Menu
I read a recommendation over on Cowabunga that suggested using a
Gibson style Tune-o-matic type bridge as a sunstitute for the stock
JM brdige. This was touted as an improvement over the Mustang bridge.
I guess I trust this recommendation because the claim was made that
Pete Curry did this to his guitars--however, something doesn't make
sense to me. The JM neck has a radius of "7.25", but the Gibson Tune-
o-matic has a radius of "12". Yikes!! And what about the string
spacing? Doesn't Gibson use a wider spacing than Fender? I like the
idea of being able to throw titanium or even Graph Tech saddles on
the bridge but, jeez, the radius issue. Are you supposed to file down
the saddles? Any guidance would be appreciated.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ohsyrus [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:43 PM
> To:
> Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Jazzmaster bridge substitutions
>
>
> I read a recommendation over on Cowabunga that suggested using a
> Gibson style Tune-o-matic type bridge as a sunstitute for the stock
> JM brdige. This was touted as an improvement over the Mustang bridge.
> I guess I trust this recommendation because the claim was made that
> Pete Curry did this to his guitars--however, something doesn't make
> sense to me. The JM neck has a radius of "7.25", but the Gibson Tune-
> o-matic has a radius of "12". Yikes!! And what about the string
> spacing? Doesn't Gibson use a wider spacing than Fender? I like the
> idea of being able to throw titanium or even Graph Tech saddles on
> the bridge but, jeez, the radius issue. Are you supposed to file down
> the saddles? Any guidance would be appreciated.
You might try this question at the Fender Forum.
I remember hearing about this. I believe there is some rare Gibson
tune-o-matic style bridge that has the same radius. I don't remember its
name. I do have a Stew Mac catalog though, and I will look in there. I think
Pete Curry did this to Danny Amis's Jazzmaster also, but at the time, I
heard Danny wasn't sure he liked it.
Personally I haven't had any more problems with the stock Jag bridge than I
do with a stock strat bridge :)
I think the stock Jag/JM bridge is better than using a Mustang bridge or
saddles, only because you can't individually adjust string height on the
Mustang saddles. The grooves on the Jag/JM saddles allow you to control
string spacing, whereas the Mustang saddles have a single slot.
I have lowered my Jag bridge and then raised up the saddles to compensate.
This really puts pressure on the height adjustment screws and they don't
move around or buzz like this.
The biggest "buzzing" culprit for me turned out to be the trem arm rattling
in its socket. I thought it was the bridge/saddles at first, since thats
what everybody complains about. But I finally tracked it down to the trem
arm. I now wrap plumbers tape (teflon tape) around the arm and that fixes
that.
Good luck,
BN
> I remember hearing about this. I believe there is some rare Gibson
> tune-o-matic style bridge that has the same radius. I don't remember its
> name. I do have a Stew Mac catalog though, and I will look in
> there.
I did some searching and I think I was full of you know what about the
tune-o-matic with a 7.25" radius. I think they are all 12" radius. Sorry!
Whats wrong with mustang bridges? I hear they have the same radii as
stock jaguar bridges. Yep, stock bridges have many small grooves, and
you can change the position of the string, but on the other hand I
was always trying to position the strings evenly. The hight of
individual saddles on stock bridges can be adjusted so that you get
the radius right - but the correct radius is already set in in
Mustang bridge. and The action is set by raising/lowering the whole
bridge. Plus i don't know how the tunomatic bridge would work with
tremelo arm, because stock jaguar bridges are floating and move back
and forth. Tunomatics are fixed (?) so when you do tremelo arm
vibrato the strings would grind over the saddles.
I read somewhere that Tunomatics were popular before people realised
they could use mustang bridges.
--- In SurfGuitar101@y..., "ohsyrus" <ohsyrus@y...> wrote:
> I read a recommendation over on Cowabunga that suggested using a
> Gibson style Tune-o-matic type bridge as a sunstitute for the stock
> JM brdige. This was touted as an improvement over the Mustang
bridge.
> I guess I trust this recommendation because the claim was made that
> Pete Curry did this to his guitars--however, something doesn't make
> sense to me. The JM neck has a radius of "7.25", but the Gibson
Tune-
> o-matic has a radius of "12". Yikes!! And what about the string
> spacing? Doesn't Gibson use a wider spacing than Fender? I like the
> idea of being able to throw titanium or even Graph Tech saddles on
> the bridge but, jeez, the radius issue. Are you supposed to file
down
> the saddles? Any guidance would be appreciated.
The mustang bridge works great for my Jazzmaster. Much
better than the original, as I tended to knock the
strings out of those threaded grooves. I did find
that it had some vibration rattles though, which I
didn't have with the original. But those are easily
fixed by using a bit of lock-tite, the light guage
stuff, to fuse the bridge together.
--- tikitakitikitakitak <> wrote:
> Whats wrong with mustang bridges? I hear they have
> the same radii as
> stock jaguar bridges. Yep, stock bridges have many
> small grooves, and
> you can change the position of the string, but on
> the other hand I
> was always trying to position the strings evenly.
