|
Author
|
Topic: Fender 1000 And Its Credits
|
Bill Hankey
Member From: Pittsfield, MA, USA
|
posted 19 July 2006 02:58 PM
profile
L. Fender's 1000 has a list of credits a mile long, and then some. Was it the most durable pedal steel guitar ever built? I would be hesitant to argue the possibility in terms of veracity. |
Jay Yuskaitis
Member From: Massachusetts, USA
|
posted 19 July 2006 03:32 PM
profile
Aye, aye.
Jay Y.------------------
|
Donny Hinson
Member From: Balto., Md. U.S.A.
|
posted 19 July 2006 08:26 PM
profile
The old Fender pedal steels were certainly one of the most durable and easy to produce designs ever made, being mostly sheet metal. The earliest guitars featured pedals, pulleys, bell-cranks, key-head and even a changer that was all sheet meta1! The only machined parts (other than the aluminum/magnesium frame and the leg-collars) were the pedal adjusters, the bell-crank mounts, and the nut and bridge, and these were all simple lathe items. This meant that the guitar could be cheaply and quickly produced, but the introduction of rod-actuated guitars (mainly the Sho~bud and Emmons) with a more versatile and positive action, as well as the takeover of Fender by CBS spelled the end for these guitars in a little over a decade.I have no doubt that a country like China could reproduce these guitars today for a fraction of their original cost, but that will probably never happen due to the limited market. Pity.  |
Jim Phelps
Member From: just out of Mexico City
|
posted 19 July 2006 08:52 PM
profile
I think that the thick solid ash necks that laid in the metal frame also contributed to their extreme durability. I sure wish I'd kept mine even though it was the early model with no roller bridge.[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 19 July 2006 at 08:53 PM.] |
basilh
Member From: United Kingdom
|
posted 20 July 2006 02:15 AM
profile
No cabinet drop or de-tuning with temperature.
Most of my albums were done on a Fender 1000.I wonder what the present steel guitar would look like if the PS-210 had been mass produced and marketed aggressively ?
|
Bill Hankey
Member From: Pittsfield, MA, USA
|
posted 20 July 2006 05:44 AM
profile
Donny H., Isn't it a bit misleading to state that China could produce the Fender 1000 at a fraction of the original cost? Those who were resposible for the production of the F. 1000, would get a chuckle, and then frown on that statement. Any attempt to reproduce the quality materials, would result in pricing the instrument far above what most musicians would be willing to pay. It may very well come to pass, that the workmanship found in the F. 1000, will cause a sharp increase in its selling price in the future.
Further, try to imagine the production of the original 1000 cases, by another firm, at an affordable price. It isn't likely to happen.
|
Tucker Jackson
Member From: Portland, Oregon, USA
|
posted 20 July 2006 11:04 AM
profile
Baz, any idea why there is no 'detuning with temperature' on the 1000's? |
Donny Hinson
Member From: Balto., Md. U.S.A.
|
posted 20 July 2006 02:03 PM
profile
quote:
Any attempt to reproduce the quality materials, would result in pricing the instrument far above what most musicians would be willing to pay.
Sorry Bill, but I'll have to vehemently disagree. I played a 1000 for almost 8 years. I know exactly what went into them, and I know exactly what it takes to make that stuff. The sheet metal stuff is literally nickles and dimes to manufacture. The few machined parts were also a cinch to make, as they're so simply designed. The casting and the wood body are the most significant items, and there's little sophistication required to make those. I'm also familiar with the Chinese "manufacturing juggernaut", and all it's capabilities, so I'm not deceiving anyone when I say that a 1000 could be produced and sold for close to half of what Fender sold it for in the early '60s. If you don't know about Fender's "Squier" line of electric straight guitars, I suggest you look into it. Their "Bullet" model is a knockoff of the Strat design; complete with a maple neck, rosewood fingerboard, chrome tuners, 3 pickups, and a 5-way switch. It lists for $165.99, but sells regularly for under $100! No, it's not like a real "made in USA" Fender guitar, but the old 1000 was no Emmons, either! Straight guitars have some precision operations that must be performed in their manufacture. Steel guitars (those like Fender made) have no such precision required. There's no neck joints, frets, nuts, or bridges to adjust or place precisely. You take a slab or two of wood, finish it, screw it into the frame, and then screw all the other parts onto it. Yes, the old Fender steels were simple, rugged, reliable marvels of engineering, but let's not elevate a WWII Jeep to "Land Rover status" just yet.  They did have numerous "weak points". |
Bill Hankey
Member From: Pittsfield, MA, USA
|
posted 20 July 2006 04:21 PM
profile
Donny H., Thanks for your candid replies which are interesting to read. I'm a full time label reader, and I was made to be aware of inferior products from an early date. Granted, imported goods (depending on the item) can be well worth dollars spent. Then there has been too many American dollars spent on articles of interest that look pretty, but don't hold up to constant use. (I'll cite tools, as an example.) Nickel and dime stores are selling cheap 6 string guitars, that are impossible to tune. A lady brought one to me for tuning, and it was so cheap, that the weight of my hand on the neck would detune the little thing. I tried tuning it to an open chord, using the bar technique, to no avail. Folks actually spend $75 - $100 for those little junk "instruments". One can only marvel at the feel of classic workmanship, found in Leo Fender instruments, after attempting to play music on $75 guitars. The Fender 1000, equipped with 4 knee levers, plugged into a "black-faced) Fender amp, could prove to be very entertaining, under the right conditions. Donny, you didn't refer to the cables beneath the Fender 1000. The type that L.F. used is different than what is available in hardware stores. Could you explain why? |
Donny Hinson
Member From: Balto., Md. U.S.A.
