Who keeps their tremolo cover on?

I'm curious, those covers have always annoyed me. SRV's Number One wasn't covered, then again, it had no finish left either. Clapton's Blackie was naked too. Do you guys keep your Strats clothed, or let them run around coverless?

Anyone ever gotten their shirt (or anything) caught in the springs? Do belt buckles pose more of an immediate threat?

Thanks!

http://www.tdpri.com/telephoto/data/523/medium/blackblue.jpg

I don't like the covers but I find them more uncomfortable coverless so I keep them on. A recessed cover or better yet a hardtail is the best imo.

Both of mine are removed just because I think they look tacky.

Haha, that's what I thought. I can understand though, Stuco, what you mean by uncomfortable. I've been trying to decide whether to buy a matching tremolo cover with my tortoise pickguard, or just to leave it off. I think we're going to let the Strat run around coverless.

I don't think they really fit the overall look, the guitar looks much more natural to me without them.

It seems like it was a last minute idea, not something Leo thought about a lot.

me

If Leo had wanted us to take the cover off he wouldn't have included the cover. There, debate settled. Now, let's get back to something important like rosewood v. maple.

I used to keep mine on, but in my opinion the cover makes the guitar look a bit cheap, and it's more ROCK without it for some reason. So since a while I took it off.
Though you can still see where it has been.....

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh69/oliver538/P8310312small.jpg

Stick a hula girl decal on the cover and spray over it .
Looks great :lol:

I have some with and some without .

On, though it doesn't match the pickguard. Not that I care. Who sees it anyway?

Mike Bruce

I'm curious, would taking the cover off result in more buckle rash on account of your belt/body rubbing up against the wood inseatd of mostly just on the plastic (as the plastic is raised above the surface of the wood)?

Persoanlly I dont mind the look of the cover, without it looks abit unfinished (random gaping hole with exposed springs), but people hardly ever see it anyways. I'd also feel safer with it on (so nothing gets caught in there).

I keep mine on, i think it looks more complete with it - also the fear of those springs pinging loose near my groin makes my eyes water.

The hole looks untidy, therefore mine stay on until the claw screws next need some adjustment.

The main reason why most Strat players leave the backplates off is that they 'nail' the bridge down....pull it flush to the body with spring tension in order to eliminate bridge movement. When this is done with a vintage=type backplate, the holes no longer line up with the string holes in the bridge and....you have to pull the plate every time you want to restring. Therefore, who needs the backplate.
When Leo designed this thing...with the input of a player named Bill Carson...they arranged the holes in the plate so that they lined up with the holes in the block when the bridge was set up as intended...that is, floating.

The main reason why most Strat players leave the backplates off is that they 'nail' the bridge down....pull it flush to the body with spring tension in order to eliminate bridge movement. When this is done with a vintage=type backplate, the holes no longer line up with the string holes in the bridge and....you have to pull the plate every time you want to restring. Therefore, who needs the backplate.
When Leo designed this thing...with the input of a player named Bill Carson...they arranged the holes in the plate so that they lined up with the holes in the block when the bridge was set up as intended...that is, floating.

That's exactly how it is with my Strat. I like to have the bridge floating. I don't do your typical crazy Floyd Rose-type stff, but I like to have room both for dives and for pulling up. And when it's set up like that, the hole lines up just fine (my Strat is an American Deluxe, which doesn't have individual holes on the back plate but rather one long one). So I really have no reason to want the back plate off.

Besides, to be perfectly honest, I'm scared of one of the springs snapping loose for no reason and, given the length of my strap, smacking me right in the crotch :shock::oops:

On, though it doesn't match the pickguard. Not that I care. Who sees it anyway?

Mike Bruce


My thoughts exactly. I took my cover off once so I could put 5 springs on and screw the bridge down tight. I then put the cover back on. I don't think it looks tacky as no one has commented yet while I play it.

