Stringing a stop tailpiece?

How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
"wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
tailpiece and bringing it over the top.

Thanks,

Tony D

Tony Done wrote:
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
>
>

On the advice of my attorney, I hereby exercise my 5th amendment rights
and decline to answer this question.

--
Les Cargill

"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:482cce5e$0$7044$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Tony Done wrote:
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>
> On the advice of my attorney, I hereby exercise my 5th amendment rights
> and decline to answer this question.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Peace,
Polfus

Tony Done wrote:
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
>
>

Not me...

--
- Rufus

Tony Done <tonydone@bigpond.com> wrote:
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in
> the "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of
> the tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D

Never tried it. I just have a feeling that it would be a sustain
killer.

"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
>

Tony you seem like a nice fella, So I'll just say don't do that unless your
in between a 8 ball and a gallon of Wild Turkey.

BH

"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony D
>

Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides. If
you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on the
bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has to
be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that will
exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts. This
exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a good set
up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down hard
against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the bridge,
another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.

Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but didn't
like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on in
the conventional manner.

Tony D

Tony Done wrote:
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>>
>
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here.

Mine's more a joke on getting the ordering of strings within courses on
a 12 string wrong yesterday. Overwrapping the strings works, people
do it, it's kinda weird.

> So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides. If
> you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on the
> bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece has to
> be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as that will
> exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts. This
> exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a good set
> up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down hard
> against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over the bridge,
> another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>

Dunno. Sacrifice a set of strings. Try it.

> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but didn't
> like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all on in
> the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
>
>

--
Les Cargill

"Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:lh7Xj.1426$IK1.844@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up in the
>> "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front of the
>> tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>>
>
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing something
> here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be designed to be
> strung either way, as it has cavities for the string balls on both sides.
> If you string it the conventional way, it put more downward pressure on
> the bridge (good thing up to a point), but it means that the stop piece
> has to be raised on its posts so that the break angle isn't too great, as
> that will exert too much forward pressure on the flimsy looking bridge
> posts. This exerts more pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look
> like a good set up to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound
> mode looks good mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be
> screwed down hard against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break
> angle over the bridge, another possible sustain killer and rattle
> promoter.
>
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of 13-56 to
> try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as wraparound, but
> didn't like the look of the break angle, so I took it off and put them all
> on in the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D
>
>

Like Les said " It's just weird" You can adjust the tail peice up and down
so why would you do it? It also ads more string binding points and maybe
tunning problems or breakage. I've never seen anybody do it.

BH

"Brian Hill" <1@2.net> wrote

> Like Les said " It's just weird" You can adjust the tail peice up and down
> so why would you do it? It also ads more string binding points and maybe
> tunning problems or breakage. I've never seen anybody do it.
>
> BH

FWIW...Duane Allman did this, and Zakk Wylde does as well.

Peace,
Polfus

"Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote in message
news:482d18cc$0$31746$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Brian Hill" <1@2.net> wrote
>
>> Like Les said " It's just weird" You can adjust the tail peice up and
>> down so why would you do it? It also ads more string binding points and
>> maybe tunning problems or breakage. I've never seen anybody do it.
>>
>> BH
>
> FWIW...Duane Allman did this, and Zakk Wylde does as well.
>
> Peace,
> Polfus

Go for it! Everybody is differant.

