Official Luthiers Forum!

i just got done watching Kent Everetts dvd set on voiceing and he said to make the bridge plate 1/8 thick 2" wide. I have always followed my plans and the bridge plate on my plans is 2 1/2" and my bridge is only 1 7/16" which is a half inch bigger on front and back of the bridge. this is a grand auditorium and i forgot what body size he was talking about but prettry sure it was an om. does anyone know why its so big on my plans.

I had to read that three times to make out what you are saying.
You might want to edit your post to make sure that when you are talking about the bridge you say "bridge" , and when you are talking about the "bridge plate", you say "bridge plate"

thanks, yeah that didn't make sense at all.

"does anyone know why its so big on my plans."

The size of the bridge plate was increased when it became popular to use heavier strings on flat tops. It helped reduce warranty work at the expense of the sound. If you use a nice wide, thick, stiff, heavier one you will get less "bellying " behind the bridge. If you use the one Everett suggests you may get a more responsive instrument.

I've read quit a few post saying the bridge plate should be 1/8 wider than the bridge front and back. That would make my bridge plate 1 3/4" would that be to small?

I would follow Everett's suggestion and make it 2 inches wide and use a lighter wood like maple. I would put the extra width in the back. It will give you a little more support and a little more wiggle room for placing the bridge pins. When in doubt erring toward the middle (of suggested values) might not be a bad thing.

Not in my opinion. I make all my bridgeplates 1 3/8" wide when I use a belly bridge (which is 1.4" wide). It was good enough for Martin from 1932 until 1968. The bridgeplate should be centered under the bridge, not offset to the rear.

_________________
John

My bridge plates are usually bigger than that.

I know that Kent does not endorse curved bridge plates or 'smiley faced bridges' however, I feel that Trevor Gore has a much more factual base, and he does.

IIRC, he suggests a curved bridge plate extending 20mm past the end of the bridge. It's been a long time since I had my nose in those books so look for yourself for actual facts...

Having said that, I noticed an immediate improvement in my guitars using a curved bridge plate. Without a localized stress riser incurred with a straight edged bridge plate, one can make both the top and bracing lighter without experiencing bridge roll. Of course that's just one ingredient in an entire system and I don't mean to suggest that a curved bridge plate by itself is a problem solver, just saying that in conjunction with a host of other things, it can be a good thing.

I think as people gain experience evaluating the quality of the top and making adjustments for it, the size of the bridge plate usually goes down. A nice stiff red spruce top can use a smaller plate than a floppy Engelmann top.
You don't want too big of a bridge plate, but assuming you are relatively new to guitar building (less experienced), taking the middle ground might not be a bad thing. On a couple of my early guitars I missed the bridge plate with the bridge pin holes (half on half off) - not a good thing! A slightly wider plate (or better precision) would have helped.

I make bridge plates as small as possible. 1/8th seems a bit too thick to me. I go 3/32nd on mine. But you know to each their own. It seems to me that a curved line along the back edge of the plate is a good idea. As a responsive guitar gets older it tends to telegraph more, a visual representation of the load, and the curved lines on the bridge plate and the tail block seems like it would spread that out imo. I have not done curved plates yet but have seriously given it some consideration.

No argument from me about the bridge plate, but where does the tail block enter into the equation? Nobody these days makes the gluing surface of the tail block any wider than the kerfed lining, surely ?

Nope, we sand a bevel in it so it matches the lining width.

I still make the tail block the traditional way. I probably should taper it though, it's a good idea.

I'm assuming that a thin-ish bridge plate with an aluminum 'plate mate' on the bottom to take the thrashing from the string ends would be a good thing to do. Easy for us home builders to take that extra step, not so appealing to manufacturers who see extra steps for hidden work as not profitable.

_________________
Peter Havriluk

If the bridge plate is made of the right wood and slotted for un-slotted pins then adding an aluminum plate will not be necessary.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"