Has anyone ever seen this pick guard before?

If your interest is in closely matching the color of an ebony fretboard and bridge, and a black pickguard, you could always install one of these (Gibson P-90 w/o cover).

http://www.vintagemandolin.com/55gibson_j160e_w1727-29.html

It seemed to work for John and George... although they played theirs mostly as acoustics!

sailingshoes

hansmoust said:

As far as replacing the current bridge for an ebony one, I can already tell you that the 'old '60s style' bridge has a much larger 'footprint' than the '70s (and later) style ebony bridge, which is much thicker in design, but with a smaller 'footprint'. Making an ebony bridge with the '60s style 'footprint' would be an instant 'tone killer' because of its added mass.

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
www.guitarsgalore.nl

Click to expand...

Damn! But that's why I posted the question. Thanks for the history lesson.

At this point I believe I'm going to hold off on mulling over additional possible solutions to the situation until your book arrives and I've had time to read it. That may well prevent me from wasting additional time on other ideas which might also be dead-end alleys.

On the flip side if I understand you correctly, given
a. that the current bridge has a larger footprint than the factory bridge, and
b. that my current bridge looks to me to be beefier than most 12-string bridges I've seen,

then when I replace this bridge with a less massive one, it sounds like I can expect to hear an improved tone.

Since I'm already very happy with the guitar's current tone, the prospect of both a visual and a tonal improvement is yet another strong incentive to move forward with the work.

sailingshoes72 said:

If your interest is in closely matching the color of an ebony fretboard and bridge, and a black pickguard, you could always install one of these (Gibson P-90 w/o cover).

http://www.vintagemandolin.com/55gibson_j160e_w1727-29.html

It seemed to work for John and George... although they played theirs mostly as acoustics!

sailingshoes

Click to expand...

Hey, thank you for the information! In just a few minutes I was able to track down a bunch of pickup which might work.

Of course, I'm not going to pick one until I've done 2 things:

First, have someone pull up the existing patch to see exactly what size opening we already have in the spruce top. I'm assuming here that when he did that patch years ago that he just covered over the existing opening. Given how slipshod the rest of his work was I highly doubt that he took the time to fill the hole left from the original pickup. My strong guess is that he just slapped that patch over the hole he created by removing the factory pickup.

Second, discuss pickup options with whoever is going to actually do the work.

But seeing all of the pickup options I found today using this new search information makes me feel much better that between us a luthier and I can find a suitable solution to the pickup issue.

My hip replacement went well, except that it's still difficult to sit in a chair long enough to get much done at the computer. But there is one interesting new twist I need to bring up.

First, I did talk with Willy Porter prior to surgery and he confirmed that Denny Rauen was, in fact, the luthier he recommended. I called immediately to set up an appointment, but had to leave a voice mail message. The next morning, though, I had a doctor appointment just a few miles from Denny's shop, so I threw the guitar in the car and decided to just stop in. Denny was not there, but his assistant (apprentice?), Matt, was, and Matt was kind enough to spend 15 - 20 minutes looking over the guitar and discussing options.

One of the first things he did was grab a lighted mirror and looked around the underside of the sitka top. His first question was about the bridge pickup. I looked and, sure enough, a black wire emerged from the sitka top right under the bridge. The wire lead directly to the 1/4" jack I had always used to plug the guitar into an amp, so it now appears that the pickup I was listening to (and disliked) for so many years was NOT the factory neck pickup, but an aftermarket bridge pickup. That immediately brought up an interesting question: when I paid violin-man to remove the neck pickup and pots in '88, why didn't he tell me about the bridge pickup and the fact that the factory pickup was not even hooked up to the output jack? I guess the other possibility is that the bridge pickup is the factory pickup, but then why would someone cut down the fingerboard and install the neck pickup, but then not use it? So it makes the most sense to me to assume the neck pickup was, in fact, the factory pickup.

If that's true, it helps to explain why there was a new, larger bridge on the guitar when I got it. The first owner apparently wanted a bridge pickup, and, while I'm not a luthier, I assume that meant he had to put on a new bridge, too.