BH

Tony Done <tonydone@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Tony Done" <tonydone@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:FW3Xj.1388$IK1.1065@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> How many of you that use Gibson style stop tailpieces string it up
>> in the "wraparound" mode? That is, loading the string from the front
>> of the tailpiece and bringing it over the top.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Tony D
>>
>
> Hmm, judging by Les' and Brian's responses I think I'm missing
> something here. So, back to the subject. The stop piece seems to be
> designed to be strung either way, as it has cavities for the string
> balls on both sides. If you string it the conventional way, it put
> more downward pressure on the bridge (good thing up to a point), but
> it means that the stop piece has to be raised on its posts so that
> the break angle isn't too great, as that will exert too much forward
> pressure on the flimsy looking bridge posts. This exerts more
> pressure on the tailpiece lugs, and doesn't look like a good set up
> to me, possible sustain killer. OTOH the wraparound mode looks good
> mechanically for the tailpiece because the posts can be screwed down
> hard against the body. But it leaves a very shallow break angle over
> the bridge, another possible sustain killer and rattle promoter.
>
> Anyway, I put some new strings on my LP special 11-50 instead of
> 13-56 to try some lightweight slide. I tried the first one as
> wraparound, but didn't like the look of the break angle, so I took it
> off and put them all on in the conventional manner.
>
> Tony D

I think you're overestimating the problem of forward pressure when the
tailpiece is riding low and strung in the standard way. I've had many
guitars with that type of tailpiece, and I've always had the tailpiece
sitting pretty low and never had any kind of issue with what you call
the "flimsy looking bridge posts". IOW, you don't have to raise it;
those posts will handle it. The downward pressure from the strings is
much greater than that forward pressure.

"RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo.com> wrote

> I think you're overestimating the problem of forward pressure when the
> tailpiece is riding low and strung in the standard way. I've had many
> guitars with that type of tailpiece, and I've always had the tailpiece
> sitting pretty low and never had any kind of issue with what you call
> the "flimsy looking bridge posts". IOW, you don't have to raise it;
> those posts will handle it. The downward pressure from the strings is
> much greater than that forward pressure.

Yes..I agree. Plus, when done conventionally, the pressure of the string
forces the string *down* on the saddle, not so much as pulling it back.

And under the steel saddle is a flat guide rail also made of the metal, so
its sturdy as hell.

Ted McCarty was a design genius. You folks should *really* look at some of
his original drawings used in Gibson patents ( which the Tune-O-Matic Gibson
bridge has )

Peace,
Polfus

T. McCarty was no design genius in my estimation. The Les Paul guitar was
one design flaw after another. One to correct the other and right down the
line. Its only saving grace was the tilted peg head. Directing the strings
vibrations down into 4 metal posts to be quickly dissipated is a terrible
idea. The buying public of the early 60's had an eye for things designed
right because they were used to seeing quality built products. Thats why the
LP was discontinued. It went over like a wet fart in church.


"Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote in message
news:482d1995$0$31756$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> I think you're overestimating the problem of forward pressure when the
>> tailpiece is riding low and strung in the standard way. I've had many
>> guitars with that type of tailpiece, and I've always had the tailpiece
>> sitting pretty low and never had any kind of issue with what you call
>> the "flimsy looking bridge posts". IOW, you don't have to raise it;
>> those posts will handle it. The downward pressure from the strings is
>> much greater than that forward pressure.
>
> Yes..I agree. Plus, when done conventionally, the pressure of the string
> forces the string *down* on the saddle, not so much as pulling it back.
>
> And under the steel saddle is a flat guide rail also made of the metal, so
> its sturdy as hell.
>
> Ted McCarty was a design genius. You folks should *really* look at some of
> his original drawings used in Gibson patents ( which the Tune-O-Matic
> Gibson bridge has )
>
> Peace,
> Polfus

"Keith Adams" <keithadams@socal.rr.com> wrote

> T. McCarty was no design genius in my estimation.

Then you underestimate his genius, IMHO.

> The Les Paul guitar was one design flaw after another.

Like what?

> Its only saving grace was the tilted peg head.

Thats just one of the beautiful things about a Les Paul.

> Directing the strings vibrations down into 4 metal posts to be quickly
> dissipated is a terrible idea.

Its not "dissipated", so you may need to rethink this.

>The buying public of the early 60's had an eye for things designed right
>because they were used to seeing quality built products. Thats why the LP
>was discontinued. It went over like a wet fart in church.

It was ahead of its time, and thats all there is to it.

Peace,
Polfus