Gibson L-5 Tailpiece Question

[Hammertone]

None of the changes you recommend particularly appeal to me, nor do I think they'd make for a better-looking instrument. What I really like about these guitars is the small body size + longer scale length, and if that puts the bridge in a non-traditional location, so what? As you said, great sounding, great playing guitars.Danny W.

De gustubus non disputandum est.

[Gilpy]

......I'd have to say (as a hollow body fan) that the L5 tailpiece on the L5S looks..... I dunno, way out of scale?? JMO

You're right! I remember the first time I saw a L-5S. I laughed because all that bling on a solidbody just seemed absurd.
I bought this one in poor condition with the idea of fixing it up and selling it. It turned out to be one of the best made, easiest playing, best sounding guitars I've ever had!
So now I like the way it looks...

[Webby]

This thread got me wondering...
Is the design of the L5 tailpiece actually protected by any copyright?
I know some of those lawsuit era guitars featured copies, but if I'm right, those lawsuits were about body and headstock shapes. Currently Slaman (and I think some other builders too) use the design.
Gibson does not list the tailpiece under the trademarks, although they do include several flattop bridges.
Gibson Brands Inc Registered Patents And Trademarks

Anybody got any insights on this?

[olejason]

Sorry to bump an old thread but this seems like the best place to ask. My electrified L-5ish clone is based on the late 20's dot neck version. It looks like my tailpiece can be wrapped over or strung conventionally. Does anyone have any thoughts on which way is better or if there is a noticeable difference in tone/stiffness? I'll probably try wrapping it when I change strings next but haven't seen much discussion online about it on these guitars.

[rpjazzguitar]

Changes the breakover angle at the bridge. So, the conventional stringing would put more downward force on the bridge. Also seems like it would reduce friction at the bridge. Might be enough to hear or feel a difference. But, the only way to tell which you prefer is to try it both ways.

My vote is that it looks better with the conventional stringing.

[sgosnell]

Wrapping that will kink the strings pretty badly where they come over the back. I would not recommend it. It's much different from a stop tailpiece, which is very thick and mostly rounded. The balls will also be visible sticking out, and I'm not sure they would hold. I've never seen a trapeze tailpiece strung assbackwards.

[wintermoon]

The first Gibson L-5's from the Loar era to around '29 wrapped over.

[sgosnell]

That appears to have the bar that holds the strings attached backwards from the usual orientation. The round back would make it a little better, it seems.

[wintermoon]

That's how they were made but switched to the modern trapeze style circa 1930 and have remained there since.
They're actually a bit of a pain to deal with, especially w modern strings which frequently have uneven wrappings near the ball ends and sometimes require enlarging the bass string slots to make them fit.

[sgosnell]

Yeah, I can see how that would be an issue. There would be a very sharp bend where the strings come out of the slots, not quite as bad as they would on a modern trapeze, but still pretty radical. I would expect a lot of broken strings. But running the strings backward in a modern trapeze tailpiece would almost inevitably lead to lots of broken strings, or so I would theorize. I'm not willing to try it.

[olejason]

Thanks guys, yeah after looking at this Stringphonic tailpiece closer you certainly can do a wraparound (the balls would be hidden) but the end of the tailpiece is squared off instead of rounded like in post #32 above. I think that would introduce a break angle that would be too extreme to make sense and, as you said, would make string breakage an issue.

IIRC this model is based on a '28 Gibson so I'm guessing that guitar either had the non-wrap tailpiece or they just couldn't source the hardware to reproduce that aspect of the original guitar.

[aborodya]

I have another mystery for you: any idea what was the purpose of these holes in otherwise perfectly good vintage L5 tailpiece? Did somebody want to string it through the holes? Wraparound? Attach something?

[customxke]

I have another mystery for you: any idea what was the purpose of these holes in otherwise perfectly good vintage L5 tailpiece? Did somebody want to string it through the holes? Wraparound? Attach something?

Im guessing someone tried making it a string through.

[garybaldy]

Im guessing someone tried making it a string through.

Like a Tele!:

[Stringswinger]

If only we knew back in the 70's and 80's that our guitar mods would destroy future values in our classic guitars, perhaps we would not have have done them? I admit guilt in harming a 63 SG Junior and a 68 ES-335. May the guitar gods forgive me.

[aborodya]

Should’ve drilled through the body for more sustain

[garybaldy]

If only we knew back in the 70's and 80's that our guitar mods would destroy future values in our classic guitars, perhaps we would not have have done them? I admit guilt in harming a 63 SG Junior and a 68 ES-335. May the guitar gods forgive me.

I didn't have any, what are now, really desirable guitars back then but I did this to my Harmony Meteor. But I can rebuild it!

[wintermoon]

Im guessing someone tried making it a string through.

But doesn't seem like they followed through, you'd see string wear in the gold from the hole to the edge of the crossbar.

[JazzNote]

I have another mystery for you: any idea what was the purpose of these holes in otherwise perfectly good vintage L5 tailpiece? Did somebody want to string it through the holes? Wraparound? Attach something?

Maybe to be able to align the holes of the ball ends vertically when restringing the guitar? (couldn't think of anything else)