Mitchel's PlateMate

[Mr Fingers]

There are many more reviews for the Platemate on the StewMac site and they are mixed at best. It reminds me of the brass nut fad that elicited numerous positive assessments but then disappeared over time regardless. My guess -- no way to A/B this one -- is that the device is likely to enhance both treble and "sharpness," and to many that will be perceived as an improvement in tone. This is similar to what happened when CDs were first popularized, and every mix was full of transients and ultra-clear tonality... that, over time, wore out its welcome to the extent that some listeners really hoped for a return to analog and vinyl. I would, myself, avoid the Platemate except as a temporary measure because I have an aversion to adding loose parts, and metal, and anything ugly, anywhere on a guitar. But for those who like the tone and ease of use, why not?

[JayBee1404]

Originally Posted by Gymbow

Thanks for all the replies. I'm just wondering how many people think it's:
A) A waste of time to add a PlateMate to a new guitar as a preventative measure
B) Think it's a good idea to add it to a new guitar to protect the bridge plate
C) Wouldn't do it because it would change the tone, etc
C) Other thoughts

I did it to a guitar that was around a year old because:-

(a) I could see that the ball-ends were already beginning to try to go up the pin-holes, and...
(b) I was a newbie to guitar-forums and Martins, and I didn't know about slotting pin-holes and using un-slotted pins.

It was the only time I ever used a PlateMate and, as previously stated, I liked the tonal change. But it was a lottery, and I could just as easily have disliked the change. Fortunately it worked out for me.

Since then, I've purchased three new Martins and slotted the bridges on all three.

I believe reaming and slotting the pin-holes is the best practice for avoiding bridgeplate damage but, for anyone who doesn't feel competent to do the job, and who doesn't have access to someone who can do it for them, the PlateMate is a reasonable alternative, be it on a new guitar or an old one. It's easy to install and, if you don't like what you hear, it's easily removeable.

The usual Disclaimers apply...IMHO, YMMV, etc.

[maxtheaxe]

I'm resurrecting this old thread, as the issue has come up for me. I'm contemplating putting a Platemate in my Larrivee OM-40R. I think it might be a good solution to the sort of mangled job someone did slotting the bridge & plate. I've already replaced the pins with Colosi un-slotted bone pins.

But...would the plate-mate interfere with the K&K Pure minis that are installed in this? Seems like it might...would I need to try to remove the transducers to install a plate-mate?

Thanks!

[FatBear]

Originally Posted by mercy

The platemate adds weight so will effect the tone. You might like it but I would rather get the most out of my guitar. Perhaps it is because I play smaller guitars.

I know it's an old thread, but the topic is what's important and the topic is still current for me, so why not...

The strings pull upwards on the bridge plate and make it bounce up and down when the strings vibrate, right? Wood is good at absorbing "shock" and is often used as cushioning material out in the world. So it seems that it would cushion those string vibrations and damp out some frequencies. Putting that piece of brass in there seems like it would prevent the cushioning that the bridge plate provides.

I would think that this might brighten up the sound a bit and make it somehow more "clear", if that's a term we use here. But it seems like all frequencies would benefit to some degree. It seems like that would do nothing but help a smaller guitar. I'm not sure how it would affect a large and already full and resonant larger guitar.

I stumbled onto the Plate Mate while thinking and researching about converting a 3/4 size 6-string guitar to a 5-string tenor. I won't just be fixing worn string holes, I'll be filling the six holes in the guitar body and drilling 5 others in-between them along with fitting a new 5-hole bridge. All those holes in a row can't be good for the bridge plate.

But if I fill the six holes, drill the five, then cut off one of the six holes from the end of a Plate Mate and use the resulting 5-hole Plate to reinforce and spread the load over the weakened bridge plate, I think it will work well. And the more I learn, the better I feel about that idea. At first I feared something like this would diminish the sound. But thinking about it and reading reports from people who have actually done it (much more valuable than opinions of people who haven't tried it) I am pretty sure it is how I will go, though I'm always open to opinions and corrections from those who know more than I do.

[phavriluk]

I think OP is suggesting retaining a 6-string instrument's string spacing, just for 5 strings, lopping off one string position at the bridge. Is this - - - same spacing between 5 strings, how tenor guitars are generally configured? And is 5 strings instead of 6 the only change in guitar configuration?

[btaylor]

I installed an off brand platemate on my '77 Alvarez Yairi because it appeared to show minor signs of wear and it works great. I did notice a difference in tone, but as someone previously stated, it was an improvement! I did, however, also switch from D'addario EJ16 strings to Elixir PB Nanos, so I'm not sure how much of the improvement was due to the strings. I personally wouldn't see the need to put one on a newer guitar, but it has been great for my vintage Alvarez.

[GuitarLuva]

I have used one before as well and it will no doubt protect your bridge plate. As others have mentioned it will have an impact on the tone, for better or worse will depend on the end user. They are expensive for what they are though. You can grab a few washers at the hardware store that will accomplish the same thing and give you a pinless bridge as a bonus.

