The Steel Guitar Forum

After fighting with this guitar on and off (mostly off!) for three years, I've decided I need to have a playable unit if I have a hope of getting anywhere. I've seen some amazing looking rebuilds on here, and wondered what it typically costs, and if it is worth it, or if I should just cut my losses and buy something else?
Thanks,
Tyler

I'm assuming she's pull-release.
Fo'Bros Paul Redmond and Bob Simmons (with 2 Ms; one M is a player in KCMO) probably know the most. Bob still builds 'em.
I'd recommend a new all-pull guitar to learn on, unless a rebuild is seriously inexpensive.

Getting it back in decent shape will likely cost at least a few hundred, and the packing/shipping will likely be a couple of hundred, too. So, it's up to you if you want to invest that much just to have a good, playable, old guitar. Best case, you'd have something nice. Worst case, you'd spend money having it fixed up - only to have it damaged on the way back to you.

As one who's as fascinated with tinkering as much as playing, I'd continue to explore the fix-up route. Just what do you think is wrong with the Miller?

My first one is a Miller which I acquired in a trade, and modded with three new KLs to a 3 + 4, using scrounged and homemade parts. I was able to get it "playable", and with nothing to compare it to, I went ahead and played it. If yours already has the pedals and KLs you want, it should be easy enough to put back in shape.

Biggest challenge was to get E's to both raise and lower in tune, but it can be done. Pretty stable once you get there.

Stay with it, work out the wrinkles.

This is just my personal opinion, but that is what you have asked for so here it is. Get a long rope and tie it to the Miller and use it for a boat anchor, then go find a rig with better engineering. I bought a Miller D-10 for my first pedal rig and tried to make it work on band jobs for about six years. I then got rid of it and bought a much better instrument; best thing I ever did for my myself as far as my own personal instrumental satisfaction.

Simple steels, with pull-release mechanisms,are inherently very reliable, with excellent tuning stability, because of their simplicity.

It's the players who haven't got an ounce of mechanical ability, who just can't see how these simple things work, who are losing out by getting rid of these gems.

richard burton wrote:Simple steels, with pull-release mechanisms,are inherently very reliable, with excellent tuning stability, because of their simplicity.

It's the players who haven't got an ounce of mechanical ability, who just can't see how these simple things work, who are losing out by getting rid of these gems.

Sorry, Richard, I can't agree. While a few older steels are worth fixing, for many (especially the off-brands) it's a losing proposition. Cabinets shrink and crack, everything gets loose, leg holes are often stripped (or nearly so), changers have serious wear in the fingers, tuning keys are often sloppy, pickups get microphonic, and in general, everything gets loose and wobbly. Many of these steels were made without benefit of modern machines, and the mechanics may either be poor castings, rusted steel, or rough-hewn parts (as in the case of my own '60s Marlen). Sure, crudely made steels can be fixed up, but it's often more trouble and cost than it's worth. If these old steels were in big demand, it might be a different story, but there are still plenty of older, but better made classics out there. Older off-brands don't easily adapt to modern setups, parts are scarce, and most players these days want something closer to the best used guitar out there, rather than an old basket case. Also, the pull/release models really aren't that much simpler than a modern all-pull model, the major difference being limited to some extra parts in the changer of an all-pull. In fact, complex setups (with multiple raises and lowers) on a pull/release are often harder to set up and adjust, as pretty much any changes out of the scope of what originally came on the guitar may require additional parts...just like an all-pull.

Lastly, Richard, please remember that not all steelers, regardless of whether or not they have a lot of mechanical ability, want to go foolin' an' fixin' with something that really wasn't very good to start with. The money spent buying something decent can often be recovered, but the time spent making junk playable cannot.

Thank you everyone for your opinions! I think I will follow all of them (except the anchor thing )

I've come across an MSA Classic locally that I'm looking at getting, and putting the Miller away until I feel like working it.

I'm quite mechanically inclined, being on a farm and working in the trades, but I wish my music room to be an oasis from my usual mechanical chaos .

The biggest problem I have encountered with Miller's is the actual pulling system itself. The cabinets on these guitars are beautiful and usually well-made. The castings used for the pulling system are poorly made. Hole diameters were cast rather than machined. That allows the cross-shaft to more or less float in its bore. You can't accurately hold a string in neutral when a shaft returns differently every time. Some years ago I restored a D-10 for Byron Towle and installed frame rails underneath instead of individual little castings to support the shafts. That guitar is one of the most accurate guitars that I have ever encountered. It returns amazingly on pitch every time. I just had to eliminate the things that had caused it to work so poorly before. I also made him new changer fingers with six holes in them for selectivity. That proved to be a big plus.
PRR