Highway 1 bridge plate question

[tav]

Hi, sorry if this has been asked before, I tried a search but no luck. The bridge plate on my old-model Highway 1 looks nothing like the one I had on my 69 thinline. The thinline's bridge plate had machining marks on it, and the corners were slightly raised. The Highway 1's bridge plate has none of these qualities, it's very regular with no raised corners and no machining marks.

I read somewhere on here that the Highway 1 and Classic 50s' bridge plates were the same - so was the Thinline's bridge more "retro" than the Classic 50's, or have they replaced the Highway 1's plate with a modern-style version recently?

Just curious. The Highway 1's plate looks thicker than the Thinline's as well I believe.

Thanks, Tav

[dagger4]

The bridgeplates of the Buddy Guy, HW1 Texas Tele, Classic '50 are the same.
(vintage american/Gotoh)
The standard HW1 bridge is Ping (china)

Look at the mr gearhead site and compare the part list numbers.

Best regards

[tav]

Thanks Chris, that sounds more like it. I've no complaints about it though, just noticed that apart from the shape it wasn't very vintage-looking.

[aznxtasy341]

do you think this bigger plate adds to the sound of the highway?

[tav]

Well, I have only owned an AmSe ash and a 69 thinline to compare to, but I would say that perhaps the bigger plate takes some "zingy-ness" away, takes the Highway 1 more towards AmSe territory. The 69 thinline seemed to have a much more metallic top end. I haven't put new strings on the Highway 1 yet though. The saddles are chromed on the Highway 1, maybe that takes away some of the top end as well.

[aznxtasy341]

btw, are the steel saddles the same dimensions etc as the ones they had on the originals?

[tav]

They look it to me, I'm only comparing the 69 thinline saddles with Highway 1 though.

[dpote]

Originally Posted by aznxtasy341

do you think this bigger plate adds to the sound of the highway?

On mine, I found the sound was greatly enhanced when I removed the bigger plate, and installed a Glendale. The stock plate had a darker tone, and less sustain.

Dave

[aznxtasy341]

so i should change the plate? btw will these bridges fit the ashtray covers? i just ordered one and if i cant put it on ....well damnit..

[tav]

You mean I can get MORE sustain from this Highway 1? I still have the factory strings on it because it sounds great as is at the moment. I know there's a lot of discussion about how much/little finish there is on a Highway 1, all I can say is mine rings like a bell, more so than my (admittedly heavier) AmSe ash did.

[yegbert]

Originally Posted by tav

The bridge plate on my old-model Highway 1 looks nothing like the one I had on my 69 thinline. The thinline's bridge plate had machining marks on it, and the corners were slightly raised. The Highway 1's bridge plate has none of these qualities, it's very regular with no raised corners and no machining marks.

I read somewhere on here that the Highway 1 and Classic 50s' bridge plates were the same - so was the Thinline's bridge more "retro" than the Classic 50's, or have they replaced the Highway 1's plate with a modern-style version recently?

Just curious. The Highway 1's plate looks thicker than the Thinline's as well I believe.

What if any identification is stamped into your old-model Hwy 1 bridge plate?

Is it like #1) the one here and here, with FENDER PAT PEND stamped parallel to the pickup?

Is it like #2) the one pictured here and here? Just the word FENDER stamped parallel to the bridge plate bottom lip? Or maybe even #3) - like #2 plus some numbers below the letters?

Is your '69 Thinline an original, an MIM reissue, or a CIJ reissue?

Do you have one of the newer Hwy 1 models too, or were you just looking at one in a store somewhere? In any case, what does the newer one look like? Is it stamped like #1, #2 or #3; or is it plain and maybe... #4) the same as what Fender is putting on the CIK Lite Ash and Koa Teles, which seems to be the same as the one GFS sells here?

The one that came on my '2003 MIM '50s Classic, and several I've bought from MF, are identical to #1.

The one that came on my MIM '69 Thinline is like #2.

My impression is that the #2 on my Thinline was thinner than any of my #1s. I couldn't measure a difference in thickness, not having any accurate tools to do that with. But those two lower corners felt enough thinner that they seemed uncomfortable to my palm. And I believe it made for some some honky harmonic overtones, that went away when I replaced it with a #1, and that seemed to appear when I used that same plate on another Tele later.

I saw and played a Lite Ash Tele recently in a GC, and its plate (#4) seemed thicker than the #1s or #2s I've come across, although unfortunately I could find one of the others in the store to compare it to. In fact, IIRC, the Tele I found thinking it would allow me to compare was a Hwy 1, and it seemed to have the same #4 type! But that's become fuzzy in my memory now, and that seems inconsistent with Fender's pics online of the new Hwy 1s. Reckon I have an excuse to go back to GC again and confirm.

Based on my limited experience, my theory is this: being magnetic and a thickness like #1 is close to vintage tonally; being thinner than #1 (like #2), or warped/bent/not sitting good and flat, can make it honky; being thicker than #1 or not magnetic can increase sustain at the expense of losing some of the harmonics. Ultimately, the amount of sustain potential and harmonic potential from the plate are a matter of personal preference.

Saddle materials seem to affect tone and sustain also.

I like to experiment with these parts, but the pricier bridgeplates like Glendales and Callahams are not compelling enough for me to fork out the dough to try them, given that I like the #1 plates just fine.

[tav]

I think it just has "FENDER" stamped into it. Bridge and saddles are chromed, looks like it anyway. I guess it's like the lite ash then. I was comparing to a MIM 69 thinline re-issue, which did seem to have some honky overtones as you say.

[yegbert]

Originally Posted by tav

I think it just has "FENDER" stamped into it. Bridge and saddles are chromed, looks like it anyway. I guess it's like the lite ash then. I was comparing to a MIM 69 thinline re-issue, which did seem to have some honky overtones as you say.

I thought the one on the Lite Ash and Koa Teles was plain, with nothing stamped on it.

[kp8]

I have a HW 1 and couple '69 thinline RI. The saddles are different. The bridgeplates are different too. The '69 RI plate is wrinkled in the corners and seems to have cheaper or different plating on it. Both of mine were really funky. I sold one '69 Thinline and kept the other and put a bridge from a CIJ '62 RI on it that i had lying around. I was much much better, not as shiny, not as malformed, and flatter. The HW 1 had more even plating and was a lot like the straight up Fender plate you get at MF for $8... Mine was good and i just kept it.

Saddles are also different. The '69 came with nice hard brushed steel saddles. Twangtacular. I liked the stock ones great and so far have stuck with them.

The HW 1 came with crummy saddles that looked like they were die-cast or something. I doubt they were, but they were horrid. I swapped those out and my other wise 100% stock HW 1 is my #1. Twang to spare, very lively and percussive. IMO the best tele Fender makes. A great mix of vintage/traditional, with slightly more modern playability and even without the baseplate on the pickup really sounds like a Fender should, big round twangy tone with a good spank. I fregging love my HW 1. But those saddles were garbage. The stock plate was fine though.

so in my experience: HW 1 saddles bad, bridge good
'69 Thinline RI: Saddles good, bridge blah (and digs into your plam to boot!)

Funny cause other than the bridge plate swap the '69 is also 100% stock. I even like the stock p/ups on those. Real nice! Great twang!

YMMV etc.

-kp8--