I would like your experience-based opinions on...

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
..the Guild "Muller" type bridges found on some JS-2s:



•Ease/effectiveness of use in setting intonation and string height?

•Effect on tone vs. "Harp" style bridges (when either is used on JS-2)?

I ask because I only have experience with Harps and that pertains only to use on SFs.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
your experience-based opinions

You take away all of the fun, don't you.

Some JS basses with similar bridges actually have aftermarket replacements. The factory version, which I'm pretty sure is what you pictured, was also used on post JS Guilds (i.e. Guild B-30x) so you may glean some of what you want from folks with that model.

I cannot think of a single instance where the harp bridge on my Starfire "behaves" differently than the harp bridge on my JS II. Indeed I recall swapping saddles between basses while I waited for a replacement. So your harp experience should generalize, IMO.

I am not much of a tinkerer so the 'effect on tone' question isn't really of interest to me. But if it were and no one else chimed in and threw the BS flag at me, I'd speculate that changing the bridge had a similar effect on tone as changing the saddles to metal ones, on a harp bridge. The latter has been been done on Starfires and reported here.

If I were trying to change the tone on a JS with humbuckers I would remove the deep/hard circuitry nd expect that to have a much more noticeable impact than a bridge sway.

How's that for a wall of text that might bear on the question but absolutely does not answer it? :)
 

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
"You take away all of the fun, don't you."

No worries, Frono: your wild speculations are welcome. :wink: I switched from guitar to bass pretty late in the game, so most of you who come here probably have far more "bass-based" experience than I do, especially when it comes to Guilds.

I don't have my sights on a specific purchase or anything: just idle curiosity for possible future reference.

I will probably pick up a JS2 at some point if I happen to run into one in decent condition, but most of the ones I've seen lately have been pretty beat. I'm pretty fastidious and not at all into the whole notion of instruments exuding "mojo" just because they are battered. So I'm kinda holding out for one that doesn't appear to have been attacked with a pen knife and a wood rasp and then beaten with a length of chain.

Was just wondering if the Muller type bridges were something to shy away from or not. I've looked at a bunch of Gibson SGs and EB3s but (A)-don't care for the Gibson necks as much as Guild's, with their 1.50" nut and narrower string spacing. Many of the single-pup EB-Os seem (in general) to have narrower necks but the 2-pup EB3s and SGs tend to be wider at the nut (B)-have heard that the Guild humbuckers offer better clarity and definition than the "mudbucker"/"sidewinder" combo and (C)-am pretty spooked by the Gibson 3-point bridge, which sounds like a pain to set up and (so I've heard) sometimes has issues with stud inserts working loose. I know the they replaced the 3-pointers with Babicz "full-contact" bridges on SG Basses starting in 2015, but that doesn't address issues (A) or (B) above. In addition, I'm pretty sure that all of the Babicz-bridged SGs sport trapezoid neck inlays and I much prefer dots (yeah, I know: "picky-picky").

"I'd speculate that changing the bridge had a similar effect on tone as changing the saddles to metal ones, on a harp bridge".

I have brass saddles on an NS SF-II and rosewood on an NS SF-I (both harps) and have come to the conclusion that any differences are fairly nuanced. Of course, a more "scientific" comparison would involve swapping the saddles in and out on the same bass (to eliminate other variables) which I haven't done.

Anyhow, thanks for your thoughts.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
I can't tell any significant difference in the neck on my '67 Starfire, '71 JS II or '14 Starfire. They are either the same or my hand and style are not advanced enough to know the difference.

My recollection is that the non-harp bridge is going to be fairly rare on JS basses. Towards the end of the run '76 or '77 Guild was mixing and matching furniture on JS bodies and some got a non-harp bridge. But unless you already have a line on one with a non-hard bridge I suspect it will take time, patience and luck to find one and you will pass on several harp bridge equipped JS's while looking. So the non harp bridge might actually be something to collect and not avoid.

I don't play guitar but I get the impression that guitarists worry a lot more about bridges than bassists do. The last time I needed to mess with a bass bridge was when I put new saddles on a harp. Every other bass either came with acceptable action and intonation from a previous owner or was set up by a shop (or the builder). So as long as I know how to make adjustments I'm not especially concerned with adjustments that I will only make every few years.

