The Steel Guitar Forum

was just wondering why are Franklin guitars priced way higher than a lot of other guitars out there. and are they any better than any of the rest. I never ever got to try one and was just wondering what if any , the difference would be compared to other guitars.

They rarely come up for sale. There was not that many made and from what I hear Mr Franklin has ceased building new ones.

A couple years ago I was at his house and had him check my 81 Franklin out (all OK). He told me if I ever wanted to sell it to let him know as "he had a long list of people willing to pay big bucks" for a used Franklin.

Whether a Franklin is worth what they are asking and bringing ??? The market determines that.

I don't notice a huge difference in tone¹
There IS a marked difference in the mechanics. I played one briefly. It is ALMOST devoid of feedback and resistance: you have only to think the changes and they happen. It's a singular experience, the polar opposite of a push-pull.

The value comes from the singular experience, combined with the mechanism, combined with the scarcity.


¹When it comes to pedal steel tone, the amp does most of the work. Once you've been playing long enough to stop fighting your hands for tone, the difference between guitars is "how much fun is it to sound like me? How much does sounding like me make me smile?" At least that's how it hits me. I also think that's why Buddy says that when he listens to records featuring The Blade, his Carter and his MCI "there's not a dime's worth of difference." Because there's no feedback in the loop.

I think Jack is correct, supply and demand. I'm sure Franklins are great guitars but never owned one but would love to, but, I'm a player, not a collector so those prices are to high for me for a guitar to play and to drag around so to speak. If I were filthy rich, I would own one anyway, just to say I had one. I also think that Franklins are the only guitar that look good in green mica,

so this exact question comes up every time a Franklin is listed for sale...which is rarely.
basically, they are expensive because you can't get one. you have to pay what an owner deems satisfactory to part with it.

why are they special? they are at present, the pinnacle of pedal steel engineering, capable of handling most of the modern changes/demands placed on a steel guitar. this includes a lot of things, not just complex copedants. they also have the established reputation of recording extremely well, sitting in the mix perfectly and this is a big deal in the competitive studio industry (we are talking major recording sessions). they have a sound, reputation and quality that modern producers want and that = studio work.

It is the name and the fact you can't pick up the phone and order one. I had Hal's Franklin. It sounded good and played good but no better than a Mullen overall. I do like the ShoBud tone of the Franklin. Just my taste though.

i think the price has escalated because the first person to ask upwards of $8000 wasn't laughed off the face of the earth. now you're all stuck with the trend.

frankly, i think p/ps will increase in value soon.
as far as that goes, i can't imagine any steel being noticeably better than my '82 zum .

Ok I'll give you a little insight to Paul Franklin Sr. that many of you don't know.
When the super pro's came out as Paul Sr. was doing work at Sho~bud late 70's...folks eventually were wondering how do you take the key heads off. Well there is a notch cut out of the neck; under the fretboard; about 4" long that the Genius keyhead casting now has a tongue on it that bolts down to the body and has almost eliminated any cab. Drop.
Paul Franklin Sr. Designed that.
I can tell you many other secrets that he has designed into HIS Franklin Pedal Steel that will blow your mind...but then I would have to go live on a island somewhere for safety..and I'm not ready to do that yet..ha...
So when you buy a Franklin you get the Best of the Best and from one of the most prolific innovators EVER in Pedal steel guitar building history and that is PAUL FRANKLIN SR.
Ricky

Hey Rickey. I never new that little secret. but WOW guys thanks for all the input. very ,very interesting indeed , in all the different opinions I love it.

Ricky, thanks for your post. You are absolutely right about Mr. Franklin. I have been lucky enough to spend time with him and have owned three of his steels. The Franklin steel is a unique instrument. And Paul Sr. is a unique man ! If people continue using the Pedalsteel in the recording of music Franklins will continue to go up in value.

Franklin Guitars are like Henderson Guitars.

http://www.worthpoint.com/blog-entry/wa ... ollectible.

I'll be honest here. The Franklins are really great guitars. But they are not the "magic" machine people make it out to be.

