Trem Question

This is how low my 1985 Custom is - much lower than the current specification. I'd also put money on it it's never beeen changed since it left the factory 33 and a bit years a go. My suspicion is the early guitars either had a lower neck angle than is seen today (or were made with a more variable neck angle so some were low, others higher) or that over time that the guitar has had a bit of 'neck rise' (a known phenomenon on old Les Pauls). I had a slighly earlier guitar than this and that one was exactly the same - a very low neck angle needing the trem to be set right down to get a sensible action (that one I had to re-set as it had been messed around with the two outer screws down and the four inner screws up like an old Fender set-up). I also used to own a very early 1986 Standard where the trem was set much higher on the pivot screws as the neck angle was much steeper. So I think you have to set the trem height to the specifics of your own guitar using the specs as a guide / starting point. And yes I know it could do with a dust.

IMG0477.jpeg



IMG0480.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I have a couple of PRS that work best when the bridge is low like that, it does look like if you lower the saddles you could raise the bridge a bit if you want more waggle to your trem
 
I ended up lowering it quite a bit from spec. I prefer the tone of a floating trem but I don't really use the trem so I don't mind losing some pull up travel:

20181109-213212.jpg
 
I really love the tone of the guitar right now. I wonder if the saddles would make a big difference in tone?

It will. I have a couple PRS, and coincidentally one is a 93 CE maple top that have those graphtech saddles, it was a “thing” with me for awhile. They mute certain frequencies or at least charge the tactile response of the guitar. Whether or not it’s a detriment... I don’t know yet, as I haven’t had the courage to swap them out, because I too love the sound of that particular guitar.
 
Back
Top