prefer top wrapping.

coastie99 said:
And, with the two BB's and the Blues 90 that I have, all had the strings fouling the rear of the bridge when I received them. Perhaps that diminishes the sustaining ability of the guitar, perhaps not. I have no opinion to offer.
But, I have many-times wondered; is this a BB design fault ??
Can't you raise the stop tail such that the strings can clear the back of the bridge? I'm pretty sure I can do that on my LP (I'm not currently at home so can't check the guitar to be sure). I thought that was the idea of the stop tail so you can lower & raise the break angle & tension.

I once again keep the stop tail all the way down as "they" say that it gives better mechanical contact to the guitar body which once again improves sustain etc. All these theories on best tone but none of them actually help me to be a better guitar player. :? :lol:
 

SFIV1967

Venerated Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
18,500
Reaction score
9,024
Location
Bavaria / Germany
Guild Total
8
Zelja said:
coastie99 said:
And, with the two BB's and the Blues 90 that I have, all had the strings fouling the rear of the bridge when I received them. Perhaps that diminishes the sustaining ability of the guitar, perhaps not. I have no opinion to offer.
But, I have many-times wondered; is this a BB design fault ??
Can't you raise the stop tail such that the strings can clear the back of the bridge? I'm pretty sure I can do that on my LP (I'm not currently at home so can't check the guitar to be sure). I thought that was the idea of the stop tail so you can lower & raise the break angle & tension. I once again keep the stop tail all the way down as "they" say that it gives better mechanical contact to the guitar body which once again improves sustain etc. All these theories on best tone but none of them actually help me to be a better guitar player. :? :lol:
@Zelja: Interesting topic about the tailpiece. I tried your suggestion to raise the stop tailpiece, but it needs to be raised pretty high to clear the end of the bridge, so I am concerned about the stress on the two screws. I always thought the stop tail piece should be kept down to lower the stress on the screws and give good body contact. If somebody can comment on this it would be interesting what others think. Also, is it a real problem if the strings touch the end of the bridge?
Here is another picture of another guitar that shows the two break angles in the strings on top of the saddle pieces and at the end of the bridge:
IMG_8652.jpg


Ralf
 

gilded

Senior Member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
3,479
Reaction score
197
Location
texas
I want to apologize up front this time. :oops: I tend to write too much when I get interested in a subject and that sometimes has a chilling effect on other posts. Sorry about that, but I do think I have some points that are worth considering on this subject, so here goes:

In my experience with stop tailpieces, the 'lower' you go, the better single-string playing sounds, though with chord playing, it's just the opposite! I do believe that Increased break-over angle means more felt tension in the string. Whether that means more sustain or not, I honestly don't know. I mean, I think it does, but I'm not an engineer. Again, I believe that chords sound better when the string tension is decreased and if chords were more important to me than the single string playing on electric guitars, I would raise the tail-piece on my stop-tailpiece guitars significantly.

On the issue of strings touching the bridge, it's true you can 'drop' the tailpiece low enough on most stop-tailpiece guitars so that some or all of the strings can lay against the rear-most edge of the (presumably) tune-a-matic bridge. I don't think that's a good thing for a variety of reasons (many pounds of string tension are pushing against the bridge, making the bridge more likely to lean over, affecting intonation and flattening the degree of arc of the radius of the strings, etc.), but all in all, it's a minor problem. Additionally, there's a fix! All you have to do is adjust the tailpiece screws/bolts upwards a bit at a time until you clear the back edge of the bridge and you are in good shape. If you are just talking about some of the lighter strings barely touching the bridge side, by the way, you may not even notice the difference.

By and large, increases or decreases in break-over angle at either the bridge or the nut make a big difference in how guitars sound.

For instance, guitars that are designed to work with Bigsbys have shallow break-over angles. Why? Because loose strings are easier to manipulate with a Bigsby arm and the bridge is more likely to return to it's original at-rest position if there isn't extra downward string tension from a sharp break-over angle forcing the bridge to 'stay' exactly where the Bigsby function moved it to.

Of course, at some point when the break-over angle becomes too shallow, the guitars lose playability.

For an example, go back to the Bigsby equipped guitars. As the shallow-angled guitars get older, the neck to body angle decreases (due to string-pull issues) and eventually the guitars are less and less playable. That's when you see posts like 'my '60's White Falcon/Starfire III/Duane Eddy DE400's bigsby doesn't work when I drop the action down to a useable level. The usual comments are, 'the strings are too loose', or 'the strings fall off the side of the fingerboard'. Then someone else will suggest heavier strings because they have more tension, but the heavier strings then pull the neck up even more, which only aggravates the symptoms....

Also, think about break-over angle and tension increase at the nut, too. Any body ever read how the Gibson Company changed their headstock angles in 1965 from a previous angle of 17 degrees to 14 degrees? It was supposed to keep the headstocks from breaking as much, but what it really did was to change the feel of the guitars completely. Guitars with the 14 degree headstock don't sing as much, they are less lively, etc. Finally, Gibson began to change the headstock angle back to 17 degrees in the 1980's.

