Emmons P/P Reissue

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 30 Aug 2003 3:34 am

If these guitars sound so much better than the current crop of instruments, what is to keep a manufacturer from making a NEW push pull? Is it cost issues, lack of demand, or lack of perceived tonal advantages? With some new steels priced at over $5000, it seems as though the market would bear the cost - it can't cost THAT much more to make a P/P than an all-pull guitar. Why aren't Carter, Fessenden, GFI, and even Emmons making P/P guitars? Is it a patent issue?

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 30 Aug 2003 6:52 am

Yes, they would cost more to make than some (all-pull) steels. They've got a few more parts, and the setup-time is longer. (The setup-time issue affects the initial build, and the amateur player... most pro's don't change their setup every month

) There also must be a lack of perceived tonal advantage because most pro's simply don't prefer them anymore. Add to that the fact that they aren't as "adjustable" or as "user friendly" as modern guitars, and the fact that their "sound" isn't in vogue (as much as it used to be), and that about sums it up. Oh yes, the exact design is patented, and couldn't be used without compensation.

They're kinda like a '57 Chevy. They were innovative, stylish, and performed well for their time. But most people today (Chevy owners and pedal steel players) simply want a little more.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 30 Aug 2003 9:29 am

If you want to play a steel that sounds like an old PP Emmons you can easily buy a used one. I bought an old Emmons so I could find out what all the fuss was about.. I payed market rate for it and it was cheaper than a new steel. I also play a Franklin which sounds very different but just as good.

Bob[This message was edited by Bob Hoffnar on 30 August 2003 at 10:40 PM.]

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 30 Aug 2003 9:02 pm

I also think there is something about playing a vintage instrument if you want that particular vintage sound. I also play a Rickenbacher Bakelite or a 57 Stringmaster for about half my gigs these days.

Bob

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 31 Aug 2003 4:54 am

I ditto Donny Hinson on this. While tone is the number one criteria on any musical instrument, it is NOT the only criteria. There are distinct disadvantages to the P/P. I also believe that the added cost of building a P/P vs an all pull is NOT the reason they are a thing of the past.

The all pull has a number of advantages for both the manufacturer and the player. Here are some of the disadvantages of a P/P:

1. It is a single raise single lower system, no matter how you cut the ice.

2. Making changes can be a nightmare, particularly when it comes to lowers.

3. Because the major stop is at the changer; and some means MUST be provided to stop pedals and knee levers in addition; (to stop binding and possibly breakage), timing of pulls can be very tricky and often causes problems.

5. Because the bellcranks have only one hole, adjusting wide and narrow travel of multiple pulls on the same pedal or lever must have some kind of spring to account for this. This causes spongy pedal feel as noticed by a number of players. This was my second major beef with the P/P from day one.

6. Whenever there is a string that is raised AND lowered, ALL lower travel MUST be "slacked" in the corresponding raise rod, lest the raise prevent the lower from coming up to pitch. This was and IS my major pet peave with P/P's. In other words, with modern copedents, it is just tooooo cumbersome to deal with. And in some copedents impossible.

7. Simplified "splitting" is not possible.

The P/P's sound is unique and is unequalled IMO. But the above simply outweighs this advantage. I feel in my heart, most builders and many players must agree more or less, since ONLY one builder (to my knowledge) still builds a P/P.

carl

Winnie Winston · Post by **Winnie Winston** » 31 Aug 2003 7:14 pm

We are looking at two different things:
PUSH/PULL= Emmons
or
PUSH/PULL= other brands (Marlen, Miller, etc.)

The guitar I built and used for years was a push-pull-- I had only a single lower possible, but I had a triple raise on any string.
Sure it had some "slack" on raises that had a lower, but it played well, had the *best* knee levers I've ever felt, and stayed in tune mqagnificently. BUT... it was NOT an Emmons changer but a single finger. It is illustrated in my book "Pedal Steel" in the diagrams explaining how changers work.

I have not heard anyone talk about the double-ended changer than Zane Beck developed. It is, essentially, a single finger on each end-- one for raises, one for lowers. It gets rid of the "slack" problem. The feel is absolutely wonderful and direct.
If I were to ever build another, that's the direction I'd go. It is a great idea.

JW

Pat Burns · Post by **Pat Burns** » 1 Sep 2003 8:12 am

..Winnie, can you talk more about the double-ended changer? I haven't heard of it before...how is the guitar set up, how does it work?..

C Dixon · Post by **C Dixon** » 1 Sep 2003 8:44 am

Back in the 70's there was a PSG called "Bosan". It raised on the right end and lowered on the left end of the guitar. It was made in Richmond, Va. I had the pleasure of visiting the builder who sadly has passed on and I have forgotten his name.

Don Fulmer played one of these on the stage at the ISGC. As I recall, you still tuned the guitar at the left end with regular tuning keys. But the raises and lowers were tuned at the right end plate (raises) and left end plate (lowers).

The tuning keys rode up and down as lowers were executed as I remember.

It was a very nice guitar and very well built. Since that time the subject of "raising at one end and lowering at the other end" surfaces from time to time. Not sure if it will ever be a viable system. But interesting to ponder non the less.

carl

ebb · Post by **ebb** » 1 Sep 2003 9:12 am

my whitney raises on the bridge and lowers on the nut. it works wonderfully

John Fabian · Post by **John Fabian** » 1 Sep 2003 9:33 am

The statement made by Donny Hinson regarding the Emmons pushpull patent is NOT true.

Oh yes, the exact design is patented, and couldn't be used without compensation.

According to patents.com:

"In the United States, the term of a utility patent depends on when the patent application was filed. If the patent issued from an application filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term is the later of (1) 17 years from the date of issuance of the patent, or (2) 20 years from the first U.S. filing date for the patent. If the patent issued from an application filed on or after June 8, 1995, then the term is 20 years from the first U.S. filing date for the patent."

The Lashley patent for the pushpull guitars was issued in 1969. That means it expired in 1986 (assuming the necessary fees were paid on time during the life of the patent) or earlier. Therefor, anyone can duplicate these guitars "'til the cows come home" (except for the registered logos) without paying any compensation if they wanted to do that.

John Fabian

[This message was edited by John Fabian on 01 September 2003 at 11:37 AM.]

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 1 Sep 2003 12:42 pm

I believe John Fabian is correct. This was my observation also.