Fender Dual 8 question

Dan Brooks · From: Ohio, USA

I recently acquired a 1954 Fender Dual 8. It’s going to need significant TLC but I’m actually looking forward to that, it plays when you plug it in so that’s most of the battle. At this early point, a concern is the area under the tailpiece metal where the ball ends of the strings go through. I haven’t taken it apart yet but visually the wood underneath looks really chewed up. What SHOULD it look like under there? Anyone have any pictures of that area with the tail metal removed?

Noah Miller · From: Rocky Hill, CT

That empty space exists solely so that the ball ends have somewhere to sit. It wasn't intended to be seen, so it wasn't intended to look good. It was machined roughly, not sanded smooth. And then it was rubbed repeatedly during string changes, causing finish wear and possibly eating into the wood.

All of this is normal for one of these steels and not cause for concern. Unless you can see evidence for deliberate modification to the wood, it's not a problem.

Dan Brooks · From: Ohio, USA

So does the wood anchor the ball ends or the metal tailpiece?

Noah Miller · From: Rocky Hill, CT

The metal tailpiece is supposed to.

Michael Johnstone · From: Sylmar,Ca. USA

I'd put string ferrules like what you find on the back of a Telecaster in the holes in the tailpiece to give the strings a more solid anchor.

Bill Groner · From: QUAKERTOWN, PA

I know absolutely nothing about Fender Stringmasters. However, it looks to me like it was designed to feed the strings in from the larger holes (vertical part of the end plate) and then go vertical through the smaller holes on the top of the (horizontal part) of the stringer plate. I would assume the small holes are small enough to not let the ball ends pull through? I have measured ball ends @ .156" diameter. If the top holes are around .125" or less, the balls will not pull through. If you study the pic I believe strings 1 thru 5 are seated properly. To me it looks like 6,7, and 8 might have wood obstructing the ball ends? In my mind, I think the ball ends should seat themselves on the inside part of the horizontal part of the plate where it bends from horizontal to vertical. I might be all wet, but this seems logical to me. I think maybe someone at the factory just didn't clear enough wood out of low string side of the pocket. If so that would be an easy fix with a small chisel once you take it apart. You shouldn't be able to see any wood from the horizontal holes or the vertical holes once you clear the wood away. If I'm not seeing this right and someone knows more about the Stringmasters please let us know.
_________________
Currently own, 6 Groner-tone lap steels, one 1953 Alamo Lap steel, Roland Cube, Fender Champion 40

Steve Wilson · From: Morgan Hill, California, USA

I'm more of the school of anchoring them in the wood and using the metal tailpiece as more of a guide. The wood will theoretically give you a more solid anchor and perhaps richer tone/more sustain than if the full tension of the string is pulling up on the metal tailpiece. YMMV

Noah Miller · From: Rocky Hill, CT

The wood is not intended to hold the strings. It's not shaped to do so, and if you don't have the ball end up against the metal, you run the continuous risk of it slipping (if you can get it to catch in the first place). The wood is a much less solid anchor and makes no difference to the sound of the instrument since the string does not vibrate past the bridge.

Adding ferrules would require taking out more wood and provide no benefit - it would just make re-stringing a big pain.

Clyde Mattocks · From: Kinston, North Carolina, USA

If appearance is the only issue, just use a dollar store artist's brush and paint the wood in the holes flat black.
_________________
LeGrande II, Nash. 112, Fender Twin Tone Master, Session 400, Harlow Dobro, R.Q.Jones Dobro

Jim Sliff · From: Lawndale California, USA

LEAVE IT ALONE!

First - it is not a Stringmaster - it's a (if a double neck) Dual-8 (or "Dual Eight") Professional. They were made from the late 40's to the early 50's, and any unneeded structural modification will reduce theresale value.

You should never "fix" anything that doesn't affect the playability of the instrument

It's similar to wear on the top of an acoustic or electric guitar, where refinishing reduces the value by up to fifty percent (refinishing of Fender's steels and functional modifications like adding legs where they were originally a "functional" option have little to no affect on value).

The tailpiece/bridge assembly not only anchors the strings but holds the "boxcar" pickup, where the strings are routed through the pickup coils. Most pickups have collapsed over the years and need to be rebuilt - an example of a "necessary" repair.

The wood at the end of the body has no function, and usually gets torn up by string changes over the years. The strings are held by the tail end of the metal assembly alone.

As the wood is just "there" the "damage" is incidental and part of the history, or mojo, of the instrument. Even if the gouges were on the top they should be left alone.

And in this case no audience member is likely to shout"Hey, the wood under the ball ends of the strings is gouged a bit!" - if they could even SEE it!

Just play it, and enjoy the history of previous owners - wondering what they played or where the guitar traveled.

(and just to show how screwy early Fender steel serial numbers are - and how useless they are to date an instrument - my verified 1946 Dual-Eight Professional is stamped with serial number D554!)
_________________
No chops, but great tone
1930's/40's Rickenbacher/Rickenbacker 6&8 string lap steels
1921 Weissenborn Style 2; Hilo&Schireson hollownecks
Appalachian, Regal & Dobro squarenecks
1959 Fender 400 9+2 B6;1960's Fender 800 3+3+2; 1948 Fender Dual-8 Professional

Forum Index > Steel Without Pedals		Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours	Jump to: