Fender 400 NEW PICS ADDED

Tim Walker · Post by **Tim Walker** » 8 Aug 2008 2:57 pm

4 pedals - original Tweed case. Wide pickup, non roller nut. Bridge cover still on guitar.
Serial # 000012
Very good condition for the year. Everything works. The pedals have some corrosion. Pedal ABC - Standard Emmons. Pedal D lowers 2 and 8 by a half step. Not sure of the value - open to offers. Thanks

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 9 Aug 2008 9:08 am

Just an FYI - I'm not sure who told you it was "the 12th one made" or that it was made before they were called 400's, but that'd be an impossible thing to verify unless it was made and bought by a Fender Employee in '58....and they always had a model number per Fender, with 400 and 1000 asssigned during development.

If there's a serial number that indicates it's very early, then someone gave you bad information; serial numbers on cable-pull Fenders follow no sequential patterns and duplicate numbers have apparently even shown up a few times. They were randomly stamped in small batches, but each batch wasn't given any kind of ID. Some have model numbers, some don't; mine's an example of what someone might think is an early one - serial number 01001, no model number, no badge.

This makes it virtually impossible to precisely date the guitars, as pot dates are on parts that sat in bins for years after being bought in bulk, and there are only sporadic cases of dates written in under the tuner pan, making those date claims a bit suspect (of the 20 or so bodies I've had go through my hands none had a date written in).

There are minor variations that show up on the guitars, but they often seem to be mixed-and-matched. Generally, though, they're lumped into 3 groups: long-scale from '58-late '63 or early '64; transitional models (short scale body with long scale-type chrome pedals) in late '63 or early '64; and short scale from '63 or '64 (officially 1964) until the end of the run.

The earliest models also did not have the Fender badge on them...so I would guess this to be later than '58. Does the changer have "hog rings" as a string attachment system, or do they go through the holes in the changer fingers? Sometimes that, combined with other things, can help narrow it down a bit.

Just guesswork - but based on the bare aluminum body (with badge) I'd say it's probably a '59 or '60...or so. But the "vintage police" don't care that much about exact dates, as these are nice players but not collectable like Strats or Teles (which would be worth maybe 30 times as much).

It DOES look like a nice one, but more detailed pics of the changer (top and bottom), large and small pulleys and type of rod attachment to the pedals would be useful to really try to get closer on a date and condition.

Hope that helps -

Jim

Ben Jones · Post by **Ben Jones** » 9 Aug 2008 9:24 am

I am interested in owning one of these guitars but not as a collectors peice, I just want a playable instrument and do not care about the serial number or when it was made. I'd defintely be interested in seeing the pictures Jim mentioned as well so that i might be able to make a reasonable offer or decide the guitar is not for me. Thanks-

Tim Walker · Post by **Tim Walker** » 9 Aug 2008 10:17 am

Jim thanks alot for the info - I really appreciate it - the serial # is 000012 so I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5 ! The string does go through a hole in the changer finger.
Ben I will try to get some better pics in the next week - my camera is playing up.
Thanks !

jay thompson · Post by **jay thompson** » 9 Aug 2008 1:01 pm

What a clean 50 year old guitar. If I recall correctly, only the very early 400's and 1000's had the polished frame. They soon went to the black frame finish. And clearly this is an early one since there are no hog rings. Perhaps, when you change strings, lift the tuner pan to see if there is, or is not a date written there. Regards, Jay Thompson

Bill Ford · Post by **Bill Ford** » 9 Aug 2008 3:21 pm

FWIW
I bought one brand new in early 1960, it was the white/ivory color, black frame, hogring string hooks, stamped chrome pedals(4)

Edited to say...Mine was like the one Jay Thompson posted below, except it had only 4 pedals, it was that way new.
BF

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 10 Aug 2008 9:28 am

With it looking fairly clean and unmodded I would guess it never had hog rings, so '58 or '59 would be probable years...'60's (as noted by Bill) were "black frame" models, and some bare-frame models had rings.

It's interesting this one has a badge...but no rings, yet some seem to have shown up the other way around. Maybe this is a very late "first iteration"...that would, I think, point to late '58. It could be at that point they weren't consistent with the badging, still not sure how it looked.

