Question about materials used in the past für ABR1 and Tailpiece

Hey,
I am new to this forum and have a question about the materials they used for all the hardware in the past. I did a lot of research and found out a few things but not everything...


ABR-1 Bridge: Cast from a Zinc/Alloy and nickel plated (without copper under the nickel???)
ABR-1 Saddles: Nickel Plated Brass
ABR-1 Intonation Screws: ??? No information so far? Does anybody know which material they used for the tiny screws?
ABR-1 Studs: Some are saying brass, others steel. But I think they used brass studs in the past, right?
ABR-1 Thumbwheels: Nickel plated brass

Stoptail: Aluminum (molded or casted?)
Stoptail Studs: Cold Rolled Steel (Nickel Plated or without Nickel Plating?)
Stoptail Inserts: Steel


So maybe somebody is able to complete the missing information?
Thanks a lot for your help...

Greetz from Germany
Thomas

QOTSA_Lover said:

Hey,
I am new to this forum and have a question about the materials they used for all the hardware in the past. I did a lot of research and found out a few things but not everything...


ABR-1 Bridge: Cast from a Zinc/Alloy and nickel plated (without copper under the nickel???)
ABR-1 Saddles: Nickel Plated Brass
ABR-1 Intonation Screws: ??? No information so far? Does anybody know which material they used for the tiny screws?
ABR-1 Studs: Some are saying brass, others steel. But I think they used brass studs in the past, right?
ABR-1 Thumbwheels: Nickel plated brass

Stoptail: Aluminum (molded or casted?)
Stoptail Studs: Cold Rolled Steel (Nickel Plated or without Nickel Plating?)
Stoptail Inserts: Steel


So maybe somebody is able to complete the missing information?
Thanks a lot for your help...

Greetz from Germany
Thomas

Click to expand...

Everything you wrote is correct. Also:

Saddle intonation screws are also made of nickel plated brass.
Posts are definitely nickel plated brass.
Studs for tailpiece are nickel plated steel.
Inserts or bushings for tailpiece are zinc plated steel.
ABR-1 body is nickel pllated alloy of Zinc and Aluminum(ZA).

Now, that is what we know already. BUT, there isa part we do not know YET, and that part is at least equally important.

Brass is an alloy. Carbon steel is an alloy, also. ZA (Zinc Aluminum), another alloy. Each of these names represent NOT ONLY A SINGLE ALLOY, EXACT COMPOSITION - they represents VARIOUS ALLOYS - alloys which are all made of same metals but with varying composition, with varying percentage of same metals used for that alloy. Different composition results in different mechanic attributes, and different mechaninc attributes (harder vs softer, generally, is what we are interested in) means different hardness that results in different absorption pattern of strings' vibrations overtones, and that results in different timbre of guitar.

Let's see what that 'same name-different composition' means. Brass is an alloy of Copper and Zinc. Brass can have only 10% of Zinc but can have up to 36% of Zinc, with the rest of composition being (almost only) Copper, in both cases. Both alloys are called and indeed both are brass. BUT brass with 10% Zinc is MUCH SOFTER than brass with 36% Zinc. Now which brass was used for original Gibson hardware? And also - which carbon steel? And then - which ZA?

If you count parts mentioned in your post by material used - there are 4 parts made of brass and 2 made of carbon steel. Is THE SAME BRASS ALLOY used for all 4 parts made of it? And is THE SAME CARBON STEEL ALLOY used for both parts made of it? We do not know.

It has been MORE THAN 50 YEARS since Gibson made the first changes in hardware used on their electric solid bodies and semi hollow guitars - they started using chrome plated tailpiece studs that are made of harder carbon steel than original nickel plated ones. How can we know that without chemical analysis? Chrome plated studs are also 1.5" long and attracted to magnet (carbon steel) BUT they sound obviously thinner and brighter than original nickel plated ones, with less mids and with tighter lows. Harder cabon steel is used for making them, simple as that.

We simply do not know which EXACT alloys were used for original LP hardware. OTOH we do know every single modern reproduction, replica hardware sounds thinner because it is made of harder metal alloys than original hardware.

That is why if you want/need original timbre, timbre of stock original Les Paul guitars your only option is to use original hardware. And at the same time, if you have original '52-'60 Les Paul guitar husk with all the stock pickups and pots, restoring it or making a conversion, and you then naively put modern replica hardware on it, the guitar will surely look like an original but it will have timbre or 'tone' of a regular Gibson Custom Shop product. And we all know it is obviously different timbre. Then someone will play it, believing it is a stock original, and then we will get comment on forums - some 'stock' orignals sound meh. Because it is not stock original. It has fake replica hardware parts that make timbre wrong.

Until someone does make a repro hardware COMPLETELY made of proper original alloys used for original hardware, each and every Les Paul guitar made in this world will not have the timbre of stock originals. The laws of physics, elementary mechanics of the guitar itself, makes sure it will be that way, as it has been exactly that way for 50+ years already. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce 'tone', timbre of originals with wrong hardware, hardware made of harder alloys.

And therefore spending money on original PAFs, original pots and original husk is not a wise choice if the hardware used on such a guitar is not stock original hardware. And it's easy to prove me wrong - if there is ANY Les Paul guitar in the world, just a single replica or Rx that sounds so much alike a STOCK original while having modern hardware that it can be mistaken for an stock original TIMBRE WISE, there has to be AT LEAST ONE clip available on the whole of Internet that demonstrates that someone in this world is the first human who defied the laws of physics on a humble LP repilca/reissue.

There is not such a clip. Because it is physically impossible. Do keep that in mind, as it might save you significant amount of money.

disclaimer: this is intended for those with ears that clearly hear difference in timbre stock originals vs modern replica/reissue timbre. Those who do not hear any significant difference should know that they are right for their own needs and purposes and I will not waste anyone's time trying to prove them wrong.

Re: Question about materials used in the past for ABR1 and Tailpiece

Thank you so much for this.
Very helpful and very interesting.