Founded by Steve Stallings. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum is an independent Internet forum which is not in any manner related to or affiliated with C. F. Martin & Co., (The Martin Guitar Company) Nazareth, PA. The statements and opinions expressed in the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum are solely those of the individuals posting the same and are not those of C.F. Martin & Co., The Martin Guitar Company, the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, its administrators, moderators, agents and other voluntary staff, its supporters, financial or otherwise, or its members, guests or other contributors. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum does not sponsor or endorse any product or service referred to, submitted or suggested by any member, guest or contributor to the Forum. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum and its voluntary staff shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever to any person or organization with respect to any matter posted by any individual on the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, for the deletion of any such matter, for the content thereof, or for the banning, suspension or other sanctioning of any user from this Forum, or for the denial of an application to become a member of this Forum. The content and accuracy of any post are solely the responsibility of the member making the post. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum shall further not be responsible for references or links to other Internet sites or links contained on other Internet sites to the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum or to the UMGF, or for the contents thereof. This specifically includes the CafePress Store for UMGF Memorabilia, which is not owned, operated or controlled by the UMGF but by Cafepress.com, an independent organization which markets, sells and ships the items contained in the CafePress Store and retains the proceeds therefrom. The sole function of the UMGF with respect thereto is to provide a link for the convenience of its members. By using, browsing or consulting this Forum, you consent to the foregoing terms as well as to the guidelines set forth in the Forum Guidelines and Feedback section and the general terms of use of Yuku. The exclusive venue for proceedings against the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, its members, trustees, officers or Administrators is the Superior Court, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, and any such proceeding shall be governed by New Jersey law. No damages or monetary awards of any nature, including attorneys fees or punitive damages may be assessed against the UMGF, its members, trustees, officers or Administrators under any circumstances whatsoever.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 John Thomas |
|||
|
(06/28/09 6:19 AM) |
Here's a 1931 L-2 bridge (I'll get better pics when it arrives for X-rays this week):
And, here's a 1928 L-1 bridge (with another set of those original, way-cool bridge pins, Mark): 
.... John
www.johnthomasguitar.com Please visit www.bannergibsons.com to see what Willi and I are doing! |
||
|
kalamazoo30s |
|||
|
(06/28/09 6:42 AM) |
Here is the bridge that belongs to my Kalamazoo Oriole. It appears to be the original bridge, although the pins have obviously been change and the saddle
as well. There were two sunken screws exposed on bass and treble side, and David Sheppard added the pearl dots to cover them. I always thought the Orioles
were produced between 1939-1942, but I am not sure if those numbers match with the bridge with the rounded corners and edges. What do you think?
1926 H. Weissenborn Style 1, 1935 KM-11, 1939-41 Kalamazoo Oriole, 2007 Jubal (Jumbo), 2008 Jubal L-00 |
||
|
BHguitars |
|||
|
(06/28/09 9:47 AM) |
I always thought the Orioles were produced between 1939-1942, but I am not sure if those numbers match with the bridge with the rounded corners and edges. What do you think?Shane, The Oriole aka KGN-12 has been shipped until late 1943 but the last examples might have been stamped in 1942. The bridge is absolutely correct including the screws - but except the pearl cover dots. Willi |
||
|
Ted Hutson |
|||
|
(06/28/09 10:28 AM) |
The bridge is absolutely correct including the screws - but except the pearl cover dots.I believe it, because I can't see them doing Salvador Dali-style pearl dot inlays. But how did they treat the screw head recesses? Did they use a stick shellac fill, that eventually shrank and fell out, or was pushed out by screw movement within the holes?
Last Edited By: Ted Hutson
06/28/09 10:34 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
 littlewingsn |
|||
|
(06/28/09 10:30 AM) |
Here is the bridge (before conversion) from the 34 Radio grande.
Willi, I think a "ball end" end mill would be perfect for sloting those pins . I agree with Mark, we need some of those. Sean 
|
||
|
kalamazoo30s |
|||
|
(06/28/09 10:55 AM) |
Ted poses a good question. I owned another Oriole that appeared to have wooden plugs that were where the screws (pearl dots) are on this guitar. When I
bought my current Oriole, the one pictured, the screws which appeared to be the originals were visible and quite ugly. Should these have been covered as well?
