Refinishing a Fender Stringmaster T8

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 12 May 2011 7:09 am

Here's some before and after pictures of the T-8 Stringmaster that I originally bought in 1954, sold and subsequently bought back and redid.

Hugh Holstein · Post by **Hugh Holstein** » 12 May 2011 3:45 pm

Very nice indeed, I just got my replacement decal from Bobbie, all I need now is some filler/sealer & lacquer, where did you get yours?
did you mix it yourself?

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 13 May 2011 6:31 am

You can learn all about refinishing and get the materials needed from www.reranch.com
They sell the nitrocellulose lacquer in spray cans which work out very well.
Here's a quad I did with their stuff:

Hugh Holstein · Post by **Hugh Holstein** » 14 May 2011 7:46 am

That looks super, I will most likely go that route myself, I'm leaning a little towards butterscotch but want a bit between blond & butterscotch because its a little to yellow.

Jason Hull · Post by **Jason Hull** » 14 May 2011 8:02 am

John Billings wrote:I've been a restorer of antique furniture from 1740 through 1850

...on which they used an oil varnish or shellac. Nitrocellulose lacquer is different, and can't be repaired using the same techiniques.

I believe you when you say that too much is missing, but I always try to use as much of the original finish as possible.

John Billings · Post by **John Billings** » 14 May 2011 8:14 am

Some of the earlier furniture just used coats of Beeswax! Some of the Hepplewhite furniture had brick dust mixed into the finish to heighten the red color. You have to modify your techniques to match the job at hand. I don't know what the factory finish was on the circa 61 Gibson Bass.

Jason Hull · Post by **Jason Hull** » 15 May 2011 4:32 am

John Billings wrote:I don't know what the factory finish was on the circa 61 Gibson Bass.

Nitrocellulose lacquer.

John Billings · Post by **John Billings** » 15 May 2011 4:58 am

"Nitrocellulose lacquer.
The Necrdull worked well removing the shaker can, probably enamel paint on that guitar. Sold that one to Gruhn.

John Allison · Post by **John Allison** » 15 May 2011 5:54 am

Erv Niehaus wrote:Here's some before and after pictures of the T-8 Stringmaster that I originally bought in 1954, sold and subsequently bought back and redid.

No offense, Erv, but the "before" is way cooler than the "after". In my opinion, you've done a disservice, no matter how well the work was executed.

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 15 May 2011 8:39 am

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... ringmaster

It's just a matter of personal tastes, but I disagree. Erv's renovations look beautiful. I would rather have an instrument looking like it has just left the showroom than one that looks like it's been bashed around by a noncaring owner. You can play an instrument for fifty years without getting it roughed up if you put it away in its case after each use and are careful not to damage it. Damage just shows a careless owner, no matter how old it is.

I don't care if restoration halves the value of the instrument. Since I never intend to sell any of my instruments I would rather please the owner and the audience than a collector who looks upon the instrument as an investment.

At one time I had to perform audits on Art Galleries. What shocked me was that an Art Gallery is like an iceberg; 90% is unseen below the surface. A large proportion of the world's works of art are put away in boxes as investments and will never see the light of day again. I guarantee that a large proportion of steel guitars are, likewise, in boxes, and will never be played again.

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 15 May 2011 11:14 am

No offense, Erv, but the "before" is way cooler than the "after". In my opinion, you've done a disservice, no matter how well the work was executed.

This condition is known as the "Willie Nelson Syndrome" __ no known cause and no known cure.

John Allison · Post by **John Allison** » 15 May 2011 1:55 pm

Rick Collins wrote:
No offense, Erv, but the "before" is way cooler than the "after". In my opinion, you've done a disservice, no matter how well the work was executed.
This condition is known as the "Willie Nelson Syndrome" __ no known cause and no known cure.

I'm not sure I understand to whom this WNS of which you speak is actually known, but...

I'm just going by my specific experience in dealing with vintage instruments. If steel guitars are unique in all of Fender-dom in that they are more appealing and desirable in a condition other than original, then so be it.
Personally, I don't particularly care to play vintage instruments and am very satisfied with modern (though vintage inspired) ones and I'm not a collector myself. I'm just saying that all these nice makeovers on 60-year-old Fender steels will be the subject of much wagging of heads and clucking of tongues in some not-too-distant future.

Hugh Holstein · Post by **Hugh Holstein** » 15 May 2011 3:28 pm

This thread can be further embellished buy looking at the finish of this almost $7000 Fender...
http://backstage.musiciansfriend.com/Ba ... 44.product

Tom Keller · Post by **Tom Keller** » 15 May 2011 5:45 pm

I whole heartedly agree with Chris Scruggs and those who advocate for leaving the finish alone. Buy a new guitar and leave the vintage finishes for those who appreciate them.

