MIMF

I've seen bridge pins that are basically square to the long axis of the guitar and some where they are parallel to the saddle slot. Is this just esthetics or are there reasons behind doing it one way versus the other?

Hi Stephen,
I believe it's a bit of both. Some will argue that the minor differences in break angle between the positions will have an effect on tone, but my personal feeling is that you need a larger difference in break angle to achieve a perceptable difference, although the whole is of course greater than the sum of its parts. As well as the options of perpendicular to the strings, and parallel to the saddle, some guitars lay the bridge pins out on a curve that matches the radius of the saddle, and this better matches the break angle on the different strings. Finally, there are some guitars that have the bridge pins for the wound and plain strings on different lines, to match the compensation of the saddle.
Overall though, I think the overriding factor is esthetics.

One reason for angling the pins is to make sure they're not all on the same grain line, which can encourage a split (assuming the grain runs straight along the bridge...).

I think Martin just kept them straight across when they switched from a straight to an angled saddle, probably because the jigs were set up that way. One issue there is that the the low E string pin is very close to the saddle, and as the bridge plate wears you can end up with the fat part of the string windings up on the saddle. People then resort to all sorts of expedients to avoid the intonation problems, such as threading extra ball ends on to the string. Angling the pin holes helps avoid this, at least for a while.

Alan Carruth / Luthier

Thanks fr the repliies