|
posted 21 July 2006 09:50 AM
profile
Bill, is this a test? Teacher, I lost my textbook, and my dog ate my homework!  Anyway, the cable used was 3/32", which usually miked out to around .087"...not exactly a standard size. Also, it had a special coating, both for lubricity and solderability. Lastly, it was a "7X27" weave (ultra fine wires), for flexibility, and to prevent it from taking a "set", which might cause slop in the feel of the pull. Tensile strength of the cable was close to 1,000 pounds, so broken cables were a rarity, though they would sometimes come loose where they were soldered at the brass ferrules, or at the turnbuckles. |
David Wren
Member From: Placerville, California, USA
|
posted 21 July 2006 10:56 AM
profile
Donny, if you don't know the details for the cables just tell us  This is why I love this forum! ------------------
Dave Wren
'96 Carter S12-E9/B6,7X7; Twin Session 500s; Hilton Pedal; Black Box
www.ameechapman.com |
Bill Hankey
Member From: Pittsfield, MA, USA
|
posted 21 July 2006 12:05 PM
profile
Donny, Thanks Donny for the valuable information. Not everyone who owns or plays a Fender 1000 would be aware of small details involving mechanical issues. I respect your knowledge and would enjoy reading more on the subject. |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 21 July 2006 03:24 PM
profile
I for one, know little as Donny does. I too have learned from Donny on a few issues regarding Fender. Thank you Donny. I always said you belonged with Fender. |
Donny Hinson
Member From: Balto., Md. U.S.A.
|
posted 21 July 2006 04:45 PM
profile
Thanks Jody, I take that as a very high compliment! One of these days, I'm gonna get me another 1000, and do some 8-string woodsheddin' to have a little fun, and get together with all the other "cableholics".  |
Bill Hankey
Member From: Pittsfield, MA, USA
|
posted 22 July 2006 05:11 PM
profile
Jody C., Could you make known some of the ensuing problems heard from those who had purchased Fender 1000's? Mechanical issues that were resolved by your expertise would be of great interest. Have you ever heard of the aircraft cable pulling out of the pulleys? Did those who assembled the 1000 always use the same solder? The composition of the solder would indeed be information that would be useful. Thanks... [This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 22 July 2006 at 05:16 PM.] |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 23 July 2006 01:57 PM
profile
Bill
To answer question #1. No I have never had any experience as you ask. #2 No problem with pulleys etc. Question #3 I am not aware of what type or composition solder was used.Hope this helps. These Fender guitars were built rock solid to last and perform and in time, they would be mechanically obsolete. But still desireable to many.[This message was edited by Jody Carver on 23 July 2006 at 01:58 PM.] |
Doug Beaumier
Member From: Northampton, MA
|
posted 23 July 2006 08:06 PM
profile
I have owned a couple of Fender PSGs in past years, and although I'm not a fan of the cables... the Tone of these instruments was awesome! Bright, sparkling Fender tone. There's nothing like it. I guess the pickup has a lot to do with it. Also, these guitars didn't have much sustain (as compared to modern PSGs) and that contributed to the unique Fender sound. One word sums it up: MOONEY! Durability? Yes, built like a tank.