Anyway, Matt looked closely along the edges of the new bridge and advised strongly against trying to go back to a smaller footprint bridge. He said it was nearly certain that a smaller bridge would have a "halo" of damaged sitka all of the way around it - unless I wanted to replace the top, too.

If true, and given that the bridge appears to be in good shape, is there a reason to replace it if I can't go back to something smaller - closer to the original? Is the existence of the bridge pickup - which I never plan to use - costing me any sound quality? If so, might there be a good argument for going to a new bridge of the same footprint, but with less bulk than this one? Matt gave me what seemed like a very reasonable estimate to replace the bridge and deal with the small amount of existing bow in the top, but is bridge replacement a good use of my money, or should I just go after the playability issues and leave things like the bridge and bridge pickup alone?

It's getting too painful to sit any longer, so I'll quit for tonight and pick up with his comments regarding the existing pickguard and saddle tomorrow.

I'd keep the current bridge on it, and work on the other playability/cosmetic issues. If you don't plan to use the under saddle pickup, it is a simple, inexpensive ($50?) "fix" to remove it and have a new bone saddle made (taller, to compensate for removing the thickness of the pickup).

PH_Graphics said:

My hip replacement went well, except that it's still difficult to sit in a chair long enough to get much done at the computer.

Click to expand...

Bess wishes for continued improvement and thanks for keeping us up to date!

PH_Graphics said:

[/I] I guess the other possibility is that the bridge pickup is the factory pickup, but then why would someone cut down the fingerboard and install the neck pickup, but then not use it? So it makes the most sense to me to assume the neck pickup was, in fact, the factory pickup.

Click to expand...

I doubt very much the UST was from the factory, the neck pickup was a known Guild construction technique, and did UST's even exist in '76?

PH_Graphics said:

Is the existence of the bridge pickup - which I never plan to use - costing me any sound quality?

Click to expand...

Technically there's always some loss of vibration as it goes through the UST but it may not even be audible depending on the specific instrument.
I agree with Gardman that simply replacing the saddle is the best and most economical way to ensure you're getting optimal transmission of string energy into the bridge/bridgeplate/top.

GardMan said:

I'd keep the current bridge on it, and work on the other playability/cosmetic issues. If you don't plan to use the under saddle pickup, it is a simple, inexpensive ($50?) "fix" to remove it and have a new bone saddle made (taller, to compensate for removing the thickness of the pickup).

Click to expand...

I never finished, but I’ve completed about 40% of the course requirements for a master’s degree in architecture, so I’m capable of doing fairly complex analysis of things like force vectors, load bearing and load transfers when necessary. For some reason I’ve never applied that line of thinking to my guitar. It had always been good enough for me to know that if I plucked a specific string at a specific fret with a specific amount of force, a specific sound would be created. I never thought much beyond that.

Lately, though, I’ve been turning more and more to my engineering problem-solver background to think through some of the issues with this guitar. With that as background, I’d like feedback on a new theory I’ve come up with since finding out that I have an under-saddle pickup. First, I need to say that I’ve long believed the saddle on this guitar to have been a poor fit. It’s thinner than the slot it sits in, so it learns significantly toward the nut. In addition to being too thin, I’m not sure it’s a bone saddle, as it not only leans toward the nut but actually bends at the top (particularly under the bass strings) in the direction of the nut. It’s very difficult to capture in a photo, but here is my best effort from this morning. Be assured that both the lean and the bend are much more pronounced in reality than they appear here.


Since we can think of load and vibration as fundamentally the same thing (vibration is just a dynamically variable load once that vibration hits something solid), in theory the most efficient transfer of vibration from the string to the sound board would be through a saddle which
• Is dense and rigid, and
• Presents a maximum surface area in direct, solid contact with the sound board, and
• Sits at an angle relative to the sound board such that 100% of the vector forces from the string pass down through the centerline of the saddle. That is, none of the downforce is transferred either forward or backward into the walls of the slot the saddle sits in. (I’d have to do some math to confirm this, but my intuition says that that angle would be a slight tilt – maybe 2 to 4 degrees? - away from the nut.)

If the above is true, then my current saddle fails badly on all three counts.