I think mgod has harps on most of his instruments that came with them. That suggests to me that a harp might be "good enough".
 

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
I have no complaints about harps, and wouldn't pass on a JS-2 that was in nice condition and had one on it. Not having had any experience with JS-2s, I had no idea how common the non-harp bridges are on them or how likely it would be for me to encounter one.

I do think that they look pretty cool on a JS, so wondered what the consensus was on them, function-wise, "just in case" I run across a "contender" that's equipped with one. Sounds like they at least aren't as widely despised as the infamous Gibson 3-point bass bridge seems to be.
 

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
I really wish Guild had re-popped the JS-2 instead of the M-85 for the NS series, especially since they didn't ever expand the color selection of the NS M-85. Seems pretty unlikely that they will ever offer an NS JS-2 now. Guitar companies really can't afford missteps when trying to appeal to today's shrinking musical instrument consumer base. Guild electrics seem to have always been something of a niche market when compared to Fender and Gibson, so the challenges for their product planners in today's tough market must appear daunting indeed.
 

mellowgerman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
4,100
Reaction score
1,506
Location
Orlando, FL
Over the years I've briefly played a few Guilds with Muller bridges... For the most part I remember enjoying the basses and don't recall taking note of the bridge much. I'm assuming they do fine if the bass is well-maintained, but in the scenario of one of these basses being a keeper, I would likely end up looking into a replacement bridge since individual string height is not adjustable. Mechanically I guess you could say it has one extra point of adjustment over the old harp bridges, but the rosewood saddles have a whole lot of room for minor woodworking to adjust individual height.
At risk of veering, but in somewhat related discussion, a few years ago my main bass was an Epi Jack Casady signature with the classic 3-point Gibson style bridge. I loved that bass but one thing that did bother me was a string-to-string output/resonance issue; A and D strings sounded noticeably thinner/weaker than E and G. After doing a bunch of tinkering, swapping out strings, etc. I assumed it was a design error with the pickup's flat face (without any adjustable pole pieces) not accommodating the fretboard radius and corresponding arch in the bridge saddles. With the help of some slight compression though, I was able to live with it. However, after a few weeks, I opted to replace the stock bridge with a Hipshot Supertone for the sake of individual adjustment. I never bought the high-mass bridge argument, but noticed immediately that the string-to-string output issues I was experiencing were solved. My conclusion was that, at least on my Casady bass, the 3-point bridge's main points of transfer for string vibrations had to be the two larger outside posts, which are far away from the middle two strings. The Hipshot Supertone is designed so that there is much more contact between bridge and body and it is more evenly distributed. I wonder if I would find myself having similar complaints/suspicions with the Muller bridge if I spent more time with one of these basses...
 
Last edited:

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
Interesting observations, mellowgerman.

So does the Muller sit slightly off the surface of the wood (and only contact the mounting stud bushings)? Now that I look at it more closely, that appears to be the case. I had previously assumed that the base of the bridge sits sits flush on the bass body. If there is an air gap between the Muller and the wood, I would think that your experiences with your Casady might very well pertain.

R.e. lack of individual string height adjustability: does that small machine screw between the A & D strings raise/lower the entire bridge, or what? Or is that just more of a "stop" to stabilize the front edge of the bridge and prevent it from rocking once the desired, overall height is set by raising/lowering the studs? It looks like the Muller does allow for minor string-spacing tweaks, sort of like the Gretsch "Space Control" bridges. And I should think that having the little rollers for string saddles would facilitate smooth tuning.

 

mavuser

Enlightened Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
8,128
Reaction score
2,636
Location
New York
the rosewood saddles give u that warmer, mellower tone. those rw saddles, and the harp bridge (and the straight pre-harp bridge) are alot more adjustable than the Mueller bridge, on several levels- a little too much for some people, or on some basses. personally, i like the rw saddles and the adjustable bridge (but i try not too adjust it too much, or never at all).

the 90s SF bass has a harp bridge with brass saddles and refined/reissued Guild humbuckers, with a 1/4" skinnier semihollow body than 60/70s. that package gets the job done. but there was no JS reissue in the 90s. and overall my first choice would be the rw saddles, i think thats a big part of the tone.

