FENDER QUAD

Rick Alexander · Post by **Rick Alexander** » 18 Oct 2006 5:55 am

This bad boy just arrived yesterday.
I cleaned it up and put new strings on (an all day job)

SN# 0050
It sounds killer, very bright, lots of sustain, and the chimes really ring out with the 26" scale.

More pics here.[This message was edited by Rick Alexander on 18 October 2006 at 06:57 AM.]

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 18 Oct 2006 7:25 am

Rick,
Did you arm wrestle Loni Specter for this one?

PS: The serial number on my quad is: 0002!

Larry Phleger · Post by **Larry Phleger** » 18 Oct 2006 7:25 am

What a great looking guitar and a 26” scale to boot! It sure looks clean for a 53. Congrats! Bet she sounds as great as she liiks.

Jim Burden · Post by **Jim Burden** » 18 Oct 2006 7:29 am

Rick,she's a beaut! I don't know where you find such beautiful guitars. Jim Burden Bullet Bars

Andy Sandoval · Post by **Andy Sandoval** » 18 Oct 2006 7:31 am

That's a sweet lookin guitar there Rick. I love that 26" scale too.

Steinar Gregertsen · Post by **Steinar Gregertsen** » 18 Oct 2006 7:44 am

First the National "organ" and now this.... Congrats Rick, it's a beauty!

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 18 Oct 2006 7:45 am

That's gorgeous, Rick, but I'm almost afraid to ask what it weighs in its case....

I did say 'almost'!

It's got a good home now, though.

RR

Keith Cordell · Post by **Keith Cordell** » 18 Oct 2006 8:02 am

I hope whatever building you store this stuff in never burns, it'll take out most of the remaining steel guitars left on the planet in one quick flash.

Kevin Brown · Post by **Kevin Brown** » 18 Oct 2006 8:15 am

Rick, Im in the wrong job, could you train me up for whatever it is you do for a living, still whacking seven bells out of my oahu and dynamic ! two sets of six enough to keep me busy, congrats on new baby

George Keoki Lake · Post by **George Keoki Lake** » 18 Oct 2006 8:16 am

Beautiful find, Rick. Just wondering about the legs...seems I recall they were mounted at an angle instead of straight down..?

Loni Specter · Post by **Loni Specter** » 18 Oct 2006 8:16 am

I thought I had the deal, but Rick out drew me fair and square. The seller was a man of his word and honored Rick's offer as he had agreed to it before my higher offer.
Congrats Rick!
All was not lost though I was dissapointed.
The seller offered me a 26" triple Stringmaster as a "booby prize", so I am waiting for that to show up any day. It's not in as great condition as that quad, but the price was fair.
I couldn't have lifted the quad anyway.

C. Brattain · Post by **C. Brattain** » 18 Oct 2006 8:24 am

Rick, just ship that over here so I can check it out for a year or two. I will pay shiping.

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 18 Oct 2006 9:49 am

So dude, you buying up ALL the available stock??

Very sweet unit.
You will soon need an bigger house.

Rick Alexander · Post by **Rick Alexander** » 18 Oct 2006 10:27 am

Erv, you got the second one ever made?? Too cool!

Larry, it's surprisingly clean. Somebody must have treated it with the love and respect it deserves.

Jim, I find them mostly right here on the forum and on eBay. I have found a few in music stores & pawn shops, but mostly just by trolling the net.

Andy, you oughta know buddy. Thanks for the info in your email a couple of days ago.

Thanks Steinar!

Roger, I'm guessing about 65 - 70 lbs. I would carry it to the bathroom scale, but my low back is messed up enough already. This will be another "studio only" steel. My Remington T8 that I take to shows is heavy enough!

Thanks Keith, I always keep my hose ready in case of emergency . .

Kevin, sure no problem. I bet you'd make a dandy male escort!

George, the earliest models had the legs almost straight down. I had thought this would be a stability problem, but it's really not. I have it at standing height wedged between the TV and PA speaker.

Loni, sorry about that. I felt bad when I saw your post saying you wanted it. As far as lifting it goes, there was a time when I could have lifted it no problem. But those days are gone. That 4th neck makes it a lot heavier than a triple neck.

Chuck, that's very kind of you.

David, I'm trying. Steels have to be a better investment than real estate - no taxes, minimal upkeep etc etc. Not that I'd ever sell these treasures. I do play them a lot, live and in the studio - and sometimes I just sit here and look at them, and marvel at their beauty.
Any time you guys would like to come and check them out just email for directions.
Yes a bigger house would be good, or just a gigantic room added on - app. 300' by 100' . .

Ron Brennan · Post by **Ron Brennan** » 18 Oct 2006 10:29 am

Rick,

Congratulations on another great find!!!

Hmmmm, by my reckoning, you are ¾ of the way to opening your own “Fender” company. That’s a great inventory of history and fine instrument quality you have there.

And it’s good to know they have a good caretaker to boot.

Better get some good “Security” for these babies, I hear tell there’s a bunch of “Steelers of the Caribbean” setting sail to pillage your bounty and treasure down there in FLL.

BTW: When you can, please change my e-mail address, it’s posted herein SGF.

