Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

[ItsaBass]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

Guys... SG's cost $1500 on the HIGH end... LP Supremes are $3500 instruments.

...and they still come with **** hardware. Why? Because people buy them, that's why. If we want Gibson to start making better **** again, then don't buy their ****ty ****. Buy used, or buy other brands.

 

[dmandude123455]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

...and they still come with **** hardware. Why? Because people buy them, that's why. If we want Gibson to start making better **** again, then don't buy their ****ty ****. Buy used, or buy other brands.

Yep.


Why would Gibson change the hardware if people are still buying the guitars? I mean, they could improve on it and then that would improve sales...but I mean...it's Gibson. :/

 

[The Dali]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

Well, I stand corrected if Gibson makes all their own hardware. I was under the impression that they didn't make bridges, electronics and tuners, but sourced them from a 3rd party. If they make them in-house then my argument is null.

If Gibson used other products in their guitars, it would no longer be a Gibson propriety product. Why would Gibson change anything when they have people like you and me who will buy their products just as they are? The difference for me is, I hate Gibson pickups and their hardware. I have absolutely improved my Les Paul Supreme beyond what many people could or want to comprehend.

Well, Gibson does use other parts... they use Grover tuners and Kluson tuners. I don't know about the electronics, but I'm pretty sure they use a vendor for pots and switches. As for pickups, I think Gibson pickups are great...

 

[Jeffblue]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

Well, I stand corrected if Gibson makes all their own hardware. I was under the impression that they didn't make bridges, electronics and tuners, but sourced them from a 3rd party. If they make them in-house then my argument is null.



Well, Gibson does use other parts... they use Grover tuners and Kluson tuners. I don't know about the electronics, but I'm pretty sure they use a vendor for pots and switches. As for pickups, I think Gibson pickups are great...

I like Grover tuners and I don't need to change them. So, who makes their bridges, stop tailpieces, hardware and pickups? I could care less. They COULD make them better........but, alas, they don't. I would pit Seymour Duncan pickups against Gibson pickups any day of the week. Whether third party manufacturers or not isn't really what matters to me. Should be getting the BEST for what you pay for. Gibson stands on their name alone and is using the same technology for the duration. Why would they increase their costs when you will buy it anyway?

 

[orpheo]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

thats why I don't buy gibson anymore. I have it build by someone who does what I want or I make it myself. That way I get exactly what's needed. I tried out some older bridges by gibson versus newer ones and for the fun of it, Gotoh too. I prefer the older gibsons and the gotohs (gotoh's a bit more, I have to admit). I also tried brass but it wasn't worth the upgrade compared with the gotoh bridge. I also don't like aluminium tailpieces; too thin a tone for my taste. I prefer heavier stuff. Dont know exactly what gotoh's made off but they sound good and thats fine by me.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

Well, I stand corrected if Gibson makes all their own hardware. I was under the impression that they didn't make bridges, electronics and tuners, but sourced them from a 3rd party. If they make them in-house then my argument is null.

Well, Gibson does use other parts... they use Grover tuners and Kluson tuners. I don't know about the electronics, but I'm pretty sure they use a vendor for pots and switches. As for pickups, I think Gibson pickups are great...

I would guess that they don't make their own hardware, but that they have it made to their specs by another company. It was actually OK until they started using that new alloy, and started using a lot of chrome plate instead of nickel. The hardware is no longer as smooth and refined looking as it was just a few years ago. Their chrome plate looks cheaper than nickel. They have also changed the measurements/sculpting of the parts, and not in a good way IMO. They now look bulkier and "sharper" on the edges. I even got nice looking nickel bridge and tailpiece on my $350, bottom of the barrel Gibson Melody Maker back in '04 – the same parts used on my LP Standard from the same year.

That said, my '12 Faded SG with the new material and plating sounded fine. The hardware just felt and looked cheap. I don't think standard production Gibsons are absolutely horrible; they are what they are. Mass-produced guitars made during hard economic times. Gibson has overextended themselves in the market. They are trying to make too much, too fast, all in the middle of a recession, and it shows in their products. It's Norlin-era deja vu IMO. They aren't pure dog ****; they just cost about 1.5x to 2x what they should, given what you get. If you spend $1,500 to $2,500 on a guitar, it should have top-notch hardware and be made of top-notch materials, at the very least. It shouldn't need a setup, nut work, fret work, better pots, better hardware, etc., and it should be cosmetically flawless. I have not seen a Gibson in years that meets any of these criteria. Good bases for a really nice guitar, yes. But not sheer perfection straight from the factory.

 

[tonello]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

I get it - what I don't get is why you'd pay that premium for a guitar that required new pickups, bridge and tailpiece. Just curious is all. Sorry to hi-jack the thread.

For me, when I buy a guitar, even if the stock pups are good, I always replace them. I prefer that when I change guitars, I have a homogenous sound. Unlike Billy Gibbons whose tech can pretty much make any guitar sound like Pearly Gates, I don't like to do that. So the three things I look for in all guitars is a 2 volumes/ 1 tones or 2 volumes/ 2 tones (the second tone is disabled, and left in the guitar for appearances sake), mahogany neck and body, and a 24 3/4 scale length. Call me silly, but that's just how I do it.

 

[Jeffblue]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

For me, when I buy a guitar, even if the stock pups are good, I always replace them. I prefer that when I change guitars, I have a homogenous sound. Unlike Billy Gibbons whose tech can pretty much make any guitar sound like Pearly Gates, I don't like to do that. So the three things I look for in all guitars is a 2 volumes/ 1 tones or 2 volumes/ 2 tones (the second tone is disabled, and left in the guitar for appearances sake), mahogany neck and body, and a 24 3/4 scale length. Call me silly, but that's just how I do it.

You like what you like and I respect that. Sounds like you have a handle on how you prefer your tone and that is as it should be. Very cool indeed.

 

[qaawale]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

Gibson commissions its bridges, tailpieces, and studs from Schaller. That's why a Nashville stud or bushing is going to be 5mm thread.

 

[jmh151]

Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

Gibson commissions its bridges, tailpieces, and studs from Schaller. That's why a Nashville stud or bushing is going to be 5mm thread.

Gibson bridges are no longer Schaller. Now they're made by Advanced Plating in Nashville

 

[Rand-O-Monium]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

I put one of the GFS Brass bridges on my LP,primarily because of the cost & the bridge that was on it was falling apart(it's a '74).

Nothing bad to report...

 

[Progbusters]

Re: Solid Brass as a tuneomatic bridge?

I put the gfs brass tuneomatic and stoptail on my kit V. Sounds thicker and warmer. I like.