| Author |
Topic: A D10 Fender Stringmaster? When is a Fender a Fender? |
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 29 Aug 2015 2:06 pm |
|
Many of you will remember my restoration of a Fender D8 Stringmaster for Basil Henriques...
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=115324&start=0
...and my subsequent plan for restoration of a flood-damaged Fender D10 Cable model...
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=121578&highlight=restoration+fender
...well the flood-damaged Fender proved to be just too far gone. The mechanisms were all rusted up and the wood was irrecoverable ....too much swamp and not enough ash. 
But, "Waste not, want not," as they say, and I was recently pulling out the spare parts and realising that I could build a non-pedal D10 almost entirely from original Fender parts. Hopefully, it would have that elusive Fender sound.
I compared the size with that of Stringmaster bodies, and concluded that the basic shape could be copied, albeit widened to take care of the four additional strings.
HMMMM. 
What do you think?
My electric saw is itching to get at that plank of swamp ash. 
Last edited by Alan Brookes on 2 Sep 2015 3:23 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
 |
Hal Braun
From:
Eustis, Florida, USA
|
Posted 29 Aug 2015 7:00 pm
|
|
| I think that would be very cool! |
|
|
|
Brent Marklin
From:
Evansville, IN, USA
|
Posted 29 Aug 2015 11:30 pm
|
|
| I think I need some Power Tools. |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
|
|
|
Rick Collins
From:
Claremont , CA USA
|
Posted 30 Aug 2015 10:20 am
|
|
Allen, I would hold out until I could locate some Fender fret-boards for the project.
I believe those were the 23" scale on the D-10 cable/pedal model.
I still do not like atoms, chess pieces, derby hats, playing card markings, rain drops and the like for position marks.
If you don't like the idea of the 23" scale, for me, the most beautiful fret-boards are the Rittenberry. |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 30 Aug 2015 10:46 am
|
|
I rather like the playing cards. They're on my two Sho-Buds and my Fender/Sho-Bud Hybrid, but I agree, they're Sho-Bud rather than Fender. I haven't decided yet what design of fretboard I'm going to use. I shall probably copy the ones on Stringmasters, or use the original Fender cable-model fretboards, which are in good shape. After all, I'm using a Stringmaster body shape with all the same dimensions, except that I shall lengthen it a bit so that I can include the Fender mutes.
When I play non-pedal I don't use that many slants, and I prefer the extra bass of a longer string scale. The way I look at it, unless your style uses a lot of open strings, which mine doesn't, everything that you can play on a shorter scale you can play on a longer scale, but just a little bit further up the neck. |
|
|
|
Michael Johnstone
From:
Sylmar,Ca. USA
|
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 30 Aug 2015 5:40 pm
|
|
| Thanks for the contacts, Michael. |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 1 Sep 2015 3:03 pm
|
|
I removed the remaining Fender 2000 neck from the cast iron frame, together with the mechanisms. I cannot remove the cables because one of the wheels has a rusted spindle which is totally jammed. The only way to free the cables would be to saw through the rusted spindle with a hacksaw. A screwdriver won't budge it. I'll put away as much of the unused hardware as I can. People are always looking for spare parts, and there's always a possibility that one day I might use one of the mechanisms in a Pedabro.
The question now becomes, is this going to be a D10 Stringmaster with 2000 parts, or a 2000 without pedals?
I could use the original 2000 neck and build a similar one for the other neck. The instrument wouldn't be anything like as heavy as a 2000, most of the weight of which is in the cast iron frame which, without pedals, is unnecessary. As you can see, I have all the original parts, including the fingerboards and pickups. That will, of course, make it sound like a 2000 rather than a Stringmaster.
Notice how much bigger the 2000 body is compared to one from a Stringmaster, And it's not just in the length; it's much wider, too. That's to accomodate the mechanism and rods, etc., which is unnecessary in a non-pedal steel.
I can, of course, considerable shorten the 2000 body, which would reduce the weight still further.
I have to add, by the way, that I'm not one for dismantling classic instruments for their parts. That I consider vandalism and desecration. But this is a matter of salvaging what was going to be thrown away before I stepped in. I also have several bodies of classic instruments which have been stripped of hardware. Not by me, I must add. I bought them as a job lot on eBay from someone who had no idea what they were, and thought they had come from some sort of organ. I guess we can be thankful at times for the ignorance of some internet sellers. I just wonder how many great historical items have ended up in dumpsters over the years.  |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 1 Sep 2015 4:15 pm
|
|
Alan, I think the non pedal 2000 is the way to go, but just one point, the pickups in you pictures are not Fender 2000 pickups..The stock pickups have the same design features as the Fender Jaguar..
