Just an unsolicited recommendation for the Hooks banjo bridges for nylon strings.
I'm really a steel string 3-finger/Mastertone player, and I admit I don't really know what I'm doing when it comes to this antique. I got this 1920s Supertone banjo as a gift a few years ago, because I had identified this model as nearly identical to the banjo my great-granddad had. It originally had friction pegs which had been ruined by steel strings, and an old bone insert Grover type bridge. I got the banjo working with a nice set of Pegheds, but I just put another Grover bone insert 1/2" bridge on it and a set of nylgut strings.
The nylguts were the first issue apparently. At the time I probably didn't know/realize/care there was a difference between nylgut and "nylon", but I had all the expected issues with them apparently. Strings stretched for eternity. Tubby/flabby/nuthin' unwound 4th string and weird intonation issues up and down the neck made me think there was something wrong with it. The bridge was working fine as far as I knew, but in reading and doing a bit of research I came across Joel Hooks bridges, read his bridge primer and decided to try the JW Hooks bridge. I also ordered a set of LaBella 17's.
First I put on the LaBella nylon strings with my current bridge. Instant improvement. Massively better 4th string, instead of the tubby unwound nylgut string, and tight and focused tones with reasonably good intonation up and down most of the neck - miles better playability than before at least. With the Grover bridge the sound was a bit harsh and thin though, and not terribly loud.
Then I put on the JW Hooks bridge. It looks like nothing, just incredibly small, with tighter spacing. But boy did it bring this banjo to life. Volume, richer/plunkier tone, and ready-made for the LaBella string set. At last what I got out of this cool old banjo is a version of that fingerstyle tone you hear on a lot of old pre-war 78's. For finger style the tighter spacing is no issue at all for me, and is maybe more proper for this banjo anyway since I'd had some issue with the 1st string rolling off. I don't know how close this really is to the original bridge, but it was probably also some kind of 2-foot plain wooden bridge I'm guessing. Anyway the Hooks bridge works wonders for this banjo.
I'm sure others have figured all this out long before I did, but if you're using nylon I recommend you look into Joel Hooks bridges while they're available. There may be other 2-leg bridge options out there, which I've paid scant attention, but most I've seen seem to have ebony caps.
banjothimble.com/banjo-bridges
Edited by - Bradskey on 09/28/2024 18:47:09
I used to think the effects thinner, non-tipped bridges were largely exaggerated. I've changed my tune. I have three period banjos I keep set up with LaBellas, and each has a different bridge from Joel. The improvement volume and snap is dramatic having done nothing more than changing the bridge.
I don't know the reasoning, but I believe Cole banjos for a time came with two bridges on them. Next time I change the strings on my Bacon or Vegas, I'm going to try this out and see what, if any improved change occurs.
quote:
Originally posted by Nic PennsylvaniaI used to think the effects thinner, non-tipped bridges were largely exaggerated. I've changed my tune. I have three period banjos I keep set up with LaBellas, and each has a different bridge from Joel. The improvement volume and snap is dramatic having done nothing more than changing the bridge.
I don't know the reasoning, but I believe Cole banjos for a time came with two bridges on them. Next time I change the strings on my Bacon or Vegas, I'm going to try this out and see what, if any improved change occurs.
You'll have to sand one of the bridges down some to try this. If I'm not mistaken, one of the two bridges in the Cole configuration is shorter than the other.
quote:
Originally posted by csacwpYou'll have to sand one of the bridges down some to try this. If I'm not mistaken, one of the two bridges in the Cole configuration is shorter than the other.
I appreciate informing me about this. I would assume the shorter bridge would be the one closer to the tailpiece. I don't see how it could be any other way.
Have you ever tried this out yourself?
I have one and really like it. Would like to get another for my old Washburn, but he's always out of stock.
quote:
Originally posted by Nic Pennsylvaniaquote:
Originally posted by csacwpYou'll have to sand one of the bridges down some to try this. If I'm not mistaken, one of the two bridges in the Cole configuration is shorter than the other.
I appreciate informing me about this. I would assume the shorter bridge would be the one closer to the tailpiece. I don't see how it could be any other way.
Have you ever tried this out yourself?
Yes, I think that's right. I've wanted to try it myself for a long time, but I can't bring myself to sand down an original Cole bridge. I've been keeping my eyes peeled for a shorter original.
facebook.com/photo?fbid=101162...773948842 This guy makes many in that style
Or getcha a piece of maple, a couple of files, and some sandpaper, small wooden blocks, and tape; and carve away everything that doesn't look like a Cole bridge.
FWIW, the earliest entry I found for this model (414) in a Sears catalog is 1921 (latest is 1928). They had pretty good illustrations in these, and this one has one of the clearest depictions of the original bridge. It seems obviously a 2 leg bridge in a size and style similar to the Hooks bridges, as is true for other banjos depicted on the same page. In subsequent years this same banjo was typically priced at only $9.95.
1928 depiction.
I evened out the head tension, although it may still be a little low. That ancient calf skin and thin shell scare me. Not much more I'm planning to do other than maybe a wire rest.
Been doing fiddle tunes on it for fun. Here's a sample. The playing is poor (I don't have a good feel for picking on nylon anyway) but you get an idea of how it sounds now. I don't have a before, but it wasn't playable enough for me to even do this. Now that 5th string really hammers. For a $10 banjo.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9mxtgl1vpb2xtmn22iw1c/Bill-Cheatham.m4a?rlkey=fy7o6mhtg39dslct025osv8o2&dl=0
That playing is just fine!
A little off topic, but with access to more Sears catalogs I finally identified the model number variant of the Dixie Wonder my great-grandfather had.
My Sears Supertone is the fairly common 1920s model 414 Dixie Wonder. These were also available from the early 1930s as model 514.
From an old photo I matched my grandfather's banjo to a Supertone that member Jim Daniel had, confirming it was from Sears product line. But the label in his example was torn, making the model/year hard to identify. I've now matched these banjos to what I think is the earliest catalog version of the Dixie Wonder, a model 828 listed only in the Fall 1917 and Spring 1918 Sears catalogs. It also appears briefly in Fall 1918 catalog as model 408 before being discontinued (408 would briefly appear a couple years later with a simpler design). These are 38-bracket Dixie Wonders with a simple star inlay on the peghead. The more common 1920s Dixie Wonder models have only 30 brackets and a fancier peghead pattern. Being available for only about a year these earliest Dixie Wonder 828/408 variants are probably comparatively rare.
These exact models do not appear in the Spring 1917 catalog, but I haven't researched anything prior to that yet.
One thing more was needed, this nickel wire armrest I got from Greg Boyd, which you never really see on these but just for practical "quality of life" purposes. Yes the pot has heavy patina and it doesn't match wonderfully. I'm not even going to attempt to polish given the condition of the stretcher band, and i like the look overall. I thought about dipping the wire rest in something, but it should dull a bit soon enough. The 10-5/8" pot warranted maybe just the slightest bend in the wire.
