Miller Custom

Steve Waltz · From: USA

Steve Waltz · From: USA

Paul Wade · From: mundelein,ill

the blue d-10 in the picture above was owen by arden cook of wisconsin
his son randy cook has it at his house. he, also,has
another miller d-10 8+2 Smile

p.w[/b]

Steve Waltz · From: USA

Might be a good place for a data base of pictures of Millers?

Paul Redmond · From: Illinois, USA

Michael - Thanks tons for the Miller pics and info. I'm 'salvaging' a walnut-bodied Custom for a friend right now and these shots are extremely helpful. When it's done, the pics will be posted on the Forum. The entire pulling system on this guitar was badly abused to the point that I'm finding it easier to build a new, more user-friendly pull system. The old two-ton Miller pedal rack will be replaced with a light-weight rack and after-market Sho-Bud pedals. I'm making new changer fingers for both necks that will have a 7/16" radius and pins rather than the old 3/8" radius with slots. Gone also will be the 5/8" changer axles to be replaced with 3/8" nitrided axles. It will still look like a Miller, but will be upgraded considerably mechanically.
PRR

Ralph Paulin · From: Rhode Island, USA * R.I.P.

Paul: I agree 100 per cent The holes and slots are a nighmare I have the stock all I have to do is cut & drill, I have been holding off til I kill the strings,Also the info & pics have been a great help "Ralph" Very Happy

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

"It is an instrument of quality throughout with sound that is unequaled by none."

Uhh...yeah. That's what I thought he said. Oh Well

Paul Redmond · From: Illinois, USA

Donny - Without a doubt, Miller cabinets were a thing of beauty. Why he let it stop there, I'll never figure out. Miller's exhibit one of the most crude pulling systems known to mankind IMO. After re-building Byron Towle's Miller undercarriage from the ground up, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the thing actually plays as easy as one of my Whitney's if not better. BT claims he has only tweaked a couple of pulls over the past 8 or 9 months...understandable with a whole new mechanism. Retaining the original pickups, it has an awesome sound to it. But that original pulling system leaves a lot to be desired even by yesterday's standards IMO.
PRR

Steve Waltz · From: USA

I'm using a picture that isn't mine so I hope that person doesn't care. He said he couldn't load pictures. Maybe you can zoom in a bit.

That is a 69 Miller. From the talk here, Millers should look like a caveman built them. Maybee it's me but I don't see the underside of this guitar looking bad. These guitars can do a normal 8 and 4. I would immagine that to be enough for many people. Paul might like a lighter pedal rack but I can carry my miller up the stairs from the basement while it's put together with no problem. They aren't heavy. They return to pitch. The mechanics are far better than my Sho bud Permanent. What's the issue? Why bad talk them?
It's a pull release and unless it's cleaned up, lubricated and set correctly it will have problems. If you don't know the system you will probably not set it up right.

I just don't think that they need a total rebuild. I bought some used parts from the guitar that Paul built, the owner is very happy with the new system but admits that it sounds the same as before.....great.

Steve

Paul Redmond · From: Illinois, USA

I'm not bum-rapping them. From a machinist's standpoint, they are IMO very crude. There are many things which hinder the ultimate optimum performance of these guitars. Where other builders leave extra stock on castings so that secondary machining operations can be performed, that "extra" stock was never allowed for on the patterns on Miller's. On BT's Miller, the cross-shafts were actually riding/bearing in cast holes...NOT reamed holes as is the standard practice.
As for building an entirely new pulling system for BT's guitar, you would not have wanted to view the underside of his guitar prior to my working on it on a full stomach. Someone had really trashed that thing out...it's the absolute worst I have ever seen in my life. To try to rebuild what was there would have been a total effort in futility. If you don't believe me, he's a Forum member...send him an email and ask him. It was in sad, sad shape. Only six of the eight pedals came close to doing what they were intended to do, and none of the four KL's worked at all even though they were connected!!!
I'm not bad-mouthing Miller's. What I do contend is that, had a little more planning been done on the pattern work for the cast components, then a follow-up of proper secondary machining operations been employed, that guitar would have been a fierce competitor in its day. The ball was dropped somewhere between 3rd base and home plate, and that never happened.
I still maintain that Miller cabinets are the most beautiful ever made for a steel guitar. I have a S-10 that is waiting in the wings for a re-finish job. It has maple skirts and a walnut deck. The real-wood inlays are incredibly well-done and beautiful. The lacquer job has "alligatored" on it and that's the only reason I intend to re-finish it. I had to make a new, light-weight rack for it because somewhere along the way, about 3" of the original cast rack had actually been broken off one end!!! A piece of aluminum junk had been crudely welded onto it to make up for the loss.
PRR

Steve Waltz · From: USA

Paul,

I've seen some pretty messed up parts that look like they were made without messurements or square sides. I was interpreting comments about "Crude" to mean that. Your interpretation of crude is based on a machinists expectations and I now understand that. Many of the Miller parts like pullers and the holders for crosshafts are cast and you can tell that they were not finished from there. I just didn't think that would cause serious problems.