Someday we'll find what the consistencies are to be able to pin down dates more accurately!

jay thompson · Post by **jay thompson** » 10 Aug 2008 11:45 am

Some pics of an early Fender 400 and 1000

1000 Frame number

1000 Serial Number

1000 pedal board logo

jay thompson · Post by **jay thompson** » 10 Aug 2008 11:52 am

More pictures

Logo on Fender 1000 case

Early 400
[img]

jay thompson · Post by **jay thompson** » 10 Aug 2008 12:07 pm

Try this site to see original logos and badges.

http://www.edusoft.ca/1000/ 1958 Fender 1000 Owners Manual

As I had posted earlier, I purchased a new 1000 in 1959. Although ordered as an ivory/white color, It came as black frame with sunburst finish and hog rings. Note the pedal rod connection on the '58's in the owners manual. There were no flat springs underneath to hold the rod in place, My '59 had such springs. I and other owners removed them as I thought they were binding the rods. Regards, Jay Thompson

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 10 Aug 2008 12:22 pm

Those are great examples of other configurations...there seems to be no rhyme or reason for any of it, and early Fender employees have confirmed it was pretty haphazard. One example is the small cable pulleys - they must have had close to a dozen small variations; it's like Leo found a deal on bags full of similar pulleys and bought all of 'em! I talked to Fender a few times in the past about sales records, design info, drawings...anything they had relating to the pedal steel lines, and that's one area where their records are completely lost. They can't find them. The 400 and PS210 manuals on their site they got from others as they had no copies in their files (I thought the 1000 one was also on there at one time, but it's not now).

It's also odd that even though both the 1000 and 400 have an A6 neck (as designed), the changes in the 1000 ('59) and 400 ('67) manuals are different.

Then again, for years no one thought Fender amps could be properly dated because of the various systems used, but Greg Gagliano worked on a dating system for years and finally came up with an amp serial number database that is essentially the vintage Fender amp collector's Bible. So maybe it CAN be done with Fender steels. It'll be a daunting task, though.

jay thompson · Post by **jay thompson** » 10 Aug 2008 12:49 pm

Jim, Scotty's '58 1000, was ivory with a black frame.
Has anyone tried a Patent search? It appears the best bet is to have a patent number from an early guitar for the search.
Regards, Jay Thompson

admin · Post by **b0b** » 10 Aug 2008 8:40 pm

Is this guitar for sale, Tim? If so, what's the price?

I hope people aren't confused by the pictures of other guitars in this topic.

Tim Walker · Post by **Tim Walker** » 10 Aug 2008 10:14 pm

Hi, Thanks for all the info guys. Bob, it is for sale - I'm really not sure what it is worth. I'm open to offers - if anyone has any ballpark estimates as to it's value i'd appreciate it.
Cheers, Tim

Ben Jones · Post by **Ben Jones** » 11 Aug 2008 7:48 am

Its a nice lookin guitar Tim. Its probably a bit TOO nice for me. Im afraid to make an offer for fear i'd be lowballing you and thats not my intent. Im really just after a playable long scale fender 400 that I can maybe do some modification on and originality and vintage are not big concerns for me, so this one might just be a bit TOO nice for what i wanna do. I will be interested to see what others are willing to offer for this very nice looking guitar and wish you the best of luck with the sale Tim.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 11 Aug 2008 8:58 am

Jay - yeah, it's things like that that make it confusing. There were a few black-frame guitars in early runs - I've seen a couple with a smoother finish than the later blackframes. Then again, is Scotty's actually a '58? The only way to know is if he BOUGHT it in '58!

I'm trying to start a database with serial numbers and certain details...I'll see how it pans out over time!

Gerald Pierce · Post by **Gerald Pierce** » 11 Aug 2008 10:51 am

So far, I've never found a date under the tuning pans on any of several long-scale 400s I've owned or worked on. I have seen a some with a strip of masking tape on the bottom of the body with hand-written manufacture dates and the signature of a Fender employee. You won't be able to see the tape unless you remove the body from the frame (frame hides the tape from view). I'm not saying that all 400s had the info there or that none had a date under the tuning pan. I'm just relaying what I've seen.

