Thomastik Infeld Strings - Tailpiece Problem

**StevieB** · 01-25-2014, 09:07 AM

I decided to try a set of Thomastik-Infeld Swings on my Eastman Pisano 880.

Previously I've only used D'Addario Chromes on the guitar and after removing them, I am finding it 'impossible' to thread the T1 strings through the tailpiece because of the heavy wrapping on the ball end of the string. I've pity some muscle behind it and the end of the string will not go through the slot.

What am I missing? Are T1s just not able to be used on some arch top tailpieces? Am I supposed to remove some or all of the threading? I don't even know if that is possible.

As an aside, I really, really, really dislike the tailpiece on my 880. Even the Chromes are a pain to string up IMO.

**skiboyny** · 01-25-2014, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by StevieB

I decided to try a set of Thomastik-Infeld Swings on my Eastman Pisano 880.

Previously I've only used D'Addario Chromes on the guitar and after removing them, I am finding it 'impossible' to thread the T1 strings through the tailpiece because of the heavy wrapping on the ball end of the string. I've pity some muscle behind it and the end of the string will not go through the slot.

What am I missing? Are T1s just not able to be used on some arch top tailpieces? Am I supposed to remove some or all of the threading? I don't even know if that is possible.

As an aside, I really, really, really dislike the tailpiece on my 880. Even the Chromes are a pain to string up IMO.

If it's a slot, I sometimes take the smooth part of a long nose pliers and flatten the sting at the ball end.(by squeezing) Once flattened you can get it in the slot. Hope that helps you...

**Ronstuff** · 01-25-2014, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by skiboyny

If it's a slot, I sometimes take the smooth part of a long nose pliers and flatten the sting at the ball end.(by squeezing) Once flattened you can get it in the slot. Hope that helps you...

That's what I do as well...

**PTChristopher2** · 01-25-2014, 09:52 AM

>>> What am I missing?

Nothing. Sometimes components are not specified to meet all reasonably likely requirements. There are tuners that also have trouble with a wrapped low E string.

>>> Are T1s just not able to be used on some arch top tailpieces?

They can be used on most, and otherwise I prefer to improve the tailpiece with some careful filing rather modify the string. But I think the suggestions above are simpler in a way.

>>> Am I supposed to remove some or all of the threading? I don't even know if that is possible.

This is a traditional floss wrapping. It was originally waxed silk. Floss is now widely available in silk or synthetics. Yes you can cut away some if you want. It is designed to hold the windings in place, but on modern strings (and particularly at the ball end) it is more a cosmetic touch.

On any wound string, flossed or not, it is generally a good idea to not cut the tuner end until the string has a 90 degree bend in it (usually after installing at the tuner end). This prevents any unwinding - which is fairly rare on modern strings anyway.

I still prefer to adjust the tailpiece slot as needed to accommodate your strings. On the tuner end, it is a bit more exciting to open a tuner hole (and remove any burr, and clean up the bevel), but it is also do-able when needed.

Chris

**Jazz_175** · 01-25-2014, 10:45 AM

I had the same problem when I stringed the Collings Eastside LC with Bebop 112 Thomastik-Infeld.
The low E string didn't want to go into the proper place of the tailpiece.
After some efforts it went through.
The real problem was when I had to change the strings again. The low E string didn't come out. Finally I managed to pass another string (a light one) through the hole of the ball-end of the low E string and, laying the guitar on the bed, I grabbed the two ends of the light string (using a towel not to hurt my hand) and pulled with all my strength and after about 5-10 minutes of sweating and pulling, the ball-end came out of the tailpiece.

**PTChristopher2** · 01-25-2014, 10:52 AM

Good thing we all know we are talking about guitars.

**Jazz_175** · 01-25-2014, 10:56 AM

I guess my description could be open to misinterpretation......

**Wes Fan** · 01-25-2014, 01:19 PM

^ And that's without even discussing nut width.

