bone vs. plastic nut and saddle

Discussions relating to the classical guitar which don't fit elsewhere.
Jeffrey Armbruster
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:16 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: bone vs. plastic nut and saddle

Post by Jeffrey Armbruster » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:40 pm

Peter Frary wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:48 pm
Our wee shop sold Takamine classicals since the late 1980s and all of them had bone saddles and nuts (and still do if the Japan made line). Only the G-series shipped with plastic nuts and saddles.
Thanks Peter! That's good information. I think mine are bone after all.
Paul Weaver spruce 2014
Takamine C132S

Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: bone vs. plastic nut and saddle

Post by amezcua » Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:08 pm

When I looked on the Camps guitar site I noticed they used Melamine plastic for the nuts . That is a much harder material than the squashy plastic I found on one guitar . There was also a softer plastic across the bridge as a decoration . The strings ran across that too . Melamine is used for break resistant dinner plates . I had a chess set made of it once .

User avatar
Posts: 9108
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:55 am
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: bone vs. plastic nut and saddle

Post by pogmoor » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:01 pm

eno wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:22 pm
Vanilla plastic is poor but TUSK is actually quite good, it makes the sound a little mellower compared to bone. On some very sensitive guitars bone can make the sound too zingy and clacky and tusk may actually sound better
For anyone wanting to look this up I think it is spelt TUSQ.
Eric from GuitarLoot
Renaissance and Baroque freak; classical guitars by Lester Backshall (2008), Ramirez (Guitarra del Tiempo 2017),
Yamaha (SLG 130NW silent classical guitar 2014).

Return to “Public Space”