Kay Thin Twin pick ups

[bramley]

I have a few questions about these blade style p/ups.

1/ I need to remove the chrome cover, some say they are kept in place with wax and will come off with moderate heat. Any one know any more ?

2/ Reason for removal , I need to try and add an additional piece of steel or magnet on top of the bar to increase the height of the p/up. Is this feasible? A neck reset on the guitar has put the string path too far above the highest adjustment point of the bridge p/up.

[soundmasterg]

Why not just shim the underside of the pickup with some wood to get a higher adjustment? Any metal that you put near or in the pickup will change the sound of it....

Greg

[the great waldo]

Why not just shim the underside of the pickup with some wood to get a higher adjustment? Any metal that you put near or in the pickup will change the sound of it....

Greg

Hi Greg

It´ll probably be mounted on a scratchplate and with a bad reset job on the neck the only way to raise the pup height will be to extend the magnet. I would imagine a hair dryer aimed at the metal cover should show if the covers waxed on as the wax will run out of the bottom.

Cheers

Andrew

[bramley]

Thanks gents. It is infact a great neck set as you can see by the increased break & bridge height. After some experimenting , a pick guard spacer is the way to go, 1/8" doesn't worry me visually as much as i thought it would and puts the bridge p/up well with in responsive range.

[David Schwab]

It is infact a great neck set as you can see by the increased break & bridge height.

Neck resets are to get the strings lower, not higher, with the bridge at the original height. You shouldn't have to shim up the pickguard if the neck was at the right angle.

[bramley]

The Thin twins had a serious design flaw ... a flat top hollow body guitar , a hinged / trapeze tailpiece and zero neck angle gave almost no break angle at the bridge and over time none at all causing the strings to barely touch the bridge. Nine out of ten 50's thin twins will suffer from this.

Of course a neck reset will lower the "action" but it will usually raise the stings up higher off the guitar top . The unworkable original factory bridge height combined with the limited p/up adjustment design and was the problem, the spacer proved to be the best trade off.

Thanks for the thoughts, it's playing & sounding great, used it on a session today.

[David Schwab]

Of course a neck reset will lower the "action" but it will usually raise the stings up higher off the guitar top .

No, as the neck angle is increased and the strings get lower over the top. The bridge stays where it is.

This is why people do neck resets on acoustic guitars, to lower the action. You can't raise or lower the bridge much, so the neck angle has to change.

Glad it worked out for you though.

[jonson]

No, as the neck angle is increased and the strings get lower over the top. The bridge stays where it is.

As the neck tilts further back of course the bridge has to be raised, or you'll end up fretting out all the length of it.

[David Schwab]

As the neck tilts further back of course the bridge has to be raised, or you'll end up fretting out all the length of it.

It all depends on how much you change the angle. You want to lower the nut end of the neck, and not raise the heel end. You only have to change it by a very small amount... like a degree at the most. It sounds like it was changed too much.

I make set neck instruments, so I'm familiar with the process.

[Steve Conner]

Well, but like the guy said, the goal of this neck reset was not to lower the action, but to increase the string break angle at the bridge.

In order to do that, you'd not only need to change the neck angle, but also raise the bridge, or somehow ram the neck further down into its pocket. The reason being that the neck pivots around its heel, but to change the string break angle without changing the action, your "pivot" would need to be at the bridge.

[Possum]

....

So why not just lower the bridge and the pickup

[Steve Conner]

Because the break angle was already too low, and that would just make it lower?

[David Schwab]

So why not just lower the bridge and the pickup

The strings were popping out of the saddles. But what I'm saying is there's a fine line between enough and too much.

I would have changed the tailpiece.

[bramley]

I would have changed the tailpiece.

David, I agree in hindsight , I had toyed with the idea of an old solid MIJ non hinged tailpiece I have . I didn't do the neck reset, the gent who did is very good ( formerly Gruhn/ Gibson ) and it seems the original tailpiece plays into the value of these things enormously . Even so I think it was a bit of an oversight re the pick up adjustment factor.

BTW there was originally quite significant heel separation, and the only way I could get this to "kind of " play was with a filed down T.O.M bridge sitting right on the top and the tailpiece understrung .

Still it's done, it's playing great and with the pickguard spacer the bridge pickup response is good so I don't need to do any surgery on the pickup..

Thanks to everyone who chimed in , I appreciate the input.

Mark, Nashville.

[David Schwab]

As long as you got the guitar working, that's good! Those are cool old guitars.

Some Gretsch guitars I've worked on have an annoying habit of the strings jumping out of the saddles if you pluck the string too hard because of the way the tailpiece is, especially the Bigsbys. They need that bar to hold them down.

Old guitars weren't always designed all that well. Look at the Rick 4001 bridge. You have to remove the bridge from the tailpiece in order to adjust the intonation! What were they thinking?