Andyjr1515

Worth double checking with Gear4music. It is very unusual for a 'fenderish' neck pocket or neck not to be pretty close (certainly to within less than a mm). The necks and neck pockets are tapered. Is it possible one quoted measurement is where the pocket starts and the other is at the end of the heel at its widest?

Hadn't seen that - thanks!

I know what you mean ref the on/off...the V/V/T/T circuits often do cut off the whole signal when one of the vols is put to zero, even on a 'both' setting. But here there is no change in volume on bridge pup only at all until it's 'off' Chris is more than happy - he's after playability rather than the vintage look as long as he can return it to original if he ever wants to sell it. The Babicz will be perfect for him

Oh - and we may well be going for a Babicz FCH-3 replacement bridge @thodrik with Chris keeping the original (and my lump of ebony) in a safe place in the unlikely event he will be ever selling it. Electrics-wise, other than the loose and disconnected choke and some tweaks done in years gone by that I will undo, a decent squirt of contact cleaner has sorted all the crackles coming from the rotary and the tone pots. Neck volume pot fine and just the bridge volume that is on or off and needs replacing. Not bad for 50 years, many of which were heavy gigging! Truss rod seems to work OK and relief is adjustable to the correct level, but the frets definitely have some high spots that need sorting out. Pretty good. The main problems seem to be the ones that were there when brand new

Confirmed. Saddles are definitely original.

I can certainly measure the resistance...but, hmmm, the inductance? Not sure a standard multimeter can do that... Open to suggestions how - I will be disconnecting the choke

Anyway, my conclusion is that I will set this up for Chris with strings straight. I don't even have to change the saddles - the original grooves are so far off to the right, that the strings will sit straight without having to mess about at all (and if I need to cut some more to fine-tune the action height balance, there's enough room for that too.) But all that will have to wait a bit - domestic and family responsibilities, I am instructed informed, will be taking precedence for much of the coming week But when I'm locked allowed back in the cellar, the next task is sorting the electrics...so I am delighted at having found the correct circuit diagram as a result of the above discussion

Yes - pretty certain but can check too. If this had been the only one, then I would have been sceptical...but that a google images search flags up so many with identical saddles...and all with the same offset...then I'm pretty sure it is.

Yes - and actually, this is why I am pretty sure that this is a neck alignment 'fix' - because with the strings down the middle of the saddles as the metal ones would have been, pretty much everything - including the bridge poles - lines up...except for the distance of the G string from the side of the fretboard progressively up the scale and the centre fret dots progressively down the scale towards the nut This is strings positioned down the middle of the saddles as they would be with the standard metal saddles as fitted to @thodrik's (in the same factory in the same year): Start off by observing: - The strings are pretty much over all of the poles - The centre dot at the 19th is pretty much in the middle of the A and D strings - the centre dot at the 3rd is closer to the A than the D So how do we builders line up the necks? Well, it is easier to envisage what happens when you line up a neck by imagining this is a bolt-on. Loosen the bolts and the neck would swivel around an axis at 19th fret (think clock minute hand, spindle at the 19th dot and nut at 12 o'clock). The strings are anchored at the bridge, so if you rotate the neck towards 1 o'clock, then the fretmarker will move to the right relative to the A string. The right hand corner of the minute hand, below the spindle will rotate the other way...but it is close to the spindle so only a teeny bit. The strings will angle slightly towards the right, but they are so close to the pickups, that distance would be teeny and they would still be over the poles: And that is broadly how we all do it. But - this is a set neck...that's set. And the problem is, that to fix it from the other end, you have to move stuff across a lot more to achieve the same effect...and you fix one small issue and create many more more serious ones. My suspicion is this...and I'll check a few stock shots of other basses with the bone saddles to see if I'm anywhere near right...that: - probably in those days, the neck misalignment from time-to-time was much worse than this actual example - that they had a fix for 'bodies with misaligned necks'. Which was a box of bridges with alternative set of saddles with an offset. It would have been that or scrap the body and neck. - this bass ended up in the 'misaligned neck' pile...even though it is actually relatively marginal - it gets the alternative bridge - the outer strings now match better in distance to the fretboard edges. Nothing else does. Of course, I might be totally wrong

Love it! Just like my teenage heart-throb - mad as a brush!