Here's another Miller.

I did know that BT's guitar was toast and needed a total rebuild.

I still think that for your average Miller it can play fine if it's all still there and if it is really cleaned up and set up. As you know this system is about pressure from the strings and if the mechanics are sticking at all, anywhere, the system will not work.

I'm not a raving Miller Fan. I just think that they are better than what the average person might think from a search of "Miller" on TSGF.

b0b · From: Cloverdale, CA, USA

I'm surprised that some of them had a 23" scale. Did anyone else make guitars with 23" scales back then?

The S8S with just two pedals looks like it would be a blast to play.
_________________
-𝕓𝕆𝕓- (admin) - Robert P. Lee - Recordings - Breathe - D6th - Video

Rick Abbott · From: Indiana, USA

Truth be told b0b, my Sho~Bud is 23" scale. Late '66 or early '67. Don't know about others though. I had a Miller that was 24" and sounded VERY good after Jerry wallace rewound the pickups.
_________________
RICK ABBOTT
Sho~Bud D-10 Professional #7962
Remington T-8, Sehy #112
1975 Peavey Pacer

Paul Redmond · From: Illinois, USA

BT's Miller D-10 has a 23" scale. I truly think the Miller guitars never reached their potential. With a little more effort and maybe some consultation with a competent machinist, Roger could have hit a home run.
I intend to re-build my S-10 in a very similar manner as BT's D-10, yet I want to maintain many of the ideas that Roger had used on this guitar and not stray too far from that. This little S-10 plays just fine with all its original parts. I just want to take things one step further using fully-machined bellcranks, larger radius changer fingers (I did increase BT's fingers from 3/8" radius to 7/16" which had a drastic effect re: string breakage), and 3/32" pullrods instead of the usual 1/8". The castings which hold the shafts in place on the inside of the rear apron are held in place with two very small screws. They constantly keep working loose and the shafts keep altering the pulls. This will be remedied by making the 'bearing blocks' out of angle instead and anchoring them firmly to the deck instead of the rear skirt where the only way the screws can be tightened additionally is with an offset screwdriver...not good!!!
When I converted my BMI S-10 to keyless, I took the Sperzel low-profile tuners of the keyheads and installed them on this Miller. They are 'foxy'!!!
With the workload I have in the shop right now, I don't know how soon I'll be able to dig into this project. But when I do, I'll see to it that pics are placed on the Forum. I really love this little guitar and want to do it some justice. It was made in 1973 for Price Porter, then residing in Rock Falls IL. I am only its second owner!!!
PRR

Steve Waltz · From: USA

Bob Muller asked me to post a picture of the 69 Miller that he just finished doing. The underside is the photo posted earlier.

Here's a triple. There was a twin to this on ebay last month that was a D-10. Less fancy and the keyhead was much more bigsby like. That D-10 also had the 50's sho bud style underside and it had C6th away from the player and the E9 closer to the player.

Paul Redmond · From: Illinois, USA

That triple has GOT to be one of the rarest birds on the planet!!!
PRR

Lee Jeffriess · From: Vallejo California

They sure are pretty guitars.
Lee

richard burton · From: Britain

Paul,
Is it wise to go from the existing 5/8" diameter axle to a 3/8" diameter nitrided axle ?

Won't 'axle flex' be more apparent with a smaller diameter axle ?

Paul Redmond · From: Illinois, USA

I use nitrided injection mold ejector pins for the axles. The outer 'shell' of these pins is about 80 Rockwell C or more. The cores on the pins are in the 'pre-hard' 38-40 range. That would indicate a relatively soft core with a very hard outer shell. I have maintained a small cache of these pins for years. But the industry has changed over the years and opted for fully hardened pins in their stead. The earlier design pins were roller-burnished to a bright finish, a very costly process and dimensional tolerances were difficult to maintain. Today's newer, fully-hardened pins retain the high Rockwell C rating while being made to tighter-held tolerances. I know what you're thinking...how could a skinnier pin be stronger? It isn't...but it's not weaker either. The large axle is overkill for the intended purpose given the stress it must endure. The large axle also throws more friction into the equation. Figure the circumference of a 3/8" circle and compare it percentage-wise to a 5/8" circle. The unnecessary increase in contact area between the finger and the axle just adds to return problems and pulling friction...surface contact area between the two. Even floating in oil, the large pin creates much more friction. To deflect a 3/8" mold ejector pin of the length required for a changer axle, it literally takes tonnage!!! The guitar strings are a piece of cake. I could most likely find up to .0005" on an indicator, but that would be the crushing-down of the oil film, not the deflection of the axle itself.
PRR