1926 H. Weissenborn Style 1, 1935 KM-11, 1939-41 Kalamazoo Oriole, 2007 Jubal (Jumbo), 2008 Jubal L-00 |
||
|
Arnoldgtr |
|||
|
(06/28/09 1:18 PM) |
Here is the bridge (before conversion) from the 34 Radio Grande. That photo illustrates what I was describing....the rounded back edge and the squared front edge. It is what I have seen most often from the mid-1930's until 1942. You can even see the shaper marks on the wings. the screws which appeared to be the originals were visible and quite ugly. Should these have been covered as well? Yes, especially if the screws were countersunk below the surface and had some remnants of dark hide glue on top of them. John |
||
|
BHguitars |
|||
|
(06/28/09 2:00 PM) |
But how did they treat the screw head recesses? Did they use a stick shellac fill, that eventually shrank and fell out, or was pushed out by screw movement within the holes? the screws which appeared to be the originals were visible and quite ugly. Should these have been covered as well?I can't tell what might have happened to the screws, especially after repair (some tooling marks and glue left over?). But I can tell how the bridge and the screw heads usually look like (with no repair - except replaced saddle). There's no space left to add a pearl dot and the heads are only slightly raised. 
Willi |
||
|
kalamazoo30s |
|||
|
(06/28/09 4:15 PM) |
Willi,
1926 H. Weissenborn Style 1, 1935 KM-11, 1939-41 Kalamazoo Oriole, 2007 Jubal (Jumbo), 2008 Jubal L-00 |
||
|
Folkway Music |
|||
|
(06/28/09 6:57 PM) |
I've been trying to figure out how to upload photos from our website's Gibson Gallery, but my skillset is obviously not in computers. There are many
Gibson bridge photos archived on our site here: http://www.folkwaymusic.c...ents/gibsongallery.html. If anyone out there would like to snag
the following photos for me, I'd be quite thankful:
Don't know what to call this bridge design. War time, angled top edges: http://www.folkwaymusic.c...s/gibson/j45_df_1007.jpg And another - lacquered bridge on a maple banner LG-2 http://www.folkwaymusic.c...son/maplelg2_df_0601.jpg This is a '42 K'zoo KGN-12. Lacquered, bolted, no dots. http://www.folkwaymusic.c...s/gibson/zoo-1205_df.jpg And a '40 K'zoo Sport. Lacquered, bolts, no dots. Cool cherry sunburst finish! http://www.folkwaymusic.c...on/kalamazoo_0905_df.jpg This is and oddball: '38 Carson Robinson. Lacquered bridge, NO bolts, NO rounded back edge. http://www.folkwaymusic.c...ts/asis/king_df_0309.jpg Mark Stutman
Martin Warranty Repair-Guy, Folkway Music (.com)
|
||
|
photorc |
|||
|
(06/28/09 7:39 PM) |
Mark, this should work. Thanks for the addition and the great photos. Not sure on a PC, but on my Mac, I just hold down control + alt, type "i", and
then type in the entire web address, not the line including "..." that appears here on your links for some reason
Robert Don't know what to call this bridge design. War time, angled top edges: 
And another - lacquered bridge on a maple banner LG-2 
This is a '42 K'zoo KGN-12. Lacquered, bolted, no dots. 
And a '40 K'zoo Sport. Lacquered, bolts, no dots. Cool cherry sunburst finish! 
This is and oddball: '38 Carson Robinson. Lacquered bridge, NO bolts, NO rounded back edge. 
Last Edited By: photorc
06/28/09 7:52 PM.
Edited 4 times.
|
||
|
littlewingsn |
|||
|
(06/28/09 7:56 PM) |
Mark,
I am curious , have you kept a record of the dimensions of these or any other Gibson bridges ? Do they all usually fall in close to the 6" x15/16" range? Have you noticed any out side that? Thanks, Sean |
||
|
F Sharpe |
|||
|
(07/01/09 8:00 PM) |
Here are a few Gibson bridges. All original as far as I know. Size is 6" by 15/16".
