String-thru-body/t-o-m Bridge

[daniboy]

hi all,

this is my first post as well as my first intended project, so please go easy on me.

i've been wanting to build a mahogany tele with string-thru body and t-o-m bridge for a long time since i can't find a tele body with the said bridge configuration.

can somebody with the experience advise me the easiest way to go about doing it?

cheers!

dani

[!!METAL MATT!!]

Well what do you need to know any thing impaticular??

!!METAL MATT!!

[tirapop]

Vintage Gibson Flying Vs used a TOM with a string thru body, so, it's possible. To keep the strings bottoming on the back edge of the bridge, the body string holes have to be set further back than they are on a Tele. The other issue is the height of the bridge. You need to either angle/raise the neck or recess the bridge.

[Maiden69]

I don't want t osound rude but If you do a search you will find dozens of topics on this. Debates about neck angle and everything you need to know.

You can either do the angle which is a lot easier than recessing the bridge but if you like the tele feel, you need to recess it. If you do the neck angle the guiotar will have kinda like a gibson LP feel, were your hand will be away from the body.

Here is a pic of the guitar I'm making now, it is a 0 angle with a reccessed TOM.

My thread

[Drak]

And if you're going to use a TOM, you'll have to either tilt your neck up or recess the TOM.

Personally, I have a strong distaste for recessed TOM's, but you do have those 2 options.

Mahogony body, TOM, screams a LP JR. guitar w/P-90's to me.

If you're building a Tele body tho, the TOM won't match up with a normal Tele pickguard either, it'll look very strange, so that's something else to consider in your plans.

And you won't be able to use a regular Tele bridge pkp either since a tele bridge pkp is designed to be used with a Tele bridge plate.

The bridgeplate of a Telecaster really sets the stage for the entire guitar. If you don't use it, you really don't have a Telecaster at all.

You might have a guitar that's SHAPED like a Tele, but that's about as far as it goes, in no way will it actually sound like one.

So, IMO, a Tele w/ a TOM really is not even a viable Telecaster build project, since putting a TOM on it destroys everything that makes it a Tele to begin with.

No Tele pickguard, no Tele bridge pkp (which is what a Tele really is after all is it's bridge pkp sound) no Tele bridgeplate (another big contributor to the Tele sound)

What's really left that makes it a Tele besides the raw shape of the body itself?

Not much.

I'm not saying don't do it, but just letting you know some basic facts ahead of time in case you weren't aware of them already.

[Daniel Sorbera]

look at how Godin does it, godin. scrool all the way down and look at the yellow guitar. see how the body is but to let the strings pass to the bridge? It isint REALLY necessary but it looks WAY better IMO. (and it allows you to have a greater string angle even with a greatly recessed bridge)

[daniboy]

thanks for the replies guys!

i have a couple of options actually. i have a 24 3/4" scale maple/ebony (fretboard was replaced from rosewood to ebony and fretted) godin radiator neck. problem is, it does not have standard heel specs as fender strat/tele necks. in this case, i can order a mahogany tele body without bridge and neck routs and progress to rout for the neck and bridge after determining the location for the bridge.

either that or i can try selling the godin radiator neck and body (which i doubt anybody would want to buy) and build a complete tele and rout the bridge for the stb/tom bridge.

lastly, which is my most cost effective option is to purchase a mahogany blank and build the body from scratch to fit the neck.

i have read that i will need to recess the tom bridge since i do not intend to have a neck angle. anybody have any information on tom bridge recessing and how far away should the holes for the strings be away from the bridge? also, i realized that there are different 'formation' of holes. i.e. ibanez and schecter does their stb differently if you get what i mean. is there any rationale behind this?

if possible, i would appreciate which option would you recommend for someone without any guitar building experience.

cheers!

dani

[daniboy]

thanks for your observations drak!

i do have a 'normal' tele and i totally dig the body shape hence this 'tele' project. i am actually looking to thicken the tone up. i am planning to use a bucker in the bridge and p-90 in the neck. somewhat like a hybrid between a tele and a gibby.

dani

[daniboy]

my apologies guys.

i will use the search function first in future!

dani

[doug]

The only trouble with that recessed bridge is string tension going over the bridge will be lighter that it should be. Two problems wit this: One low angle and tension means your strings can pop out of the saddles much easier, there is less downward force. Second with less downward force, tone will be affected in a not so good way.

It's interesting how Godin does it, and, well, it makes one wonder why too.

-Doug

[Drak]

Just an additional note:

Harmonic Design (I think it's them) makes a P-90 that fits in a HB pocket...heck, maybe everyone is making those now, but you could route the neck for a HB, stick in one of those P-90-in-a-HB pickups, and if you don't like it, just as easily swap it right back out and put in a real HB.

If you route the neck for a real P-90, I don't think you can go back to a HB, so doing it the first way leaves your future options open a bit more...and I love Harmonic Design pkps too, really quality stuff. Van Zandt too.

BTW, they also make a special Tele bridge that accepts one of their specially made pkps that's a HB, but slanted like a Tele. Maybe it's Van Zandt that does this, it's one or the other...

I like that idea -much- better than a TOM.

Even mentioning a TOM and a Tele in the same sentence drives me CRAZY! Hahahaha!!

