Tom Bradshaw did a great restoration job. He even resisted the temptation to add his trademark red velvet to the underside. He did a complete rebuild, fathomed the quirks of the machinery, and then explained it to me until I "got it". Thanks, Tom!!
I had earlier reported that the pickup had 7 pole pieces instead of 8. This is not true - it has 8 - but the first string has half of the volume of the others. I'm treating it as a 7 string.
I got it all tuned up now, and it sounds pretty nice. It sure is a gas to play. The wider string spacing allows slants on adjacent strings, which is not possible on modern pedal steels. That makes up for the lack of knee levers somewhat.
Here's the copedent: [tab]
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
(G)
E F
C D B
A B B
G F#
E Eb
C C#
A [/tab]
The changer photo shows two first string changes which I've since removed since the first string doesn't really work anyway.
Hey b0b, I have a non-pedal S-8 Rick ("Jerry Bryd Deluxe" model).... looks very similar but the front is tweed grill cloth (to match the Rick amp). Other difference is mine has 3 legs instead of 4. However my pickup sounds just like yours, thin and not very loud. I did experiment with different gauges of strings on the quietest strings, and that seemed to help some. I have a C6th on mine.... have fun!!!
Dave Wren
'25 Williams U12, 7X7; '96 Carter U12, 7X7; '70 MSA D10, 8X5; 1936 7 string National; Line 6 HX Stomp; P2P "Bad Dog amp/ PF 350 12"; Quilter TT-15/TB202; Quilter "Steelaire"; DV Mark "GH 250"with 15" 1501 BW; Boss "Katana" 100 Head w/Line 6 Cab; Telonics VP; 1951 Fender Dual Professional; '76 Webb 6-14 E amp/ Telonics 15" speaker; 2026 Milkman "Half and Half" amp.
Thanks Alan you iz a good friend. BUT, I've sent a message every day from the start of the auction asking the seller the LENGTH of the rods to the pedals, NO REPLY, so I think I'll let this one get away !
Basil, did Rickenbacker make them with different heights? Mine sits really low. You can't make it taller with longer rods because the pedal bar would have to be wider.
I wonder why the pedal rods are short. Same thing with mine,and I'm only 5'8" and I still have trouble getting under the guitar. Every one I have seen or talked to that have owned them all say the pedal rods are short. Somene must know the answer to this question? But I think I'm going to change mine to non-pedal. Inquiring Minds Must Know!
-b0b- It's not that the rods are short, there rumours of an extra short one made or chopped down for a younger person (PC For child)
If this is the rumoured one it would be nigh on impossible to return it to the proper height.
As you've said yourself, because of the angle on the front legs. Imagine if the pedalboard had been shortened to accommodate shortened legs. A daunting task to fix.
The seller's reluctance to reply leads me to believe that this guitar MAY be the rumoured one.
FWIW..
Basil,
I also have e-mailed the seller several times asking questions and have received no reply either and do not intend to purse it any further.
These sure look cool though.
Most Ricky pickups on the earlier lap steels are pretty strong, I wonder if the magnets may need some help on these or did Tom B already take care of that?
I've only seen a front B&W picture of that before.
The changer looks like the old multi harps???
They are low because steel guitar players were shorter in the 50's
Oh yes, That English Hawiian album I sent you the cover pic... I'm sending it to John Sala and he'll make a CD. I'll send you a copy when I get it back.
Bob,
Does that guitar stay in tune and return to pitch well after use of the pedals?
Also are the pedals close enough to work two at a time with ease?
Andy
Andy De Paule wrote:Bob,
Does that guitar stay in tune and return to pitch well after use of the pedals?
Also are the pedals close enough to work two at a time with ease?
Andy
1) Seems to stay in tune well, so far. There are lock nuts for the pedal tuning screws that I haven't locked down yet, so the pedal tuning is drifting a bit.
2) No problem pushing two adjacent pedals. I'm not sure how well it would do the E9th "squeeze", though. It's pretty primitive.
Hi James,
Thanks for that link to the Rickenbacker.
My computer or browser is having some problem with the forum pages.
Sometimes they open with pictures overlapped or links that will not work, like today.
Guess that other fellow just assumed I was too dumb to see the link.
I tried to search on ebay, but it did not show that Rickenbacker, just some other ones.
Bas,
A good friend of mine e-mailed the guy about the "Ric" on E-Bay awhile back. He asked if the legs screwed tight into the sockets and the guys reply was that he did not know because he didn't know how to put it together. I think that if you can't screw the legs in the sockets to check them something is up.
This thing has been on E-Bay for a long time now, off and on.
b0b,
Just a thought about the tuning screws. They make hex head screws with a long head. I think you could put stiff springs between the screw head and the changer to hold tension to keep it in tune. You could then use a George L wrench for tuning and not have to mess with the lock nuts.
Seems like I've seen the guitar someplace before?
Colby
I asume this guitar of b0b's uses cables. On the twin, the pedals work on both necks and I understood there was a changeover thing. Anyone know the mechanics of it? I never found a patent drawing.
bob grossman wrote:I asume this guitar of b0b's uses cables. On the twin, the pedals work on both necks and I understood there was a changeover thing. Anyone know the mechanics of it? I never found a patent drawing.
No cables - just one rod connects each pedal's crossbar to its tuning bar.
