1966 Vintage Jaguar restoration

Bringing your older offset back to life.
User avatar
MrSparkle
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:48 am

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by MrSparkle » Sat Jun 29, 2024 12:28 am

fendermcfenderface1! wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:40 pm
MrSparkle- by string spacing I meant the string grooves in the Mustang saddles, which are predetermined, unlike the original threaded saddles which might offer a bit of variation by picking exactly where the string lays in the thread valley. What is TPI?
Right - I got that. But since those don't exist on your old bridge, they couldn't have been the same. So I was theorising if you were comparing based on screw position instead. :)

TPI is Threads-Per-Inch, it's a measure of the coarseness of the thread on an imperial fastening. Metric fastenings (like the M3 posts in your Mustang bridge) are measured differently. :) If you want to double check the big-bag-o-25-screws has the correct thread spacing you can measure the distance between a few threads to check, and do some basic arithmetic to work out how many threads would be in an inch!
All I'm seeing are 55 mm string spacing and 9.5" radius, my neck is a 7.25" radius.
That's normal, those guitars are all built with a 9.5" radius as they're a "modern" design. 2 1/16" is 52.5mm though, not 54mm. :) The "correct replacement" for your guitar is the American Vintage Jaguar/Jazzmaster Bridge, not the American Professional. If you decide to go for a Mustang-style bridge with narrower spacing, the correct answer is Staytrem; or a similar aftermarket part from Halon, etc. It's not a part Fender make*.

But again; I think we're getting into the weeds here. I'd try ordering those aftermarket grub screws (the pack of 25 in choose-your-length) and going from there. Go back to the original plan of just replacing the one screw, rather than getting lost in the maze of different "upgrade" bridge options. Though honestly in your place, I'd put a pair of fresh screws in and seal the lonely 60-year-old one in a baggy as "case candy". That's just me though.

List the rest of the screw bag on eBay as "individual Jaguar/Jazzmaster bridge-post-screws" for $2 each and you won't be left out of pocket. ;)

* Correction, I forgot about the Marr bridge. I'd still go Staytrem though. :D There's a couple reasons why - the Marr bridge has brass saddles, the vintage ones were originally steel, like the Staytrem. The Marr is commonly called "Fender's Staytrem Copy" but it really isn't - it has sleeved bridge posts to prevent sinking, but the Staytrem has a few other upgrades like saddles that can't move laterally, offset screws that can be adjusted easily with the strings on; and the saddles are positioned without springs which gives more adjustment room and a couple other benefits. But still; don't buy a Staytrem, buy a big bag of screws. :P

User avatar
Matthias
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:48 am

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by Matthias » Sat Jun 29, 2024 5:07 am

I have a Japanese Mustang bridge, bought for a Squier about 10 years ago. I got the micrometer out on those. The screws on that are 0.112” or about 2.85mm. The length is 15mm, pitch looks like 0.5mm and it takes a metric hex key. So I wonder if they’re just the 3mm M3 screws running a bit small… That might be within tolerances as the thread is about 0.55mm on M3 although seems a little off. These would fit in my vintage bridge diameter wise, but the effective TPI would be about 50, so it shouldn’t screw in. Plus, it has the metric head. Perhaps measure the threads on your screws that are fitting in you vintage bridge.

User avatar
fendermcfenderface1!
PAT PEND
PAT PEND
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 30, 2024 7:10 pm

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by fendermcfenderface1! » Sat Jun 29, 2024 6:56 pm

Timtam, regarding that MIA Johnny Marr bridge you linked to- do you know the bridge post spacing on that one? Wondering if it would fit in my '66 thimbles, as installed in the body. The height screws look larger than my original, but hard to tell from the pic. As long as the screws are conical tipped, the bridge rocks in the thimbles, and works with the mute, might be the way to go. Thanks!

User avatar
Matthias
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:48 am

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by Matthias » Sun Jun 30, 2024 1:17 am

Not sure we’ve covered this… Does your remaining vintage screw fit in both posts?

User avatar
fendermcfenderface1!
PAT PEND
PAT PEND
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 30, 2024 7:10 pm

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by fendermcfenderface1! » Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:41 pm

Still sussing out details and questions for a bridge replacement for vintage '66 jag (that's the neck date anyway).

Anyone know, will the Johnny Marr bridge, the newer, post 2018 model, fit a vintage Jag? (I understand after 2018 Fender reduced the string spacing on this model from 55mm to 52 or so to help keep the E strings on the fretboard).

My existing vintage thimbles are 2 7/8" spacing apart, are 8mm internal diameter, and 22.75mm long (deep). The Marr bridge posts look like they are a larger diameter than vintage, hence my query. And, is the Marr bridge compatible with the mute device.

Thanks, I'm a simple cave man and more vintage than this Jag so help a boomer out please.

Part # for the Marr bridge 771-2971-049

User avatar
timtam
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 2846
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:42 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by timtam » Thu Jul 04, 2024 8:42 pm

fendermcfenderface1! wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:41 pm
Still sussing out details and questions for a bridge replacement for vintage '66 jag (that's the neck date anyway).

Anyone know, will the Johnny Marr bridge, the newer, post 2018 model, fit a vintage Jag? (I understand after 2018 Fender reduced the string spacing on this model from 55mm to 52 or so to help keep the E strings on the fretboard).

My existing vintage thimbles are 2 7/8" spacing apart, are 8mm internal diameter, and 22.75mm long (deep). The Marr bridge posts look like they are a larger diameter than vintage, hence my query. And, is the Marr bridge compatible with the mute device.

Thanks, I'm a simple cave man and more vintage than this Jag so help a boomer out please.

Part # for the Marr bridge 771-2971-049
With 8mm ID thimbles you measured, the Marr's bridge posts will fit. Its posts are ~7mm OD as measured below (referenced there as the "Am Pro" 7.25" bridge, as currently misnamed by Fender ... since it's never been on an Am Pro guitar, like the 9.5" variant has). You'll find your vintage posts are around 6.2-6.4mm, which is what Fender's mostly are nowadays too, except for odd examples where they mess with them.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=127413&start=15#p1814623
"I just knew I wanted to make a sound that was the complete opposite of a Les Paul, and that’s pretty much a Jaguar." Rowland S. Howard.

User avatar
fendermcfenderface1!
PAT PEND
PAT PEND
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 30, 2024 7:10 pm

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by fendermcfenderface1! » Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:33 am

Thanks Timtam. You are a wealth of knowledge on these Jags! I wish Fender were as helpful!

With 8mm ID vintage thimbles, and 7mm OD posts on the Marr bridge, I see they would fit (as long as the thimble spacing is the same 2 7/8" ), but I imagine I'd get slightly less bridge rock ability, since the vintage bridge posts I have are around 6.4- 6.5 mmOD as you state. That .5mm difference might be significant, since it's roughly 1/3 less clearance.

Fender why ya gotta make it so hard??

User avatar
MrSparkle
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:48 am

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by MrSparkle » Sat Jul 13, 2024 2:37 am

fendermcfenderface1! wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2024 9:33 am
but I imagine I'd get slightly less bridge rock ability, since the vintage bridge posts I have are around 6.4- 6.5 mmOD as you state. That .5mm difference might be significant, since it's roughly 1/3 less clearance.
Having a slightly more sane weekend, so figured I could take a moment to lay this to rest.

This lovely highest-quality video is shot on a guitar with a thick-posted Staytrem bridge.

As you can see, it's set up so that when the arm is pulled up to it's highest extent it barely reaches the back of the thimble; and decked (the clicking is the tip of the arm hitting the switch plate) it still has a ton of free clearance.

So yeah; the .5mm difference is not significant in any way. The amount of movement is tiny. :)

User avatar
fendermcfenderface1!
PAT PEND
PAT PEND
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 30, 2024 7:10 pm

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by fendermcfenderface1! » Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:26 am

Thanks MrSparkle! BTW, what's the deal with Jag bridges "sinking"? I understand the bushings available to prevent or limit rocking, but what is the "sinking" issue all about??

User avatar
timtam
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 2846
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:42 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by timtam » Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:47 am

fendermcfenderface1! wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:26 am
Thanks MrSparkle! BTW, what's the deal with Jag bridges "sinking"? I understand the bushings available to prevent or limit rocking, but what is the "sinking" issue all about??
Some offset bridges can gradually sink over time, as their height grub screws can slowly unscrew. But you'll find that bridges differ in how firmly the height screw threads fit in the posts. The latest MIA 9.5" Am Pro bridges I've found to have every firm screws, so I'm not expecting them to sink. But a tiny dab of blue loctite on the threads has been the go-to fix for any bridges that do sink. Only two common bridges have 'anti-sink' nylon bushings on the bottom of the post that 'capture' the end of the height screws, to prevent them unscrewing - the 7.25" misnamed Am Pro bridge (actually the Marr jag bridge) and the 7.25" and 9.5" Staytrem bridge radius (the 9.5" Am Pro bridge does not have them, and you can't buy the anti-sink bushings on their own*).
Image

*not to be confused with nylon anti-rocking bushings installed in Am Pro guitars (with 9.5" bridges), which are available aftermarket.
"I just knew I wanted to make a sound that was the complete opposite of a Les Paul, and that’s pretty much a Jaguar." Rowland S. Howard.

