Vintage Style 0 coverplate questions

[gaucho]

I have a 1931 Style 0 that, at some point (a long time ago) had the cover plate replaced with a chicken foot cover off a 1935-ish 14 fretter. When the action is set low, you can't dig into the strings with fingerpicks near the bridge with out hitting the cover plate and making lots of noise. I know there was a problem with the early coverplates collapsing (I imagine that is why mine was replaced) and that is why they added the ribs in about 1933. Then, they went back to un-ribbed plates later on. My question is this, did they redesign the coverplates to make them stronger by doming them up slightly? When I look at my chicken foot plate next to a plate from an earlier, non-ribbed 12 fretter, it seems to have just a little more dome to it. That would explain the strings being so close right by the bridge. The neck angle is probably not perfect (neck is straight tho), but I think that the cover plate off my '32 Duolian (which looks slightly less domed and is probably the same as what was originally on my Style 0 save for the different material ) would give me proper string clearance near the bridge. Thoughts?

Hopefully I explained this so you can tell what I'm talking about!

[zak71]

The "post-ribs" 14-fret coverplates with the central hole (the opening for the biscuit) rolled in are ever so slightly taller than the coverplates with the flat-cut central hole. However probably not enough to alleviate your problem with a swap - the proximity to the coverplate is a result of saddle height, which in turn is a result of neck angle. Sounds like your neck's angle is a little bit too shallow, perhaps?

[rbe]

I agree with Zac, that it is probably not the coverplate that is the root of your problem. Although your two coverplates are slightly different, you should have a little room for that variable in a proper setup. I did want to say that rolling the hole for the biscuit does make the whole coverplate more rigid.

[gaucho]

Thanks for the replies. I totally agree that my neck angle (or lack of any angle) is slightly off. But if you put the 2 guitars side by side and look at the coverplates, there's a definite difference in the dome heights. It's not a lot, but it is enough to make a difference in occasionally hitting the cover with my finger picks. My question was more geared towards learning the history of these than "fixing" my guitar. I always wonder why they chose to go back to the un-ribbed style in '35 or so? Personally I loved the look of the ribbed plates, and the flat cut F holes with the ribbed plates was my favorite combo.

If you look at the pick wear pattern on my 0 (most other vintage Nats I see seem similar and there is no problem with pick hits in that position) it seems like most players stayed well up from the bridge anyways. Playing close to the bridge, like I sometimes do for the tone, makes palm dampening almost impossible….

[zak71]

Mar 14, 2014 13:06:32 GMT gaucho said:

I always wonder why they chose to go back to the un-ribbed style in '35 or so? 

Technically speaking, they didn't really "go back" - the later unribbed coverplates with the rolled central hole found on 14-fret guitars were an improvement in terms of rigidity over the ones with the lateral ribs, or perhaps they required less stamping/fewer steps in the manufacturing process.
The earliest unribbed coverplates that preceded those with the flat-cut central hole and feel the floppiest. Out of those, I think the "hooks" coverplates are ever so slightly less tall than the the regular ones, but I am only basing that last observation on the "hooks" Triolian I currently own and a "hooks" Duolian I had before.

The unribbed/rolled coverplates might outwardly look like a return to the earliest design, but they have absolutely no flex to them when you push down on them, unlike the earlier ones, and feel much heavier/thicker (not unlike the bodies they were screwed on to). Many of the early unribbed/flat-cut coverplates have a LOT of "give" to them if you were to press down on them with your fingers, and I can easily see how they might get popped into a "concave" inverted shape if they were to receive a good hard impact. The later coverplates with the rolled central hole feel rigid enough to STAND on, this is why I don't really see them as a return to the earlier design aside from the outward appearance.