Okay, let's go to the other end of the guitar and look at things that can effect the break-over angle at the nut. Think about how many wraps you put on a guitar's tuner shaft when you are stringing a guitar. For decades, all my guitar shop luthier-buddies have set up tremelo Strats with a turn and a half of string windings. It makes the string tension loosey-goosey, but there are less wraps to hang up and go out of tune in the tremelo 'dive-bombing' process.

Since I didn't use tremelo much on strats, I tried doing it a little differently and generally use 2.5 to 3.5 turns of windings on the bass strings when stringing up a Strat.

On Teles, without a tremelo, I generally use even more windings. Finally, after years of doing this, I started noticing that my Tele/Strat guitars felt too stiff! Now, I'm going the other way and use less and less windings. I haven't finalized the position yet, but I'm working on it.

Thanks for reading, if you got this far..... :) Harry
 

Zelja

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
357
Location
Sydney, Australia
^^^^
Good info & thoughts Harry.

I tried to find an excerpt from an old Gibson manual about stop tail adjustment etc but alas failed. I'm sure I saw it on a thread in LTG but I did find this thread where Ron Thorn (noted guitar builder & Guild fan - I think has a huge collection of Guilds including a whole lot of Brian May models) mentions the Bluesbird:
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... 206&page=2

Check out posts 22 on page 2 & 33 on page 3.
"Guitars such as the Guild Bluesbirds have the tail-piece very close to the bridge. You're either top wrapping or floating the tailpiece 1/4" off the top so that the strings don't contact the bridge behind the saddles."

The reason to avoid the strings touching the bridge:
"Tuning stability, basically.
It's a right-angle contact point that the string will be dragging over during tuning and bends. Like a reverse-string tree, just not as smooth."

Here are a few other threads on the subject:
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... p?t=450307
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... ?p=3364366
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... 841&page=3
http://www.dominocs.com/AshBassGuitar/stoptailwrap.html
 

coastie99

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
8,662
Reaction score
27
Location
Greymouth, West Coast, Newsyland
Interesting stuff, Z and Harry.

I've worried primarily that, by raising the tailpiece high enough for the strings to clear the back of the bridge, I'd be subjecting the tailpiece studs to a pretty severe force.
 

gilded

Senior Member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
3,479
Reaction score
197
Location
texas
Zelja said:
^^^^
Good info & thoughts Harry.

Thanks, Bubba!

I tried to find an excerpt from an old Gibson manual about stop tail adjustment etc but alas failed. I'm sure I saw it on a thread in LTG but I did find this thread where Ron Thorn (noted guitar builder & Guild fan - I think has a huge collection of Guilds including a whole lot of Brian May models) mentions the Bluesbird:
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... 206&page=2

I read the whole thread, interesting, thanks.

Check out posts 22 on page 2 & 33 on page 3.
"Guitars such as the Guild Bluesbirds have the tail-piece very close to the bridge. You're either top wrapping or floating the tailpiece 1/4" off the top so that the strings don't contact the bridge behind the saddles."

Part of what makes the string hit the bridge is the width of the bridge. The wider the bridge, the shallower the 'angle for contact', where the string hits the back of the bridge. The original Gibson tune-a-matics have many issues, but they are narrower than the bridge on my BB, even when the adjustment screws face the tailpiece. So all things being equal, you can get a more acute break-over angle (without touching) when the bridge is narrow.

As well, I don't think it's bad if the tailpiece is 1/4" off the top.


The reason to avoid the strings touching the bridge:
"Tuning stability, basically.
It's a right-angle contact point that the string will be dragging over during tuning and bends. Like a reverse-string tree, just not as smooth."

I don't think it's a good idea for the strings to touch the bridge, but I disagree with Thorn's reasoning. Again, it's not a huge deal. I'm sure Mr. Thorn is a person of extensive knowledge. The 'reverse-string tree' idea is an attractive concept and I am going to think about it. Perhaps Mr. Thorn and I agree about the Practice and disagree about the Theory!

1)The tuning stability issues are because there are many foot pounds of pressure on the bridge when the strings touch the back edge. That side-pressure tends to kick the bridge forward, towards the neck. When the bridge moves, it will cause the guitar to play sharp.

2) His right-angle contact point observation? Well, maybe if you had an super high-power microscope trained on the contact-point as the string bends, you could see something maybe, but man, talk about 'de minimus!' There are three contact points when the string touches the back edge of the bridge; saddle, bridge edge, and tailpiece. The back edge ain't moving unless the bridge is moving.

I do think there are vibration issues with the strings touching the back edge of the bridge that neither I nor Thorn are speaking to in our respective postings. I wish I had the knowledge base to address them, but I don't. I do have one more thing I'd like you to think about:

If you listened to a Les Paul with a Bridge-Tailpiece (you know, the 'older' pre-'56 design) and listened to the same Les Paul with a Stop-Tail and a Tune-a-matic, you would hear a huge difference (between the different systems) in the ability of the guitar to transmit energy from the strings to the body.