Tom Pettingill · Post by **Tom Pettingill** » 16 May 2011 3:28 am

Hugh Holstein wrote:This thread can be further embellished buy looking at the finish of this almost $7000 Fender...
http://backstage.musiciansfriend.com/Ba ... 44.product

LoL ... I've never quite gotten my head around the appeal of an artificially reliced new instrument. Its obvious there are many who both like and buy them, but I just don't get it.
I can appreciate a vintage instruments battle scars and the story's they tell, but this new crop of artificial old just seems deceitful and in most cases unnatural looking.

Hugh Holstein · Post by **Hugh Holstein** » 16 May 2011 7:21 am

That finish is way beyond what could be called reliced, it's down right abused! I just think it will be interesting to see how all these roughed up finishes hold value when those instruments get to a "vintage" status 20-30+ years down the road.
I bet they will have the original "crap" finish removed way before it starts to appreciate any value.

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 16 May 2011 8:49 am

John Allison wrote:I'm just saying that all these nice makeovers on 60-year-old Fender steels will be the subject of much wagging of heads and clucking of tongues in some not-too-distant future.

Disregarding "some not-too-distant future", I currently "wagg my head and cluck my tongue" when I see someone playing a badly abused vintage instrument because they think it looks "cool".

I can understand the "Willie Nelson Syndrome" __ he's stoned some of the time and it's his style.
His 6-string acoustical will probably be a museum piece one day.
But, would I invest in his guitar if I had the opportunity?
No __ fire wood can be purchased at a much, much more reasonable price.

But seriously John, the degree of abuse is an "all deciding factor".
I've refinished two '50's Fenders. One 1954 T-8 Stringmaster I have left as is because the few flaws cannot be seen from an audience's perspective.

John Allison · Post by **John Allison** » 16 May 2011 12:26 pm

I'm not saying that it's cooler because it's in rough shape. I'm saying that altering it to make it look pretty again takes away it's accumlation of age (whether that's yellowing, checked lacquer or a high degree of wear and tear)and it makes it less unique and cool...and to at least some folks, less valuable. Now, if an instrument is really old and in excellent condition, of course it's better, more valuable and still has all its "cool" intact.
In terms of the look of an instrument that one wants to play, either at home or at a gig, it's strictly personal preference. I'm just of the opinion that old instruments should be left old.

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 16 May 2011 2:54 pm

For those of you who like battle scars, here is a National New Yorker I picked up for $62...

Unfortunately it had a few too many battle scars for me, so I restored it...

Should I have left it the way it was? $:\$

John Billings · Post by **John Billings** » 16 May 2011 2:57 pm

You had no choice! Katrina victim?

Mark Eaton · Post by **Mark Eaton** » 16 May 2011 3:56 pm

This is one of these puzzling world-of-steel-guitar deals that has me sort of perpetually scratching my head:

Why is it okay to restore a Sho-Bud pedal steel to almost "like new" condition, but among quite a few people it is uncool to do the same to a Stringmaster?

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 17 May 2011 7:10 am

The T-8 Stringmaster I restored was purchased new in 1954. It was in good shape when I sold it.
It just broke my heart to see the abuse it had taken in the the hands of the 2nd owner.
I had so much love for that old Fender that I just couldn't stand to see her in that condition.
I can't bring myself to play an ugly guitar.

The quad that I restored had been painted blue, not once, but twice by the time it got into my hands. I had no choice but to give it a face lift.

PS: Alan, you did an outstandiang job on that old National. It sure looked like it was beyond resurrection.

Jim Waldrop · Post by **Jim Waldrop** » 17 May 2011 7:41 am

I had no idea when I posted my question about refinishing my stringmaster T8 that it would set off such a large discussion. As far as what I want to do I would rather have it restored to pristine condition. I have a Fender custom T8 that has been restored by John Bechtel that is beautiful. For some unknown reason it seems to play and sound better because it is pretty. However, I defered to those who know much more about this than I do and am leaving it as is. It sounds beautiful and that is after all what this is all about anyway. The fact that my wife weighed in sealed the matter so at least in my case the question is answered.

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 17 May 2011 9:11 am

I thought I might include some shots of the Stringmaster I restored for Basil Henriques a few years ago.

This is what it looked like...

...and this is what it looks like now.

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 17 May 2011 9:29 am

Just to throw in another one for good measure. The Fender Coronado has become a rare guitar. It's the only archtop that Fender made to compete with its Stratocasters and Telecasters, etc. It wasn't popular at the time, so there are few of them left.

I bought this one a few years ago...

It took a while to find all the missing pieces. But here's what it looks like now...

Again, before...

...and after...

Sometimes you don't have the choice of whether to restore or not. $:\$

The Steel Guitar Forum

Refinishing a Fender Stringmaster T8

refinishing a T8 stringmaster