Bridge shaving

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by devellis

It's not that unusual for bridges to be thicker (and thus taller) on the bass side, compared to the treble.

It is actually a common practice to make them that way.

[mahoriver]

Originally Posted by MikeD

My exact thoughts as well, which is why I would never take any advice for setup or repairs from 99% of online sources.

So you think that laying a straight edge along the neck to check the neck
angle is rubbish..Theres lots of good advice out there if your clever about
it and take your time.

[Hot Vibrato]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

What's your definition of "cheap"?

A cheap guitar is one that is made with cheap materials, unskilled labor, or both. I can't evaluate the quality of workmanship over the internet, but it looks like a nice guitar, and it's definitely made of good materials. Therefore, IMO, it doesn't qualify as a "cheap" guitar, despite the relatively inexpensive purchase price.

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

It is his guitar, his money and his decision. And, he'll probably be successful with his chosen path.

The reason for me stating my opinion is not to chastise the OP for making that decision. I've shaved bridges down on many guitars myself. But I felt compelled to point out that there are several good reasons not to do this, just in case someone who is reading this is considering shaving the bridge down on their guitar.

I know what it's like to be on a limited budget, but I think it's fair to point out that bridge shaving is absolutely not the proper way to deal with neck angle problems on any guitar that you'll still want to play in ten years.

Although it's likely that by shaving down the bridge, the OP will indeed get a few more years out of it before it has to have a reset to be playable, the guitar won't sound as good as it would if it had the proper neck angle. Eventually, the guitar will require a neck reset for it to be playable. When that time comes, it will also require a bridge replacement (which is a significant expense) as a result of the OP's decision to shave down the bridge. Again, I felt that this was worth pointing out.

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

And for anyone who has a thick bridge and doesn't want to spend $500 to have a guitar made playable.

Exactly.

And sometimes bridges are overly thick for ease of manufacture. Martin has at least three different bridge thicknesses that they fit to guitars after installing the neck. My LSV for example had a bridge at 0.375", where the standard thickness is 0.340". It had nothing to do with saving money, but I chose to cut the bridge down to standard thickness rather than reset the neck. It was cheaper (a financial bonus) but more importantly it allowed me to take some weight off the bridge (a tonal bonus). I would never cut one lower just to save money though.

Originally Posted by mahoriver

So you think that laying a straight edge along the neck to check the neck angle is rubbish. Theres lots of good advice out there if your clever about it and take your time.

Yes, but there's more bad advice than good, more inexperience than experience. If you're starting from scratch, it's hard to sort out.

As far as the straightedge, it's completely unnecessary in evaluating a guitar for purchase. Based on experience, I can play a guitar for about a minute, check a few indicators visually, and know with near complete certainty whether that guitar needs a neck reset.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

As far as the straightedge, it's completely unnecessary in evaluating a guitar for purchase. Based on experience, I can play a guitar for about a minute, check a few indicators visually, and know with near complete certainty whether that guitar needs a neck reset.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Hot Vibrato

The reason for me stating my opinion is not to chastise the OP for making that decision. I've shaved bridges down on many guitars myself. But I felt compelled to point out that there are several good reasons not to do this, just in case someone who is reading this is considering shaving the bridge down on their guitar.

Fair enough. In most cases, agreed, shaving a bridge isn't the best approach.

I know what it's like to be on a limited budget, but I think it's fair to point out that bridge shaving is absolutely not the proper way to deal with neck angle problems on any guitar that you'll still want to play in ten years.

I dunno, on a few guitars who's bridges I've shaved, 10 years later, they are no different. Your assumption is that the neck/body will continue to move. It might, it might not.

the guitar won't sound as good as it would if it had the proper neck angle. Eventually, the guitar will require a neck reset for it to be playable.

I don't think anyone knows that for sure, either that THAT guitar won't sound as good or that it WILL require a neck reset later. Both are possible, sure. Neither is guaranteed. There are far fewer absolutes and uncertainties in life than most of us would like, but that doesn't make them certain.

[Carbonius]

Whatever you do, make sure to use this;



It helps you to avoid nicks and will ensure a smoother shave!!

[Hurricane Bob]

I decided not to shave anymore of the bridge and took it to the shop for repairs. She will get bridge pin hole ramps, new saddle, and a set up for now. Now I am saving for a neck re-set.

[Hot Vibrato]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

I dunno, on a few guitars who's bridges I've shaved, 10 years later, they are no different. Your assumption is that the neck/body will continue to move. It might, it might not.

Fair point. Now that you mention it, I shaved the bridge down on my old Yamaha FG-365 way over ten years ago, and it's no different, and it's had 13-56 gauge strings on it the whole time, so I guess some guitars do stabilize eventually.

