Refinishing a Stringmaster D8

Roy McKinney · Post by **Roy McKinney** » 6 Mar 2006 7:39 am

Thanks for all of the inputs.......Guess I will have to leave it alone for now anyway, but it sure would be nice to have a nice looking guitar. IF I do decide to redo it, I will have to stay with the orignial color I guess. Thanks again.

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 6 Mar 2006 7:51 am

I bought my T-8 Stringmaster new in 1954. When I went to pedals, I thought you could only own one guitar so I sold it. A few years ago, I had a chance to buy it back, so I did. By this time it looked like it had been through World War III and the former owner had used a claw hammer instead of picks to play it. There is NO way I would want to keep it in that condition. I now have the old girl looking as good, or better, than the day I sold it. No regrets!
Erv

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 6 Mar 2006 8:36 am

Here's a mind game. You can buy any one of three 1950s D8 Stringmasers: 1) a mint condition for $2500 (actual recent eBay price); 2) a beat up one for $1600 (also an actual recent price); 3) one that has been rechromed and refinished to original specs. for $1800. A collector would want the mint one. A collector on a budget (is there any such thing) might also want the beater. A musician who wanted something to play might be equally tempted by the beater and the restored version, depending on whether he wanted something with character, or something showy. It is difficult to imagine that anyone would offer the restored version for sale at less than the beater. Maybe stuffy collectors in it only for the money would pass on the restored version at any price. But some player would come along and gladly pay a little extra for the restored version over the beater.

If something is truly rare (only one or a few in existence), you wouldn't want to touch it, no matter how beat up and dysfunctional. If it is old but mint, you wouldn't want to mess with the finish just because you don't like the color, or it has a nick or two. But if it is simply old, but not extremely rare (Fender Stringmasters were probably the most common multineck lap steels up through the '50s), and it is really beat up, seems like carefully restoring it is not always a bad move. What if the tuners are stripped - do you replace them or leave the instrument unplayable? What if the pots are shot - do you replace them? How is a trashed finish any different? Restoration is the common approach for mechanical things like cars. Seems like solid-body electrics and steel guitars are mostly mechanical instruments, and can benefit from the same approach.

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 6 Mar 2006 9:24 am

Mechanical restorations are necessary to keep the guitar playable. Repaired tuners, for example, are not a problem in my opinion. Replaced, non-original tuners however Would be a problem. Cosmetic changes, like refinishing are also a problem in my opinion. The original factory finish is an important part of the guitar… part of what makes it a Fullerton Fender. When that finish is stripped and the original chrome is re-plated, some might argue that the guitar is no longer a “Fender”.

In your example above, if I had to buy one of the Stringmasters, I would probably hold my nose and buy the beat up one, assuming that it was mechanically sound and playable. I wouldn’t pay top dollar for a mint one, and I don’t want restored one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

A couple of years ago I met a guy who had inherited his grandfather’s National Duolian. He had a buddy who worked in a plating shop and he could get the Duolian chrome plated at a discount price. What a great opportunity! …too good to pass up. I advised him not to do it, and I explained to him how this would severely diminish the value of the guitar. He said he didn’t care about market value, he just wanted to restore the guitar to it’s “original glory”. So he had the job done. I know that he and his family will regret that someday.

Refinishing a Stringmaster may not seem like a big deal now, but when these guitars double and triple in value in a few years the new paint will become an issue in my opinion.

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 6 Mar 2006 10:07 am

"Do That Which Pleases You"

So, you'll greet the Grim Reaper with a few less gold coins in your pocket, but, you'll have years of enjoyment from something that you really loved and appreciated. That's gotta be worth something, right?

One way or the other, it always costs you. But eventually it all evens out.

"Do That Which Pleases You"

<pre>this thread is like the Jewish dilema....free ham</pre>[This message was edited by HowardR on 06 March 2006 at 10:09 AM.]

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 6 Mar 2006 10:12 am

but when these guitars double and triple in value in a few years the new paint will become an issue in my opinion.

Buy tax free bonds with a 4% yield (you can find them) as a hedge and refinish that old Stringmaster that you'd rather play than store.

You're covered.

[This message was edited by HowardR on 06 March 2006 at 10:14 AM.]

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 6 Mar 2006 10:22 am

Yes, it's a pretty cold and harsh way to look at things. No dilema for me... I prefer to play worn guitars (i.e. worn finish, good mechanical condition), so I'm happy and the stuff stays original. [This message was edited by Doug Beaumier on 06 March 2006 at 10:37 AM.]