An early Smeck, FON 966, small burst, no pickguard, no bridge bolts. 
Same bridge, top view. (My ability to scan far exceeds my ability to photograph!) 
Nick Lucas, circa 1930, back view. 
Same bridge, top view. 
Another circa 1930 Nick Lucas bridge. 
This is a circa 1929 L2 I used to own. 
Gerry |
||
|
Folkway Music |
|||
|
(07/07/09 8:53 PM) |
Sean -
As far as dimensions go, 15/16" by 6" is pretty standard, but they all seem to be a hair different (a 64th or so). Robert - Thanks for posting those photos... I'll try the ctrl+alt+i trick next time around. Best, Mark
Martin Warranty Repair-Guy, Folkway Music (.com)
|
||
|
Ted Hutson |
|||
|
(08/05/09 12:10 PM) |
How big did original belly bridges get on six-string Martins, and when? How much did they vary, and when? Could a bridge that is 6.05" long, 1.51"
wide overall, and with 1.10" wings, be original on a '67 D-28S? The corresponding measurements on the bridge of my '67 00-18 (shown here) are
5.98", 1.36" and 1.00".
Last Edited By: Ted Hutson
08/05/09 12:16 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Arnoldgtr |
|||
|
(08/05/09 3:53 PM) |
The D-28S should be very close to the 00-18. The maximum dimensions that I would consider 'standard' would be 1.445 wide by 6.02 long, with wings that
are no wider than 1.06.
The standard for the prewar belly bridges is 1.400 wide, with 1" wings. The belly part got narrower in the 1950's and 1960's, with your measurement of 1.36 being quite common. The wings remained 1" exactly. Sometime in the early-1970's, the bridges 'ballooned', measuring about 1/32" wider overall when compared with the prewar bridges. John |
||
|
kt66brooklyn |
|||
|
(08/06/09 1:04 PM) |
First of, this is a great thread. I've read through it more than once already. Next, my guitar has a larger-than-normal bridge plate. The footprint, as it
is glued to the underside of the spruce top, is exactly the correct size. However, the plate is thicker than the original Martin specifications. This was done
because the top had a really dangerous looking belly to it before the repairs were done. It was really cringe-worthy. The top, other than the belly, was
undamaged even though the bridge and bridge plate were previously replaced. After the repair, the guitar sounds great and the belly is there, but it is much
more reasonable. The tone is perfect to my ears, but the guitar does play a bit more quietly than I would normally expect. Would you guys have done anything
different in a case like this?
|
||
|
Ted Hutson |
|||
|
(08/06/09 3:00 PM) |
If the bridge and bridge plate were previously replaced, the top may have been weakened too much through wood loss, in which case a better remedy would have
been to build up the thickness of the spruce itself. See earlier posts in this same thread and in my '27 00-28 thread.
What's the guitar? How about some pics of the repair?
Last Edited By: Ted Hutson
08/07/09 7:36 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
kt66brooklyn |
|||
|
(08/06/09 3:49 PM) |
Ted, the repair happened 10+ years ago, so no pics of the repair work exist as it was happening. I should try and post interior pics of the guitar as it is
now. The spruce was not thinned in any significant way. The luthier and I were really surprised that there wasn't a train wreck under the oversize
replacement bridge. That being said, we did develop a theory about the belly. The top has quite a bit of runout, as well as 'rift' grain, which makes
the top more flexible that it would otherwise be. The repair has fixed the problem. The guitar is a 1939 000-18. Some of you met it at Naz Fest last weekend.
|
||
|
Arnoldgtr |
|||
|
(08/07/09 8:54 PM) |
Would you guys have done anything different in a case like this? Probably. I have never found a need to install a thicker bridgeplate. A 1939 000 would have low-X bracing, which is susceptible to belly problems if the original tucked bridgeplate configuration has been disturbed. If the top is relatively undamaged in the bridge area, I have had good luck just returning the guitar to the original specs, even if there is runout and off-quarter grain in the top. John |
||