[This message was edited by Doug Beaumier on 23 July 2006 at 08:10 PM.] |
Jim Phelps
Member From: just out of Mexico City
|
posted 23 July 2006 08:40 PM
profile
I can tell you one problem with the early model that had a solid bar bridge, if you can't guess.The strings sliding back and forth the steel bar bridge would over time saw slots into the bridge, as well as wearing themselves out and breaking where they slid back and forth on the bridge. The later models had roller bridges (and nuts? Not sure) but mine had neither, causing this kind of wear on bridge, nut, and strings. Still, I'd sure love to have that old 1000 back today.[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 23 July 2006 at 08:41 PM.] |
Jim Sliff
Member From: Hermosa Beach California, USA
|
posted 23 July 2006 09:28 PM
profile
String breakage at the bridge is really more dependant on any burrs on the bar than the fact there are no rollers. With a decent lubricant I like Teflon) the strings should be fine. It also takes a LOT of "sawing" to groove one of those bars - I have several 50's bridges and not one has a groove in it, and they were all on "player" guitars. The breakage point seems to b more common at the changer or hog ring, and the hog rings can be bent a bit to lessen the strain.Seen a lot of "dive bombing" trem Strats over the years with no saddle wear, and no breaks there either. Roller bridges came..and rather quicklt went...in that arena due to tonal compromises, and the fact that i turned out they really didn't make a difference as far as breakage OR wear. |
Bill Hankey
Member From: Pittsfield, MA, USA
|
posted 24 July 2006 04:58 AM
profile
I feel the need to "coin" a new descriptive phobia. Acknowledging the feedback to date, I am prompted to call it "Fenderphobia". Part of the fear caused by past experiences with cables beneath the Fender 1000 and the 3rd string breakage near the so-called "hog hooks". Of course, due to the many mechanical movements found in the Fender 1000,
the maintenance required the owner to pay attention to correct adjustments. I'm aware of many untold experiences, good or bad, that could prove to interest the avid reader concerned with the development of the pedal steel guitar. |
Jim Phelps
Member From: just out of Mexico City
|
posted 24 July 2006 05:21 AM
profile
Well whatever you say Jim. I only know about my own and that of a good friend who played his several nights a week since it was new. |
Gene Jones
Member From: Oklahoma City, OK USA
|
posted 24 July 2006 06:41 AM
profile
I owned and played two 1000's over a period of about 9 years, and I don't recall a significant string breakage problem. I didn't use an E9 tuning in those days, but I sure "stomped" on those first two or three strings a lot while hunting for that Mooney sound! ------------------
www.genejones.com |
Bobby Lee
Sysop From: Cloverdale, North California, USA
|
posted 24 July 2006 09:25 AM
profile
Could someone educate me about the differences between the number models 400, 800 and 1000? |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 24 July 2006 09:44 AM
profile
bOb
I'll take a shot at your question. The 400 had a single neck and 4 pedals string length 23 inches, case and legs included.
The 800 had a single neck with 6 pedals 23 string length case and legs included.
The 1000 had 8 pedals and 23 string length. Each of these models were available with up to 10 pedals at extra cost of $50.00 retail per pedal. These were all sunburst. No Custom colors were available. The early model blond guitars were no longer available
This information is from 1969.
The 2000 had two 10 string necks 10 pedals and case and legs included 23" string length as well. I can post the retail prices if need be. Plus cost to dealer.Hope this helps. Most 400's were also available with up to 6 pedals and 8 pedals but few orders were with 8 pedals.[This message was edited by Jody Carver on 24 July 2006 at 09:46 AM.] |
Bill Hankey
Member From: Pittsfield, MA, USA
|
posted 24 July 2006 11:47 AM
profile
Gene, Do you know the years when your Fender 1000's were built? Jody's quoted bridge span of 23 inches seems to differ from the 24 1/4" I've measured on 50's models. Do you recall the string length on the instruments that you referred to?
