And yet another tailpiece question.

[Jimmijames]

Here's something I've been asking myself. Maybe others can chime in.

It seems one of the big benefits to using a cast tailpiece is quick string changes. I also hear they don't change the sound. If this is true, why doesn't Gibson use them? Is it just tradition?

Cheers,
Jim

[Ben Milne]

My cast TP only makes it quicker if I use ball end strings, if I use loop end, it it more awkward and takes longer than a traditional TP.
There are of course many different cast TPs all of them quite different so results will vary. For this reason, we can't cast broadband statements such as this with any real substance to them.

There are plenty of threads with discussion on if and how much a change of tailpiece affects the sound. Plenty argue either way, some argue change is only too able on higher end mandolins, others argue the change is more likely due to new strings that come along with the new tail piece.

There are many features that appear on mandolins for tradition more than anything else. In addition to a stamped tailpiece, builders (including Gibson) persist with feature such as stamped tailpieces, fingerboard extensions, scrolls etc. Despite functionality having improved with later designs, we tend to be a traditionalist bunch (players and manufacturers alike) hence designs like the 'James' which appears from the outside like a traditional tailpiece, but is in fact a modern technically advanced, functionally improved tailpiece.

[mandobassman]

In a nutshell, yes, it's tradition. It's known throughout the bluegrass mandolin world as the "Gibson-style tailpiece". Gibson certainly isn't going to use anything else. Personally, I think it's a very outdated and terrible design and I have always disliked it. Good thing is, it's easy to change to another design.