Gibson tailpiece string hookup

[Rickker]

Sorry if this has been discussed before. I believe Gibson had a patent on this arrangement of anchoring the strings at the tailpiece, but I don't understand why this is better than just hooking up in the usual parallel way.

Comments?
....Rickker

[mandobassman]

This was done because there used to be a problem with unreliable string loops coming unwound. That would relieve some of the tension on the loop. Also, I believe that many people made their own loops and had the same problem. With today's string winding precision, it's not at all necessary to use them. I never have used them in almost 40 years of playing. But they continue to be manufactured that way and many people still use them because of tradition.

[MikeEdgerton]

I doubt they ever patented it. They didn't patent the F style shape or for that matter the A style shape. Larry is correct. Here is a nice article on Frank Ford's www.frets.com about it.

[Tobin]

This was done because there used to be a problem with unreliable string loops coming unwound. That would relieve some of the tension on the loop. Also, I believe that many people made their own loops and had the same problem. With today's string winding precision, it's not at all necessary to use them.

Generally speaking, I agree, it shouldn't be necessary. But I have occasionally had the loops slip, and there are lots of threads here on the Cafe where other people have had it happen as well. As I recall, we had a conversation just a few months ago where lots of people were having that problem with one particular brand.

At any rate, it's one of those things that one "shouldn't" need to use, but it's good insurance just in case. As much as I love the James tailpiece on my Ellis, when I do get the occasional loop slippage, it doesn't have the means to lock the string end in place like the old Gibson style tailpieces. I use the extra hooks on my F4.

[UsuallyPickin]

Well ...... David Harvey did some work on my GibsonF5L several years ago and when it came back the strings were using all hooks as in the picture from the OP..... I had not done this before but I thought if Master Luthier Harvey did it there was probably a good reason. I do it now as a matter of course. As I don't normally break strings, I use .41-.115, and have no abnormal tuning problems I can't say it is really any better or worse, but now it's habit. R/

[allenhopkins]

... many people still use them because of tradition.

That's me.

[fatt-dad]

using all the chads for the e and a strings, keeps the string on the tailpiece. That way when you are winding the string on the string post, you don't have to worry about the tailpiece.

Folks love the James tailpiece, 'cause you can shut the lid to keep the string on the tailpiece when you are focused on the peghead. Well, those extra chads do exactly that for the E and A strings, which (to me) are the ones that like to go off on their own.

f-d

[Rickker]

I doubt they ever patented it. They didn't patent the F style shape or for that matter the A style shape. Larry is correct. Here is a nice article on Frank Ford's www.frets.com about it.

Thanks for the link to the article which explains it quite well. Tradition rules!
....Rickker