So maybe my first step should be to have a new saddle made and try it with the under saddle pickup. My old opinion that the amplified sound was terrible, it now seems to me, might in large part be a function of the current saddle, not necessarily the electronics. A new saddle providing a more efficient and direct transfer of vibration to the pickup element might be such a large improvement that I’d no longer hate - or might even like - the amplified sound. It’s a fairly inexpensive change I’m reasonably sure I could do myself. If it works, great. If not, at least I haven’t made a major change which will need to be undone at some point by a trained professional. Yes, if I still don't like the amplified sound I'll need a new, taller saddle when I have the pickup element removed, but this seems to be an inexpensive and simple experiment with a fairly major payoff if the new amplified sound is significantly improved.

There are any number of places out there where I can buy a saddle, but what is the consensus here on the forum? Do Hans, Chris, Tom and/or other forum members make and sell saddles? If so, are any of you interested in making one for this 412? If no forum members routinely make and sell saddles, I guess I can just go back to Denny Rauen for that, but I’d prefer a Guild specialist, if possible. I assume bone is the top choice, though I would not be surprised to find that there are varying grades and types of bone, so I’d appreciate feedback on that as well as on the issue of compensated vs. uncompensated saddles.

Finally, I bought a lighted mirror the other day and it looks as though my bridge plate on the underside of the sound board is not tightly glued to the sound board, at least along the edge I can easily see. Is that typical or another problem to be addressed?

PH_Graphics said:

If the above is true, then my current saddle fails badly on all three counts.

Click to expand...

That corresponds to everything I remember learning here over the years, (with the exception of possible "ideal tilt angle" of saddle: when that's come up before, one concern has been how it might affect intonation, bu what you're describing is so slight it might be negligible), so, "yes".
That saddle could be the original micarta that Guild used in Westerly and the slot may have been widened to accept the UST

PH_Graphics said:

Yes, if I still don't like the amplified sound I'll need a new, taller saddle when I have the pickup element removed, but this seems to be an inexpensive and simple experiment with a fairly major payoff if the new amplified sound is significantly improved.
There are any number of places out there where I can buy a saddle, but what is the consensus here on the forum?

Click to expand...

Although I have no personal experience with him, Bob Colosi gets frequent accolades here (specializes in saddles and bridge pins) and members Fixit and Chris Seeger might be good sources as well, both having worked at Guild at different times.
Theoretically bone or even fossilized ivory would be superior to micarta for vibration transmission, but it's possible for bone to have voids in it that make it possible for an individual piece to be sub-par. The primary reason (we think) Westerly used micarta (after cost) was for consistency, but New Hartford did use bone even with UST's.

PH_Graphics said:

Finally, I bought a lighted mirror the other day and it looks as though my bridge plate on the underside of the sound board is not tightly glued to the sound board, at least along the edge I can easily see. Is that typical or another problem to be addressed?

Click to expand...

I don't recall seeing that problem before, and while I'm not positive, I do believe that's sub-optimal for getting energy from the bridge into the top.
I'd bet Gardman can give you definitive answer.

The bridgeplate should, indeed, be securely glued to the underside of the soundboard. This would have a dramatic effect on the transfer (or lack) of the kinetic energy generated by plucked strings across the saddle, down through the bridge and across the soundboard.

As you have identified, the saddle should be dense and rigid. It does not need to be absorbing energy. Bone is a good choice, though there are varying qualities of bone. Age and species of bone have significantly less impact on the sonic capabilities of a given bone nut or saddle than do soft pockets within the natural material itself. Sadly, these flaws are often discovered through trial and error. The synthetic material TUSQ was developed as a bone alternative to address this very issue and, thus, is very consistent in it's performance. I am not suggesting one material over the other. I prefer bone, but then, if I don't like the sound of a saddle (if I can attribute one or more strings sounding *dead* to that particular saddle), I simply make another one.

The (ever-so-slight) forward tilt of a saddle is inevitable, though it should be greatly reduced by sizing a saddle to properly fit the width of the saddle slot. And then, yes, there *is* pressure on the front wall of the saddle slot. That is not a bad thing, not if the saddle seats snugly. A loose fitting saddle is often to blame for a split bridge. A 12 string can easily exert 200 lbs of pressure on that bridge. You can imagine the possibilities.