> The hight of
> individual saddles on stock bridges can be adjusted
> so that you get
> the radius right - but the correct radius is already
> set in in
> Mustang bridge. and The action is set by
> raising/lowering the whole
> bridge. Plus i don't know how the tunomatic bridge
> would work with
> tremelo arm, because stock jaguar bridges are
> floating and move back
> and forth. Tunomatics are fixed (?) so when you do
> tremelo arm
> vibrato the strings would grind over the saddles.
>
> I read somewhere that Tunomatics were popular before
> people realised
> they could use mustang bridges.
>
>
> --- In SurfGuitar101@y..., "ohsyrus" <ohsyrus@y...>
> wrote:
> > I read a recommendation over on Cowabunga that
> suggested using a
> > Gibson style Tune-o-matic type bridge as a
> sunstitute for the stock
> > JM brdige. This was touted as an improvement over
> the Mustang
> bridge.
> > I guess I trust this recommendation because the
> claim was made that
> > Pete Curry did this to his guitars--however,
> something doesn't make
> > sense to me. The JM neck has a radius of "7.25",
> but the Gibson
> Tune-
> > o-matic has a radius of "12". Yikes!! And what
> about the string
> > spacing? Doesn't Gibson use a wider spacing than
> Fender? I like the
> > idea of being able to throw titanium or even Graph
> Tech saddles on
> > the bridge but, jeez, the radius issue. Are you
> supposed to file
> down
> > the saddles? Any guidance would be appreciated.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
I use mustang bridges and LOVE them. The disadvantage to the stock saddles
as I see it is this: the stock saddles are THREADED and the threads aren't
deep enough. If you're practicing at home and you're doing some light
double picking, then you're fine, but once you're out there with your
johnson swingin' in the wind on some stage and you're juiced up on
adrenaline, GUARANTEED that string is coming out of that saddle. You up the
odds of that happening as you use heavier guage strings, because the
increased diameter causes them to sit too high out of the actual grooves.
Like I said, the thread is too light. If the threading was coarser, then
that would change everything. As for adjusting individual string
height...wow! THAT is detail oriented!
Basically it's like this: drop in some mustang bridges, and you'll never
have to worry about bridge problems again. I mean, you're playing surf music
for god's sakes, not building a ship in a bottle out of toothpicks!
-Dano
>From: "tikitakitikitakitak" <>
>Reply-To:
>To:
>Subject: [SurfGuitar101] Re: Jazzmaster bridge substitutions
>Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 02:31:05 -0000
>
>Whats wrong with mustang bridges? I hear they have the same radii as
>stock jaguar bridges. Yep, stock bridges have many small grooves, and
>you can change the position of the string, but on the other hand I
>was always trying to position the strings evenly. The hight of
>individual saddles on stock bridges can be adjusted so that you get
>the radius right - but the correct radius is already set in in
>Mustang bridge. and The action is set by raising/lowering the whole
>bridge. Plus i don't know how the tunomatic bridge would work with
>tremelo arm, because stock jaguar bridges are floating and move back
>and forth. Tunomatics are fixed (?) so when you do tremelo arm
>vibrato the strings would grind over the saddles.
>
>I read somewhere that Tunomatics were popular before people realised
>they could use mustang bridges.
>
>
>--- In SurfGuitar101@y..., "ohsyrus" <ohsyrus@y...> wrote:
> > I read a recommendation over on Cowabunga that suggested using a
> > Gibson style Tune-o-matic type bridge as a sunstitute for the stock
> > JM brdige. This was touted as an improvement over the Mustang
>bridge.
> > I guess I trust this recommendation because the claim was made that
> > Pete Curry did this to his guitars--however, something doesn't make
> > sense to me. The JM neck has a radius of "7.25", but the Gibson
>Tune-
> > o-matic has a radius of "12". Yikes!! And what about the string
> > spacing? Doesn't Gibson use a wider spacing than Fender? I like the
> > idea of being able to throw titanium or even Graph Tech saddles on
> > the bridge but, jeez, the radius issue. Are you supposed to file
>down
> > the saddles? Any guidance would be appreciated.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: -=Dan Ware=- [mailto:]
> Subject: Re: [SurfGuitar101] Re: Jazzmaster bridge substitutions
>
> I use mustang bridges and LOVE them. The disadvantage to the
> stock saddles
> as I see it is this: the stock saddles are THREADED and the
> threads aren't
> deep enough. If you're practicing at home and you're doing some light
> double picking, then you're fine, but once you're out there with your
> johnson swingin' in the wind on some stage and you're juiced up on
> adrenaline, GUARANTEED that string is coming out of that saddle.
Ha-ha!
It is very interesting to note that Fender had up to 3 different saddles
during the original production run, each with different groove widths. Jim
Shine took a poll on the Fender Forum and got this info. So the low strings
had wider grooves originally. Some years the guitars shipped with 2 types of
saddles only. Fender were very inconsistent on this, and probably just made
good with what saddles they had in stock at the time. The AV reissues,
however, for whatever reason only have 1 size. Lame.