Bob Muller · From: Oregon, USA

Hugh had asked for info on the Millers,I could not find the listing, so I will send it back up. Hope this info helps

Steve Waltz · From: USA

Wow this is an old thread. Guess I'll add some new pictures if this tread is going to be used as a reference with Millers.

Here's a Triple 10 that I did a while ago.

It's a 24 1/2 or 25 inch scale...I can't remember now. Fretboards are original to early Millers and they are Bigsby knockoffs. underside is very early 60's sho bud except with crossbars all the way across the body. It actually works well since the force is put on the front apron and decreases cabinet drop on the E9 neck close to the body.

I think some of the tone of these guitars comes from the routed out necks and the open changer housing. It makes for kind of a sound chamber under the neck and clear to the pickup. With a slightly microphonic pickup....you get more body tone. IMHO. I did the same thing on a lap steel and I hear a very similar effect.

Underside:

Here's a single ten that started with the crinkle paint.

An Early D-10 like my triple:

A forum members later d-10

The Top of My 68 D-10

Herb Steiner · From: Spicewood TX 78669

One of my first hands-on experiences with a pedal steel that wasn't a Fender was a Miller Custom owned by Michael Nesmith that Red Rhodes had in his shop, around 1968. Rosewood and maple, it was cosmetically gorgeous, but excessive and audible cabinet drop made it a bear to play, intonation-wise. Don't remember that much in detail, other than it had the letters "M" and "N" inlaid on the necks by the base of the fretboards.

If anyone in Forumland posesses that guitar, it was once owned by a Monkee! Wink

_________________
My rig: Infinity and Telonics.

Son, we live in a world with walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with steel guitars. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg?

Hugh Roche · From: Florida, USA

thx for all the info. the mechanical deficiencies with these guitars, seem to me quite easy fixes. and they sound fantastic and easy to look at.

Paul Redmond · From: Illinois, USA

Hugh - Most of the "fixes' on Miller's are indeed relatively easy. These guitars were of the pull/release design and I love that. The major problems were in the design of the actual castings used in the pulling system...there simply wasn't any "machining stock" added to areas that necessarily had to be machined for accuracy. A cross-shaft cannot accurately ride in a cast hole....it's as simple as that. That particular hole must be reamed to a size that will will provide a good "working fit" including an oil film. The Miller's lacked that in design. The rear ends of the shafts almost never stayed in place because the retainers were screwed into the rear skirt with very small, short screws which always ended up working loose when a KL was bottomed out a bit too harshly. Correcting these few deficiencies will make a Miller a very accurate guitar, and as with all pull/release systems, once they're set up properly, they rarely need any tweaking at all.
BTW I am presently working on a foundry pattern that will cast Miller nameplates as found on their racks. I will make them available in both the original form, or the "spruced-up-lettering" form. The originals had a rather primitive set of letters that wasn't IMO too pleasing to the eye when compared to the beauty of their cabinets. I used an original Miller nameplate as a starting point for the "spruced-up" plate and just sort of cleaned up the askew lettering to a degree that would make the nameplate fit in in today's aesthetics. Both versions will be made available when completed for a very minimal price as yet to be determined. Many of the mounting holes in the plates were hand-drilled, so I am having fits trying to decide whether to incorporate those holes in the castings, or allow the purchaser the option of drilling the holes himself/herself. If the holes are indeed cast into the plates and they don't happen to line up with the ones already drilled into the rack, the plate could easily be shifted left or right by less than 1/4" and new holes provided. The only visible "extra" holes would only be seen upon close scrutiny from the inside of the rear of the rack. They are only #4-40 screws anyhow, so they are very tiny. More on this later as things progress.
PRR

Gary Patterson · From: Gallatin, TN

Paul,

I'll be interested in one of those Miller nameplates. You denizens of the forum helped me identify my "Johnny Pitts Custom Guitar" PSG as a Miller Custom. It probably never had a Miller nameplate, but after my upgrade work, I'd like to have one.

Forum Index > Pedal Steel	Goto page 1, 2 Next	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic