Poll: Should I or Shouldn’t I…

[CT4life]

I have a 1967 Gibson J-45 that still has the stock rosewood, adjustable saddle. I’m in two minds about whether I should replace it with a non adjustable bone saddle or keep it as is. Supposedly, the guitar’s tone and projection really improves when making the swap.

So… Thoughts??

[TheGITM]

If it's just a player for you and you want it to sound the best it can, try out the bone saddle. If it's not something you will regularly play, and you think you might flip it one day, I'd leave it original.

[Wade Hampton]

There’s been a resurgence of interest in the adjustable saddle Gibsons, but every time I’ve had the chance to hear a before and after comparison with a adjustable saddle Gibson that’s been converted to a fixed saddle, the conversion has sounded immensely better.


whm

[zoopeda]

The fixed saddle sounds much better to most of us, as far as I can tell.

Is the saddle on it really rosewood? That I’ve not heard. I can only imagine bone being a massive upgrade over wood unless the tone is exactly perfect as you hear it now.

[semolinapilcher]

Indecision would favor the status quo, IMO

[abn556]

I’d replace the bridge and saddle with a new rosewood bridge and bone saddle. Keep the old one in the case and if you ever want to sell the guitar you can have it put back on.

[nikpearson]

Having never done this I may be talking nonsense, but isn’t it possible to replace the adjustable saddle section with a slotted wood infill that matches the bridge? Then a bone saddle could be used. If the work is done carefully it should be near invisible and more importantly be reversible.

Removing the existing bridge and fitting a new one sounds risky to me as any heat may cause damage to the bridge making it useless for refitting later.

[SCVJ]

Originally Posted by nikpearson

Having never done this I may be talking nonsense, but isn’t it possible to replace the adjustable saddle section with a slotted wood infill that matches the bridge? Then a bone saddle could be used. If the work is done carefully it should be near invisible and more importantly be reversible.

Removing the existing bridge and fitting a new one sounds risky to me as any heat may cause damage to the bridge making it useless for refitting later.

This is what a luthier/repair person with an excellent reputaion did to my '67 J-50 about 30 years ago. He said it was the typical solution to the poor design of the adjustable saddle.

The alteration wasn't really noticeable, or expensive, and I was pleased with the result.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Couldn't answer because you didn't tell us your plans for it.

If it's all original and if you care about how much you can sell it for, leave it alone. If it's not all original or if you don't care about resale, Make the change. It'll sound better.

[Goat Mick]

I'd do it in a heatbeat and honestly I don't think it will hurt the resale value much if any. Most people see removing the adjustable saddle as an upgrade.

[Justbrandon]

Originally Posted by nikpearson

Having never done this I may be talking nonsense, but isn’t it possible to replace the adjustable saddle section with a slotted wood infill that matches the bridge? Then a bone saddle could be used. If the work is done carefully it should be near invisible and more importantly be reversible.

Removing the existing bridge and fitting a new one sounds risky to me as any heat may cause damage to the bridge making it useless for refitting later.

This is a pretty common mod and is completely reversible. I've played a few old Gibsons with this mod and they sounded great

[Justbrandon]

Also, CME put out a "Saddle Battle" video a few years ago comparing two different J-50s--one with the stock adjustable rosewood saddle and another that was modded with a non-adjustable bone saddle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxBtXHpVvIk

[Phantoj]

My uncle has one of these J-45 ADJ, bought when nearly new.

The bridge cracked across the adjusters and the saddle was basically just held on by its screws. It was not a structurally sound situation.

I think he had some work done on it and got a new non-adjustable bridge on it.

I believe the bridge on these is Brazilian rosewood...

Frank Ford was not a fan of the adjustable bridge - http://www.frets.com/FretsPages/Luth.../hbirdbr1.html

[leew3]

I'm a big fan of bone saddles unless you're going with a UST pickup as the inconsistency of bone can cause some headaches with some of these pickups.

[Br1ck]

I'll tell you my tale, again. When I was shopping for a Gibson like guitar, I came across an early J 45 vintage. It was a great sounding guitar but was a bit over $4000 at the time. I thought, what could I buy old for that? Turns out, a 60s was in the $3500 range. One day Sylvan in Santa Cruz had four. One had the adjustable bridge, and the shop had converted three. Sixties QC being what it was at Gibson, two were dogs, both converted. One conversion was OK, the non conversion was quite good.

Then I noticed in the non premium section, a 65 Epiphone Texan that made two hours fly by. had lunch, came back and another two hours flew by. Ten years later I still have it. But here is the deal. They are their own animal, and I've played one or two Texans that were decent at best. You still have to like that high end zing, and many have pretty thin necks, but I think there are more so so Gibsons out there than good ones, so I think the adj saddle coincides with a lot of bad guitars, more the general build quality than the bridge. My luthier gets people wanting to convert back all the time. I've had four luthiers tell me to leave my guitar alone because there are people who really like a good adj bridge guitar.

I have no idea where your guitar falls on the scale, but I'd miss the hillbilly Stones tone only my Texan does well. For those that don't know, my Texan was built in the Kalamazoo factory with the J 45 body but a long scale neck. Thunderous low end thump only an old Gibson has. If you do decide to convert, have the plywood bridge plate changed to solid wood.