Strings to a Hagström Swede Bass?

[TomB]

Am i wrong or does the cover contact and maybe stabilize the posts? If so, that would be a solid-looking design as long as the cover remained in place, and potentially less so without it. …unless I misunderstand.

 

[GIBrat51]

Hi everyone!!
Just recently, I got a Hagström Swede Bass. Sounds great!!
I have been a bass player for more than 30 years, but never owned a shorter scale bass

I want to change the stock strings to some flats. Preferably Labella or Dunlop. BUT...
The scale of the bass is 30.75".. Is that a short scale or a medium scale? I have read about people buying some short scale strings that won't fit. Some do but some don't.
How do I tell what will fit or not? What about Labella or Dunlop?

BR, AndreasView attachment 7470661

Well...
First; yes, your bass is a short scale bass. Consensus of opinion says that any bass with a scale length from 30" to just under 32", is a short scale bass. Out of 11 shorties in my herd; some are 30" on the nose; a bunch of them are 30.5"; and 3 of them are 31". All Birdsong basses, for example, are 31". So...
Yes, that bass is a short scale bass. However... not all short scale basses take "normal" short scale strings. Most short scale basses will, but some - like the ones with trapeze tailpieces and floating bridges - need longer strings; usually medium scale ones. Birdsong basses ship with D'Addario ECB82, 50-105, long scale only flats; don't know how they get those things to work, but... they do. I have several 30/30.5" scale basses that need medium-scale strings. And, one - a '93 Gretsch Broadkaster (30.5" scale) that really needs long scale strings. It's rather a big bass, physically, and has the trapeze tailpiece/floating bridge thing, too... It's wearing Long scale La Bella 760G White Nylon Tape wounds at the moment. They fit perfectly - and sound good, too...
As for your Hagstrom? pretty sure there's a Hagstrom owner's club around here; you might ask them, and see what they like on their basses. Or, measure the bass, from the tailpiece to the nut, then look at the string guides posted in the "sticky posts", at the beginning of the String Forum. They'll give you a good idea of what will fit - and what will not...

 

[ProdigalBassman]

Have you had one of these in hand? If not, I think your assessment is more than a bit harsh. Hagstrom has been building instruments for a long time, and their guitars and basses have been used by more than a few pro level players. This implies that they must have a decent R&D department, and wouldn't bring to market anything that is as catastrophically bad as you are suggesting.

I don't think it's fair of you to declare their design "pathetic" based on a handful of Internet photos. Even if you are a self-proclaimed engineer.

My assessment is that of an engineer. The 2 support screws are not in line with the line of force from the string. The base in the direction of the torque force is exceedingly small. They are in no way comparable to single saddle mono bridges which have the torque from the string distributed over an area that is likely 10 times larger. As an engineer and a bass player of 50+ years experience I stand by my statement. This is the crappiest, poorest excuse I have ever seen for a bass bridge.

 

[ProdigalBassman]

Am i wrong or does the cover contact and maybe stabilize the posts? If so, that would be a solid-looking design as long as the cover remained in place, and potentially less so without it. …unless I misunderstand.

I don't know for certain but I doubt the cover in any way stabilizes those blocks. The problem with this "design" is that the torque from the string is not in line with the support screws coupled with the fact that the string force is countered by such an absurdly small area in front of the ball. Compare to a single string mono bridge. There are 2 screws that are in line with the force from the string. The torque from the string is distributed over the entire base of the mono bridge that is in front of the point of force application. Compare the surface areas and I'd bet the area on these blocks in front of the ball is 1/10 that of a mono bridge, perhaps less. As an engineer who's played bass since the late 60s I stand by my assessment: this is the lousiest excuse for a bridge I've ever seen.

 

[ProdigalBassman]

Nice detective work, Columbo!

But I have to agree with/ @ctmullins that while I only owned mine for a short time many years ago I was impressed with the solid build of the Swede. I don't remember any issue w/ the stop tail piece on mine.

The Hagstrom guitars from years ago had good build quality. You can't compare them to the Chinese made reissues. The current design is not the same as those of years ago.

 

[ProdigalBassman]

I don't think it's fair of you to declare their design "pathetic" based on a handful of Internet photos. Even if you are a self-proclaimed engineer.

Just to clarify: I have a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering from Marquette University and I am an elected member of Tau Beta Pi, the national engineering honor society.

 

[ctmullins]

Well I know more than a little about Newtonian physics as well. I agree that it's not the most robust or intuitive design. It was your blanket statement about replacement that was overboard.

 

[Pimpernel Smith]

 

[Overdrive777]

Wow!!!
I've been away a couple of weeks and this thread took off
Thank you all for your replies

First, I bought some Labella Medium Scale Flats, and they fit perfectly, and sounds great

Second, about the bridge
I'm not an engineer, but I think it holds the tuning just fine, and seems pretty solid.
As I wrote, I found this bass at the city dump, so I don't know if it is the original bridge, but I don't have any reason to think otherwise.
Works for me anyway