Need help ID'ing MIJ Dinky Rev pro's

[KenP]

Hi all, wish I came here sooner


I have 2, supposedly '93 MIJ Dinky reverse professionals, both metallic purple (I believe). I've had one since the mid 90's and just scored the other last week.

Their serials are
300824 (old one)
932036 (new one)

The only difference I can tell is the new one looks a tad brighter... maybe from sitting in a closet all these years or...?

From what I get reading the serial thread, the new one should be a fusion? But don't those have pickup rings?

Also, the new one's bridge is messed up, stripped intonation screws and came with 3 #2 saddles, so I need to replace those....


Are these mediums correct or do I need lows or highs? ?

https://www.allparts.com/BP-0692-003-Black-Medium-Saddle-for-2-and-5_p_1005.html

I can post pics if needed... hell probably will soon anyways, just don't have my phone here...

Thanks in advance!

-Ken

[Mudlark]

Yeah, better post a pic. You first need to post on a site like imgur and then copy the link here.
The serials do indeed indicate '93. I doubt you have a Fusion if the reverse headstock is original, though.
A Fusion is 24.75 scale if you want to measure.

I'll leave the saddle question to a more knowledgeable person.

[KenP]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to clean them up but.....





Old one (darker w. decals):





New one , brighter paint

[KenP]

oh, and the new one's bridge.....

[ed]

Those are schaller JT-590 trems you have there. Those saddles you linked might be ok but i would put these kind of locking screws in there http://www.millbrook.fi/tuotteet.php...=139&offset=30
You notice they are shorter and stubbier. And the regular ofr locking screws are skinnier and longer. The longer ofr style screw doesnt fit into the floyd route in the body so you wont be doing any pullups attleast and it looks akward.
Edit: Offcourse you would just use the old locking screw with the new saddle just realized =)


Personally i would get genuine schaller parts like these:https://www.electrohill.co.uk/oshop/...hal-F-R-BA-Blk

You need 2 of each of the numbers like it says on the page i linked.

"The back of the saddle is numbered with 0,1 or 2.

0 is for the D and G strings
1 is for the A and B strings
2 is for both E strings"

[KenP]

Thanks guys, very helpful... I'm thinking since I now have 2 I might as well get this and keep whatever leftover patts as spares.

This is the right one, right?

https://reverb.com/item/10535887-new-schaller-floyd-rose-locking-tremolo-bridge-whammy-bar-black-sb-0290-003

Seems to have different specs than this (from another thread, supposed to replace jt90 )

http://www.warmoth.com/Schaller-Floyd-Rosereg-Tremolo-Black-P577C694.aspx

[CaptNasty]

On all of my USA Soloists they came from the factory as:

0 - D & G strings
2 - A & B strings
1 - E & E strings

I have always assumed that they do this due to the 12 -16” fretboard radius.

[ed]

This is from schallers site:
"The back of the string lock inserts is numbered with 0,1 and 2.

0 is for the D and G strings, 1 is for the A and B strings and the number 2 is for both E strings.

You can simply pull out the knife edges with a pliers and push the new ones into the insertion slot.

the radius of the saddles is 12"; if you put the shim under the saddles away you get 16"

Now i dont remember if i have ever seen those shims they talk about or how it is done with OFR. I think i saw those shims been sold at some online store some time ago though.

[CaptNasty]

That may be true KenP, but my soloists come configured the way I described. I am sure there is a reason they do that. All the Floyd documentation is really calling out is that 0 is the tallest, 1 is the mid height, 2 is the shortest. Using 1-2-0-0-2-1 would result in flatter radius on the strings and that is why I suspect the ship them in that configuration. 2-1-0-0-1-2 would result in a little more radius on the strings.

When I installed my Tungsten block, I reassembled the saddles as 2-1-0-0-1-2. The feel was different. I took the bridge back apart and restored the Floyd to the 1-2-0-0-2-1 “factory configuration” and I liked that feel more. Then I tried 2-1-0-0-2-1 (unwound to wound) and decided I like that best.

I find that 2-1-0-0-2-1 lets you get a more uniform low action. It also lets you get the action a little lower without adding a lot of buzz. I did shim the D string saddle with a small piece of copper shielding foil to kill a slight buzz on the D string. The copper foil will not interfere with the grounding of the D string. I get a nice low action with no fret buzz with this configuration.

[ed]

That may be true KenP, but my soloists come configured the way I described. I am sure there is a reason they do that. All the Floyd documentation is really calling out is that 0 is the tallest, 1 is the mid height, 2 is the shortest. Using 1-2-0-0-2-1 would result in flatter radius on the strings and that is why I suspect the ship them in that configuration. 2-1-0-0-1-2 would result in a little more radius on the strings.

When I installed my Tungsten block, I reassembled the saddles as 2-1-0-0-1-2. The feel was different. I took the bridge back apart and restored the Floyd to the 1-2-0-0-2-1 “factory configuration” and I liked that feel more. Then I tried 2-1-0-0-2-1 (unwound to wound) and decided I like that best.

I find that 2-1-0-0-2-1 lets you get a more uniform low action. It also lets you get the action a little lower without adding a lot of buzz. I did shim the D string saddle with a small piece of copper shielding foil to kill a slight buzz on the D string. The copper foil will not interfere with the grounding of the D string. I get a nice low action with no fret buzz with this configuration.

Is this with OFR or schaller? I wonder if they have the same numbering?

[CaptNasty]

Mine is OFR, but the system is the same for OFRs. The OFR saddles I have use no dot, 1 dot, 2 dot. That is tallest to shortest.

[KenP]

Thanks guys, very helpful

I might just get another full bridge and keep the spare parts....

Is this one correct?

https://reverb.com/item/10535887-new-schaller-floyd-rose-locking-tremolo-bridge-whammy-bar-black-sb-0290-003

which has different specs than this, which is supposed to be a direct replacement:

http://www.warmoth.com/Schaller-Floyd-Rosereg-Tremolo-Black-P577C694.aspx

(from this thread: https://www.jcfonline.com/threads/11...-as-the-JT-590 )

[Mudlark]

So, did you measure the scale?

Oh, wait. The direct mount pickups indicate the Dinky Reverse, not a Fusion.

[toejam]

I have 2, supposedly '93 MIJ Dinky reverse professionals, both metallic purple (I believe).

The only difference I can tell is the new one looks a tad brighter... maybe from sitting in a closet all these years or...?

One is deep/dark metallic purple. The other seems to be deep/dark metallic blue.

[ed]

Thanks guys, very helpful

I might just get another full bridge and keep the spare parts....

Is this one correct?

https://reverb.com/item/10535887-new-schaller-floyd-rose-locking-tremolo-bridge-whammy-bar-black-sb-0290-003

which has different specs than this, which is supposed to be a direct replacement:

http://www.warmoth.com/Schaller-Floyd-Rosereg-Tremolo-Black-P577C694.aspx

(from this thread: https://www.jcfonline.com/threads/11...-as-the-JT-590 )

The reverb link one has the longer sustain block it says 41.28mm but if i recall they are 42mm. The warmoth link one has the 37mm sustain block that should be the one on your guitar. Other than the block they are both the same and direct replacement.