If you are in the market for a JS-II id sell one of my two 1970 models w Hagstrom Bisonic in the neck and Hagstrom mini hum in the bridge. no pressure at all but hit me up if interested. i'll be selling one of those soon, definitely in 2018.
 

mellowgerman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
4,100
Reaction score
1,506
Location
Orlando, FL
Minnesota, yeah, it's lifted off of the body by the posts. I think the little post in the middle functions just like the little one on the 3-point Gibson design... a bit of tilt-adjustment.
And if I remember correctly, I believe you're right about the saddles. They adjust side-to-side for spacing adjustment, which is a nice feature, but individual height adjustment would be more useful IMO
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
I really wish Guild had re-popped the JS-2 instead of the M-85 for the NS series

The hollow pre-1972 M85 always had a cult following and a grail vibe. There weren't many made, they didn't hit the market often, they sold fast and commanded $500 to $1000 more than the equivalent Starfire. You can't say anything similar about the JS. So if you are asking what to make next and taking your cue from the vintage market the M85 looks like a better bet.

I don't know whether more finish options will be offered or whether sales are low enough that black will be it. It took a while to get colors for Starfires so...

The S-100 was anecdotally the least successful of the initial NS models. That might make the corresponding bass (the JS) seem like a bad choice. It may also be that they would have to reverse engineer the humbucker which would only be used on one bass model. That said if they were aware of the early JS models they could re-imagine a JS II with the Guild Bisonic and have a pretty slick bass.
 

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
"That said if they were aware of the early JS models they could re-imagine a JS II with the Guild Bisonic and have a pretty slick bass."

That would be cool.
 

Happy Face

Justified Ancient of MuMu
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
239
I found the Starfire shape awkward and so opted for a Darkstar-equipped JS-II. It's been a fine gigging bass.

(a beater which I had refinished when the D-stars went in.)
 

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
"The S-100 [Polara] was anecdotally the least successful of the initial NS models. That might make the corresponding bass (the JS) seem like a bad choice. It may also be that they would have to reverse engineer the humbucker which would only be used on one bass model. That said if they were aware of the early JS models they could re-imagine a JS II with the Guild Bisonic and have a pretty slick bass."

I agree 100% with the italicized portion of the quote. And if the S-100 body "blanks" are identical in size to that of a JS-II, why not route and drill a few of them for use as such to "test the waters"? You're already producing Bi-Sonics and SS necks for the SF and M85 series, so it would seem that a run of JS-IIs could be done fairly easily or, at least without having to start over from scratch.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
And if the S-100 body "blanks" are identical in size to that of a JS-II, why not route and drill a few of them for use as such to "test the waters"?
I actually don't know, but I have a suspicion that those contract manufacturers don't operate on that model.
I'd be pretty surprised if there are any "body blanks" lying around, tying up storage space and costing $ in inventory control tracking, but I could be dead wrong.
It's just that that capability in a small volume environment (or a maker-owned plant) was what made Guild able to produce so much variety, but it's counter-productive in a high-volume sub-contracted manufacturing environment.
They're not just building for Cordoba-Guild but a variety of other makers, and I suspect the "prototype shop" is geared towards first article/QC-approval type samples for the brand-name owner's approval before a specific number of instruments gets ordered.
Besides the labor it's another way overall costs are kept down, there's no unsold inventory or surplus parts being carried except by the brand-name owner.
I'm open to other evidence, it's just something that's been dawning on me recently about the differences between a dedicated manufacturer's plant and a contract manufacturing operation.
And while thinking about it, IF Cordoba is actually paying 'em to store unused body blanks, then they'd be the ones to tell 'em to pull x number of them to cook up some samples according to the specs Cordoba would send them.....which would also mean sourcing the bisonics to go in them...the possibilities to spend more money are endless... :biggrin_new:
 
Last edited:

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
"I'd be pretty surprised if there are any "body blanks" lying around, tying up storage space and costing $ in inventory control tracking, but I could be dead wrong."

I may have phrased that poorly. I didn't mean to imply that they have stacks of Polara bodies laying around, backed up because sales of that guitar model may have been low: I, too, would tend to doubt that. What I meant was, they already have something set up the produce bodies of appropriate shape and size. If that is the case, my guess is that to be used as JS-II bodies (instead of as Polara bodies), they would mainly just need to be drilled differently for bridge and PUP type/placement. But I could be wrong about that: my detailed knowledge of the current production environment is all but non-existent. And as I have never owned a Polara or a JS-II, I'm not sure that their bodies are the same size.