Ideally, the saddle slot should have a perfectly flat bottom that mates with the perfectly flat bottom of the saddle. It is extremely difficult to guarantee perfect surface-to-surface mating in the real world. To that end, some luthiers prefer to add a slight bevel to the bottom of the saddle in the way you had indicated, anticipating a slight forward tilt. Others prefer to slightly radius the leading and trailing edges of the bottom of the saddle allowing the saddle to *rock* while still maintaining contact.

At this point, let me mention the Under Saddle Transducer, which ends up *pinched* between the saddle and the bridge. Good contact maximizes the output for a given UST. Ribbons of piezo crystals are not all created equal, and wear and tear can necessitate their replacement.

The radius approach to saddle fitting is recommended by most (if not all) under saddle transducer manufacturers, as it typically allows for maximum contact under varying conditions.

Were it me, I would *carefully* remove and inspect that bridgeplate and the underside of the soundboard, first. I have some suspicion regarding the over-sized bridge, and looking beneath it is a great place to start deducing what inspired the effort. I would replace the bridgeplate with an appropriately sizes piece of maple, and ensure it was properly glued in place. At that point I would listen to the guitar (just 'cause that's the kind of guy I am). I would then make a new bone saddle to fit and test it with the pickup. Note that this could involve filling the existing slot with rosewood, rosewood dust and glue and re-cutting that slot. I would (most likely) end up replacing the pickup, at some point.

After all is said and done I imagine your guitar will sound like you had hoped it would.

A very good answer from Christopher, who knows a lot more about these things than I.

A couple of comments on the bridge plate and bridge:
Although it is my understanding that most of the vibration energy transmitted to the top is through the downward forces on the saddle, I can't imagine that bridge plate securely anchoring the strings so that all the energy is transmitted thru the saddle. I do wonder WHY the bridge plate is lifting, and can come up with a couple of possibilities...

(1) There have been reports that during the early years of Westerly, some bridge plates were not secured as well as they should be, and could loosen (or be very easily removed). If not well attached, it might have curled with the grain;


(2) When the bridge was replaced (which requires heating the bridge area), the glue holding the bridge plate was also compromised, allowing the plate to lift (maybe curling with the grain?);

(3) The bridge plate was also replaced during the bridge replacement, and the new plate wasn't well glued. I can't discriminate between these causes from the picture, but I am surprised at the appearance of bridge plate... looks like a considerable amount of glue, either squeeze out or running thru the pin/UST lead holes during the bridge replacement.

I certainly would plan on regluing, if not replacing entirely, the bridge plate. I have always heard removing a bridge plate thru the soundhole can be tricky... but yours looks like it's already loose. IF you opt for a replacement, Frank Ford recommends running the grain of the bridge plate at an angle between the grain of the soundboard and pin holes, to help prevent splitting of the plate along the pin holes.

Re: the bridge... It may just be a shadow from the lighting, but it looks like the saddle is WAY thin relative to the saddle slot. The saddle should not be a super tight fit, but I have always read that it should be fit so that it does not fall out if the unstrung guitar is turned upside down. The other thing I noticed is that it appears the outboard treble string is about to roll off the end of the saddle... it looks really precarious to me. The new saddle needs to be less rounded at the end, or the saddle slot needs to be routed so that a slightly longer saddle can be fit.

I have used Colosi's pre-shaped Martin saddles in my Guild six strings... he gives very good instructions on how to fit them. I wouldn't be surprised if they would be long enough for a 12er... I have to trim them to length for a Guild six string. But they might not be properly compensated. Lately, I have made my own bone saddles from blanks from StewMac.

Good luck!

GardMan said:

...Although it is my understanding that most of the vibration energy transmitted to the top is through the downward forces on the saddle, I can't imagine that bridge plate securely anchoring the strings so that all the energy is transmitted thru the saddle.

Click to expand...

