string-through body

what are the advantages/disadvantages of such a design?

i've heard that a disadvantage is that the bridge can't be raised too high. is this a practical problem?

i've also heard that it allows a tune-o-matic to be used on a non-angled neck.

plus, it looks cool if it's done right.

so, thring-through body: good idea or junk?

Well, it's the best idea when it comes to tele.

after 60 years, Fender still makes them, so it's a obviously a good idea ... nothing wrong with a top-loading bridge either ... just different ...

Never had any bridge problems. I suppose the theory is that the more solidly anchored the strings are, the more they will vibrate and sustain, rather than the vibrations being lost through shaky connections. Much like how you want your stereo speakers mounted solidly, and not on a wobbly shelf.

awesome. thanks.

any suggestions on a top-loading bridge or one to use with a string-through bridge?

The Wilkinsons are drilled for both methods, and I think they're really good value.

Don't see why it should affect the hight adjustability of the bridge. In fact higher saddles would give you less break angle on the string as it comes out of the body? Always feels to me like there's a little more tension on the strings with a thru-body bridge.

The Wilkinsons are drilled for both methods, and I think they're really good value.

+1. Top-loaders rock!

I always thought it was faster to re-string my SG than my Tele.

i think i'll go w/ the top loader.

to answer pinewood ro, some bridges have parts other than where the string makes contact. if the string leaves at too sharp an angle, this parts can be hit by the string. again, i don't know if this actually causes anyone problems.

There are some poorly designed top loaders (hello, Squier '51!) that are harder to change strings on than through the body, but a properly engineered top loader isn't a problem.

I had two 80's Tele's with top loaders....they sounded exactly like.......a Tele. I liked them a lot actually.