Ron Brennan · Post by **Ron Brennan** » 6 Mar 2006 10:28 am

Not intending to offend anyone, I agree with David, Harry, Nick & James on this subject.

IMHO: At least for the time I have the good fortune to have them (2), I figure, ahh, I'm more of a caretaker & player. I am not a collector.

I have a "55' D8 in really good condition. It's my main Axe and I am very, very careful with it.

I, also, have a "60" D6 Walnut Stringmaster (my first Steel) that I took on the road, about a thousand years ago. The walnut finish, with that kind of road work (not abused), did not hold up well. So, back then, I had it repainted only (Ebony).

As a practical matter, as far as presenting a professonal image, I felt it was necessary. We didn't wear jeans, either, not that I'm against that). Times and culture have changed.

Now, decades later, some of these Stringmasters are in truly terrible condition. An example of that is the Stringmaster Nick acquired not long ago. Just look at the "before condition". It had to be refurbished if your are a "caretaker". He then did a wonderful job with great painstaking care in refurbishing that Stringmaster. The result is... it can be put back in service in all regards and provide the musical enjoyment it was intended for in the first place.

IMHO: No harm done except, perhaps, to a hard core collector seeking to make money off a comodity. Nothing wrong with that either.

For what its worth, along with having a "Caretaker" mentality, I would agree with those who suscribe to the notion that, in extreme cases like Nick's, refurbishment is the necessary course of action to take. TX
Rgds,

Ron

------------------
JCFSGC member since 2005 "Be of Good Cheer"
"55" Stringmaster D8,"59" Stringmaster D6
"67" Telecaster,
"60"Fender Concert Amp 4-10's

[This message was edited by Ron Brennan on 06 March 2006 at 12:22 PM.]

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 6 Mar 2006 10:29 am

Too bad we can't include the original scrapings of paint like we can with original pots & stuff like that.

[This message was edited by HowardR on 06 March 2006 at 10:34 AM.]

Paul Arntson · Post by **Paul Arntson** » 6 Mar 2006 11:11 am

Howard, then if they're parted out, we'd see bags of original paint flecks come up on ebay, right?

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 6 Mar 2006 11:20 am

As a player more than a collector, I take advantage of the way snobby collectors drive the prices. When there is an old instrument I want, I watch for one that has been modified but not harmed for playing. I wanted a Gibson J50. I got one for half the going rate, because someone had replaced the cheap original tuners with deluxe tuners with large metal buttons, and they replaced the tone-robbing adjustable bridge with a nice fixed bridge. The instrument is actually improved for playing.

In addition to my pedal steels, I decided I wanted one lap steel to play around with, and possibly even gig with. After a little research and waiting, it was clear I wanted a Stringmaster D8. But I couldn't justify paying the high prices they are going for these days. I waited until I found one for half the going rate because it is a little beat up and someone had modified it from four legs to three. Three legs will sit steady on an uneven floor with no adjustments. Many old-timers preferred them that way.

If I were a collector involved for the investment opportunities, I would have passed on both these instruments. As a player, I am happily using these great-playing old instuments that I got for half price.

However, even though it was my gain, true to what Doug says above, whoever made those modifications lost half the resale value. [This message was edited by David Doggett on 06 March 2006 at 11:30 AM.]

Harry Sheppard · Post by **Harry Sheppard** » 6 Mar 2006 11:42 am

What a great thread!

Who will be buying Stringmasters in 5 or 10 years when they reach $4000.00 or more? Will the collectors of high $ vintage guitars start to see the value of these wonderful instruments and drive the prices up as they have with everything else in the vintage market? Or will it be us players trying to purchase a great playing and sounding steel guitar? Maybe both? It is all supply and demand. Fender only made so many Stringmasters in the 1950s-1970s and as with everything else, some people will always want one. As more people want one, the prices go up.

I guess your decision as to what to do would be on what you think the future holds for these instruments. If you think as Doug and some others (myself included) that Stringmaster prices will follow other vintage guitar prices, then keep it original and just be careful not to add to any damage already done. Your instrument has become an investment. But if you think of your instrument as a tool to make music and you like it all beat up and don't really care what it looks like, then play it, refinish it, personalize so it inspires you.

It is very unfortunate that old instruments by default have become collectable and therefore to valuable for everyday use. I think that we in the Steel Guitar world are very lucky that our instruments are still affordable. The mint condition guitars will, like everything else, continue to go up in price until the working musicians will no longer be able to afford them. But there are a lot of Stringmasters out there in pretty poor condition and I still think with such a small market and small demand (compared with standard guitars), players won't need to worry much about loosing 50% of the value of the guitar if they refinish it. They have already lost it in the fact that the finish is in poor condition. Only another player would buy the thing because collectors only want guitars in excellent condition.

