Jazzmaster pre cbs tailpiece tremolo - was it same from 1959 to 1964?
-
Guitarman555
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:36 pm
Jazzmaster pre cbs tailpiece tremolo - was it same from 1959 to 1964?
Hey, I am wondering, was there some difference between 1959 and 1964 jazzmaster tailpiece tremolo system? I am asking because I have a 1964 tremolo bar and want to put it into the 1959 original jazzy tailpiece (with missing tremolo bar), which has that "patpend" tremolo. Was the ending of the bar the same in 1959 and 1964? I don´t want to destroy this vintage beauty. Many thanks to any advice.
-
Tree's
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 265
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:04 pm
Re: Jazzmaster pre cbs tailpiece tremolo - was it same from 1959 to 1964?
Yes , they are the same , your '64 bar will work perfectly.
The only real differences between the pat pend and the pat number tailpieces , besides the obvious... , is the pat pend one has a little bit stiffer spring / feel.
The only real differences between the pat pend and the pat number tailpieces , besides the obvious... , is the pat pend one has a little bit stiffer spring / feel.
-
sookwinder
- Mods
- Posts: 11179
- Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:47 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
Re: Jazzmaster pre cbs tailpiece tremolo - was it same from 1959 to 1964?
I think we have to be careful and not confirm miss information.
It is not a case that the difference is pre and post CBS (CBS is 65-66 period)
The difference occurred around the Pat pending and Pat no. change.
From my knowledge of parts sourcing and resourcing in manufacturing industries, I don't even believe that the change in the tremolo spring in the trem unit was specific to the change in pat pending -> pat no. change of the stamping in the trem plate.
My reasoning for this is
- The Patent would have been approved independently of Fender activities. Fender has manufactured the trem unit with the pat pending stamp and any improvement to the design that did not affect the patent would have occurred irrespective of the patent application.
- The spring is an automotive part, from an engine. Often changes to sourcing cause the need to change or modify a part.
Maybe they could not continue to source the older version or they found a cheaper spring from a different engine/auto manufacturer
- When the patent came through Leo would not have thrown away the plates that stated Pat pending, he would have kept on using them until the ran out.
- When it was decided (for what ever reason) to change the spring used in the trem unit, Fender would not have thrown away the old versions, given that they worked perfectly OK.
We know the change occurred approximately around the time of the change from Pat pending to Pat number.
We do not know the reason or circumstances as to why the change occurred.
I would argue (and have) that it was not directly related to the change from pat pending to Pat no.
The library section is a good place to look in every now and then: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=26279
It is not a case that the difference is pre and post CBS (CBS is 65-66 period)
The difference occurred around the Pat pending and Pat no. change.
From my knowledge of parts sourcing and resourcing in manufacturing industries, I don't even believe that the change in the tremolo spring in the trem unit was specific to the change in pat pending -> pat no. change of the stamping in the trem plate.
My reasoning for this is
- The Patent would have been approved independently of Fender activities. Fender has manufactured the trem unit with the pat pending stamp and any improvement to the design that did not affect the patent would have occurred irrespective of the patent application.
- The spring is an automotive part, from an engine. Often changes to sourcing cause the need to change or modify a part.
Maybe they could not continue to source the older version or they found a cheaper spring from a different engine/auto manufacturer
- When the patent came through Leo would not have thrown away the plates that stated Pat pending, he would have kept on using them until the ran out.
- When it was decided (for what ever reason) to change the spring used in the trem unit, Fender would not have thrown away the old versions, given that they worked perfectly OK.
We know the change occurred approximately around the time of the change from Pat pending to Pat number.
We do not know the reason or circumstances as to why the change occurred.
I would argue (and have) that it was not directly related to the change from pat pending to Pat no.
The library section is a good place to look in every now and then: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=26279
relaxing alternative to doing actual work ...