Gibson ES-175 Bridge Height

[rjenkins]

Hi, all.

Brand new here with a burning question. How high is it safe and/or advisable for an ES175 bridge to be? The top on my '70 or '71 with kerfed braces (one was cracked, it just got repaired) is caved to the point that the bridge, at the 6th string, is just shy of 1 1/4 inches. That's 5/16s of stud showing.

What potential problems am I looking at? Anyone here ever deal with this?

Thanks.

[edh]

Didn't the luthier set your guitar up when he did the repair? I have a '81 ES-175. I just measured the bridge from the top of the guitar on the low E side to the top of the bridge. It measured 13/16. As far as the stud from the bottom of the thumb wheel to the top of the bridge foot I would say it is 3/16 or less. I measured this using a tape measure. I have some calipers and will do a more exact measurement.

Didn't your luthier mention this problem to you? I would look for another luthier if he didn't.

How high is your action at the 12th fret or end of the fretboard?

What do you mean by kerfed braces? Do you mean the braces that are attached to the top of the guitar or the bracing between the top and sides of the guitar?

I sure do miss PTChristopher posting here.

[ooglybong]

...I sure do miss PTChristopher posting here.

Yup.

[Jabberwocky]

I'm not PTChristopher (How could I ever hope to fill that man's shoes?) but I have a mouth that loves shooting off, so here goes:

Frank Ford's site is helpful. FRETS.COM

Not quite what you're asking about but relevant FRETS.COM Field Trip

Look at the bridge height before and after.

[TH]

The height of the bridge is adjustable so you can set your action. The action is set so you can play; it may be radically different from guitar to guitar, from season to season on the same guitar, from person to person on the same instrument. So the question is not how high is the bridge height, but what is the action at the 12th fret or really the question is, how does it feel and sound?
How does the guitar feel?
Think of it this way, what is the proper angle of the rear view mirror in the car ? That's not based on some absolute or proper angle but the one that is determined by the person at the time.
If the posts are protruding and it bothers you, wait for the most humid season when the top is swelled the most (not as much of a factor on a laminate like a 175) and you can file off the end. Maybe have a luthier do this and he/she will remove the saddle first. As the seasons change to a dryer environment, the top will fall and you will put the bridge up to compensate for that.
Make sense?
David

[oldane]

When raising the action with the adjustable bridge, the downward pressure on the top also increases. That means that an instable top that is sagging due to defect/broken braces will sag even more with a higher action.

However, that said, an archtop top should certainly be stable and able to take the downward pressure from whatever string height the player prefers. If not, the problem is not the height of the bridge but the top and its braces.

I have seen tops on old Gibson 175s which has sagged somewhat over the years, but as long as they are stable and can withstand the string pressure, it need not present a problem. One will just have to raise the bridge a bit more (or, if that is not enough, have a luthier cut a new and higher bridge saddle).

BTW, Other than reducing the manpower time at all costs, I have never understood the rationale behind using kerfed braces. Of course it makes it faster for the guitar maker to fit the brace to the top, but it also weakens the braces' support of the top drastically and invites later problems with sagging. I'd go as far as saying why bother to fit braces at all, if theyb are kerfed? As I understand it, the practice of using kerfed braces was from Gibsons CMI period in the 1970s - a period which marked a low ebb in the quality of Gibson guitars. My 1961 175 has unkerfed braces.

[zizala]

CMI period Gibsons of the 70's with kerfed braces were not unique to that period.

Might be interesting for people to know that many of Gibson's 16" and smaller f-hole archtops of the '30's also had kerfed bracing.
And not just the lower priced models.....

Time to dig out your inspection mirrors.....!!

[Franz 1997]

My 70's 175 ( kerfed braces and all..) is just under 1" at the bridge, but I play with a very low action. So, more than that could be 'normal' for these guitars, maybe even up to 1 1/4" possibly for a v high action.

Having had 60s, 70's and 000's models, I know that the 70s models tend to have almost flat tops with no curvature, even without broken braces, and so the bridge can need to be a bit higher to achieve good action.

I had to deal with this problem on a old L4C where the braces had been cut to install pickups ( badly..). Naturally the top caved in over time, but I could deal with it by installing a sound post through the hacked pickup hole, and that supported the top. The acoustic volume suffered, but funnily enough the electric sound was unaffected and even improved.

Couldn't agree more about the kerfed braces - kind of defeats the point, especially when almost cut right through, as these are.

[rjenkins]

Thanks so much for the replies!

What happened is that the repair person didn't lift the top sufficiently before repairing (capping) the failed (treble) brace. The bass brace had also sunk, and they're know the same height. Adding to the issue, she didn't cap the bass brace re: Jabberwocky's link. She SAID she was going to, and after two trips to her shop, still only capped the broken one.

So, w/r/t oldane's first paragraph, my concern is how stable a bridge that high pressing down on one stiff and one kerfed (and already sagging) brace. Can I forget it and get a deeper bridge saddle to protect the studs? What do you all think?

[Franz 1997]

Well I'd talk to the repairperson first. Could be ( possibly) that the unbroken/ kerfed brace has been left alone because the top is level now....I agree kerfed braces seem to be asking for trouble, but on my guitar they have held up for 40 years. That said, I'm only using 12s - that's probably helped.

