Burst Tailpiece Position

[Cream Fan]

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum, but after taking a look at Mike's three bursts in the other thread, I began to wonder if perhaps it's not the tailpiece position that's wrong on an Historic, but the positioning of the pot shafts and hence the knobs? Anyone who owns both Historics and real Bursts ever make comparitive measurments on this? Thanks in advance.

 

[zensurfer]

Compared to a Historic, it seems that it is actually both.
Good call!

 

[Cream Fan]

The reason I pointed this out was in comparing pictures of bursts with my R9 (and I know that's an inexact comparison, at best) it looks to me that the tailpiece is the same, or VERY nearly the same distance away from the bridge on the Bursts and my Historic. Therefore, to move the tailpiece on the Historic so that the center of the studs is on that imaginary line that kisses the front edge of the Neck Volume and the rear edge of the Bridge Volume, would put the tailpiece way too close to the bridge. That's what got me thinking that maybe it's NOT the tailpiece that's off, but the knobs.

I don't know how you would measure this because you would need a point of reference that is common to BOTH guitars and that point would have to be absolutely invariable. Could that be the distance between the end of the pickguard and the Bridge Volume? Maybe, but maybe not, if the sizes of pickguards and their placement vary in the slightest.

 

[Tom Wittrock]

Just take the life size fold out of the Peter Green Burst from VG magazine, and lay it over your re-issue. Look where the various parts line up.

 

[RickN]

Okay, I’ll take a crack at answering this.

First of all, one thing to keep in mind is that the bridge on a Historic is in a slightly different position than a ‘50s bridge – it was minutely repositioned to help with intonation with modern strings. So we’ll talk specifically about the tail piece.

There is a readily reliable measuring point from guitar to guitar – the frets. Not the end of the fingerboard; the frets, so let’s use that. To do this test, I used John Catto’s Les Paul layout plan, and my one remaining Historic Les Paul.

If you measure from the center of the 16th fret to the center line of each of the tail piece studs on a ‘50s Les Paul, the first thing you’ll do is confirm what people have intuitively known for a while: the tail piece on a ’50s Les Paul isn’t straight – it’s not perpendicular to the strings. There’s an offset of 1/16” – meaning the bass side is 1/16” further away from the finger board, or conversely, the treble side is 1/16” closer to the finger board. Using John’s layout plan, the center line bass side tail piece stud is 11 11/32” from the center of the 16th fret. The center line of the treble side tail piece stud is 11 9/32” from the 16th fret.

Do the same measurement on a Historic, and you find that the tail piece is perpendicular to the strings. And it is further away from the finger board than a ’50 Les Paul. On my Historic, the center line of both tail piece studs is 11 15/32” away from the center line of the 16th fret.

So – myth confirmed: The tail piece of a Historic IS in the ‘wrong place’.

Oh, and there is a reliable way to measure the position of the controls for comparison purposes, but that’s not the point of this thread…

 

[erikbojerik]

OK, for you CAD-type thinkers, here are the coordinates from John Catto's plan, taking as the Origin the intersection of the centerline with the top edge of the body (which should be the center of #16 within a few hundredths):

Measurements are in inches:
switch center: (-3.000 , -2.455)
bass TOM post: (-1.479 , -9.955)
treble TOM post: (1.451 , -9.795) (yes, the X is not the same as for the bass side...so shoot me)
bass TP post: (-1.630 , -11.295)
treble TP post: (1.630 , -11.240)
neck pup Vol: (3.062 , -11.719)
neck pup Tone: (3.062 , -14.080)
bridge pup Vol: (4.806 , -10.691)
bridge pup Tone: (4.687 , -13.122)

What do you want to bet that these coodinates vary from Burst to Burst?

To be used for research purposes only, and cheers to John Catto for putting the drawing together. :salude

Meh....edited to make all the Y-coordinates properly negative...unless you want a lefty, that is.

 

[55Custom]

Were the knobs in a different place on vintage LP's, sometime before 1957?

 

[Cream Fan]

The fact that the 50's tailpieces are NOT perpendicular is interesting for a couple of reasons. I did notice this on the burst pictures, but put it down to an optical illusion. Just goes to show that the eye will notice even the most minute discrepancy like that. I also noticed that bridges appeard to be slightly closer to the pickups on the old guitars than on my Historic. I also noticed a lot of saddles on the bridges on those bursts were moved ALL the way back, so it makes sense that Gibson corrected this.

A good question that will probably never be answered is why the tailpieces were NOT placed perpendicular to the strings. After all, once the wraptail ceased to be an actual bridge there was no reason for them not to be straight across, like they did on 60s Juniors with compensated wraptails. Could it be that someone goofed on the original jig starting with the Customs and they figured it was too minor to go about retooling just for a sixteenth of an inch? Or could there actually be a good reason for that offset of 0.0625"? Like I said, we'll likely never find out.

 

[RickN]

A good question that will probably never be answered is why the tailpieces were NOT placed perpendicular to the strings. Could it be that someone goofed on the original jig starting with the Customs and they figured it was too minor to go about retooling just for a sixteenth of an inch?

