Gibson tailpiece height

[Rottweiler]

Question on the Gibson tailpiece used ICW the tuneomatic bridge. I've watched all of the Gibson YT tech videos and I don't remember seeing anything mentioned about the tailpiece height or strings contacting the bridge. This might be a clue that it doesn't matter.
I thought the proper way to get sustain was to adjust the tailpiece so that the strings don't contact the back edge of the bridge? I received a new in the box Gibson with a signed inspection card with the tailpiece run all the way down and the strings contacting the back edge of the bridge. Action measured in spec and matched the card.

Questions:
Should the strings be allowed to contact the back edge of the bridge or does this not matter?

Why do some of my LPs tailpieces need to be higher than others to get the strings from contacting the back edge of the bridge when action is set the same? I'm guessing variation in hardware, body thickness, etc. Just double checking that it isn't a sign of a problem.

 

[Findthetone1]

I have always read to not let the strings contact the back edge of the bridge. Enough for a piece of paper to slide through is all that's needed.
I top wrap so it solves that problem. You can also use something like a Faber locking setup that has spacers to go under the tailpiece, so it makes contact with the body. I have one on my Bacchus Les Paul and it works great.

 

[VonBonfire]

It doesn't seem right that they would.

My non-luthier guess is it's because of the set neck height and possibly the angle. I always raise my stop tailpiece for maximum slinkiness, just enough downward pressure so strings stay in bridge slots. Doing that, the strings contacting the back of the bridge has ever occurred for me. The idea that it must be screwed down all the way or "I don't get as much sustain" is never anything I was able to prove true to myself. It was designed to be adjusted to your slinkiness needs, pretty sweet idea really.

I'm guessing this is your recent Gibson purchase with the bad fingerboard wood?

 

[70 Mach 1]

I think its all pure bullshit whether the string touches the back of the TP or not.

The sound is dead at the bridge.
Theres no sound after that or the nut

But because im a half a retard i set the gap to at about .003

As mentioned about the thickness of a regular piece of paper.

 

[John4021]

Faber is definite a big enough improvement that I have them on 2 Lesters.
Plus, top wrap is a way to get the strings slinky and better playability.

Now, are these that big a difference? To me, YES .

Will you suffer without these things?
NOT AT ALL.

Just remember that Gibson has been strong from the get-go.

Ed Roman gave me a bit of advice long ago that is similar to adding off brands of parts for a Lester.

"You have a Harley and you change the pipes, is it still a Harley"?

Ok I'm done.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Fuck it. Put that bitch against the body. Maximum contact, maximum break angle, maximum sustain.

 

[Rottweiler]

It doesn't seem right that they would.

My non-luthier guess is it's because of the set neck height and possibly the angle. I always raise my stop tailpiece for maximum slinkiness, just enough downward pressure so strings stay in bridge slots. Doing that, the strings contacting the back of the bridge has ever occurred for me. The idea that it must be screwed down all the way or "I don't get as much sustain" is never anything I was able to prove true to myself. It was designed to be adjusted to your slinkiness needs, pretty sweet idea really.

I'm guessing this is your recent Gibson purchase with the bad fingerboard wood?

Yep. Fingerboard looked much better under good light. That zoomed photo made it look a lot worse than actual.

Thanks to all for contributing.