|
Post by glyderslead on Jul 5, 2014 16:54:41 GMT
Much as I like the three ply - white / black / white - scratch plates on my strat's, I thought I would go "retro" and put a white single ply 8 hole plate on one of them.
"Simple's?"..............no
why?.....................because now I've started looking for the replacement they seem to vary in thickness.
Just to add to the quandary some I've seen have a "rounded" edge, others a sharp cut edge.
So.......does anybody know what the correct thickness is and whether the edges should be sharp cut or rounded?
This isn't a life or death matter - but I would like to install one as near as possible to the correct specification as possible, so all comments are welcome.
Cheers
Mick
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jul 5, 2014 17:02:51 GMT
Sharp cut and thin is correct for a single ply plate. Strictly speaking there should also be a metal screening plate under the controls and switch area, but if the body has the "bump" for the extra screw hole near the switch, the metal plate will foul it. Without the plate, you will need screening of some kind there. Tin foil will do. Some scratchplates already have the foil attached. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by somebodyelseuk on Jul 5, 2014 17:07:59 GMT
There is no correct spec. The 'plates changed over the years both in dimensions colours and material - on a Fender, correct spec is what they fitted to it when they made it. Then there's the problem of where your guitar was made - US plates don't fit Asian (Jap/Korean/etc) models... then there's the screw hole alignment - 99.9% of the time, ONLY a genuine Fender part will line up on a US Fender. My advice, if your's is a Fender, stick with what they fitted when they made it. If not, buy anything and get the drill out. Cheers, Julian
|
|
|
Post by glyderslead on Jul 5, 2014 17:21:29 GMT
That was quick!! Thanks Charlie, I know someone who has a thin one just as you describe.
Thanks again,
Mick
|
|
|
Post by glyderslead on Jul 5, 2014 17:36:22 GMT
Thanks for your comments Julian, and yes I agree with what you say. I have also often thought that Fender tend to use what they have to hand at the time. That said, I was pleased to hear Charlie's reply which I am sure is correct and will go with that.
By the way,I'm not expecting any of the holes to be in the right place as I'm going from 11 to 8; but thankfully any in the wrong place won't be seen and people can argue about the "butchering" in years to come when the guitar is sold...........but I won't be there.
Cheers
Mick
|
|
|
Post by sixchannel on Jul 6, 2014 7:44:41 GMT
There is no correct spec. on a Fender, correct spec is what they fitted to it when they made it. Cheers, Julian Julian, Superb! So right! I must remember this quote. I have often reckoned that some Fenders were Parts Bin guitars, using odds and sods from elsewhere to complete production runs. Cheers Ian
|
|
|
Post by George Lewis on Jul 6, 2014 9:24:32 GMT
George summarises Julian's observations with "Julian gives spot on opinion of Fender 50's/60's Manufacturing specs" !!. Cheers, Julian Ian responds with ... Julian, Superb! So right! I must remember this quote .... Cheers Ian George fronts up .. What an inspirational aspiration. Wish I could remember why I posted this reply !! cheers George ... I think ...
|
|
|
Post by pluckit65 on Jul 6, 2014 9:30:16 GMT
Spot on Ian, you only have to try and date some Fenders to run into the same problem. A neck or body can be dated way before the guitar was actually assembled. What they have to hand is what they use.
Cheers Roger
|
|
|
Post by somebodyelseuk on Jul 6, 2014 9:48:22 GMT
There is no correct spec. on a Fender, correct spec is what they fitted to it when they made it. Cheers, Julian Julian, Superb! So right! I must remember this quote. I have often reckoned that some Fenders were Parts Bin guitars, using odds and sods from elsewhere to complete production runs. Cheers Ian Well, they certainly did in the 80s. They stopped making large headstock necks in '81, but were still using them up in '83... 'black plastic parts' stopped in '80, but they were still using up knobs and pickup covers on white scratchplated instruments until '82. Fenders have always been 'parts bin' instruments, if anything they're more consistent today than they were in the '50s. They changed the original scratchplate material quite early on because it was a fire hazard - I they had some burst into flames in storage(?) - pickup covers changed because they fell apart, went from single ply to three ply because of warpage and then changed materials again because the colour of the middle ply was bleeding into the white layers (and they also stretched causing pickup alignment problems). At the same time, they were fitting instruments with at least two different types of scratchplate - white or anodised aluminium in the single ply days, white, tortoiseshell or pearloid in the 60s... Fender has always been a company that 'looked after the pennies', so they always would use up 'obsolete' parts rather than scrsp them. Off at a slight tangent, I was reading recently that The Edge and Bono (both of U2) are now on the board at Fender... Cheers, Julian
|
|
|
Post by glyderslead on Jul 6, 2014 21:48:36 GMT
Well Julian, I found your note to be an eye opener, but I suppose the clues were all there in the ever changing bits and pieces used and problems with materials used. I wonder if Fender ever ran out of transfers and used Sq..........? Nah. Still, I wonder if Squire ever run out of transfers and used........Hmmm we can only wonder.....
So how do Yamaha and Gibson rate for consistency? I have always rated their instruments but are they also bit'sa companies and have they also been plagued by parts problems.
Mick
|
|
|
Post by somebodyelseuk on Jul 7, 2014 7:09:53 GMT
Yamahas... I have a couple of '80s SGs, have played SGs owned by a few friends,also '80s models. All feel exactly the same. Can't comment on recent ones, but the 70s/80s ones were high standards, in order to get Gibson's sales. Parts-wise, you aren't going to find any mass production company that doesn't mix and match to use up parts. Gibsons are much more "hand-made" than most, so they vary a fair bit, even today. The Les Paul went back into production in '68 using left over parts from when they were discontinued in '60, their mini humbuckered De Luxes were using up surplus pickups left over from their takeover of Epiphone - those that use the bigger pickup rings with a spacer are on 1960 bodies that were routed for PAFs. Like Fender, Gibson fell fowl of the beancounters and their standards dropped during the 70s - maple necks in place of mahogany, bodies made of composites of wood to save wastage. If they hadn't taken notice of Yamaha, Tokai and Ibanez, Fender and Gibson would have gone to the wall in the early 80s.
Squiers? Man at 'China Guitar Builders' asks his boss who's guitars are we building today? Boss says Squier. Man opens Squier programme on the computer, loads the wood and the computer routes out necks and bodies and prints off logoes. Who's next? says man. Vintage says boss. etc...
|
|
|
Post by shadowkarl on Jul 8, 2014 14:57:59 GMT
Hi all
yes Julian, whatever Fender stickied and put together at that time of production, nice. At that early time they were a backyard factory partly with unskilled Labor and I have even seen pictures from sliders in Australia of his pickup repairs of wrongly put in magnets and upside down pole pieces also with a different gage size, in one single pup. But that was probably the rare exception BUT Original! Shadowkarl
|
|
|
Post by philc on Jul 31, 2014 12:23:32 GMT
Off on a tangent here, I have a picture of Ted Ledbetter at his bench with three necks, he's dressing frets, this is in 1963, there's also a pot of Johnson's wax paste in the background. It's nice to know that the neck from my old Strat was actually on that bench and probably worked on by him, by the way there's an aluminium screen sheet under the three ply celluloid plate.
Phil
|
|