A goof with the jig is probably the best guess. I don't think that details as small as that were as closely scrutinized then as much as we obsess about them today. There were variations in all kinds of things back then, not just the position of the tail piece - the most obvious being the top carve, sometimes the neck set, the variations on the inside of the control cavities, even the overal thickness of the top. No CNC in those days... :hmm

 

[Mark]

A goof with the jig is probably the best guess. I don't think that details as small as that were as closely scrutinized then as much as we obsess about them today. There were variations in all kinds of things back then, not just the position of the tail piece - the most obvious being the top carve, sometimes the neck set, the variations on the inside of the control cavities, even the overal thickness of the top. No CNC in those days... :hmm

I don't believe it was a goof. I believe they followed the angle of the bridge.

 

[benny]

Gents, Where did you find this John Catto layout? Is it available? Thanks.

benny

 

[RickN]

I don't believe it was a goof. I believe they followed the angle of the bridge.

Probably not. People get way too myopic and mystical about these guitars. (For example, the people who still like to think that there were 'neck' and 'bridge' model PAFs.) Take a step back and look at the bigger picture of Gibson's work. If you look at other guitars that had an ABR and a tail piece of some kind (stop or trapeze), everything else had/has the tail piece straight, not angled to match the bridge. And that's not limited to Gibson, either. It was mostly likely an 'oops', and since this wasn't their top-of-the-line guitar, it wasn't worthwhile to make up a new drilling jig. Notice that when Gibson started making the single-cut Les Paul again and they were tooling up for it, they put the tail piece in the position it was most likely originally intended to be - straight, like all their other guitars... and as it remains to this day.

 

[Tom Wittrock]

People get way too myopic and mystical about these guitars. (For example, the people who still like to think that there were 'neck' and 'bridge' model PAFs.)

But there were!







Once they cut the lead wire. :cool

 

[GastonG]

But there were!







Once they cut the lead wire. :cool

:rofl Thanks Tom, you just put a big smile in my face, it does feel good :jim

Gaston

 

[RickN]

But there were!







Once they cut the lead wire. :cool

Oh, damn! Right again! :salude

 

[benny]

Gents, I did a search and found links to John Catto's plans, but unfortunately, they're dead. Can anyone help with a current link, or be willing to pass along the pdf. plan? Thanks.

Benny

 

[John Catto]

Thanks for the mention guys. This would be the current link

 

[benny]

Thanks for the quick reply. I'd like to model this in ProEngineer.Any comments out there on the discrepencies of various versions such as the Stew-Mac print? Are they all just production variations from model to model/ year to year? This reminds me of my other project, documenting the 289 Shelby Cobra.

Thanks,

Benny

 

[DANELECTRO]

Thanks for the quick reply. I'd like to model this in ProEngineer.Any comments out there on the discrepencies of various versions such as the Stew-Mac print? Are they all just production variations from model to model/ year to year? This reminds me of my other project, documenting the 289 Shelby Cobra.

Benny:

email me at dynasonic@msn.com

 

[doozy]

The reason I pointed this out was in comparing pictures of bursts with my R9 (and I know that's an inexact comparison, at best) it looks to me that the tailpiece is the same, or VERY nearly the same distance away from the bridge on the Bursts and my Historic. Therefore, to move the tailpiece on the Historic so that the center of the studs is on that imaginary line that kisses the front edge of the Neck Volume and the rear edge of the Bridge Volume, would put the tailpiece way too close to the bridge. That's what got me thinking that maybe it's NOT the tailpiece that's off, but the knobs.

I don't know how you would measure this because you would need a point of reference that is common to BOTH guitars and that point would have to be absolutely invariable. Could that be the distance between the end of the pickguard and the Bridge Volume? Maybe, but maybe not, if the sizes of pickguards and their placement vary in the slightest.

Okay, I’ll take a crack at answering this.

First of all, one thing to keep in mind is that the bridge on a Historic is in a slightly different position than a ‘50s bridge – it was minutely repositioned to help with intonation with modern strings. So we’ll talk specifically about the tail piece.

There is a readily reliable measuring point from guitar to guitar – the frets. Not the end of the fingerboard; the frets, so let’s use that. To do this test, I used John Catto’s Les Paul layout plan, and my one remaining Historic Les Paul.

If you measure from the center of the 16th fret to the center line of each of the tail piece studs on a ‘50s Les Paul, the first thing you’ll do is confirm what people have intuitively known for a while: the tail piece on a ’50s Les Paul isn’t straight – it’s not perpendicular to the strings. There’s an offset of 1/16” – meaning the bass side is 1/16” further away from the finger board, or conversely, the treble side is 1/16” closer to the finger board. Using John’s layout plan, the center line bass side tail piece stud is 11 11/32” from the center of the 16th fret. The center line of the treble side tail piece stud is 11 9/32” from the 16th fret.

Do the same measurement on a Historic, and you find that the tail piece is perpendicular to the strings. And it is further away from the finger board than a ’50 Les Paul. On my Historic, the center line of both tail piece studs is 11 15/32” away from the center line of the 16th fret.

So – myth confirmed: The tail piece of a Historic IS in the ‘wrong place’.

Oh, and there is a reliable way to measure the position of the controls for comparison purposes, but that’s not the point of this thread…

Hey just caught this thread after trying to find exact measurements of this tailpiece. Do you by chance have available these plans? I'm trying my hand at a make over on my navigator n-lp.

Thanks

Kev