And I like your basic idea, I'm doing/done the same thing myself, but I go about it a little differently than you're doing it.

I keep the Tele bridge (to retain the basic character of a Tele at heart)

I use a Harmionic Design S-90 for a bridge pkp. It's voiced to replicate a P-90, but also keeps somewhat of a Tele tone too.

Think fatback gnarly Tele but still with bite and attack.

I use a P-90 in the neck to match the bridge pkp

I use Mahogony body wood

I use a 24 3/4" scale neck, but it's still a Tele neck (usually Maple too)

So what I wind up with is still a Tele, but a much beefier Tele, but still retains the basic etiquette of a real Telecaster.

It's great that we all have our different ways to do stuff.

I'm giving you other options to consider if you want them.

To me, putting a TOM on a Tele is just not a good idea, there are so many other ways to really fatten a Tele up, but still keep the basic resemblance of a Tele tone and looks.

Once you decide on a TOM, it's like you're heading down a completely different road.

That -one- single decision changes all the other parameters surrounding it and heads you down a different road.

Doing some of the things I listed is like staying on the Tele road, but following a side-path of sorts.

But if a TOM really rocks your world, then go for it.

[Maiden69]

you know what Drak, I might build a Tele with a TOM for a side note to that Tele comp that you are having with BigD. and I HAte Teles ( )

A neck thru tele with a TOM and some carved quilt top.

Back into topic.

The string tension will be a bit less, but it will be enough to hold the string in the saddle if they were build right, thats the same angle I got on my LP and the same one that Zakk Wylde have on his with the Strings over the stop piece. I will like to say that I abuse the strings when I play, but Zakk does a hell of a better job that I could, and the strings stay in place. It's a good observation, but as long as the slots on the saddles are propertly done, you shouldn't have any problem.

Another pic I just took now. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/Maiden69/DSC01774.jpg

[daniboy]

drak,

you must be describing the twangbuckers by rio grande. i totally forgot about that! actually, i am planning to do one of those 'telegibs'. y'know, gibby tone on a tele body? in fact, i was contemplating between a hipshot hardtail or a tonepro. i even thought of sawing a vintage 3-saddle tele bridge in half to accomodate a humbucker!

since most of my guitars are hardtails and imo its sacrilegious to saw a tele bridge in half, i went for the next best option, tom. i would consider the twangbuckers if they are using 3-saddle tele bridge. it sounds better than a 6-saddle bridge imo. in this case, which bridge system iwould you recommend n order to fit a bucker in the bridge?

cheers!

dani

[daniboy]

The string tension will be a bit less, but it will be enough to hold the string in the saddle if they were build right, thats the same angle I got on my LP and the same one that Zakk Wylde have on his with the Strings over the stop piece. I will like to say that I abuse the strings when I play, but Zakk does a hell of a better job that I could, and the strings stay in place. It's a good observation, but as long as the slots on the saddles are propertly done, you shouldn't have any problem.

Another pic I just took now. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/Maiden69/DSC01774.jpg

maiden69,

pardon me, but is there a reason besides asthetics for you to align the string holes like you did?

dani

[daniboy]

godin sd, doug, maiden69,

good call on the string tension behind the bridge. initially, i was concerned about the break angle of the strings from the string holes to the bridge. i wasn't thinking of recessing the bridge until the issue of neck angle popped up.

if string pressure is an issue, maybe i can use ibanez's gibraltar iii tom-style bridge as installed on their sz series. i read somewhere there's a forum member who is an ibanez parts dealer.

dani

[daniboy]

look at how Godin does it, godin. scrool all the way down and look at the yellow guitar. see how the body is but to let the strings pass to the bridge? It isint REALLY necessary but it looks WAY better IMO. (and it allows you to have a greater string angle even with a greatly recessed bridge)

thanks for the godin catalogue godin sd! really appreciate it!

dani

[Drak]

Stew-Mac makes a Tele bridge cut for a normal humbucker pkp.

[westhemann]

http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Bridges,_tailp...ng_Pickups.html

[doug]

Break angle over the bridge is very important for tone. If one was to draw the path of the strings from the side it would be quickly evident what I am refering to. Unless the string holes are also lowered, the break angle will certainly be more shallow. Hence lower string pressure.

The Zakk Wylde guitar Maiden speaks of has a 4 degree neck angle and TOM bridge. This is a "standard" configuration that results in proper break angle.

You could try to make up for this by keeping the string holes as close to the bridge as possible, thus increasing the decreasing the break angle. This is especially true for the smaller diameter strings. They tend to pop off during bending.

I'm with some of the others, a Tele should sort of look like one.

-Doug

[Maiden69]

dani, just aesthetics.

http://www.carvin.com/products/guitar.php?ItemNumber=CT4M

http://www.carvin.com/products/guitar.php?ItemNumber=DC127

Just 2 examples of TOM thru body with no angle on the neck.

I'm trying to be a nice guy here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/Maiden69/DSC01198.jpg

See the angle from the saddles to the stop piece, this is the same angle that the strings on a reccessed TOM will have when going to the body, if not more. It doesn't matter the neck angle the strings follow the same path on both of them. The reason why it's stringed like this is to prevent string breakage, the tone didn't suffer, sustain didn't changed. I see no point to disscussing this more since I don't know what I'm talking about.