Replacing TOM with ebony bridge on a Gibson L-5CES

[coolvinny]

I'd get a local tech to make an ebony bridge so that you can go back and forth as time goes on. I did that in order to get a bone saddle bridge which I go back and forth between on my laminate archtop, depending on what strings and pickup I'm running. I liked the bone saddle version when I had a HB, but now that I've got a CC HB size in there I prefer the original ebony.

[lawson-stone]

I'm hardly a codger, nor am I casting any judgement regarding the bridge. I'm addressing the false notion that if it doesn't have an inlay, it isn't a "real" (as stated in another post) L5 bridge. As a side note, your somewhat insulting tone, reference to codgers and nursing homes is highly disrespectful.

Lacking the inlay, it's not a "real" L5 bridge if it's from the period requiring the inlay and doesn't have it.

Re-reading my post, you are right, I did sound snarky there, and thought I was just being funny. I should have re-read it and considered how someone who didn't know me would hear it. I apologize for that. I don't know you at all, and so I should err on the side of showing respect rather than risk some snide comment like that.

The point I was trying to make was that however beloved those older L5's are, they are not the whole story. Many great players play Norlin era L5ces models quite happily--Joshua Breakstone, Bruce Forman, for example. Others play post-Norlin L5's which are admitted by most to be extremely fine instruments, beautifully made, well playing, and great sounding. I am not overly wowed by the older instruments and so I do not take them as "the" standard. The L5 is a tradition of guitar-building, and most people buying an L5 today are buying one post 1970's and in that case, if the inlaid bridge is absent, that means the guitar is not all-original. that's an important piece of information in negotiating the sale. What else might be non-original? Given the prices L5's of any era sell for, one should know exactly what appointments and features go with the era of instrument they are considering.

[customxke]

Lacking the inlay, it's not a "real" L5 bridge if it's from the period requiring the inlay and doesn't have it.

Re-reading my post, you are right, I did sound snarky there, and thought I was just being funny. I should have re-read it and considered how someone who didn't know me would hear it. I apologize for that. I don't know you at all, and so I should err on the side of showing respect rather than risk some snide comment like that.

The point I was trying to make was that however beloved those older L5's are, they are not the whole story. Many great players play Norlin era L5ces models quite happily--Joshua Breakstone, Bruce Forman, for example. Others play post-Norlin L5's which are admitted by most to be extremely fine instruments, beautifully made, well playing, and great sounding. I am not overly wowed by the older instruments and so I do not take them as "the" standard. The L5 is a tradition of guitar-building, and most people buying an L5 today are buying one post 1970's and in that case, if the inlaid bridge is absent, that means the guitar is not all-original. that's an important piece of information in negotiating the sale. What else might be non-original? Given the prices L5's of any era sell for, one should know exactly what appointments and features go with the era of instrument they are considering.

Agreed. FWIW, I have a 55 with an inlaid bridge, and it's staying there.

[lawson-stone]

Agreed. FWIW, I have a 55 with an inlaid bridge, and it's staying there.

Non-original! ;-) But lovely all the same.

I'm sure you know how to use it as well. I hope you can receive my apology for my remarks, which I agree were not well placed.

[Stringswinger]

Non-original! ;-) But lovely all the same.

I'm sure you know how to use it as well. I hope you can receive my apology for my remarks, which I agree were not well placed.

Nice to see someone on an online forum who knows how to act like a gentleman and scholar should......

[Jimmy Mack]

I do enjoy, as Stringswinger brought up, that we do have a grown up and intelligent correspondence pool here.

Thank You.

[skykomishone]

I was in a session yesterday with 2 other guys and I was playing my L5P with the TOM saddle. One friend brings up the Ebony vs TOM with the opinion that it makes a 'Uge difference, and here I thought the guitar was sounding pretty awesome as it is. I hate it when I'm perfectly happy and someone comes along and says something that throws my world into doubt with a few comments. I had asked Steve Andersen a similar question a while back, but it was rosewood vs ebony, and he said something to the effect that the rosewood is better, or that I wouldn't be able to tell a difference. At any rate, I think that I'd like to try ebony on the L5P, just to prove it one way or another to myself. I've heard Matt makes a mean ebony saddle.