Dad3353

Looking at the back of those two models, I can't see any difference in ferrule placing or spacing that would affect such a change of bridge. I don't understand what the advantage of the vintage bridge could possible be, but that's another debate. No guarantee, as I've not the two guitars on hand physically, but it's easy enough to find out once the 'new' (in fact 'old', really...) bridge is lined up. I would add that I'm of the 'If it ain't busted, don't fix it' school, and I'd rather the better-designed 'Player' bridge, but... Whatever... Hope this helps.

Bert Weedon (Hofner Committee...)..?

Bo Diddley (Cigar Box...)..?

Willie Nelson (Martin N-20...)..?

Jeff Beck (Fender Stratocaster...)..?

Alvin Lee (Gibson 335...)..?

It can't be done easily. It's possible, but complex electronically, and unlikely to give desired result. Passive and active don't mix well, I'm afraid. Sorry.

Nah, it's all in the fingers.

All of the above is assuming the use of IEM, or having a decent-enough foldback monitor system on stage. Small groups/pub bands don't always have this luxury; not all PA systems will accept much more than voice. Just sayin'.

There's only one candidate that comes to mind : the Moen GEC9 2nd Edition... I'm not sure what MIDI brings to the party for stomp-box pedals. If you're not married to those specific pedals, a more flexible system would be a good rack multi-Fx, such as the G-Force, which can be controlled with a MIDI controller, or go down the modelling rabbit-hole. Just my tuppence-worth; hope this helps.

OK, yes, it can be done, but the shenanigans involved in getting the two technologies to cooperate together is not simple. Is it worth it..? Unless there's some compelling driver behind it, I'd suggest that going either all active or all passive is the way to go. No direct experience to offer, but gen up on the pitfalls before committing. What's missing from the stock bridge p-u..? Is there really no passive that could solve that issue..? Just my tuppence-worth; hope it helps.

Good evening, @Dave74, and ... ... Plenty to read and amuse you here, and lots to learn and share.

Good evening, @raven1313, and ... ... Plenty to read and amuse you here, and lots to learn and share.

If the Hartke doesn't fit your needs, then you have odd needs. It will do looping very well indeed, and is a known, successful pedal. Not too expensive; well within your budget. Look no further. Just my tuppence-worth.

Good morning, @gle, and ... ... Plenty to read and amuse you here, and lots to learn and share.

Just a tiddler compared to Segovia, though.

Nor Samantha Fish, but... Whatever. ...

Good evening, @Khitchdee, and ... ... Plenty to read and amuse you here, and lots to learn and share.

Good morning, @VinceSound, and ... ... Plenty to read and amuse you here, and lots to learn and share.

Good afternoon, @Andyjr1515, and ... Plenty to read and amuse you here, and lots to learn and share.(but you knew that already...).

Good morning, @aero_j, and ... Plenty to read and amuse you here, and lots to learn and share.

Sorry, no idea at all. The '60s was a strange period for lutherie (maybe it was the dope..? ). Everyone tried to come up with something 'modern', using as many gadgets as could be crammed into the slab, and with no idea of what 'ergonomics' meant. Most fell by the wayside; a few became 'collectable', but not many were used seriously in studios by musicians, really. Quirky; if it plays well, consider yourself to be one of the lucky ones and leave it there. Otherwise, be prepared for a long, long trek down many rabbit holes.

It's a copy, I'd say, of the Ibanez Montclair Goldentone, from the early '60s. They had several different headstocks, back then, but it should have the 'Ibanez' logo on there. Here's a 'real' one, very similar...

Good morning, @Graham50, and ... Plenty to read and amuse you here, and lots to learn and share.

Done. Not sure though how my choices will be relevant