[guitararmy]

Interesting project you are contemplating. I think the five-washer plan would work and would be less expensive as well as result in less weight (plus no bridge pins). If you're interested, I can send you five washers for you to try...

[Atomnimity]

I have two new guitars and I have put Platemates on both. I was seeing small wood chips from the bridge after a few string changes and decided to try this. I also felt under the bridge and it felt like the edges of the pin holes were getting chipped up. Easy to install and can remove if desired. No chips since and didn't notice much change in tone. Maybe a bit brighter.

[FatBear]

Originally Posted by phavriluk

I think OP is suggesting retaining a 6-string instrument's string spacing, just for 5 strings, lopping off one string position at the bridge. Is this - - - same spacing between 5 strings, how tenor guitars are generally configured? And is 5 strings instead of 6 the only change in guitar configuration?

For starters, yes: new nut and bridge. Oh, and narrow the neck to work with 5 strings. I've contemplated ways to shorten the scale length a bit, but none seem that great so I'll probably just use a capo.

As I am currently a mandolin player, I have no personal preference for guitar string spacing. The Plate Mate comes in two string spacings. I'd decide which I wanted and that would be my string spacing. I am thinking about trying this on a used Baby Taylor that I can get for a pretty good price. (I like the Baby Taylor because I can unbolt the neck which will make it easier to narrow it down.) I'd use a Plate Mate with the same spacing as original so that the holes all remain centered between the original ones.

They don't seem all that expensive to me, compared to having a 5-string built just to try it out. But if they don't make the spacing to match the guitar I choose, I'll make my own. Doesn't look hard.

[FatBear]

Originally Posted by GuitarLuva

You can grab a few washers at the hardware store that will accomplish the same thing and give you a pinless bridge as a bonus.

I am talking about drilling 5 new holes between the 6 existing ones. I think that would severely weaken the bridge plate. So I see the Plate Mate as a structural reinforcement. Individual washers would not accomplish this, though I can see that it would be a good way for a 6 string to lower bridge weight.

[Arthur Blake]

I use an inexpensive lighted mirror with a swivel and extension - around $10, and check the ball end after installing each string to see that the round side - like the side of a barrel is resting on the bridge plate - not a sharp edge, before applying tension to the string.

So far zero wear.

That's my preventative maintenance.

And, of course, when you're looking at the ball ends with a mirror, it's easy to see that they are fully and properly set.

For all I know, having the ends all nicely lined up doesn't hurt the tone either.

[lar]

Originally Posted by Arthur Blake

.

And, of course, when you're looking at the ball ends with a mirror, it's easy to see that they are fully and properly set.

I agree that for solid pins a properly set pin/ball shouldn't cause any/much bridge plate damage over time. But, the problem I see with slotted pins is that the string ball sits partially inside the pin slot (when seated properly), thus applying pressure slightly to the inside of the bridge plate hole. Because of this, the bearing area is reduced which causes small marks on the bridge plate (inside of the pin hole) that eventually wear out the pin hole. As the pin hole wears, the string ball sits even further inside the hole accelerating the process. The effect is small but over a long time damage will occur. How long depends on the type of wood, how often you change your strings, ....

However: I recently went to a well respected luthier in my area, and I asked him if I should consider slotting the bridge and using solid pins. His response was that solid pins are a better idea, but probably not worth my money or his time because he doesn't see people coming in with severely worn bridge plates due to this - even on very old guitars. He also said slotted bridges have their own issues - one of them being that the string wears the slot out over a long period of time - which is a more difficult fix. His last words were 'I'll see you in 15 years. And if need be I'll fix your bridge plate, but I doubt it will need it'.

After talking to him, and doing some research, I decided that I was blowing up this problem to be more than what it was. I left my guitar alone - the simple solution is usually the best solution. Also consider that any time anyone does work on your guitar - there's a chance that the outcome won't be to your satisfaction. NOT doing this work eliminated that risk!

But I do monitor the bridge plate wear and if there are any issues in the future I would likely use the PlateMate.

BTW: there are 33 reviews of the Platemate on Stewmac. Twenty-seven of them are 5-star, three of them 4-star, and three are 3-star. Even the 3-stars are good reviews though if you read them (one liked it but said it's overpriced, so rated it a 3). Looks like people like them.

Here is a photo of string balls sitting inside a slotted pin:


https://images.search.yahoo.com/sear...g&action=click

[ChrisN]

I tried a platemate on a Taylor GC5 and it made a marked change in tone and volume, for the worse - sounded dead. Removed the platemate and all was well. Had purchased 2, Stewmac took them both back. Slotted the bridges and haven't looked back.

Note - on some Martins (and on at least one RK), the pin holes are so close to the saddle that fully slotting the bridge to total string depth creates a too-steep string angle to the pin, which puts a lot of pressure on the saddle. On those, Brian Kimsey cuts a half-string depth slot into the bridge, and carves a slight groove in the pin for the rest, to keep something closer to the original angle.

[frenchie]

I made my own plate mate out of brass for a Daion 82 Jumbo, which had a very worn solid Rosewood bridge plate. Haven't really noticed any change in tone, but I sense an increase in sustain.

Steve.