"...which would also mean sourcing the bisonics to go in them..."

Not sure why that would be a big issue issue: all the other basses they are already building are loaded with those pups. But yes: that would definitely pertain if they wanted to load them with Guild humbuckers.

And while we're wishing on a star: can we PLEASE paint the M85s some color other than BLACK? Trans red or sunburst finish options would go a LONG way towards increasing the appeal of that model, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
"The S-100 [Polara] was anecdotally the least successful of the initial NS models. That might make the corresponding bass (the JS) seem like a bad choice. It may also be that they would have to reverse engineer the humbucker which would only be used on one bass model. That said if they were aware of the early JS models they could re-imagine a JS II with the Guild Bisonic and have a pretty slick bass."

I agree 100% with the italicized portion of the quote. And if the S-100 body "blanks" are identical in size to that of a JS-II, why not route and drill a few of them for use as such to "test the waters"? You're already producing Bi-Sonics and SS necks for the SF and M85 series, so it would seem that a run of JS-IIs could be done fairly easily or, at least without having to start over from scratch.

I thought of that as well but I don't know how trivial that would be given that the Guilds are made under contract. I don't know what a minimum order would be and just where the financial risks would be. On my JS the grain is slightly visible and the neck and the body came from similar wood. I don't know whether that means you would want to drop on a SF or M85 neck or not.

I vaguely remember some discussion that one of the new NS solid bodies was made in China, not Korea. If that is true and indicates a shift in production location it may be that the necessary parts won't be at the same factory.

But yeah. If a JS II with DarkStars is good enough for Happy Face then the admiring masses need a NS JS II with Guild Bisonics. I wonder if Happy Face has a secret admirer who is a candidate for Make-A-Wish?
 

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
"I vaguely remember some discussion that one of the new NS solid bodies was made in China, not Korea."

If true, that would be a sad day. Since this is not an appropriate place to discuss geopolitics, I won't go into why I feel that way. I'll just say that I don't buy MIC anything if I can avoid doing so.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
"I'd be pretty surprised if there are any "body blanks" lying around, tying up storage space and costing $ in inventory control tracking, but I could be dead wrong."

I may have phrased that poorly. I didn't mean to imply that they have stacks of Polara bodies laying around, backed up because sales of that guitar model may have been low: I, too, would tend to doubt that. What I meant was, they already have something set up the produce bodies of appropriate shape and size. If that is the case, my guess is that to be used as JS-II bodies (instead of as Polara bodies), they would mainly just need to be drilled differently for bridge and PUP type/placement. But I could be wrong about that: my detailed knowledge of the current production environment is all but non-existent. And as I have never owned a Polara or a JS-II, I'm not sure that their bodies are the same size.
Got it. Yes I'm sure they'd at least have the specs on hand to shape a body if the request for a prototype(s) came in (assuming they're NOT the possible MIC -sourced body Frono mentioned).
I think the bodies are the same size, but the neck and other stuff, "what Frono said".
And my bad for confusing the pickup to be used.
I have a suspicion Ralf (SFIV1967) would have some concrete information about how things are done, in terms of whether any brand/model-specific parts are stocked, or only produced when an order is placed or not.
It might help us understand why some of the changes seem arbitrary and why maybe certain "batches" contain a consistent flaw that's corrected later.
 

bassman10096

Junior Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
86
Reaction score
26
I found the Starfire shape awkward and so opted for a Darkstar-equipped JS-II. It's been a fine gigging bass.

(a beater which I had refinished when the D-stars went in.)

I had sort of the opposite experience: First, I acquired an Oak leaf and acorn JSII that sported a pair of Dark Stars. Great, lightweight, easy to handle bass (did I mention great sound?). Then I finally found just the right NS Starfire, equipped with Curtis Novak Bisonics and the "new style" (Dearmond with metal saddles and screw adjustment) harp bridge (best intonation I've ever gotten on a Guild bass). I like the Starfire body and didn't find it as bulky as a Casady. It's comfortable, and I love the hollowbody roundness to the low and mid tones.

Nonetheless, I still love my JSII and can certainly understand how anyone might want a Bisonic version.
 
Top