“Steel Guitar Dreams & Stringmaster Wishes” to ya!!! TX

Rgds,

Ron

------------------
JCFSGC member 2005 "Be of Good Cheer"
"55" Stringmaster D8,
"67" Telecaster,
"60"Fender Concert Amp 4-10's

Ron Whitfield · Post by **Ron Whitfield** » 18 Oct 2006 12:08 pm

Hard to tell from the pix, but if it has the chromed PU covers, and it does have the straight legs, it's a very early Stringer. Some even call those, prototypes.
Too be found and had in this condition (more than 50 years later) is almost unheard of.
Quads just naturally took a beating due to their size and weight.

Yet another, way to go, Rick![This message was edited by Ron Whitfield on 18 October 2006 at 01:09 PM.]

Rick Alexander · Post by **Rick Alexander** » 18 Oct 2006 12:47 pm

Ron, we have a state-of-the-art-security system.
You can see it here.
Got your new email - thanks buddy!

Ron W., it's a 53 - the first year of Stringmasters, and the SN is 0050.
I think that means it was the 50th Stringmaster made. It does have chromed pickup covers, and it has the lollipop tuners like the Custom & Dual Pro, and the bridge covers are screwed to the body with 2 screws.
Also there are no blend controls.
So I suppose you could call it a prototype, Fender changed a few things the very next year.
Yeah, this one is in really nice condition.[This message was edited by Rick Alexander on 25 October 2006 at 06:54 PM.]

Edward Meisse · Post by **Edward Meisse** » 18 Oct 2006 1:08 pm

If I were you, I'd add a baton and a shotgun. You can never be too careful

!

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 18 Oct 2006 1:42 pm

Rick,
Your quad is not a prototype. The early Stringmasters were all made that way.

Even though my quad has the serial number #0002, it is a 1955 model. I found that date under a tuning pan.

I also have a T-8 that I bought in 1954 and that has the same setup as to pickups, bridge covers, lack of blend control, etc.

Ron Brennan · Post by **Ron Brennan** » 18 Oct 2006 3:05 pm

Rick,

Ha, Ha,......it's not the Pit Bulls I would be worried about..It's the guy standing behind them!!!!

Like it's the Father of the Farmer's daughter protecting the family honour!!!

OK then Mateys, more steeling Steelers for the ships please... A steelguitar for everyman on board the HMS "Black Bar"..Arrrgghhhh!!! TX

Rgds,

Ron

------------------
JCFSGC member 2005 "Be of Good Cheer"
"55" Stringmaster D8,
"67" Telecaster,
"60"Fender Concert Amp 4-10's

Rick Alexander · Post by **Rick Alexander** » 18 Oct 2006 3:08 pm

Erv, you're right - prototype is not entirely accurate. But 53 was the first year for Stringmasters. This Quad is a 53 and it has SN# 0050.
I wonder why your 55 has a lower SN. Could one of your 0s be an 8?

So then, 56 was the year they added the blend control and flip-up bridge covers. I have a 56 T8 like that, thanks to Roger. It has a blade switch, 56 must have been the first year for that too.

Edward & Ron,

[This message was edited by Rick Alexander on 18 October 2006 at 04:10 PM.]

Nick Reed · Post by **Nick Reed** » 19 Oct 2006 5:54 am

Also notice that the early model SM's had striaght leg sockets rather than angled.

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 19 Oct 2006 6:24 am

Rick,
If you have ever read any information about Leo Fender's operation, you would understand the serial number situation. I understand that parts were dumped into bins, new ones on top of old ones. Chances are, the bin with the serial number plates got down to the bottom and the serial number #0002 was put onto my guitar in 1955.

That is why the only accurate way to date a Fender is to look under the tuner pan. BTW, the date you show on your guitar looks awfully bright. Did you go over it with a marking pen? There should also be some initials there re the fellow who assembled it. Did you locate anything like that? [This message was edited by Erv Niehaus on 19 October 2006 at 07:26 AM.]

Jody Carver · Post by **Jody Carver** » 19 Oct 2006 10:35 am

I beg to differ with your comments Erv, I had an original quad which was in 53 and I see no sign of any re-marking the date on Rick's steel. In 53, there were EXACTLY 65 Quads manufactured, as as far as the serial number, there was a rule of thumb that those serial number plates were exact and not as in later years. Boggs had the first Quad and it was Walnut. End Of STORY. PS My Quad had NO assembly mans's initials under the pan.
Thats the Rest Of The STORY.If you speak without knowing the facts, DONT.!!!!!!![This message was edited by Jody Carver on 19 October 2006 at 11:39 AM.]

George Keoki Lake · Post by **George Keoki Lake** » 19 Oct 2006 11:19 am

Hi Jody....Strange...when I met Noel he made a proposition to swap his BLACK Stringmaster T-4 with my new blonde Custom T-3 plus cash. The point being, he told me his guitar had the serial #0001 ... (?) I should have stretched my finances at the time and taken him up on the deal...but that's all 'water under the bridge' now. Could there have been two #0001 (a blonde and also a black model ?) Seems rather doubtful to me.