I could have been clearer and added, 'A loose bridgeplate is going to affect the acoustic output of the guitar similar to the effect a tear in the paper cone of a woofer affects it's performance. String energy *should* translate into lovely soundwaves that wash across the soundboard of the guitar, hit the edge binding (which act like the walls of the side of the pool) and ripple back towards the soundhole. *Instead*, string energy goes spilling out into the air, fluttering off the edges of that dastardly bridgeplate.'

GardMan said:

...I do wonder WHY the bridge plate is lifting...(1) If not well attached, it might have curled with the grain;(2) When the bridge was replaced (which requires heating the bridge area), the glue holding the bridge plate was also compromised, allowing the plate to lift (maybe curling with the grain?); and (3) The bridge plate was also replaced during the bridge replacement, and the new plate wasn't well glued...

Click to expand...

Well said, I agree completely. It was one of the three.

Christopher Cozad said:

The bridgeplate should, indeed, be securely glued to the underside of the soundboard. This would have a dramatic effect on the transfer (or lack) of the kinetic energy generated by plucked strings across the saddle, down through the bridge and across the soundboard.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Christopher and Gardman for the well thought-out and articulated responses. When I first saw that loose edge I could not come up with any likely scenario in which it was a good thing, but I've always preferred to run my intuitive responses to things like that past people who know far more about the details of the situation than I do.

I feel as thought I've gathered enough information now to write out a first draft of my game plan for the repairs. I'm going to do that later tonight and sleep on it before posting it and seeing if it makes sense to others, too.

Before I do that, however, I'd like to open up a side dialog. In earlier posts I've alluded to the increased difficulties I'm having with my fingers and have mentioned that fixing up the 412 might be a precursor to selling it to buy an easier to play guitar. Up until now I've always believed that new guitar would be a vintage F-50 because I love the look of the bird's eye maple and because I'm used to (and very fond of) the sound of the Guild archback jumbo maples.

Lately, though, another guitar has caught my attention. I'd love to hear the opinions of anyone who's played (or even listened to) a Doyle Dykes DD-6MCE. The more I look at it the more advantages it appears to have in my specific situation over an F-50. Those advantages include:

SHAPE/SIZE. I'm not a big guy (5' 10" & 165 lbs.), so the jumbo body of the 412 can become cumbersome - especially towards the end of long playing sessions. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think the upper and lower bouts of the DD are each about 1" narrower than the 412, and the body is about 1.5" thinner. The DD is overall about 1" shorter. But with the narrow waist it's a guitar which looks and, I'm guessing, will feel and sound similar to the the jumbo body, but with the slightly smaller size it should be somewhat easier to play.

LOOKS. I'll readily admit that one of the main reason I purchased my F-412 is that I thought my particular guitar has the most beautiful curly maple grain I've ever seen on any guitar anywhere. Granted, I've only seen photos of some DD models - never seen one in person -- but the big-leaf quilted maple grain patterns I've seen on a few DD-6MCE's have quite simply blown me away. I know the grain patterns will vary considerably from guitar to guitar, so I'd need to see detailed photos or videos of any guitar I was considering buying, but as a professional photographer I'm not at all ashamed to admit that shear visual beauty is a huge factor in my enjoyment of any possession I'm going to be spending a lot of time looking at.

OTHER SPECS. The nut width of 1.75" is either the same as or only 1/16 of an inch narrower than the 412, so an adjustment to the new sting spacing will be either unnecessary or extremely quick. Also, in previous posts I've mentioned that I equate visual simplicity with elegance, so to me the lack of a pick guard is a plus. About once a year I notice the picks in my case and decide it's time for me to learn to use them. That urge usually lasts from 15 to 20 minutes before I put the picks back into my case for another year. Since I have no need for a pick guard my strong visual preference is not to have one.

TRIM. Before starting my own business - back when I had both the necessary time and tools -- I did a lot of fine carpentry work. Mainly music boxes, jewelry boxes and other personal keepsakes. I was particularly proud of the inlay work I did. I wasn't fast, but I was pretty good and still appreciate to this day inlay work which is done well. The Guild DD's seem to fit into that category. I know that sort of bling is not to everyone's liking, and I understand and respect that feeling completely. All I can say in my defense is that self-knowledge is a good thing, and I know that I'm personally very attracted to inlay work done well. In addition, the rose inlays on the bridge would have some personal meaning, as Rose was my mother's middle name and my mother-in-law's first name.