Really, the point I was trying yo make was that if a guitar's worth keeping, it's worth fixing right. Honestly, I regret shaving the bridge down on the Yamaha. It's not expensive, but it's a good guitar and it deserved to be done right. Now I'll have to deal with replacing the bridge if and when I ever get around to doing a reset. On the other hand, the guitar has been playable this whole time, and it still sounds nice, so it is indeed a usable guitar, even though I "ruined" it by cutting the bridge down.

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

I don't think anyone knows that for sure, either that THAT guitar won't sound as good or that it WILL require a neck reset later. Both are possible, sure. Neither is guaranteed. There are far fewer absolutes and uncertainties in life than most of us would like, but that doesn't make them certain.

The guitar in question may indeed not need a reset for some time after shaving the bridge down, but being a guy who has performed a few dozen neck resets, I know for a fact that flat top guitars always sound their best when the bridge and saddle are at the proper height (usually between 7/16" and 1/2"). In my experience, the sound is always improved after a reset, often dramatically.

[mahoriver]

Originally Posted by Hurricane Bob

I decided not to shave anymore of the bridge and took it to the shop for repairs. She will get bridge pin hole ramps, new saddle, and a set up for now. Now I am saving for a neck re-set.

Sounds like a good idea Bob

[Mr LV19E]

Originally Posted by devellis

It's not that unusual for bridges to be thicker (and thus taller) on the bass side, compared to the treble.

I have never seen a bridge that is thicker on one side than the other, can you post a picture of an example?

Originally Posted by Mr LV19E

I have never seen a bridge that is thicker on one side than the other, can you post a picture of an example?

Nearly every Martin bridge is thicker on the bass side. Here's a photo from frets.com.

[Hurricane Bob]

That's about how my Lach looks- thicker on the bass side, my Sigma has it too but not as pronounced. I already posted a picture of this bridge a page back-

[Mr LV19E]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

Nearly every Martin bridge is thicker on the bass side. Here's a photo from frets.com.

Thanks for the photo and the link, with a little effort I found this quote from Frank.


"Here's a very important piece of trivia. Martin bridges with "through-cut" saddles have the saddle slot higher on the bass than the treble. That way, the bridge, which is a bit thicker on the bass, will have about the same amount of saddle "revealed" at each end of the slot. I set my caliper at zero on the treble, moved to the bass, and found that the bottom of the slot was just about .050" higher at that end. That's the way they have always been, by the way."

I had never noticed it before but the OP's picture did not show a through cut saddle and Frank didn't mention any other brand but Martin, but I guess with all the Martin clones I'm sure there are some out there.

Never had a Martin or a through cut saddle, mine are all the same thickness from bass to treble, the saddles are usually lower on the treble side.

Thanks again .

[Slight Return]

Sanding the top of the bridge won't do anything for the action. It'll just make the saddle slot shallower and force you to sand your saddle down to make sure it doesn't tip in the slot.

In other words, it just puts you back at square one with no change in action whatsoever.

You could either try deepening the saddle slot, or removing the bridge, sanding the bottom of it down, and re-gluing it. Sanding the *bottom* of the bridge will lower the action.

I recently did this on my Blueridge 12 string because I felt like the very thick bridge was potentially sapping some tone and volume. The saddle was also at a low height, and with pretty poor break angle, which I thought was further sapping tone and volume.

I also want to experiment with making a new bridge with a 1/4" saddle and a different pin hole orientation to fix the intonation, so I was going to remove the bridge anyway, fill the holes in the bridge plate and design a new custom bridge. I simply got impatient and decided to shave down the original bridge and re-glue it in my Go-Bar deck with hot hide glue because I want to get back to playing for now, and will worry more about intonation later.

I have to say, the saddle height is much better now (cut a new bone saddle), including much better break angle, and I swear the guitar sounds louder. The action is also much better.

The real fix is re-angling the neck. For me this was mostly an experiment in tone/volume, and seeing how a thinner bridge would hold up.

Doing fine so far. I think the middle was around .260", and the ends were around .070", compared to something like .320" and .125" originally. So I took quite a bit off.

I also use 12 gauge strings and tune down to C standard so there is much less tension on my 12 string than a standard 12 string, so I'm not very worried about the top bellying up (and even if it does eventually I have fixes for this, so I'm not worried).

[Hot Vibrato]

Originally Posted by Slight Return

Sanding the top of the bridge won't do anything for the action. It'll just make the saddle slot shallower and force you to sand your saddle down to make sure it doesn't tip in the slot.

...which lowers your action.

Originally Posted by Slight Return

In other words, it just puts you back at square one with no change in action whatsoever.

With all due respect, I fail to follow your logic. Most of us who have participated in this thread have done this. IME If you cut the bridge and saddle down, the action will indeed be lowered. At least it's always worked for me when I've done it.

Originally Posted by Slight Return

The real fix is re-angling the neck

Agreed. I don't condone bridge shaving on anything but inexpensive imports. But in such cases it is an effective way to get more life out of a guitar that has otherwise outlived its usefulness.

BTW, you might consider reaming some of the pin holes on the bridge you pictured so the pins don't stick out so much.