User avatar
MrSparkle
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:48 am

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by MrSparkle » Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:54 am

timtam wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:47 am
Only two common bridges have 'anti-sink' nylon bushings on the bottom of the post that 'capture' the end of the height screws, to prevent them unscrewing - the 7.25" misnamed Am Pro bridge (actually the Marr jag bridge) and the 7.25" and 9.5" Staytrem bridge radius (the 9.5" Am Pro bridge does not have them, and you can't buy the anti-sink bushings on their own*).
Lol wait really? The US 9.5" doesn't even have the bushings?

I take back everything nice I've ever said about it, the Staytrem is THE SUPERIORRRRRR. :w00t:

Image

#EnglandsFinestCreation

User avatar
fendermcfenderface1!
PAT PEND
PAT PEND
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 30, 2024 7:10 pm

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by fendermcfenderface1! » Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:50 pm

Thanks guys you dudes rock! So much knowledge, it really helps.

What about the length of the bolt on the mute? I have the mute, but need to replace the bolt/star washer/ nut.

Thanks mucho!

User avatar
timtam
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 2846
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:42 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by timtam » Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:57 pm

MrSparkle wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2024 8:54 am
timtam wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:47 am
Only two common bridges have 'anti-sink' nylon bushings on the bottom of the post that 'capture' the end of the height screws, to prevent them unscrewing - the 7.25" misnamed Am Pro bridge (actually the Marr jag bridge) and the 7.25" and 9.5" Staytrem bridge radius (the 9.5" Am Pro bridge does not have them, and you can't buy the anti-sink bushings on their own*).
Lol wait really? The US 9.5" doesn't even have the bushings?

I take back everything nice I've ever said about it, the Staytrem is THE SUPERIORRRRRR. :w00t:

Image

#EnglandsFinestCreation
The mismatch between the features on the 9.5" and 7.25" versions of what Fender only in recent years started collectively calling the "American Professional" bridges is a result of their rather different lineages. Yet another reason why they shouldn't have the same designation, because the common name implies they are basically the same bridge but with different radius - they're not. The 7.25" is of course the Marr jaguar bridge (and should have retained that specific name, that Fender gave it early on), which was made at Fender for the original Marr jag around the same time as the Staytrem appeared (with some sort of interaction I don't think we've ever heard fully described). The most obvious common feature of the Marr and Staytrem were the "anti-sink" bushings (they also appeared on the TVL's bridge); but the Staytrem of course has extra, more unique features. Some years later the 9.5" bridge on the first American Professional jag and jazzmaster appeared with no real precedent other than the Mustang. It added the installation of the contentious nylon "anti-rocking" bushings on those guitars (which IIRC I had only been seen as an add-on part from a Japanese offset shop before that). But as noted the 9.5" bridge does not have the anti-sink bushings of the 7.25" (Marr) variant. You can see they are absent on Fender's website listing for the 9.5" (brass saddles are stated there, another difference):
https://www.fender.com/en-AU/parts/brid ... 42049.html
Whereas the anti-sink bushings are clearly present on the 7.25" (which has steel saddles):
https://www.fender.com/en-US/parts/brid ... 71049.html
The 7.25" description refers ambiguously to "Nylon post inserts for improved stability". IIRC the terms "anti-sink" bushings (what that vague Fender description refers to) and "anti-rocking" bushings (installed with the 9.5" bridge on Am Pro guitars) were the more precise descriptions coined here.

The original Marr 7.25" and Am Pro 9.5" bridges had 56mm E-E spacing. That was reduced to 52mm some years later (one with a part number change, the other not).
"I just knew I wanted to make a sound that was the complete opposite of a Les Paul, and that’s pretty much a Jaguar." Rowland S. Howard.

User avatar
MrSparkle
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2024 11:48 am

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by MrSparkle » Sun Jul 14, 2024 3:27 am

timtam wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2024 7:57 pm

But as noted the 9.5" bridge does not have the anti-sink bushings of the 7.25" (Marr) variant.

(brass saddles are stated there, another difference)

The original Marr 7.25" and Am Pro 9.5" bridges had 56mm E-E spacing. That was reduced to 52mm some years later (one with a part number change, the other not).
Yeah wow, that is actually the worst. Meanwhile the Staytrem keeps getting upgraded, I can see from the site that the photos of the Staytrem wide now also has the no-circlip design of the recent Staytrem Jaguar bridge; just like the Jaguar recently got the outer-saddle-pinning from the Wide bridge. Meanwhile, the AmPro is the same Mustang bridge from 60 years ago with narrower string spacing and cheaper saddles.

Correction on my previous then "I can understand why people buy the 7.25" American Professional bridge over the Staytrem".

You have taught me much, Jedi Master TimTam.

User avatar
fendermcfenderface1!
PAT PEND
PAT PEND
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu May 30, 2024 7:10 pm

Re: Vintage Jag bridge issues

Post by fendermcfenderface1! » Sun Jul 14, 2024 6:17 pm

These are not the bridges you've been looking for... :)

Post Reply