Official Luthiers Forum!

Wow! Mike that is a nice looking bridge. I see you also use the transparent pick guard like i do as well. Good looking guitar you have there.

Well, not having to deal with pins. That's it. I know it sounds thin for an explanation, but that's really all I see to it.

That said, I don't do pinless bridge for the extact reasons Josh explained quite well and clearly.

_________________
Alain Moisan
Former full time builder of Acoustics, Classicals and Flamencos.
(Now building just for fun!)

Mark here is another pic of the same bridge that I sent you earlier. This time it shows the entire guitar.

Harmony Sovereigns (poor man's D-18 from the 60's) had a BRW pinless bridge. This is one of two Sovereigns that were brought back to life in a project that I worked on. The saddle is being replaced and had been glued in so it had to be routed out. The new saddle is just roughed in and looking rather high... and massive but when it reached it's final shape and height it looked a lot better.

Anyway both of the Sovereigns that I worked on had pinless bridges that had been on for nearly 50 years and it was rather obvious too that these guitars did not have very good care. Can't speak to advantages, if any, of a pinless bridge but I can address the argument that they bridges may not stay put. These two most certainly did.





Sorry I didn't read every reply but Mike Doolin uses pinless bridge designs too.

Mike, I like it too. Is that POC/Alaskan cypress rather than spruce?

_________________
Build log

Thanks. It's just sitka though -- I think it's a combination of the picture and french polishing with a darker shellac (seedlac I think) that makes it look a bit different.

-Mike

Hi Filippo,

I'll see if I can clarify some of what I'm said. I know I'm a lot less scientific in my approach to building than many other luthiers. I tend to think of my approach to building as being a common sense approach, that being what makes sense to me. And when I try and convey my thoughts on a certain aspect of building I know they are not always that clear.

I also don't want to set myself up as a bridge fail expert, as I'm not. But I have seen a lot of bridge failures come through my shop over the years for repair. The number of high-end luthier bridge failures I've seen has only been a handful. Like I said the two factors for a pinless bridge working are proper execution (good fit to the top and properly glued) and then the guitar being properly cared for. In the luthier built bridge failures I have observed my conclusions has been that the guitar has not been properly cared for. In some case I know (and have great respect for) these builders.

Yes, I am referring to the glue joint failing when I am talking about the bridge letting go. As I don't always know what led to the damage when a guitar crosses my bench I sometimes have to speculate a bit. Nearly every time I've seen a bridge failure on a well built guitar it is as a result of heat damage. On the pinless bridge guitars where I have observed additional top damage it seems that as the glue softens with the heat it begins to let go in some spots but not others. It eventually reaches a point where most of the glue is soft enough for the bridge to pull up. But in those few spots where the glue remains more tacky it pulls up wood fibbers as the bridge lifts off the top. I haven't observed this additional damage with pinned bridges. Since there is nothing preventing a pinless bridge from lifting once the glue lets go they will lift up, and in a number of cases I have seen come right off the top.

What I've concluded over the years is that if you build enough guitar eventually some of them are going to be exposed to improper care. They'll get left in hot cars, they'll dry out when the customer doesn't humidify properly, or any number of things. While I don't have much control over what happens when the guitar leaves my shop, if there are certain construction methods that can minimize potential damage I try to implement them. When It comes to bridges I decided a while back that I would never build a pinless bridge. I've observed pinned bridges where the glue joint has failed, but I don't think I have ever seen one where the bridge came right off the top. When a pinned bridge does come up I haven't observed significant top damage as a result of the glue joint failure. On the other hand I've observed several cases of pinless bridges coming right off the guitars and damaging the top in the process. I want to minimize the risk of having to fix those type of repairs on my guitars in the future. Another practical reason I don't like a pinless bridge is because they are a pain to work on for setups and that type of thing (I'm talking about string through bridge designs).

Hope helps clarify what I was trying to say. I know there are a lot of great builders who only use pines bridges and that is fine. Its just not for me and so you will never see one on my guitars (at least not a steel string).

Josh

_________________
Josh House

Canadian Luthier Supply
http://www.canadianluthiersupply.com
https://www.facebook.com/canadianluthiersupply?ref=hl
House Guitars - Custom Built Acoustic Instruments.
http://www.houseguitars.com

The Elliot /Doolin design.

The Elliot design pretty much solves that problem though.

I was thinking about a pinless bridge for a while,
and decicded against it for a couple of reasons.
One is bridge glue joint failure.
the other is that I think it might?, affect tone.
Dig those strings under the top.
Way better transferance of viberrraattiioonnss.
Also, why change what works.
My 2 stinkin' cents.

If that was the case then why aren't there pins in violins and banjos and mandos and arch tops and resos and etc. I don't think there are any vibrations past the nut or saddle to speak of.

Doesn't that make it a pinned bridge albeit with fixed pins? You could also call a slotted pinned bridge with solid pins a pinless bridge as you can take the pins out with the strings in place under full tension.

As for the tone thing, I've done both pinless and pinned bridges (conventional definition ) and I don't think there's any difference I can detect. A pinless bridge (not the Elliot/Doolin) means that you can have bracing below the bridge where the pins would normally go - if that's what you want to do. Pinned bridges are definitely easier for working on the guitar and doing setups than on a pinless bridge instrument (again not including the Elliot/Doolin).

_________________
Dave White
De Faoite Stringed Instruments
". . . the one thing a machine just can't do is give you character and personalities and sometimes that comes with flaws, but it always comes with humanity" Monty Don talking about hand weaving, "Mastercrafts", Weaving, BBC March 2010

What I like about the Elliot/Doolin design is the ease of changing strings without having to deal with pulling the pins and then loosing them etc. And you don't have to be concerned with the bridge plate getting chewed up over time.

+1

George Lowden has said that the reason he uses the pinless bridge on his guitars is the shallower break angle over the saddle. He wants less tension on the top. Also, he runs a brace beneath the usual pin area. And yes, when Lowden bridges fly off, they will take some cedar and finish with them. My experience with this was due to low (22%-ish) humidity. I don't mind reglueing a bridge once in a while if that's what it takes to have the Lowden sound.

And it was a good excuse to have a nice guitar armoire built so that the humidity issue was neutralized.

Of those 3 reasons, only being able to put a brace there has any validity
You can get any break angle you want on a pinned bridge, depending on how you set up the pin locations, saddle height etc.
Less tension on the top? the string tension has to go somewhere.

You basically have your choice of a pinned bridge, where there is really only a sliding (shear)
force on the glueline, or a pinless bridge where the is both shear and rotational uplift at the back of the bridge.
It look like many of these modern pinless bridge designs have extra area at the back of the bridge to cope and that is a very good thing.

Good points, Chris.
I just responded from intuition,
which at the time was that the ball of the string contacting the spruce top
physically might give more contact, and better tone.
Since I haven't made 2 gits of the same design and woods,
with different bridges, I can't really give an opinion.
So, maybe some day I'll do that, probably not.

Are you referring to the Elliot/ Doolin design? With them a piano wire pin is set through the bridge and bridge plate and in effect it's some what like stapleing or nailing the bridge to the top too and the ball ends attach to the top of the piano wire pin. Pinless or is it a headless pin ? The only thing about it is the headless pins need to be placed far enough behind the saddle so that the string wraps are clear of the saddle.

Who was the first to use a pinned bridge?