In 1990, I had a super beat-up '55 Paul (with the old-style wrap-around Bridge-Tailpice) that I put PAFs in, a la early Jeff Beck. It was a killer, killer guitar. I then took it to a 'famous' repairman to 'change-out' to a tune-a-matic/stop-tailpiece. When I got it back, the tail-piece had been placed back about four inches from the bridge and was 'off-center' to boot. Sounded like garbage. Part of it was the location of the Tail-piece, but part of it was the lack of the old Bridge-Tailpiece. I did learn something, though. 'Famous' doesn't mean Smart.

Every now and then, Gibson makes a run of circa '55 Reissue Pauls with a Bridge-Tailpiece. If I could find one with the neck I could live with, I might try the PAF experiment again, but leave out the Stop-Tailpiece switchover!


Here are a few other threads on the subject:
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... p?t=450307
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... ?p=3364366
http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... 841&page=3
http://www.dominocs.com/AshBassGuitar/stoptailwrap.html

Thanks for the other threads, I will look at them this weekend. I appreciate you taking the time to help me learn new things.
 

gilded

Senior Member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
3,479
Reaction score
197
Location
texas
coastie99 said:
Interesting stuff, Z and Harry.

I've worried primarily that, by raising the tailpiece high enough for the strings to clear the back of the bridge, I'd be subjecting the tailpiece studs to a pretty severe force.

I hear what you're saying, but the 'lever-point' of the tailpiece studs is not something I would worry about. Why don't you try it both ways, 'top wrap' with the studs all the way down and 'studs moved up just enough', so that the strings clear the back of the bridge and see what you like?

Coastie, I think 'what you like' is going to trump the stud height concerns. It's a non-issue.

Yer pal, Mr. Know-It-All, I mean, ah, Harry
 

coastie99

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
8,662
Reaction score
27
Location
Greymouth, West Coast, Newsyland
Harry, your posts are extremely interesting, and not in the slightest bit "know-all-y"

The BB in question has been fiddled with of late, by me ( HB-1's fitted) and could do with a set-up. Don't know how far down the tailpiece could be lowered, avoiding strains / bridge contact but, I'm doubtful that it could be lowered all the way down.

I'll report back when I've had it properly set up.
 

Zelja

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
357
Location
Sydney, Australia
Harry, interesting what you say about the combined bridge/tailpiece. It seems that the more primitive ones (i.e. without moving parts to provide intonation adjustment) are often raved about with regards to tone. A more solid, less loss scenario perhaps? E.g something like this (stupid Gibson prices notwithstanding): http://www.fullcontacthardware.com/tom.htm

Another, newer design for the TOM & separate tailpiece, doesn't seem to have the issue with the string snagging on the back of the bridge. They also claim to provide greater coupling between the strings & the body. It may be worth investigating, Coastie : http://www.fullcontacthardware.com/tom.htm
 

coastie99

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
8,662
Reaction score
27
Location
Greymouth, West Coast, Newsyland
Zelja said:
Another, newer design for the TOM & separate tailpiece, doesn't seem to have the issue with the string snagging on the back of the bridge. They also claim to provide greater coupling between the strings & the body. It may be worth investigating, Coastie : http://www.fullcontacthardware.com/tom.htm


That sure is interesting !

The real advantage that's obvious with the FCH is the complete interface between bridge bottom, and guitar top. However, the purchase of three sets of bridge / tailpiece is a daunting prospect !!

Can somebody help please. FCH offers M5 and M8 studs with these sets. BB's use Gotoh metric hardware. Would there be a compatibility problem ?
 

Zelja

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
3,913
Reaction score
357
Location
Sydney, Australia
coastie99 said:
Can somebody help please. FCH offers M5 and M8 studs with these sets. BB's use Gotoh metric hardware. Would there be a compatibility problem ?
Best just to send them an email Coastie, they should know (& if they say it's OK & it isn't you have got some recourse for a full refund/return etc).

I'd also ask if there is any major reason why you couldn't use your existing stop tail. I'm not a fan of the, to me, overly large logo emblazoned on the unit. I wonder if they would just sell the bridge seperately?
 

coastie99

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
8,662
Reaction score
27
Location
Greymouth, West Coast, Newsyland
Yes, that tailpiece is about as pretty as Jules G. !!

I think I'm just going to flag the whole thing away. It's a pity somebody doesn't offer shims to fit under the bridge to "connect" the bottom of the bridge and the guitar top.
 

fordcat

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Location
Newport, KY
6824339784_39f375025d_b.jpg


While I am proud of my collection, I'm even more stoked on the iPhone app that let me edit this photo to make it look like this. It's called Snapseed. If you've got an iPhone, check it out...
 

coastie99

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
8,662
Reaction score
27
Location
Greymouth, West Coast, Newsyland
I'm curious to know if any members have BB's with a serial # close to mine.

'98 Bluesbird .......... CL001932

'01 Bluesbird .......... CL002616

'00 Blues 90 .......... CL002468
 
Top