> You up the
> odds of that happening as you use heavier guage strings, because the
> increased diameter causes them to sit too high out of the actual grooves.
> Like I said, the thread is too light. If the threading was coarser, then
> that would change everything.
Well the heavier guage flatwound strings stay put better because of more
string tension. You should try something heavier than 0.010"s roundwounds
:) Actually I agree with you. I am probably going to file wider grooves on
my 2 low string saddles. If I mess up or want to turn it back to the
original state, I just have to flip the saddle over.
> As for adjusting individual string
> height...wow! THAT is detail oriented!
Not at all. My low E string started buzzing so I raised its action a hair
without disturbing the other strings. Convenient. The bridge radius doesn't
always take into account how fat your strings are, so fine tuning individual
saddle height is cool.
>
> Basically it's like this: drop in some mustang bridges, and
> you'll never
> have to worry about bridge problems again. I mean, you're playing
> surf music
> for god's sakes, not building a ship in a bottle out of toothpicks!
>
> -Dano
Ha-ha. I like your plug and play attitude Dano. I am going to try and file a
wider groove or two because I think individual string spacing and string
height adjustments are nice to haves. Not critical, I agree. But some folks
are more anal. :^) I wish I could get my hands on some vintage bridge
saddles with the wider threads.
I have really enjoyed reading about how other people solve these problems.
In the grand scheme of things this is really minutia but for some reason I
love talking about it. What a geek.
BN
PS Oh crap, I just heard Dee-Dee Ramone died :^(
Something I found yesterday that might be of interest. Warmoth sells
a mustang replacement bridge that has set screws in the outside 4
strings. The middle two are just like the other mustang saddles, but
the outer 4 have been modified to be adjustable like the standard
JM/Jag saddles. They intended this to solve the radius problem for
compound necks if you want to build a JM/Jag with modern features,
but I think the idea sounds great if you're looking for finer micro-
adjustment type control over individual string height. You can't find
this through their ordinary hardware menu. You have to click on
bodies, body shapes, and the jazzmaster shape to get to their JM/Jag
hardware page. Once there, they have bridges, slider switches, etc.
--- In SurfGuitar101@y..., "Brian Neal" <bneal@z...> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: -=Dan Ware=- [mailto:reverbtank@h...]
> > Subject: Re: [SurfGuitar101] Re: Jazzmaster bridge substitutions
> >
> > I use mustang bridges and LOVE them. The disadvantage to the
> > stock saddles
> > as I see it is this: the stock saddles are THREADED and the
> > threads aren't
> > deep enough. If you're practicing at home and you're doing some
light
> > double picking, then you're fine, but once you're out there with
your
> > johnson swingin' in the wind on some stage and you're juiced up on
> > adrenaline, GUARANTEED that string is coming out of that saddle.
>
> Ha-ha!
>
> It is very interesting to note that Fender had up to 3 different
saddles
> during the original production run, each with different groove
widths. Jim
> Shine took a poll on the Fender Forum and got this info. So the low
strings
> had wider grooves originally. Some years the guitars shipped with 2
types of
> saddles only. Fender were very inconsistent on this, and probably
just made
> good with what saddles they had in stock at the time. The AV
reissues,
> however, for whatever reason only have 1 size. Lame.
>
> > You up the
> > odds of that happening as you use heavier guage strings, because
the
> > increased diameter causes them to sit too high out of the actual
grooves.
> > Like I said, the thread is too light. If the threading was
coarser, then
> > that would change everything.
>
> Well the heavier guage flatwound strings stay put better because of
more
> string tension. You should try something heavier than 0.010"s
roundwounds
> :) Actually I agree with you. I am probably going to file wider
grooves on
> my 2 low string saddles. If I mess up or want to turn it back to the
> original state, I just have to flip the saddle over.
>
> > As for adjusting individual string
> > height...wow! THAT is detail oriented!
>
> Not at all. My low E string started buzzing so I raised its action
a hair
> without disturbing the other strings. Convenient. The bridge radius
doesn't
> always take into account how fat your strings are, so fine tuning
individual
> saddle height is cool.
>
> >
> > Basically it's like this: drop in some mustang bridges, and
> > you'll never
> > have to worry about bridge problems again. I mean, you're playing
> > surf music
> > for god's sakes, not building a ship in a bottle out of
toothpicks!
> >
> > -Dano
>
> Ha-ha. I like your plug and play attitude Dano. I am going to try
and file a
> wider groove or two because I think individual string spacing and
string
> height adjustments are nice to haves. Not critical, I agree. But
some folks
> are more anal. :^) I wish I could get my hands on some vintage
bridge
> saddles with the wider threads.
>
> I have really enjoyed reading about how other people solve these
problems.
> In the grand scheme of things this is really minutia but for some
reason I
> love talking about it. What a geek.
>
> BN
>
> PS Oh crap, I just heard Dee-Dee Ramone died :^(