**StevieB** · 01-25-2014, 01:21 PM

Thanks everyone. I just arrived at NAMM so I am going to get the Eastman and Thomastik- Infeld folks together and have than come up with a solution for me🎸🎸🎸😬

**SierraTango** · 01-25-2014, 06:35 PM

Before I got my AA my gigging guitar was/is a 05 880. I still use it on Big Band gigs. I had used TI's on other guitars and liked them very much, but they just didn't seem to work on the Pisano for me. Maybe tension, whatever the reason. For the extra $$ and hassle/pain to get them on, the D'A Chromes 12's seem to work better. As all ways your mileage may vary. A few years ago a Eastman rep at the NAMM show told me the "house string" at the factory was D'A. Maybe true, maybe not.

**2bornot2bop** · 01-25-2014, 06:55 PM

I strung an 880 with TI13's just months ago....it's the hole on your guitar.

Treat it like we did when we hit port after 4 months at sea...ram it through!

**StevieB** · 01-25-2014, 08:13 PM

Well I spoke with Heinz in the TI booth and Mark in the Eastman booth and gor some interesting input from both gentlemen. I will share it later - it is just too darn loud at the moment here at NAMM!

**RonD** · 01-25-2014, 10:33 PM

Hey StevieB,
What's the word on the Eastman Pisano models? Specifically, the 380?
They're all gone from the website.

**BigDaddyLoveHandles** · 01-25-2014, 10:42 PM

Please tell me it's fine to remove the silk from the ball end. It's just a nuisance as far as I can tell.

**peterbright** · 01-26-2014, 12:07 AM

Never had trouble with the silk but it does take a "little" muscle...gym membership may be in order.

**Woody Sound** · 01-26-2014, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

That's a beauty of a headstock!

**StevieB** · 01-26-2014, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by StevieB

Well I spoke with Heinz in the TI booth and Mark in the Eastman booth and gor some interesting input from both gentlemen. I will share it later - it is just too darn loud at the moment here at NAMM!

Okay so here is what I was told.

Heinz at TI strongly recommended not flattening the string using any part of needle nose pliers or unwrapping the thread as both methods would hurt the integrity of the string. He suggested widening the slot(s) on the Pisano tailpiece.

Mark at Eastman also thought it wasn't a great idea to tamper with the strings. He also suggested widening the slot on the tailpiece but cautioned that if I did I would most likely have to stay with TI Swings and not be able to go back to Chromes as the slot will be too wide.

So I'm in a bit of a dilemma here.

By the way, thanks everyone for all the input - serious and funny.

I have some NAMM pics and info about the Eastman laminate 380 Pisano and a few other guitar that I will post in another thread after I walk the dogs.

**PTChristopher2** · 01-26-2014, 01:36 PM

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the great input from company reps.

While certainly they represent the best and definitive views from the respective guitar and string manufacturers, I do have a question.

If what ultimately retains the string is the so called "ball end",

And if the ball ends are the same size on the D'A and T-I strings (And for all practical purposes they measure to be the same.),

Then why would making a slot work for the T-I make it work somehow less for the D'A?

And if this were the case, why do so many tailpieces have the same slot dimension for more than one string? Would this not result in high E's escaping and flying up our noses when emoting through a solo?

Or is is possible that since the ball ends are all the same size, it may be that the string gauge is somewhat less vital to the strings retention? (Unless of course the string gauge overwhelms the ball end, in which case any filing would not work even for the single string in question. But this is not the case in discussion anyway.)

In my devoutly non-authoritative opinion.

And again, surely the view of show reps for the manufacturers is the definitive view.

Chris

**Jazz_175** · 01-26-2014, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by StevieB

Heinz at TI strongly recommended not flattening the string using any part of needle nose pliers or unwrapping the thread as both methods would hurt the integrity of the string. He suggested widening the slot(s) on the Pisano tailpiece.