Again, another good suggestion, but I've just measured it and it is 7mm worth of bone, and that is in compression. Plenty strong enough. Also, why fit bone when clearly the bridge is designed for metal as fitted to @thodrik 's ?

Great - thanks Well, if that was the reason, then it clearly didn't work all of the silks are over the saddles still in the pic above, even thought 3 of the saddles are between 2mm to 4mm too far forward.

And so to the next enigma. It is unlikely that this is all down to folks changing stuff but: - if you google images of original mid 1970s EB-3's and you look at the ones that have the bridge guard removed you will see some have metal saddles and some have bone saddles - and the bone saddles are properly made. The saddle adjuster screw thread is actually cut into the bone (something I've never seen before). Posh job! - and...er...the string slots in the metal saddles are central. And all the string slots I can find photos of in the bone saddles are offset...and that makes the strings do slightly odd things at the bridge, because the ball end positions are central. In fact...it does this: - but...er...wouldn't the strings line up better with the pole pieces if the saddle slots were in the middle? "Not if the neck isn't glued in straight. Thunderation - this is 1975! This is Gibson, godammit! Do you expect us to send on offset neck out without a rectification? Offset the saddle slots, problem solved!" Well, of course, I'm speculating. But, having spent years in manufacturing management, that was a sentiment expressed by some of my factory managers from time to time. Shortly before I dispensed with their services... Anyone know if I'm right on any of this? - are the bone saddles indeed all offset? - is there any other reason for doing that? - @thodrik , the question I referred to above...what are your saddles made of? And if metal, are the slots in the middle and if bone, are they offset? My speculation is because of this - ignore for the moment the string positions vs the pickup - just look at the string to fretboard sides and string to fretboard dots (which, I can confirm, are in the centre of the fretboard): And what happens if I lift the strings out of their slots and put them in the middle of the saddles. The G string is now further away from the edge at the upper strings: When you are building a guitar or bass, one of the basic checks when you are fitting a neck is ensuring that all of the dots are in line up the neck and that the bottom and top strings are equidistant from the edges of the board. Just sayin' And don't get me wrong. I LOVE Gibson guitars and basses. But it's a bit like when, as a teenager, I was always attracted to the girl who was as mad as a brush...

So - extender. I found a piece of ebony offcut and cut it to the right depth, but 5mm longer than the extension distance I was planning for. I then filed an angle, for reasons I'll come to: Next, on the opposite face, I marked the position of the four strings and spotted them with a 7mm brad-point drill. Lining up with a square, I tweaked the angled face until a vertical drill would create me the necessary allowance for the break angle of the strings: Then to the little drill-press. 4mm holes for the bass strings, 3mm holes for the treble: A filing off of the angled ramp and a groove chiselled in so that the block would slot into the clasps and lay flat against the back of the bridge: And...to my admittedly great surprise...it works! Next is investigating those odd kinks in the standard string positioning...

Brill! In a couple of posts time, I have a question for you

And so...the notorious 3 point bridge. Very, very nice idea and, with a very small tweak they could be made to work really well. But the design is flawed and yet they still make them and sell them. So what's the problem? It's simply that the distance between the string ball joint clasps and the saddles is too short. Much too short. Result - the string ball joint windings and/or silks go over the saddles. This is all set at scale length, so in reality, the D, A & E need to be at least 2-4mm further back than this: Ignore the kink in the direction of the strings, I'll come back to that. And most EB-3 owners (and that's most since the mid 70's) have this problem. Can you leave it? Well yes. But it means one of the key impacts of tone (orders of magnitude greater than neck wood, fretboard wood, body 'tonewood') - the contact between the string and nut and between the string and bridge - is compromised. There are a couple of solutions: - cut back the silks and put up with the fact that the string at that far end is often different to the rest of it because of the reverse wind from the ball joint - fit or make an extender Ref the latter, there is a guy in USA who makes and sells what is basically a steel bar with the four string holes that hooks under the clasps and moves the ball ends back 10-12mm. It works, but is quite expensive with the US shipping and adds more weight to what is already a fairly heft bass. So - what about making an extender out of a hardwood, such as ebony. And that's what I've done. I'll cover it in the next post.

