Official Luthiers Forum!

I understand why a traditional archtop bridge is not glued down, otherwise you could not make any intonation adjustments due to the lack of adjustable saddles. But I have been wondering why models equipped with more modern bridges that have adjustable saddles are not glued down?

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

Tradition!
Sorry, but I couldn't resist a nonanswer answer. I know you're looking for a REAL reason, and that I don't know.

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon

My original thought was cheaper...........but tradition sounds nicer.

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

Guess it goes along with "tradition," but the bowed instrument family has never had glued bridges. Since gluing a flat top bridge is sort of mandatory from a physics point of view, it makes sense. But to me, one of the big advantages that archtop instruments (and banjos...) has over flat top guitars is the ease of changing out bridges and tailpieces to change the overall sound. If there's no real reason to remove that flexibility by gluing down the bridge, why would someone want to do that?

I think that the bridge on an archtop is more akin to the saddle on a flat top than it is to the flat top's bridge, which effectively combines the bridge and the tailpiece. Glued in saddles are a pain IMHO.

Dave

Bridges on flattops are glued to the soundboard only because they have to be.

There is no reason to glue bridges on archtops. Gluing them would add nothing but extra work and hassle, both during the build and during repairs.

As I said, a traditional bridge with non adjustable saddles I understand. But I am talking about bridges such as these in this picture as are being used on so many hollwbody archtop electrics such as a Gretsch Electromatic or Gibson ES 175. And especially when teamed up with a Bigsby instead of a regular trapeze. Leaving the saddle unglued in these situations seems to partially defeat the adjustable saddles. And setting one up can be a real pain, just the pressure required to keep the screwdriver in the adj. screw slot and turn it can be enough to move the bridge on the instrument making them at times more time consuming to set up than a fulcrum.

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

I agree with Kelby: they're not glued because there's no reason to do so.

If you look at the history of the archtop guitar, you'll see that Orville Gibson _did_ glue his bridges down. In fact, he used pin bridges, if memory serves, more or less like those that flat top makers used, but fitted to the top. I'm not sure when the floating bridge came into use, but would not be surprised to find it was introduced by the corporation that bought rights to his name and designs, and it could well have been in the Loar era.

The only good reasons I can see to glue a bridge down are because it has to hold the string tension or provide a downbearing force on the saddle. Once you've introduced the tailpiece, and have enough arch to give decent down bearing, why bother? It's just something else that can get messed up.

i'd like to see an archtop with the strings terminating at the bridge, and no tailpiece. but due to the height of the bridge, i'm guessing the leverage would tear any bridge down, making it an impossible design. is this true...?

You could adjust the neck angle to suit to bring the strings low enough. Not sure how it would sound though. I've never heard Tom Ribbecke's Halfling with a pin bridge, but am sure it works for him. http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/I ... eview.aspx