Pickups orientation and claw placement

[triviani]

The recent threads about the orignal claw placement are confusing me..

Just got a neck replacement pickup for my jag, one of these original fender you find on ebay.

it has the white wire on one side, and the black one and the soldering to the claw on the other side, where also are the smaller teeth of the claw.

Following diagrams, white wire should go down and black/ground up, right? I don't care much about the claw, although that way it will have the small claw teeth on the upper side. What I don't want is to have the pickup upside down..

Sorry about the noob question, thanks!

[hwestman]

AFAIK the lower, less pointy claws should be on the high e and h strings.

However, my guess is that you would have a hard time noticing any difference if you reversed them...

[triviani]

And the wires?

I just want to make sure that the correct position of the PU is with the white wire down and the black wire up.

Like here:

[The Dead Ranch Hands]

The vast majority of vintage Jags seem to have the short teeth at the low E/A position. I have no idea if it actually makes a difference. Someone needs to try it both ways with clips!

[ohm-men]

Well, acourding to the original idea Leo had, the lower claws were intended to go under the low E and A strings. But even at the factory back in the day, workers swithced these around all the time. I "think" the idea was that the thicker strings didn't need the higher teeth, someting to do with the magnetic? field they create.(Not sure on that, but I'm sure someone here knows exactly why)

But, I don't hear any difference when the teeth are orientated differently....

[triviani]

Thanks for the responses, I'll give it a try with the short claws up, since it seems like both PUs came that way, with the hot wire on the bottom side.

Awesome tones to come!

[hydra19]

i read somewhere that they're supposed to be on the B and E strings, they're the only 2 teeth that are different and back then most strings came with a wound g, so I'd say it has to do something with the field of wound vs unwound strings

[Filly-Fuzz]

fullerplast in 3............2............1........

[mcjt]

ok, can an expert please chime in on this? i am building a VI clone and would like to know!
All the CS VI's of the last few years seem to have the lower claw on the bass side.
But should it be for the treble side?

Our hero, Jim Shine, says the shorter blade was for the treble side. Yet Fender released MANY jag's with the pickups the wrong way around.

Sookwinder, Fullerplast, we need you!

Recent CS:






Vintage:

Bass side:

[Ceylon]

If I had a Jag, which I unfortunately don't, yet, and I worried about this, I'd try to put the shorter claws under the E- and A-strings, for a few months, and then switch them to be under the B- and E-strings, and see if I noticed any difference. If not, i'd leave them that way, because what's the point of resoldering it then?

However, the theory about it being for the unwound strings does kind of make sense.

[sookwinder]

fullerplast in 3............2............1........

I hope I can step in ....

I truly wished people would venture into the library section occasionally
http://www.offsetguitars.com/forums/vie ... 29&t=18371

and if one doesn't know an answer for certain... please refrain from posting an answer that is a guess.

Yes ... the 1968/69 exploded fender drawing of the jag (CBS era) did show the low teeth under the high E and B strings ... this is wrong .. why do I say it is wrong? have a look at the pics below ... have a look at any vintage Jag and the overwhelming evidence is that the low teeth are under the Low E and the A strings.

Yes some Jags were made in the 60s with the teeth the other way around.... anything and everything could happen and did happen at Fender in the 60s. I have seen a genuine 60s Jag with one claw the correct direction the other claw the wrong direction.

but for those who don't.... here is empirical evidence...
the cut off (lower teeth) go under the low E and A string.
Why .. the teeth amplified focused the signal... the low E and A did not need as much amplification, som the the teeth were cut/lowered. Anyone who has done second year electro-Mag at university would understand this.

And experimentally Leo would have just said "shit the low E and A are too strong , where are those tin-snip cutters ?"

[sookwinder]

Now ... if we are talking Bass VI....

The low teeth go on the High E and B strings....

why?
you want (or at least Leo wanted) to enhance the bass response of those pups to make it a "real" bass.... logic tells you to not cut away the teeth of the low E and A strings.

But you also want to reduce the number of parts in the factory.
You don't want a jaguar claw and a Bass VI claw.

So you just turn around the Jaguar claw when it is fitted to the Bass VI pups.

The logic is there.... the electro-mag theory is there.... can i go back into my cave now ?

[Blueguitar007]

Until they find an article with Leo's intentions or someone from the design team left documents I don't believe anything.
The claws are obviously to focus the sound. If they were for less hum, why make two shorter?
I would prefer the shorter less focused claws to be on the B E of the Jaguar because it can get to trebly and bright. I would prefer them also on the B and E of the Bass VI because the low strings are to flubby and floppy so they need focusing.
So I prefer them on high strings. I don't claim to know but this seems logical to me.