Tone-wise, its slightly different than any guitar I've played. It has a precise clear clean tone to my ear. Sounds kind of lake a Carter with it clean and bright tone. Only the overtones seem to be less audible therefore rendering a more distinct tone. Its kind of like you get out exactly what you put in. I guess this is why the studio engineers like it so much. (Although I think the Franklin name has a lot to their liking too.) But for just playing out, it sounds just fine but my Emmons push-pull sounds best to my ears tone wise. Recording on the other hand, I'd probably use the Franklin.

Sustainabilty, well its pretty good but it doesn't even compare to my Emmons push-pull. But as we know, sustain varies from one franklin to the next. I've only played one so I can only base my opinion on one franklin guitar

Now Franklin mechanics are really fantastic. rugged, durable, and smooth and perfectly aligned. Rock hard stops. But there are a few other guitars brands about as good. I've heard MSA has everyone beat as far as the undercarriage is concerned but I don't know for sure. I will say though, that my Franklin's playability is the best I've ever played. Smooth, quiet, rugged. That and the changer was the buying point for me. But I should point out that the changer isn't magic either. There are people who think 9 strings on pedal 4 can easily be pulled with little effort. Ok let me set that one straight. That is BS. Yes the changer has a slight more mechanical advantage but it still would be hell pulling nine strings at once. Not saying it can't take it, but it would take a mighty heavy foot to push it down. And I can't imagine how the cabinet drop and stress would affect the other strings. You can't beat the laws of physics folks. There's only one forum member that claims to have the laws of physics broken on his franklin. javascript:emoticon(':D') Anyhow, now that thats clear, it still a hell of a guitar mechanically.

Although tPersonally, I still wish my Franklin had removable bell cranks but franklins don't come like that. So setup change requires pulling a cross rod. Also all the pull rods are 1/8 aluminum. I would prefer them be titanium with a lower coefficient of thermal expansion. But its all good.

Nonetheless, I love my Franklin guitar and don't plan to part with it, but if I did it would take $10g or more for me to sell mine.

I've never owned one, but I've played two of them briefly and I didn't notice anything special about them. Nothing there that could account for the additional $5K in value, in my opinion. I'd like to do some side-by-side comparisons with other pedal steels though to see how they compare. For some reason, players and collectors have focused upon them and they are considered desirable (to some players) probably because of scarcity.

I have a Franklin (my only PSG) that I bought new around '95. I got it because I made a lucky decision at Scotty's convention that year. I understand all the good points people are making when they talk about the asking price of Franklins. However I was thinking about it and if you pay $10k for a Franklin, you're only paying 2x the price of any good D10. This isn't like paying $50k for a '57 Les Paul gold-top, which is 20x the price of a playable guitar. Anyway, I don't think Franklins are in the same league as collector guitars which are doomed to spend eternity in a plexiglass case. I really hope they don't appreciate much more, as our bass player suggested that I get a cheaper guitar to take out to play for safety's sake.

Jerome Hawkes wrote:
why are they special? they are at present, the pinnacle of pedal steel engineering, capable of handling most of the modern changes/demands placed on a steel guitar.

Jerome,
In your opinion, what mechanical design makes the Franklin the "pinnacle" of pedal steel engineering? How is it mechanically better than other top brands like Zum or Mullen? Thank you.

Mitch

Paul has some advance in leverage the rest can't quite touch.
Paul Jr has, IIRC, a pedal with 4 pulls on the C6th neck and 2 on the E9th neck, without becoming annoyingly stiff. I have two pedals on my Zum with 4 each on them (they do double duty). Do not wish to conceive increasing the load by half.
Paul also drops 6 to E. Not many guitars can hack that.

Several (maybe a couple more than "several") years ago I went to St Louis thinking I wanted a new steel. I looked at them all and decided none were better, mechanically, than the 20 plus year old Franklin I had.

I'm sure what Ricky said about Paul Franklin senior is true, that he's come up with some very inventive ideas that are applied to the Franklin steel.