I'm not sure I'd be happy with a bridge height of 11/4", because it's going to be more difficult to set pickup height properly, but that's just me.

Has the top actually sunk, or is it just level and flat as opposed to nicely curved?

[rjenkins]

I'm not particularly pleased with it either, and am trying to understand the parameters of what is structurally acceptable. I wish this particular repair person could be talked to, but after not doing what she and I agreed to her doing twice (again, the Frets.com repair link), conversation's not much of an option.
Here's a pic of the bridge and top. Note the top's concave dip between the braces.

Thanks again for listening to my woes.

[Franz 1997]

That's made things clearer. I'm not a pro repairperson and no doubt others better qualified will weigh in, but comparing your pic with my notoriously flat-bellied 70s 175, I can say it shouldn't look like that, even for a Norlin era 175. Sorry, not helpful I guess

As to what to do, I guess this will depend on to what extent the top shape could be corrected, either by another repairperson re-setting the braces, with the top being eased back into shape at the same time, or possibly by installing a sound post ( or more accurately, a post with additional shaped top and bottom bars to fit the top & back) which might ease the top back into shape.

If it's helpful, when I installed the post in my hacked L4C, ( see my, er, post above) I was able to get a good 3 or 4 mm extra height into the top, and restore the curve to some degree. The wood was surprisingly flexible, for a carved spruce top. The 175 laminate top might be as flexible. I'm not saying it's the right course of action, but I am suggesting that there is some flexibility on these guitar tops which you might be able to exploit, with a new bracing system, to get a less sunken top.

If it were mine, I'd take it to someone else reputable and seek their advice as to what the options are, and the cost. That said, I have a feeling that the most economical option is to hope that it's stable, and have a higher bridge base made, which would be a lot cheaper.

As someone said, where is PTChristopher....

[edh]

A luthier that won't listen to their customer

I would dump her and get someone else who will listen to your concerns.

I sure hope PTChristopher is doing o.k.

[Patrick2]

Well, I'm not a PT Christopher either . . . and I do miss him. But, I'll offer my assessement anyway.

The top sag issue needs to be correctly rectified. It doesn't appear to have been repaired correctly. A forum member here (tgee) brought me an early '50s ES175 with top sag due to a broken tone bar. I took it to Aaron and he made the correct repairs. If I remember correctly, the top sag issue was correctly repaired and about 80% rectified and made stable. I'll also point out that the bridge saddle on in this photo appears to be very shallow, as previously mentioned. A deeper saddle would require less upward adjustment. I'd like to see a photo of the top from the side . . showing the extent of the top sag. Sometimes, a poor neck angle could also lead to the need for excessive bridge saddle height.

This guitar needs a competent luthier . . . not a tech.

[rjenkins]

Here's a couple side views.
Where is Aaron located? I'm in western Mass. Anyone know anyone who could do this work?

[fws6]

I dont think it is always possible to bring a sunken top back to the original shape, will differ a lot from one guitar to another ? Is it really the repair person who did a poor job, or was this simply not possible to correct more

Anyways I would not play it as it is now, as I would be afraid with the saddle so high the bridge might collapse from the string pressure / if you accidentally hit it with your right hand , and that could seriously damage the top

If I were you, have another luthier look at the top to see if it can still be corrected more. But in the mean time, if you continue to play it , install a bridge with a wider foot and a higher saddle to ensure stability.

[Patrick2]

I knew I had seen this correction discussed a while back. I'm glad I was able to find it again. Hope this helps.FRETS.COM Field Trip

[rjenkins]

And this is exactly what's so infuriating about this situation. We initially, before I handed the guitar over to her, discussed the frets.com repair. She agreed to do it, and after 2 attempts, hasn't. Now I'm out 300 bucks, and I need to get the repair done still.

Again, thanks to all for reading and responding to my sad tale.

[rjenkins]

Hi again,

Good news is that the owner of the shop where the "luthier" works refunded what I had paid. The bad news is that he also paid her the 80% she gets for work done there. So she (the "luthier") got $240 for doing work that I"ll need to pay someone to undo. Oh well.

I'm taking the beleaguered guitar to Otto D'ambrossio today. He's worked on all the rest of my guitars, and I should have driven it down to him (in Providence) to begin with. Live, learn, pay.

Hope y'all are doing great with your guitars,

Robert

[Jabberwocky]

Keep the forum posted, Robert.

[cgratham]

Best of luck with the new repair Robert. Sorry I don't have anything helpful to add, but I learned a lot from the thread and Frets.com field trip page.

Chris

[pingu]

women eh ?

[Patrick2]

women eh ?

Oh . . .SHIT man!! Now you've done it pingu. Are you implying that females aren't as good as males when it comes to guitar techology?? I can only hope and pray that Jakeacci isn't listening.

By the way . . . where the hell is Jake?? I kinda miss him.

[rjenkins]

Reporting back,

Otto's the man. If you're in the market for a hand carved archtop, give him a call. Julian Lage just got one (

), and his repair work is fantastic as well. This is one solid Norlin ES 175, now. I'm breaking in the braces, and it just keeps responding better and better each day. Happy now, and violent thoughts of retribution have subsided.

Robert

[Jabberwocky]

You owe us at least one picture of the new bridge height. Show us a side profile of the restored arch too.