Bridge pins v string-through

Colan,

I'm not sure why a pinless bridge means you can brace lighter on the top unless it's combined with a tailpiece. You don't need a hardwood bridgeplate as there are no ball end strings to wear it but that's about the only weight saving on bracing. I'd argue that it's more fiddly changing strings with the pinless bridge. With a pinless bridge if the bridge starts lifting then the strings under tension will want to peel the bridge off the top and potentially take top wood with it. With the pinned bridge the pins will stop the bridge peeling if the bridge lifts but with either design you still have to re-glue the bridge.

I've used both designs and from a maker's/tech's perspective the pinned bridge is so much easier for setting up - if you want to work on the bridge and saddle you just loosen the strings put a capo on about fret 7, take out the pins and strings, fold back the strings on the neck and hold them there with another capo on around fret 3. Simples, whereas on a pinless bridge it's a pain in the bum and to take the strings off the bridge you have to take them off the tuners as well.

The factors that influence changes in playing action over time are the same for both designs and both design can be worked on to address the issues - apart from the "pain in the bum" string thing I mentioned above.

Luthier forums have endless debates about the forces on pinned and pinless bridges and how they drive the top differently - angels on bridge pin heads - but I've found no difference in how the top responds to both types.

Well yes if you attached your motorcycle wheels to the frame with a thin coating of glue and nothing else You do all you can to make the joint perfect but bridge lift happens to the best of luthiers.

I saw discussion about this on line. Specifically about Lowden and George Lowdens views.

But I know sod all about these things so I don't know for sure if what I saw is genuine / totally accurate. But I took note because I was interested in why the Lowdens I was finding out about had pinless bridges. I did see one of the Lowden videos in which George Lowden said something along similar, though less detailed, lines.

It was said the question about the (dis)advantages of a pinless bridge "recently came up in the Lowden-newgroup".
It was then said "George Lowden himself responded". As below:-

Regarding the design advantages / disadvantages of my pin-less bridge:

As David has said, the main downside could be that a pin-less bridge will come off more easily than a pin bridge. But it is very important to realise that given the same climatic conditions a pin bridge will also lift off the oundboard at the back, the difference would be that a pin-less bridge is likely to separate completely or nearly so, ..... The way a pin bridge behaves under these same circumstances is obviously less dramatic - but must nevertheless be repaired the same way. Rarely does a bridge come off if the bridge is kept from drying out too much, so be very careful to humidify the guitar in dry periods - particularly if snow is on the ground, and central heating is on.

The main advantages of a pin-less bridge are to do with the tone characteristics. Because the rake angle taken by the strings over our saddles is shallower than on a pin bridge, I am not so restricted by structural considerations with the bracing / bridge interface. The bracing can then be designed in such a way that it encourages a lot of relatively complex oscillation modes, which in turn helps to give the Lowden its particular tone.

All experienced guitar makers know that creating unplanned for stress or tension in an instrument is not good for tone. The most critical area of the guitar where tension should be avoided as much as possible is the bridge and its joint to the soundboard. Any stress in there is going to damp and restrict the guitar's tone, volume and
sustain. A pin-less bridge will be an 'easier' fit to the soundboard, provided it has been fitted expertly.

This is a complex subject of course and so maybe someday I'll write a book about my ideas of guitar design and construction.... but then it might be too technical ..... I'd have to include some stories to liven it up a little! Maybe someday

Hopefully that adds something of interest to the discussion.

I did see somewhere else at some point that some of the Lowden guitars at some point got re-done with pin bridges and although not necessarily better or worse they lost something of the "Lowden sound". I can see how a choice might be influenced by the sort of sound the luthier is after if that is the case. Maybe some bracing patterns will react to the choice with different sound while other patterns won't. The only thing I do know about guitar design is that it's hugely complex!

Mark

Classical/flamenco guitars almost always have 'pinless' bridges - but the strings expert much less force on the bridge. Historically, does anyone know how these bridges evolved or if pins were ever tried out? It would be interesting to see whether a pin bridge with nylon strings would yield the same difference as with pin/string through bridges on steel strings. Just yesterday I played two very similar steel string acoustic guitars - an Avalon (mine) and a McIlroy (my dad's new acquisition!) - the Avalon with a pin bridge and the Mcilroy with a string through - and the feel and tone of both is great. I'd hoped i might prefer one to the other - but I loved them both! I suspect much of it lies with the builders own preference and their ability to voice the guitar effectively for the style of bridge chosen. It seems to me that overall a pin bridge is preferable as it allows more direct string contact and transference to the soundboard - much as string through electric guitar bodies do, and it also allows easier string removing. However, a pinless bridge is more comfortable on the right hand for certain techniques. It's a dilemma!