_________________
Steelies do it without fretting
CLICK THIS to view my tone bars and buy——> |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 1 Sep 2015 6:03 pm
|
|
| basilh wrote: |
| ...the pickups in you pictures are not Fender 2000 pickups..The stock pickups have the same design features as the Fender Jaguar... |
That surprises me. I've only removed the pickup from the rotted neck. The other is still bolted on. So they're the pickups it came with. Let's check the other 2000 that I have to see what that has on it....
Hmmm ...curious. Let's check the other Fender cable model I have....
Curiouser and curiouser. Let's look at the Fender/Sho-Bud Hybrid that I have...
The mind is starting to boggle. Did Fender change the pickups that they put on at some stage?
Anyone out there a Fender expert?  |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 1 Sep 2015 6:26 pm
|
|
That other one is not a Fender, it was assembled by David Jackson (Shot's Son) Fender by name made for Baldwin with Sho-Bud/Fender parts. The pickup is a Sho-Bud.
Fender aficionados tend to congregate HERE:-> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1648769605337317/?fref=ts |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 2 Sep 2015 11:24 am
|
|
| basilh wrote: |
| ...The pickup is a Sho-Bud... |
That surprises me. It's the favourite pedal steel I have, and I play it almost every day, but my main peeve with it is that in tone it sounds more like a Telecaster. Now I don't have anything against Telecasters, in fact I tend to use one myself for Rockabilly, but, as steel guitars go, I prefer the tones of my Sho-Bud Crossovers or my Guyatone D8 Non-pedal.
Adding some more of the Fender hardware, here's an impression of what it will probably look like. Which brings up the question, if I'm including the Fender maker's plate on the top and a Fender logo on the side, when is a Fender still a Fender?
I'm reminded of the blacksmith working at a castle. Every so often the gardener would give him a spade to fix, to either replace the blade or the stail. But the enterprising blacksmith, who never threw away anything he could use in the future, always kept the broken parts. Over the centuries the blacksmith business stayed in the same family. Coming forward to the present day, they created a little museum at the castle for visitors, and there they had this spade, labelled as having been in continual use for eight hundred years, and thought to have been the one used to dig the graves for famous people killed in battle. Now during the life of that spade it had had twenty-four new stails and fifteen new blades. But the enterprising young blacksmith, seeing a market for them, put together fifteen spades, made up of the parts thrown out that were previously broken, and offered them for sale at outrageous prices, being historical artifacts going back to the 1200s. So, which one of the spades is genuine? The answer, of course, is all of them.  |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 2 Sep 2015 11:33 am
|
|
As I mentioned, I originally acquired the water-damaged Fender from a luthier from Delaware who had passed away, along with his entire collection of parts and partly-finished instruments.
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=121825&highlight=renovation
He used to build Sho-Buds entirely from parts provided by Shot Jackson. I have the receipts from Sho-Bud to show this. Shot even provided him with the plans and the logo stickers. The guy built these and put Sho-Bud logos on them. This is a partially completed Fingertip that he was in the process of building when he died. Someday I shall finish it off. I have all the necessary parts.
So, when is a Sho-Bud a Sho-Bud?
Last edited by Alan Brookes on 7 Sep 2015 9:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 2 Sep 2015 3:55 pm
|
|
Alan, most impressive, but that's valuable, a Permanent, the first model they made from 1957-1963 when the Fingertip was introduced. The machine headblock is NON 'Gumby' and that is for an early "permanent'
Gumby --->
FINGERTIP--->
http://gretsch.forumactif.com/t766-gretsch-sho-bud-pedal-steel |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 3 Sep 2015 9:10 am
|
|
Do you think that Sho-Bud put construction of their instruments out to independant luthiers from time to time? If so, the ones built by them under direct instruction can be legitimately considered as authentic Sho-Buds.
By the way, that photograph isn't all the parts that I bought. It's the tip of the iceberg. |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 4 Sep 2015 11:32 am
|
|
Here are a few more photos of the Fingertip, and some more of the parts.
