A question for the Tele-ologists...

Dave

New member
Compare the vintage bridge assembly (with the side-flange, ashtray type) vs. the new American Std. style (no tray walls/side flanges)...How much, if any, do the side flanges contribute to the tonal improvements with such a bridge plate. Or are the saddles the biggest contributor?
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

I think on the vintage bridges, the side flares on them were mainly there so the bridge covers would have a way to "snap" on to the bridge. I'd say the only part of them that contributes to the tone would be the saddles, or made the thickness or "solid-ness" of the bridge plate itself.

These days i great prefer the "modern" style bridges. I have a 50's tele reissue that i'm parting out and one reason is because of its 3 saddle vintage bridge. That "not quite in tune" thing always made me see red. :evil:

FenderBender
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

I'm not a tuning fanatic, but the way chords ring kind of out a little bugs me on vintage style bridges, but for lots of players, they won't settle for anything less than vintage.
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

I assumed that three saddle brass bridges always sound better than modern six saddle Tele bridges...wrong! My new James Burton Tele with the 6 saddle bridge sounds great and plays in tune better than the old three brass saddle bridge on my '54 Tele.

I think the key is that the steel the bridge plate is made out of has to be magnetic. If you can't get a magnet to stick to the plate it's not going to sound like a Tele.

I'm thinking of putting a Barden style bridge plate with the cutaway on my Burton Tele. The sides of the vintage style plate do get in the way a little...on both sides! Lew
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

i don't think the sides have much to do with the tone. I never liked the feel of the six saddle bridges myself, i had one and sold the guitar because of it. I think lew is right about the material it is made of making the most tonal difference and i think the thickness effects the sound too.
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

I've never felt comfortable with the vintage sides either-I do a lot of palm muting and fingerpicking and the sides seemed a little confining to my hand. I'm a step away from getting Callaham's bridge which replaces the 3 screw Fender Am. Std. Teles, however, I, too am leery about the loss of intonation, because it is also a 3-barrell bridge. I'm a vintage guy-if it sounds right...
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

actually, I like G & L's bridge on their ASAT Classics - they look like 6-piece brass saddles. Anyway, that's what I'd like, I just haven't looked around to see if anyone makes something like that. Another alternative might be to use the standard modern style 6 piece bridge and try graphtech saddles... hmmm. ?

I can't really say that my vintage style Barden bridge is better, but I like my AS standard tele bridge just fine, too.
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

Lewguitar said:
I assumed that three saddle brass bridges always sound better than modern six saddle Tele bridges...wrong! My new James Burton Tele with the 6 saddle bridge sounds great and plays in tune better than the old three brass saddle bridge on my '54 Tele.

I think the key is that the steel the bridge plate is made out of has to be magnetic. If you can't get a magnet to stick to the plate it's not going to sound like a Tele.

I'm thinking of putting a Barden style bridge plate with the cutaway on my Burton Tele. The sides of the vintage style plate do get in the way a little...on both sides! Lew

Interesting, Lew-I read on Vintique's website about the non-magnetic plates which, according to them, reduces the hum and makes pickups more focused because there's not the electromagnetic interference caused by the magnetic bridge plate-they make both magnetic and non-magnetic.

What do you make of this?

Thanks,
Dave

http://www.vintique.com/bridges.html
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

Dave said:
I've never felt comfortable with the vintage sides either-I do a lot of palm muting and fingerpicking and the sides seemed a little confining to my hand. I'm a step away from getting Callaham's bridge which replaces the 3 screw Fender Am. Std. Teles, however, I, too am leery about the loss of intonation, because it is also a 3-barrell bridge. I'm a vintage guy-if it sounds right...

im filling out my callaham order as we speak.....
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

Dave said:
Interesting, Lew-I read on Vintique's website about the non-magnetic plates which, according to them, reduces the hum and makes pickups more focused because there's not the electromagnetic interference caused by the magnetic bridge plate-they make both magnetic and non-magnetic.

What do you make of this?

Thanks,
Dave

http://www.vintique.com/bridges.html

I don't really know. But if I was trying to duplicate the tone of a '51 Tele I'd go with '51 style Tele bridge baseplate that a magnet would stick to. Also: everyone's got an opinion...just like everyone's got a ________. :smack: Lew
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

HA!-I love fill in the blanks, Lew!

Guymanperson-what are you going to order? I'm waiting to hear back from Callahan about this bridge issue...
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

ferrous rules...
Lew, could you try the Burton with a vintage bridge & saddles to see what gives?
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

I've got both & really have no problem with either.

I love the "look" of the ashtray, but d@mned if you can play with that thing on there. Do they actually serve a purpose tonally or was it basically a dust cover for the bridge?
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

rhmcfarland said:
ferrous rules...
Lew, could you try the Burton with a vintage bridge & saddles to see what gives?

I have the Fralin Blues Specials in both my Burton and '54 Tele right now and tho they each have very differant bridges and body wood (alder vs. 50 year old Ash ), I'm surprised at how similar they sound! But I do have an old Fender Tele three saddle bridge from the 60's I've been saving and do plan to try it on my Burton Tele with some brass saddles. What I think I'll do is just take that bridge and install a Duncan Antiquity in it and then put it on my Burton Tele.

Right now tho, I've been loving that Burton Tele just as is. It sounds awesome and I'm having a time changing anything about it...the old: if it ain't broken why fix it syndrome!

Lew
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

The sides on an old tele bridge... am I right in assuming they're there as part of the ash tray cover design?
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

StefanM said:
The sides on an old tele bridge... am I right in assuming they're there as part of the ash tray cover design?

I think so. And to add strength maybe to the thin metal the bridge plate is stamped out of. Tho when the strings pass thru the body there's not much stress on the back part of the plate that holds the saddle adjustment screws.

There is a lot of stress on the top loader version, the '59 version. Without the sides, I think the back of that particular design would bend forward under the stress of the strings pulling on it.

A Tele bridge plate is alot thinner than a Strat bridge plate.

Lew
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

Okay. I've never played a vintage tele bridge; mine has a heavy duty Gotoh, and it's THICK.

As an aside: a lot of people seem to favour the vintage (brass?) saddles over modern box ones, but I've been toying with going the other way - graph tec saddles - to dull down the piercing highs. Perhaps I won't need too after making the custom into a C-4 - any thoughts?
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

StefanM said:
Okay. I've never played a vintage tele bridge; mine has a heavy duty Gotoh, and it's THICK.

As an aside: a lot of people seem to favour the vintage (brass?) saddles over modern box ones, but I've been toying with going the other way - graph tec saddles - to dull down the piercing highs. Perhaps I won't need too after making the custom into a C-4 - any thoughts?

I think brass gives a little less rattley, steely tone than steel. :smack: It's why I use a brass saddle for the high E string on all of my Strats...even my old '63. It makes the string sound a little smoother and fuller. Eric Johnson does the same thing. But just on the high E string of my Strats...not all five.

Alot of times on Strats a thin .009 or .010 string sounds buzzy...like fret buzz. But it's often NOT fret buzz...it's that skinny little string rattling against the steel saddle. Brass cured that issue on all of my Strats.

Graphite is cool for not breaking strings but it's not for me...it's softer. That's why it doesn't break strings...it doesn't have a sharp edge like the sharp edge that can form on steel.

Lew
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

I have a Cal Tele that has the 6 saddles and it plays and sounds fine. But if you are more interested in the Vintage look they do make 3 saddle replacements that are screwed at an angle whih makes intonating Tele perfect. I do not remember who makes them. maybe someone else here does!!
 
Re: A question for the Tele-ologists...

Bludave said:
I have a Cal Tele that has the 6 saddles and it plays and sounds fine. But if you are more interested in the Vintage look they do make 3 saddle replacements that are screwed at an angle whih makes intonating Tele perfect. I do not remember who makes them. maybe someone else here does!!

I stock the Gatton style angled brass saddles. Stew Mac sells them too. And even Seymour Duncan makes a set. Lew
 
Back
Top