I'm pleased you raised this - because it then made me wonder when that change was made. It turns out it was in 1972 according to www.flyguitars excellent timeline summary. And linked to that summary was a Series 2 circuit diagram that matches the switching system on this one! And as a few solder joints have failed...leaving the tone choke coil rattling around the control chamber...it is very helpful to actually have the correct circuit diagram to work from. Many thanks! I love working on old classics and this one is an icon. Eccentric, but iconic all the same

You know how 1950's American cars are often so extreme, break so many design and aesthetics rules, are often so darn ugly, that they become utterly beautiful? Well, I often feel the same about Gibson design and manufacture. It is often so, so wrong - on so many levels - that I can only stand back in absolute admiration. And when it comes to guitar and bass design, there are actually not many 'fixed' rules to break. Those elements that are, are generally linked to basic geometry, practicality and strength. Most of the other stuff is entirely down to the whim of the designer or builder and long may it be so. But ignore the basics and there are going to be difficulties challenges. But let's change the subject. Let's park all of that and talk about this little beauty - a friend's original had-it-from-new & gigged-for-decades & then-put-in-a-cupboard-for-more-decades 1974 Gibson EB-3, in the 'proper' colour: Should he get it refinished, he asked me, what with all the dents and scratches? "NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely NOT!" Could it be made to play OK again and the electrics sorted out? "Yes - almost certainly." And could I do something about the bridge...and the fact that the silks go over the saddles? "Ah...Gibson. What are they like, the little rascals? Don't you just love 'em? Challenging but probably!" And the other stuff? "Well...it looks broadly OK...hmmm...except...oh...hmmm... that's a bit odd... and, what's that doing there....and...OH....WHAT THE ???? " And so begins another exploration into the wonder of just how much you can break the rules, fix things by breaking other things and take the hardest way possible of solving a very straightforward problem...and still come out by being one of two or three makers in the world that many of us would sell our hind teeth for. It's genius. There's no other word for it. Genius!

I detest them. With the arthritis in my hands, the only way I can get them out is standing the bass upside down on its headstock and tackle it two-handed and police-style elbow headlock to stop the whole thing crashing onto the floor. Not a good look when you are trying to change instruments in the middle of a gig. Mind you, often gets more applause than my playing

And I think you will find that if you tap them, you will be amazed how much the tone has been improved!

Osmo Polyx is also an excellent finish and can be wiped on.

Nothing is OK. It will stain and dirty over time, but functionally will be completely unaffected. Wax is good. I finished a bubinga Jack Bruce Warwick tribute for our band's bassist entirely with wax. It looks just as good now...10 years later. I used Lord Sheratons beeswax from Sainsburys, but Briwax takes some beating, and you can get that in various tints.

It should be close to D. The tang (think rectangle DxE) should be a snug fit into the slot. The barbs, representing the E to F difference, are designed to cut into the wood - and notice that they sit lower than the top of the fretboard. So in fret fitting, those barbs first cut through the fretboard vertically and, once below the fretboard surface, move sideways under fresh wood. Clever, really... I've just measured my own fret-cutting saw and, as it happens, the kerf (width of cut) is 0.6mm

That is no problem...in fact that is how it should be The frets should be radiussed tighter than the neck (and you certainly will have that with a flat board) and that way they will end up locked in the fret slot. Assuming you will be initially hammering them in, this is generally regarded as the best sequence: - you first hammer one side and then the other side. - most of the barbs will now be inside the slot but the fret has a hump in the middle - then hammering in the middle - in your case hammering flat - does two things. First, the rest of the barbs go under the fretboard surface. Secondly (note the barbs on the tang finish before they get to the flange of the profile itself) flattening the hump forces the wire either side outwards and thus slides the barbs sideways under the wood, locking them in! This is why when you remove frets it is almost impossible to do without a few chips - because the barb of the tang is now under fresh wood and isn't designed to come out! - the splaying of the barbs on the tang basically does the same if you use a press.

For the tuner positioning, the first thing to do is to draw the string runs - as this is a 4 in-line, then it is the bass edge of the string width that is important. That done, the radius of the centre pegs gives you the drill centre positions: Then a double check that I have my spacings right and that the tuner paddles and bodies don't clash: So then it can go down to my mini drill press with a drill bit large enough for the top bushes: And done: There are all sorts of shenanigans going on in the Andyjr1515 household over the coming couple of weeks and so it is unlikely that I'll get back to this before the end of the month...but we're on the home straight. Should be pretty quick to finish off once I can get back to what really matters!