Besides, to be perfectly honest, I'm scared of one of the springs snapping loose for no reason and, given the length of my strap, smacking me right in the crotch :shock::oops:


I had one of the devices pictured below once but with the steel springs. I put one of the hand grips on my foot to hold it down so I could take the other grip to do curls. Well I guess the distance needed for me to do curls while holding one end on the floor was more than this apparatus could handle and one of the springs snapped off catching me squarely in the daddy basket. It was a good 10 minutes before I was able to pick my self up off the floor.

http://www.fit-senior.com/acatalog/ChestExpander_RubberTubes.jpg

The main reason why most Strat players leave the backplates off is that they 'nail' the bridge down....pull it flush to the body with spring tension in order to eliminate bridge movement. When this is done with a vintage=type backplate, the holes no longer line up with the string holes in the bridge and....you have to pull the plate every time you want to restring. Therefore, who needs the backplate.
When Leo designed this thing...with the input of a player named Bill Carson...they arranged the holes in the plate so that they lined up with the holes in the block when the bridge was set up as intended...that is, floating.

You can always redrill the body (the holes are tiny) so the holes in the cover line up with the holes in the bridge. The main advantage of keeping on the tremolo cover (and the bridge cover) is not losing them (especially if your guitar is vintage)

You can always redrill the body (the holes are tiny) so the holes in the cover line up with the holes in the bridge. The main advantage of keeping on the tremolo cover (and the bridge cover) is not losing them (especially if your guitar is vintage)


Yeah, a fellow came in one day with a near mint '54 Strat. He wanted the bridge flush to the body and said to drill some new holes to reposition the backplate. I told him I didn't want to do that,but that I could enlarge the holes in the backplate...since the plate was worth only $4-500 or maybe a
$1K.
He said that he didn't want to mess up that plate, so just go ahead and drill some more holes in the body. So, I did. The plate now lines up really well with the holes in the trem block. I filled the original holes with wood putty and colored them with a Sharpie. You have to get within ten feet or so to tell what has been done....and none ever looks at the back anyway when a good picker is working that axe, right? The owner said he didn't care if those extra holes devalued the guitar by a thousand or two or even ten....it was his guitar and he wanted it done. I did it .......
not. :lol::lol:
When I set a guitar up and the plate won't line up, I put the plate and the screws in a plastic string package and staple it shut....put it in the case/bag and tell the owner why I left it off. IF they want it back on, it can go back on. IT is more practical to leave it off, imho.

I had one of the devices pictured below once but with the steel springs. I put one of the hand grips on my foot to hold it down so I could take the other grip to do curls. Well I guess the distance needed for me to do curls while holding one end on the floor was more than this apparatus could handle and one of the springs snapped off catching me squarely in the daddy basket. It was a good 10 minutes before I was able to pick my self up off the floor.

http://www.fit-senior.com/acatalog/ChestExpander_RubberTubes.jpg

Yep, it's staying on.

Golfnut,

If that was "a good 10 minutes" I'd hate to hear about a bad 10 minutes. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I did however laugh out load.

I keep my trem cover off and I never even considered the springs breaking. Fortunately if any of them do bust loose I have a protective "Tele Belly" and I wear the guitar kind of high.

... catching me squarely in the daddy basket.

Absolutely wonderful description of a vulnerable piece of masculine anatomy - never heard it called that before. :lol:

Sometimes when I play my Strat naked, the springs grabs a handful of curlys and rips 'em out :shock:

That's why I shaved...

It all depends on if I remember where I put them last time I took them off. Doesn't matter to me either way. Personal preference I suppose.

I keep the cover on my Clapton strat cos it also covers the battery in the back but I leave the cover off my MIM strat.

I have a '65 and a '67 Strat and there's now way I'd modify either the back of the guitar or the cover plates. So, I put the original covers aside, bought new covers and modified THEM to line up with the tremolo plate when it's all the way down.

Oops, I meant to say, line up with the tremolo BLOCK in my last post.

Any idea where to get a metallic tremolo cover?