I've also heard it said here and in other threads, that the Franklin steel records well.

What I don't understand is why some of the greats like the two Buddys, Lloyd Green, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Rugg, JD, Herby W. etc., who recorded often, did not use Franklin guitars when they could have been purchased more cheaply in the past than they can be today.

And as Lane mentions, there is this:I also think that's why Buddy says that when he listens to records featuring The Blade, his Carter and his MCI "there's not a dime's worth of difference."

Some you mentioned have or had Franklin's. Some including one Mr Franklin told me about (who I won't name) that is a session picker said he would love to have a Franklin but his sound had been established and he couldn't change. This is apparently one important factor for the session pickers.

Hal Rugg was an early adopter of the Franklin, and had several, although he later went to Zum. Some of Hal's ideas were incorporated into the Franklin design.

Some that you mention had their own company such as Jimmy Crawford (JCH which was originally Jimmy Crawford and John Hughey). Herby Wallace had his own signature brand Mullen, that he played and sold.

I still don't understand why, if it is true that Franklin steels would record so well, the vast majority of the pros did not record with them? After all, the final product would have been an imprint for decades to come.

Obviously Paul Franklin Jr. recorded tons with them. It would seem to me that if one of the other big names, like Hal Rugg, who had a Franklin, he'd have used it in the studio. Did he?

Guys like Crawford and Wallace used Emmons prior to switching to JCH and Mullen steels. A number of others switched from Emmons or other brands to non-Franklin steels and recorded with them. Both Buddys did, for example.

When did Paul Franklin Sr. start building his steels for the public? Even if he came late to the steel building party, why did they not catch on with the pros? Tom Brumley opted for an expensive Anapeg.

Sonny Garish is in the next to last photo and then Rusty Young.

steve - to briefly answer your question - those other players came up in a different era where each player had his own 'sound'.

this is just my observation, but the major label studios seem to want a specific generic steel sound these days. i was talking with one of the newer session guys from Nashville this year in Dallas and we talked a bit about this...they will often tell you what steel to bring...ie, the one you used on 'xx' - and you often get the call based on what you have done on another recording. it is so competitive and time is money in the studio and most of these engineers & producers are fairly familiar with just a few brands of steels. I've heard people mention Franklins have a sterile kind of tone, but thats not really a bad thing for a studio musician.

Jerome. from the look of the pics Steve just gave us . and from seeing and hearing a lot with Mike Johnston. the sound guys still must like Emmons yet. everything i have seen Mike do the last two years he uses the Emmons. at least that i have seen .

jerome says they are the 'pinnacle' of steels...capable of only mostof the modern changes and demands required!!!!

wow, is there any steel that is capable of all of them?

Jerome, did this newer session player from Nashville you spoke with record with a Franklin? Did he say whether the guys running the sessions insist on Franklins?

I just can't see some recording session leader telling JD Maness to ditch his Emmons, or as Wayne pointed out, requesting Mike Johnson leave the Emmons or Sho-Pro at home. Likewise, why tell Steve Palousek tp keep the Emmons or Mullen G2 in the closet?. What about Steve Fishell and his Zumsteel?

In terms of the older session players having come up in a different era and having their own sounds, a number of these guys switched to other steels as was mentioned. Brumley went from ZB to the extremely well-engineered Anapeg.

Also as Lane said: I also think that's why Buddy says that when he listens to records featuring The Blade, his Carter and his MCI "there's not a dime's worth of difference."

Other examples of some of the excellent players from the past "having their own sounds" but still switching to other pedal steel brands would be these below. Maybe Buddy Emmons was right.




Buddy Charlton played Emmons, Sho-Bud, and GFI



Mike johnson:

Great pics Steve . i honestly think that most of the guitars built to day all play well and sound good. just comes to mind Mike Sigler. Girl In The Glass. i belive he used. his G.F.I .sounded awesome. i know the player has a lot to do with it to . but you also have to have and instrument that will respond well and sound good. my opinion any way.