| Author |
Topic: Ebay guitar, Wazzit? |
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
|
|
 |
Ken Byng
From:
Southampton, England
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 7:37 am |
|
| I don't think this is a Fender guitar. It's not a bad piece of timber, but the guitar is not going to achieve any kind of sophisticated pulls. The eight strings are limiting too, but it might do for a beginner or novice player. |
|
|
|
CrowBear Schmitt
From:
Ariege, - PairO'knees, - France
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 8:24 am
|
|
| jes' another FrankenSteel |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 8:26 am
|
|
| The underside is a disaster! |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 8:26 am
|
|
| Ken, the seller says it's not a Fender, and if you look at the shot that has the Fender plaque, you can see that the original decal was removed. Fancy pulls? No way. But it might be a great Western Swing or Classic Country axe. 8 strings and 3 pedals puts it pretty early I would think. The way the pedal rods attach to the pedals is quite similar to the way it's done on my mid-60's Fingertip. Looks like a pull/release changer. I think it's pretty cool, but then, I just love old guitars! |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 8:42 am
|
|
"The underside is a disaster!"
I don't think so bOb! Early and crude, I'll agree with. Needs a bunch of work to make it function the way it was supposed to. (Which was not so great in the first place, but a lot of beautiful music was made on these old primitive guitars.) Nor do I think it's a "Frankensteel." I'm thinkin' it's probably a late '50's axe. Didja zoom in on the position markers? Very strange. Only thing that disappoints me is that it doesn't have the "get-off-stage-quickly" kitchen cupboard handles on each end.
Ya wanna see a wacky undercarriage, check out my Fingertip!
 |
|
|
|
b0b
From:
Cloverdale, CA, USA
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 9:18 am a disaster
|
|
| What I mean is that it needs a total rebuild. This is not for someone who's never worked on a pedal steel before. I think that some parts would need to be fabricated just to get it working. |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 9:28 am
|
|
| Oh! I agree bOb. But I work for Performance, and am currently restoring a late 60's Pre-Pro Baldwin/Shobud, and the F-tip is next. Man, if a beginner gets this guitar,,,,,,,,,,,,, |
|
|
|
Ray Minich
From:
Bradford, Pa. Frozen Tundra
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 10:40 am
|
|
| Well, at one time that was somebody's labor of love. Nobody builds a steel out of boredom (usually...). |
|
|
|
Roger Shackelton
From:
MINNESOTA (deceased)
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 1:41 pm
|
|
This guitar does resemble an early Sho-Bud in many ways. Did anyone notice the ball end of a string used for nut rollers.
Roger |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 16 Oct 2007 1:56 pm
|
|
Good eye Roger! The keyhead is also similar to an older Shobud, but without the "Gumby." Very 90 degree steps on the outside going from one tuner to the next. But rounded on the inside.
 |
|
|
|
Doug Beaumier
From:
Northampton, MA
|
|
|
|
Lee Baucum
From:
McAllen, Texas (Extreme South) The Final Frontier
|
Posted 17 Oct 2007 4:40 am
|
|
Doug - Have you no sense of adventure??  |
|
|
|
Doug Beaumier
From:
Northampton, MA
|
|
|
|
Ken Byng
From:
Southampton, England
|
Posted 17 Oct 2007 9:48 am
|
|
It is definitely ShoBud inspired, but not built by someone who had great engineering qualities. The resemblance ends with the pickup. It has 6 bidders, so it obviously has some attractions.
 |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 17 Oct 2007 11:09 am
|
|
I don't think that it's any less crude than some Shobud Permanent models. Here's a couple Shobud pics of a guitar from the same era.
 |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 17 Oct 2007 11:29 am
|
|
Here's another Permanent pic. Notice the very similar methods of construction.
 |
|
|
|
Steve Waltz
From:
USA
|
Posted 18 Oct 2007 11:22 am
|
|
Is it a Marlen? You have to look close but the woodwork looks similar and those were pull release. Sorry, I can't make the picture bigger. It's easier to see on line where I found it before.
The pedal board is made to be used with a 8 pedals. I wouldn't think someone would make it at home like that if they were just going to have 3 pedals. Seems like a factory part. The body looks good to me. It's not that hard to get that changer working.
Last edited by Steve Waltz on 18 Oct 2007 3:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Curt Langston
|
Posted 18 Oct 2007 2:56 pm
|
|
Look away, it's hideous!
Nothing but trouble for a beginner................ |
|
|
|
Chris LeDrew
From:
Canada
|
Posted 19 Oct 2007 4:35 am
|
|
It looks like a Miller headstock to me.
_________________
Jackson Steel Guitars
Web: www.chrisledrew.com |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 19 Oct 2007 6:31 am
|
|
"it's hideous! " I don't think it's hideous! But it is really old. If a beginner gets it, thinkin' he's gettin' a good steel, he'll probably quit in a day! If it hadn't gone over $300, I probably would have bought it. I'm CRAZY about old guitars, and I can fix it.
Chris, I was also suspecting Miller, as Miller copied Shobuds all the time. I talked to John Coop last night, and he agrees with you. Most likely a Miller. |
|
|
|
Steve Waltz
From:
USA
|
Posted 19 Oct 2007 9:00 am It's not a Miller
|
|
I have two Millers. The keyhead is close but The rollers are different and the rod that the rollers go onto can be seen from the side on a Miller and it can't on this guitar. The pedals aren't shaped like a Miller. The changer is not close. The fret board isn't Miller. The cross shafts, pedal stops, rod attacheents, pullers,end plates and more are not Miller. Well, at least not like the two Millers I have or like the ones I have seen in a few fliers and pictures.
Here's one:
 |
|
|
|
John Billings
From:
Ohio, USA
|
Posted 19 Oct 2007 9:18 am
|
|
Beautiful guitar Steve. One can see how close Miller's and Shobud's were in design. Your guitar looks very much like the later Shobud Permanents that were built at the same time as the Fingertips. But the earlier Permanents looked nothing like the later ones. So, perhaps, the guitar in question could still be a Miller??? But an earlier model than yours.
BTW, how about posting a pic of the undercarriage of your guitar. I'd love to see it.
JB |
|
|
|
Steve Waltz
From:
USA
|
Posted 19 Oct 2007 9:29 am
|
|
I think the Miler above is Mid 60's. It didn't have knees originally but It looks like Miller added three knees with exact Miller parts later. The knees were all clean metal and the older parts were covered in years of smoke gunk. It also is missing P4. That's why I think it is fairly old.
I've seen an older miller and it's underside was exactly like the underside of the older permanent above. So if the one in question was an older Miller than mine, I would expect the underside to be like the permanent, which it is not.
Here's my underside, alot like the mid 60's permanents, right?
 |
|
|
|
Steve Waltz
From:
USA
|
Posted 19 Oct 2007 9:35 am
|
|
And here's my single neck, which I think is newer, because they started to offer 23inch models later on.
 |
|
|
|