I was able to chase some Mooney sounds on my 1000 by placing a .017 plain string at the 8th position. I miss hearing that string pull into a warbling 7th. |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 24 July 2006 12:41 PM
profile
Bill
The string length was shortened by 1965 I am looking at my 1969 price list. If you send me your snail mail address, I will copy it and mail it to you.I live in Northeast Pennsylvania, let me know
and I will send it asap. Jody |
Bill Hankey
Member From: Pittsfield, MA, USA
|
posted 24 July 2006 01:09 PM
profile
Jody, Please send me your e-mail address so that I will be able to give you my mailing address. BTW, did your path of travel ever cross that of Alvino Rey? He was a representative for the early Gibson instruments. I have an early flyer with Alvino and other greats of his colorful days. |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 24 July 2006 01:40 PM
profile
Bill
I have my e mail address hidden for privacy,I'll try to scan what you asked for.If it scans ok. I'll send it via e mail and if not, I'll send it snail mail. Thanks PS Check your e mail ,its a long download.[This message was edited by Jody Carver on 24 July 2006 at 01:46 PM.] |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 24 July 2006 02:02 PM
profile
Bill
The photos with Alvino Rey are on The website Rick Alexander did for me. click on to www.jodycarver.com and click to photographs and scroll.Thank you Bill make that "Picture Gallery" and scroll. Rick did a great website for me, maybe you can look at all of it, as a trip down memory lane.[This message was edited by Jody Carver on 24 July 2006 at 02:09 PM.] |
Donny Hinson
Member From: Balto., Md. U.S.A.
|
posted 24 July 2006 02:20 PM
profile
Bill, to elaborate on what Jody has said, the string length on the earliest guitars (pre '64) was 24 1/2". Sometime around late '62, Fender shortened the string-length to 23" (probably to reduce string breakage). Then, early in '64, they switched to a cam-type changer (soon with a mute) and roller nut (that was used on all the 10-string models). During this "transition period" ('62-'64), there were many different configurations of the 8-string guitars produced, as all the changes they made were broken in on the production line at different times. The 10-string models are very consistent, with the exception that it seems a few were made with the newer changer, but without the Fender mute, which became standard by July '64.[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 24 July 2006 at 02:21 PM.] |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 24 July 2006 02:27 PM
profile
Bill
Read what Donny posted, he knows more about Fender technical issues than I. Being a Fender salesman wasn't difficult in later years, the beginning was the tough part getting started. I only wished I could get my long awaited book out, It's not easy for me. Donny you have done it again my friend.You should have been a Fender rep. As I have always said "I was not the Best Salesman that Fender ever had, but I was the Proudest" Good Health to both of you and your families Jody Thank you Donny and Bill. |
Alvin Blaine
Member From: Sandy Valley, Nevada, USA
|
posted 24 July 2006 03:32 PM
profile
Jody,
You didn't list number of strings on your description for bOb.Fender 400 S-8
Fender 800 S-10
Fender 1000 D-8
Fender 2000 D-10 |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 24 July 2006 04:12 PM
profile
Alvin,I forgot  I'm sorry I told you I wasn't the best salesman Fender ever had. Thank you Alvin. edited for forgetting how to put the smiley on Thanks again.[This message was edited by Jody Carver on 24 July 2006 at 05:16 PM.] |
Bobby Lee
Sysop From: Cloverdale, North California, USA
|
posted 24 July 2006 04:32 PM
profile
Thanks, Al. That's exactly what I wanted to know. I sort of thought that the 800 was a D-8, and that the 1000 was an S-10. Thanks for straightening me out on that.------------------
 Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 24 July 2006 05:14 PM
profile
bOb the 1000 was a double neck 8 string you have it backwards.. |
Donny Hinson
Member From: Balto., Md. U.S.A.
|
posted 24 July 2006 07:49 PM
profile
quote:
As I have always said "I was not the Best Salesman that Fender ever had..."
But I'm willing to bet that you were the nicest! Thanks for the kind words, Jody. |
Doug Beaumier
Member From: Northampton, MA
|
posted 24 July 2006 08:11 PM
profile
They sure had bright sunburst finishes!Model 400 & 1000: 
Model 800 & 2000:
 ------------------
My Site | My SteelTab |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 24 July 2006 08:38 PM
profile
Donny
No need to thank me.You deserve the praise.I have in my lifetime seen disappointment and other times happiness, life is funny that wayBe well my good friend and good health always to you. |
Jim Phelps
Member From: just out of Mexico City
|
posted 25 July 2006 02:48 AM
profile
Those are great photos... anyone got any similarly good ones of the early 1000 with wide pickup? |
Jody Carver
Member From: The Knight Of Fender Tweed~ Dodger Blue Forever
|
posted 25 July 2006 04:50 AM
profile
Jim
Tell me, why is the wide pickups so desirable
other than the newer one's back then, This is not a trick question, I'm serious. I know that I prefer the wide pickups, but what is the general opinion on this.Thanks. Maybe Doug or Bill or Donny can answer this. |
The Steel Guitar Forum