Mark at Eastman also thought it wasn't a great idea to tamper with the strings. He also suggested widening the slot on the tailpiece but cautioned that if I did I would most likely have to stay with TI Swings and not be able to go back to Chromes as the slot will be too wide.

Both suggestions unacceptable to me.
You had the problem with an Eastman, I had the same problem with a Collings, so I suspect the problem is not in the guitars but in the string manufacturer. I don't want to widen the slot of the tailpiece, it's TI that should wind the string differently. If they don't do that, well I'll keep using D'Addario Chromes.

**StevieB** · 01-26-2014, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by PTChristopher2

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the great input from company reps.

While certainly they represent the best and definitive views from the respective guitar and string manufacturers, I do have a question.

If what ultimately retains the string is the so called "ball end",

And if the ball ends are the same size on the D'A and T-I strings (And for all practical purposes they measure to be the same.),

Then why would making a slot work for the T-I make it work somehow less for the D'A?

And if this were the case, why do so many tailpieces have the same slot dimension for more than one string? Would this not result in high E's escaping and flying up our noses when emoting through a solo?

Or is is possible that since the ball ends are all the same size, it may be that the string gauge is somewhat less vital to the strings retention? (Unless of course the string gauge overwhelms the ball end, in which case any filing would not work even for the single string in question. But this is not the case in discussion anyway.)

In my devoutly non-authoritative opinion.

And again, surely the view of show reps for the manufacturers is the definitive view.

Chris

I hear you Chris. My take is that the 'slot' would have to be widened to accommodate the girth of the approx. 3/4" threaded portion of the string directly above the ball.

Maybe 2bornot2bop is right and I should just really pull the heck of it *and yes I work out at the gym :-) - the problem for me is the very difficult access to the slots (back and under) on that classic arch top tailpiece.

The 880 goes to the tech who does guitar repairs and tune ups for me on Monday to get his assessment. Worse case scenario is I will just use the T1s on my ES-175 if he can't get them on the 880 or if I decide not to mod the tailpiece. I'll post what the outcome.

**StevieB** · 01-26-2014, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Jazz_175

Both suggestions unacceptable to me.
You had the problem with an Eastman, I had the same problem with a Collings, so I suspect the problem is not in the guitars but in the string manufacturer. I don't want to widen the slot of the tailpiece, it's TI that should wind the string differently. If they don't do that, well I'll keep using D'Addario Chromes.

I definitely agree. I was only trying to get a 'less bright' tone on my 880 with the T1 Swings versus the Chromes.

**2bornot2bop** · 01-26-2014, 02:28 PM

I actually installed TI Swing 14's on an 880. Only the bottom E was snug at first. With some determination it will pull through. You could make the job easier by lightly lubing the hole before pulling the string through. I didn't need to do that.

Since 7-8" of that high E string are snipped, I'd use that section as leverage, wrap several turns around a round block of wood that enabled my hand to get a good grip, and pull it through. I bet it will pull through...it sounds to me like you're simply not getting enough leverage on the string.

**2bornot2bop** · 01-26-2014, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Woody Sound

That's a beauty of a headstock!

Magnetic truss rod covers are kewl.

**StevieB** · 01-26-2014, 05:23 PM

Alert the media - crisis averted. I took 2bornot2bop's advice and was a little more forceful with the .050 string and worked it into the slot. The remaining strings were no problem.

I played the guitar for a few minutes, before this post and the strings 'feel' very very nice. At this very early stage, the 'tone' is more similar than dissimilar to the Chromes. Not sure how the T1s will evolve as they age. Any input on that?

**2bornot2bop** · 01-26-2014, 05:37 PM

Not bad for a piano player, huh?

I've experienced similar issues with TI low E's on several other solid Ebony tailipieces...namely a Buscarino, and Napolitano carved tailpiece...torque worked each time.

The TI's just seem to have more tone depth to them, which is why they're my string of choice...aside from lasting a very long time.