As you can see, I ended up with a plethora of parts, many of which I don't even know what are for. As one who works in wood a lot, I was very happy to get the supply of bindings and edge materials. |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 5 Sep 2015 5:51 pm
|
|
This project is now being held up because I cannot find the Fender cover plates, the ones with the big F on. I've been looking all day. I must have put them in a very safe place. I've pulled half the house apart looking. I did find a lot of other things though, some of which I didn't even know I had, including a pedal steel guitar which I don't remember buying. 
I was starting to wonder if I was losing my mind, so I pulled up the photograph I have on my computer of the guitar as it was when I first got my hands on it, and, yes, it did have both cover plates at the time.
The mind boggles. |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 6 Sep 2015 2:07 pm
|
|
First of all, this might clarify the situation with the pickups. Basil was right, the body was originally machined out to take the more-rounded pickup, and the top plate has been re-machined. What's more, looking into the cavity close up it has all the appearance of being done with a machine by the Fender factory before it left, so it adds to the evidence that Fender themselves started using different pickups and had to modify their stock of bodies and top-plates.
Now, coming back to the project in hand, the fact that I couldn't find the cover plates is fortuitous. It's obvious that the top plate is a vital part of the mechanism, without which any future use of the spare mechanisms would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
I don't want to go down on record as being someone who vandalised two perfectly good classic Fender mechanisms, which I shall not be using, so I shall not be using the top plates either. Not using the top plates means I cannot use the Fender string dampers, so there's little point in putting the cover plates on when I eventually find them.
That brings the project back to this....
...an elongated, long-scaled Stringmaster with 2000 parts. That being so, I don't need the additional weight of the extra big and wide body designed to accomodate a mechanism. So I'm thinking now along the same lines that I originally did, of building two replica Stringmaster bodies, slightly wider and slightly longer, to take the 2000 parts. That way I shall end up with a long-scale 10-string Stringmaster.
If I were to design my own Stringmaster that's how I would design it anyway. I like the idea of a long scale. I've always thought that anything you can play on a short scale you can play on a long scale, but not vice-versa. People have said that they don't like long scales because it interferes with their slants, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If you're playing two frets higher up the slopes will be identical to what you would have played lower down the fingerboard on a shorter instrument.
|
|
|
|
David Mason
From:
Cambridge, MD, USA
|
Posted 6 Sep 2015 8:17 pm
|
|
The plethora of goodies has me mildly boggled, but not so much as to remain enthralled by the myth of scale length and the myth of string spacing (either).
In Theory, it should be easier to play slants on shorter scales with the strings closer together, because everything is closer together. Also,
In Theory, it should be easier to play everything on longer scale lengths with wider string spacing, because everything will be further apart?
And if you look at the bar placement needed to play a slant on a short-scale, pedal-steel-spaced steel, and the bar placement to play those notes on a longer-scaled, wider-spaced instrument; and project the differences in bar placement as a percentage of TOTAL scale length;
What you find both theoretically and empirically is that people who spend lots of time specifically practicing to play in tune on their instrument do so; and people who spend lots of time trying to figure out why they play out-of-tune generate lots of theories.  |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 7 Sep 2015 9:10 am
|
|
Imagine you're playing a short-scaled instrument. Now imagine that somehow, while you were playing someone added two frets to the length of the strings. Nothing would change for you. When you thought you were at the 8th fret you would now be at the 10th fret, but ALL THE SLANTS WOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME. It would be as though you took a capo off a guitar. The position of the frets doesn't alter. When you put a capo on you just alter which notes the strings play when they are open, nothing else.
Of course, string spacing alters slants. It's a matter of simple geometry. It's also a matter of simple geometry that slants whilst playing three separate strings can never be in tune. Unless you have a slanting bridge or nut, such as with a fanned scale, which is never found on a steel guitar, the only position in which any three strings are in tune with each other is when the bar is at right angles to the strings. Just take a ruler and see. You will never be able to line up three fret positions exactly.
But I like strings to be wider spaced, because I have big fingers, which is why I prefer the fingerboard on a nylon-strung classical guitar to a steel-strung jumbo. |
|
|
|
Alan Brookes
From:
Brummy living in Southern California
|
Posted 11 Jul 2016 5:06 pm
|
|
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2534935#2534935
Almost finished. Now all I need to do is buy some better screws and fabricate some bridge covers. I always intended to use the original Fender ones, but I've turned the place upside-down several times over and I have no idea where they went to. |
|
|
|