Since there's no great (if any) collector demand for these guitars, the date of manufacture is a moot point. The guitars are simply in good condition or not-so-good condition, either short-scale or long scale, have hog-rings or not, have stamped pedals or not etc.

This is a very nice-looking 400 and if I owned it I wouldn't care about the date of manufacture. I'd just know I had a very nice 400 (and I'd "ruin" it by changing the electronic controls, adding a second pickup and a couple of knee levers).
GP

P.S. - Somebody buy this guitar before I decide that it belongs in my pile.

Tim Walker · Post by **Tim Walker** » 13 Aug 2008 1:05 pm

new pics in original post - thanks

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 13 Aug 2008 2:05 pm

Tim, your guitar is in very good shape, and should bring around $800-$1,000. (It's one of the earliest 400's I've seen.) Keep in mind that (as Jim has said), though the 400's weren't available until early in 1958, the double-necked version (1000's) had been available for several years by that time. Changes that had been worked into the 1000's didn't always get immediately adopted into the 400's, probably because the 400 was conceived as a "student/beginner version" of the (at that time) widely accepted 1000, and they wanted to keep the cost down. As quickly as these guitars replaced the Bigsby's, Multi-Kords, and Gibsons, they were themselves replaced by the (rodded) Sho~Buds, Emmons', and ZB's.

Rambling thoughts...

The absence of pedal-rod springs indicates a very early 400. These flat springs (one of the first mechanical "upgrades" made to the 400's) had no effect at all on feel or playability, but merely held the rod ends in place when the pedals were adjusted lower, or when the pulling train loosened a little.

Leo (or whoever) was practically in the stone-age as far as tunings go. The A6th and E7th basic tunings they suggested in the manuals were still used by Alvino and Speedy, but almost no one else. Sure, they were a viable and practical tuning, but the "hot things" were the E9th (or D9th) and the C6th by the time these guitars got on the market. Fender's basic tunings were holdovers from a decade before. Exactly why they held steadfast to these clearly out-of-vogue tunings is anybody's guess. IMHO, it's one of the things that doomed the Fender Steels.

While the Fender serial numbers (casting numbers, really) did not run in sequence, they do give a vague idea of the period of manufacture. Two or three significant digits indicates a guitar made early in that model run. More significant digits indicates a later guitar. Also, a few were made without serial numbers, and it should also be kept in mind that these numbers were easily changed or altered. It takes an expert, sometimes, to tell if that's been done. Right now, there's no overwhelming demand for these guitars, and I doubt there ever will be. Of course, I said the same thing about the Fender Esquires around 40 years ago..."Who'd ever want one of those cheapass things?"

admin · Post by **b0b** » 13 Aug 2008 2:18 pm

Tim, please check your Private Messages. Thanks.

Ben Jones · Post by **Ben Jones** » 13 Aug 2008 2:24 pm

thanks for posting those photos Tim!
wow, look at the angle of those strings where the ball end is!!

No wonder the "hog rings" were introduced.
best of luck with the sale of this nice lookin old fender!

Russ Tkac · Post by **Russ Tkac** » 14 Aug 2008 5:13 pm

b0bby lee, That Fender would look nice in you 8 string stable!

Ronnie Boettcher · Post by **Ronnie Boettcher** » 15 Sep 2008 2:39 pm

When I had my fender 400, It was the black,red yellow burst, I sold it for $200. That was when I bought my LDG. I am vary vague at the exact year this happened, but think early 1970's. At that time I had no idea of prices, and I just wanted to sell it, to help pay for my LDG.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 15 Sep 2008 5:03 pm

I received an email from a gentleman about the guitar pictured stating that I had more or less "verified" the guitar as all original. While the photos do show a guitar in excellent shape, there's always the possibility that the guitar has been refinished/refurbed somewhere along the line, and these things can usually only be verified by a close physical inspection of the instrument. For some, this might affect the value - while for others it might not.

Please keep that in mind.

admin · Post by **b0b** » 15 Sep 2008 8:08 pm

Russ Tkac wrote:b0bby lee, That Fender would look nice in you 8 string stable!

I agree! Unfortunately, I'm over budget for instruments this year.