It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
At the moment, we're looking at 303 from the upper saddles, posts and locking retainers, and 304 for the wedges (lower saddles) and chassis.
There is a possibility of doing a version that uses brass instead of 303 for added variety in appearance and sound - maybe that comes later. But the first run are likely all to be steel.
We're going for 4uA and 8uA surface smoothness on most components, and a global tolerance of 0.025mm. this allowed me to design in the necessary fitment tolerances to ensure smooth functioning of the adjustment system without things getting "gappy".
It is made to these tolerances because the way it works demands it. But as a result, if you put it next to any other piece of guitar hardware it looks like jewellery. I've got top quality stuff on several of my guitars from ABM, Callaham etc. - lovely pieces, but not made to this quality because they don't have to be.
I think the Halon Guitar guys got a sales/profile boost when he included one of their bridges in a comparison.
Frankly I'd also send one to Puisheen (Mike Adams of M&M Guitar Bar) in Seattle. Great bloke and about as good as any in terms of getting eyeballs on it. I'm guessing he's also on OSG and aware of this
With a good bridge you can use 9s on a JM if you want (I do!). I run Masteries on my JMs and have had Staytrems too, but they ain't perfect.
Ideally any trem bridge should:
1) have intonation adjustment for every string independently
2) have height adjustment for every string independently
3) be able to move/rock with the strings as you move the trem (rather than have the strings slide over the saddles)
4) stay exactly how you set it
The stock bridge has 1-3 but not 4, Staytrem has 1, 3 & 4, Mastery has 4 (but not strictly 1 & 2 despite the marketing), and the Tuffset potentially offers all 4.
(Arguably Graphtech saddles actually give you all 4 but don't sound quite the same and certainly don't look great.)
IMO the trem/vibrato isn't quite as critical as long as it's fit for purpose, which basically just means returning to the original position after you stop using it, and that it doesn't wear out, obviously. I've used the AVRI unit with Staytrem collet and I'm happy with that combo.
I don't think it looks bad at all btw, like other have said maybe a bit fiddly in isolation but in keeping with the guitar when fitted...
Tune-o-matics make for very stable tuning if you don't use the trem, but the sharp saddles do a lot to take it out of tune quickly and radius is off. Roller ToM bridge worked well though
Height would defo be the issue with a Tele bridge - I did look into it at one point. Could possibly find saddles with extended height screws or an offset with a particularly shallow neck angle. If it was normal Tele height I would think the break angle over the saddles wouldn't be great enough. A Mastery is probably as close as you'll get but others might prove me wrong?
Over the years, I've seen quite a few trade-folk jump in on a thread like this and totally shit the bed
However, @Tuffset is nailing it here...welcome to the...erm...jungle(?)
But I actually have an old Japanese Gretsch that has some really lovely patina on some of the stainless parts, more like a matte finish than anything looking rusted or busted. But that might be enough just to knock it back.
Here's the thing - the super-shiny, newness look is kind of a complex phenomenon in my opinion.
In my experience, it's more often the product of cheap-ness, not new-ness per se. Bridges and parts made by die casting, stamping etc. are tempting for the company to just cake with chrome. The shiny-ness improves things at a glance, but if you look closely you're actually still seeing the imperfections or poor quality of what lies underneath.
The Tuffset is different. For a start, it's not going to be chrome plated - what you see on the outside is what it's made from on the inside. But there is always a question of surface roughness (level of "polish", if you will) that goes along with tolerancing on the technical specs.
What you're seeing on the prototype isn't a brushed finish - it's actually the milling marks. On the production version, these are being kept to a minimum and will likely only feature at all on the underside of the bridge and a little on the chassis at the bottom plane, amongst the saddles. The "Shoulders" will be polished flat, and the turned surfaces of the saddles will have the directional anisomorphic quality that catches the light in a bar shape, but will otherwise be pretty shiny.
Think of something like a Callaham Strat bridge, that might be a good analogy. It's not offensively bright and shiny, but neither is it brushed. I don't think it would necessarily look out of place on a guitar new or old, but if it does and that's an issue, I'd rather start with a level of surface quality that doesn't look out of place on a Jag next to a load of chrome plates and then *age it down* somehow than aim for a kind of brushed / scruffy effect that's neither in one camp nor the other. Do you know what I mean?
It's reasonable to be cynical about new products in the guitar-parts-adjacent world. A lot of companies deliberately don't decide to improve or change the designs of what they're offering from vintage, instead relying on "better materials" to make the difference.
For example - perhaps they don't understand *why* the better materials are making something sound better in one context, but not in another. Perhaps they're hearing with their brains, and not with their ears.
This is a situation in which even well-meaning and honest people can produce a product they don't understand, that doesn't work, and relies upon snake oil and superstition in the marketing. it's a minefield, and the "gatekeeping" instinct by forum members exists to protect others from making a mistake with their money.