Of course all of this only applies to guitars in very poor condition. If you have a guitar in fair condition with only normal playing wear, a nick here or there but generally everything is there, leave it alone. You really would be sorry if you changed it...

Ron Brennan · Post by **Ron Brennan** » 6 Mar 2006 1:00 pm

All,

Now case in point...check this out..a T8 Stringmaster and a D6 Stringmaster on Ebay as I write this. TX
Rgds,

Ron

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 6 Mar 2006 1:02 pm

When the value of Stringmasters increase, both original and modified will increase proportionately.

We will still have the same dilema.

A few years ago I purchased a Stringmaster D8 22 1/2" scale that was refinished in a slightly metal flaked burgundy. Although not real professional, it was decent....8 out of 10 I would say. I paid a little more than $500 for it on ebay.

Anyhow I always like the sound & tone of this particular one and I like the short scale. I'm in the process of a re-re-finish.

Does my value drop even more?

<pre>I'll post photos when it's completed. I think this one is going to be very special</pre>

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 6 Mar 2006 1:23 pm

Howard, I think if you refinish in a stock color, you boost the value. It wont be as good as mint, but I think it will be worth as much or more than a beatup one that had never been refinished, and will certainly be worth more than one refinished in a non-stock color. Nonstock and wild custom paint jobs are tricky. If you find the one guy who digs it, he would pay extra for it; but everyone else would consider it a detraction and want to pay less.

BTW, I'm wishing my 22 1/2" D8 were 24". Anyone want to trade?

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 6 Mar 2006 2:02 pm

David, I've never been accused of being normal

I don't buy guitars because of it's value or potential value. I have to have a feeling and affinity for it. Of course the sound, tone and playability is most important. The value factor is a nice incidental but not a motive.

A stock color may very well give my D8 more value at time of resale, but it will then be like so many others. Makes me feel drab. I need something with panache, something that slides to a different bar, something that takes it a little further on the path to evolvement.

I guess I should't refinish the Jerry Byrd Fender then..... <pre>I was thinking of brown to orange sunburst</pre>.....

J Fletcher · Post by **J Fletcher** » 6 Mar 2006 2:09 pm

I'm curious. How much does it cost to have a D8 Stringmaster professionally refinished with an original type of finish? $400 or so? I guess a "relic" finish would cost even more. Fender charges an extra $400 or so for a relic finish on custom shop guitars....Jerry

pdl20 · Post by **pdl20** » 6 Mar 2006 9:34 pm

What was the dark brown color called .i didn't see it shown or listed on the restoration sites

Ron Brennan · Post by **Ron Brennan** » 7 Mar 2006 6:25 am

The Dark Brown was called "Walnut" by Fender.

Stringmasters were made in three colours by Fender. "Tele" Blond, Walnut and Ebony. Hope this helps.....TX
Ron

HowardR · Post by **HowardR** » 7 Mar 2006 6:27 am

Wasn't butterscotch one of the colors? And you forgot Inca Silver from the later models.

Ron Brennan · Post by **Ron Brennan** » 7 Mar 2006 6:38 am

Howard,

Yes, that came later, say, early "60's...you are so normal....gheesh...TX
Rgds,
Ron

Doug Beaumier · Post by **Doug Beaumier** » 7 Mar 2006 7:42 am

Butterscotch is the best! It looks good enough to eat.

…maybe I’ll strip the finish off my T-8 and have it painted butterscotch!

Roy McKinney · Post by **Roy McKinney** » 7 Mar 2006 8:06 am

OK folks, you have provided a lot of information to consider, but I have only received ONE reply/recomendation as "Who does refinishing of old Fender Stringmaster? Who do you recommend?"
I have about decided that at my age, I might just as well have one like I want it as I don't have anyone to leave it to. My wife would probably give it to good will or something!

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 7 Mar 2006 8:22 am

Now I ask you, which do you like better butterscotch or chocolate?

I have a Fender Dual Eight Professional, completely restored to better than new; and a 26" scale triple-neck original, both blonde. I find I play the restored guitar much more.

BTW, anyone know someone who installs pedals on old Fender steel guitars?

...just kidding, of course. [This message was edited by Rick Collins on 07 March 2006 at 08:23 AM.]

pdl20 · Post by **pdl20** » 7 Mar 2006 8:42 am

Thanks Ron for the information.i have a t8 i want to restore.