MAINTENANCE. Given the relatively young age of any DD I'd buy, all of the playability and repair issues I'm currently facing with my 412 -- and might face with a vintage F50 -- should be many, many years down the road.

SOUND. I've always loved the sound of my 412. I'm finding out lately that with issues such as the oversized bridge, loose bridge plate, poor saddle, etc that sound is probably nowhere near as good as it should (and soon will) be. I can't imagine the sound quality of a DD will be any worse than what's currently coming out of my 412. But will a DD sound as good as a well-maintained vintage F-50?B] In large part, that's the question I'm putting on the table here.

I'll post my thoughts on where I plan to start and how much I'm planning to tackle on the 412 later today.

If you want to know about the DD-6MCE you need to contact dapmdave here on the forum. He owns both the Maple and Rosewood versions of that guitar and from what I have read is very satisfied with all aspects of them. I believe we also have a member who owns the 12 string version of the Doyle Dykes model as well. Can't recall exactly who has it but hopefully they will chime in on that one as well. I have heard nothing but Glowing reviews of the Doyle Dykes models and if Doyle approved of them, you now they have to be equal with the highest standards in the business. Best of luck on your Guild journey!

TX

Christopher Cozad said:

Instead*, string energy goes spilling out into the air, fluttering off the edges of that dastardly bridgeplate.'

Click to expand...

"...and into the deep dark sacrificial pool of sonic be-mufflement".
I'm sorry, but given an opportunity like that, I just couldn't resist.

adorshki said:

"...sonic be-mufflement"...

Click to expand...

Too funny, Al. I will use that, someday, I promise.

F612?

TX,

In your list of guitars I see a 1971 F612. I've never heard of an F612, and it's not listed (that I can see) anywhere in the "History of Your Guild" serial number PDF on the Guild website. Is there written information about that model anywhere? If not, do you have the time to give me a Reader's Digest version of the differences between that and, say, the F412 and F512? I'm just interested in learning all I can about the F line of Guild 12's. Thanks.

adorshki said:

"...and into the deep dark sacrificial pool of sonic be-mufflement"....

Click to expand...

Al,

More appropriate right now than you can imagine. Ever since starring the morphine I've been bothered by a general sense of overall cognitive "be-mufflement", though I did not have the vocabulary to express that until you created it yesterday. Well done.

I know stopping the morphine will end the cognitive be-mufflement. If only the sonic be-mufflement were as easily addressed ....... (Maybe I could take a few of the morphine tablets and shove them under the bridge plate? That could improve the contact between the bridge plate and the sound board. Just a thought.

PH_Graphics said:

...a Reader's Digest version of the differences between that and, say, the F412 and F512?...

Click to expand...

F-412: 17" Archback Maple jumbo 12 string, sounds very bright and chime-y

F-512: 17" Rosewood jumbo 12 string, sounds lush and orchestral

F-612: 18" Rosewood super jumbo 12 string, some say sounds like a chorus of angels (I will leave it to Tx to confirm)

PH_Graphics said:

Al,

More appropriate right now than you can imagine. Ever since starring the morphine I've been bothered by a general sense of overall cognitive "be-mufflement", though I did not have the vocabulary to express that until you created it yesterday. Well done.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm both humbled and sincerely flattered. Always hoping a little laughter will be somebody's best medicine at that moment.
Hate to steal Txbumper's thunder but to add to what Christopher said about F612's, they also had an unusual scale length of over 26", special ornamentation in the fretboard and special binding and were "special order only".
John Denver was known to have had at least one.
They're kind of a "Holy Grail" of Guilds around here, and I think there were only about 15 made, but I think TXbumper knows for sure.

adorshki said:

They're kind of a "Holy Grail" of Guilds around here, and I think there were only about 15 made, but I think TXbumper knows for sure.

Click to expand...

Sure sounds like a magnificent instrument. I'd love to hear one. Are there any known (good) recordings on the internet - youtube or elsewhere?