Is it a good thing to modify your guitar?

Ken Byng · From: Southampton, England

There are 2 trains of thought here.

1. The replacement of changers, fingers and mechanisms by using stainless or chromed parts on a classic pedal steel guitar is considered a positive and beneficial process.

2. The replacement of changers, fingers and mechanisms by using stainless or chromed parts on a classic pedal steel guitar is considered to be a detrimental and harmful process.

I have 2 ShoBuds. My Pro111 Custom that I have had from new in 1975 will never be modded as long as I own it (apart from the replacement of both pickups that became very microphonic).

I would happily replace every single part on my Lloyd Green (late model) guitar.

I wonder what the view is for those who own vintage or classic guitars - replace aluminium with aluminium, or with stainless or chromed steel which cosmetically looks nicer?

David L. Donald · From: Koh Samui Island, Thailand

Either :

it is a stone cold collecters item with history and in Concourse A1 condition.

Don't touch it.

Or
It is a classic with it's normal wear and tear but in good condition.
Subject to it's classic mechanical foibles.

In this last case, if adding modern designed replacement parts
makes this a better playing and more stable and playable unit,
and therefore makes it more desirable
as a working instrument to you or another.
Fix'er up.
IMHO

Mark van Allen · From: Watkinsville, Ga. USA

Of course that train of thought is what lead to all of those vintage Fenders with holes drilled through the peghead!

It might be good to factor in the capabilities of the "modifying mechanic"...

Eric West · From: Portland, Oregon, USA, R.I.P.

Ken. I suppose it depends on what you want out of it. Money for the music you make with it, and the adjustments you make for the facilitation of such, or money for the resale value.

Looking at my ProIII that I completely played into the ground, I see a guitar I bought for 600 bucks new. Half of retail. After making a couple hundred grand with it on more than a couple thousand paid gigs, and all kinds of mods/repairs it's still worth that.

If I hadn't played it, and not modded it, I'd have made about a grand, and that's not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it'd still be worth about 600$ adjusted for inflation.

Real estate in my area has been a better investment.

EJL

Mike Perlowin · From: Los Angeles CA

The answer depends on whether you are thinking of the guitar as a tool to be used for the production of music, or as a valuable collector's item.

I have no qualms about modifyng and customizing most of my instruments, but I'm not touching my vintage Gretsch Country Gent. It's 100% original and is going to stay that way.

------------------
"Never underestimate the value of eccentrics and Lunatics" -Lional Luthor (Smallville)

Ken Byng · From: Southampton, England

Eric - your guitar has been superbly and tastefully restored. For you it is a workhorse and I agree with your sentiments about the investment factor. I am lucky in as much that I too have averaged 5 gigs a week for the past 30 years with my Pro111, but have deliberately looked after it and it is in pretty good shape for a 30 year old instrument. I suffer the consequences of carrying it around in a full flight case, but for me its worth it.

As well as the re-sale value, which for the majority of us is not an issue because we tend to keep instruments that we have an attachment to, there is also the question of the affect on the instrument's tone. Replacement shiny parts can affect the tone of the guitar sometimes. Back in '74, I checked out some stainless steel changer rollers on my ZB. They just lifted off the changer for quick change, which I thought was a good design. However I soon put back the alloy rollers, such was the difference in sustain.

The only slightly worn parts on my Pro111 are the usual grooving where the strings pass over the finger rollers, but I would be more inclined to replace like for like. Not for any wish to keep it original, but for the sake of the tone of the guitar which is why I bought it in the first place.

David L. Donald · From: Koh Samui Island, Thailand

Mark V.A.
I see your point, but was also seeing
Eric Wests steel.

Played into the ground, but now a new lease on life.

I wouldn't equate that to drilling strats for BS reasons..
there is a limit....
I am NOT advocating stupid instrument butchery.

So, is a nice Tele with a B-Bender more or less valuable in 25 years?

If it were perfect and stock in 25 years maybe not.
If it were a bit threadbare at 10 years,
but played great...
well who knows.

Each time we have a tech change a steel to OUR COPEDENT,
we are modifying it from Stock.
Pedals moved maybe, levers added, all are changes from stock.

Is adding levers from stock parts detracting from the original value.

Ok, maybe adding Pro-III parts to a vintage Fingertip is incorrect.
But not extra Pro-III levers to a Pro-III

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 27 December 2005 at 10:11 PM.]

Bobby Lee · From: Cloverdale, California, USA

I wouldn't modify my Stringmaster, but everything else I own is fair game.

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

A rare guitar, like a Bigsby, probably shouldn't be modified. Most other classic guitars, though, like Emmons' and Sho~Buds, were made in the thousands, so their collector value is quite limited. There just isn't a big demand for these guitars, and there's a lot of them out there, so their value (taking inflation into account) has remained about the same for decades. Until the steel gets much more popularity, the values won't go up. The early Z-B might be a "sleeper", if it weren't for the clunky mechanism they had.

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

I was in the vintage guitar business for quite a while - I don't think the rules for old Martin, Gibson, Fender, and Gretsch guitars applies quite as strictly to pedal steels. With a prime vintage guitar, any modification normally devalues the guitar, often drastically. But the mechanism on a pedal steel is intended, as part of the design, to be changed. It is a mechanical device, with parts that wear. As long as the changes are in the spirit of the design, I don't see how it hurts the value. In fact, doing the things required to keep it in good playing condition should increase value. I use the model of vintage tube amps, not guitars. I don't know of anybody in the vintage biz who really argues that replacing the dead electrolytic caps on a '59 Bassman with good fresh ones, so it works and sounds good, reduces the value. But replacing the bumblebee capacitors on an old Les Paul definitely does reduce the value, and significantly.

I do notice that a lot of steel players strip a perfectly good, but perhaps not perfect, original wood finish and refinish it in a completely non-original way. I'm not sure I really understand this - on a vintage guitar, this reduces the value to 50% or less of a non-refinished example. If I wanted an old Bud, I'd want it for the old Bud sound and look. If the finish was original and workable, I wouldn't mess with it. If it was trashed beyond all recognition, I would refinish it in the original style, with specs as close as possible to original.

One thing which is only beginning to appear on the scene is the concept of a "reissue" pedal steel - for example, Emmons making push-pulls again. I'd love to see that with Buds, with the option of either a traditional or updated mechanism. Maybe that would take away some of the incentive to mod the old ones. I do agree that a guitar is a tool for a musician, but some of the old historic pieces are just that. Just my opinion.

Forum Index > Pedal Steel		Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic

All times are GMT - 8 Hours	Jump to: