|
Author
|
Topic: Sho-Bud: desirable models??
|
Drew Howard
Member From: Mason, MI, U.S.A.
|
posted 01 February 2003 02:02 PM
profile
I have not played but two Sho-Bud's, and someday might like to own one, considering their sound and heritage.Looking under the hood (skirt) of various Sho-Buds I've seen both the rack and barrel system of pulls (The Professional) and more conventional cranks (Super Pro). Based on mechanics, which Sho-Bud double-neck models are more desirable? Perhaps some of the pros like Ricky Davis can answer this one. thanks,
Drew Howard ------------------
www.newslinkassociates.com
www.drewhoward.com |
Drew Howard
Member From: Mason, MI, U.S.A.
|
posted 01 February 2003 02:29 PM
profile
I'll add that I did a search for Sho-Bud on the forum and have learned a ton (I think).(1)stay away from Super Pro's
(2)older, pre-Baldwin Sho-Bud's are more desirable
(3)rack and barrel pulls, though noisy, are fine Anyone care to add anything to the list? thanks,
Drew Howard ------------------
www.newslinkassociates.com
www.drewhoward.com |
Damir Besic
Member From: La Vergne,TN
|
posted 01 February 2003 03:37 PM
profile
I agree about Super Pro`s,no sound,the winners in my eyes are LDG and Pro II,but thats only my 2 cents. |
Herb Steiner
Member From: Cedar Valley, Travis County TX
|
posted 01 February 2003 04:46 PM
profile
My $.02...For tone and vibe, the pre-Professional era 'Buds are the best. But their mechanisms were either limited or problematic. Still, if you play very traditional steel and want to bring back 1964, this is the guitar to do it upon.  The Baldwin-era Crossover... to David Jackson, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but...uh... no. I had one, got the t-shirt and the cap. Thanks, but no thanks. The Professional was wonderfully constructed, and by that time (1969-70) Sho-Bud had gotten their act relatively together with the all-pull changer. The rack and barrel undercarriage worked well, but way too much extraneous metal to carry around. I bought, brand new, a 1970 with the "screw-thru-top" pickups that had tone to die for. Played her for 12 years, owned her for 25. Why did I ever get rid of her?!?! The Pro-# series came out around 73 or so. I believe the first models had aluminum changer fingers rather than the later zinc (pot metal) changer fingers which were prevalent around 1975. The early model Pro-II's were the culmination of the Sho-Bud mechanically and tonally. After that model, cost cutting decisions lowered the quality of the instrument. An early Pro-II in excellent condition with 4 or more levers would be the best Sho-Bud to own, IMHO. ------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association
|
Pete Burak
Member From: Portland, OR USA
|
posted 01 February 2003 05:29 PM
profile
Just curious, what is the issue with the Super Pro's? That's the triple raise/ double lower, basic all-pull changer, right?...(with the straight knee levers?)
Thanks for the info.
~pb |
ray qualls
Member From: Baxter Springs, Kansas
|
posted 01 February 2003 06:34 PM
profile
Pete, I'm with you as I'd like to know the issue about the SuperPro's. I don't remember reading anything bad about them. Are they supposed to be made inferior? Somebody please respond!------------------
Ray Qualls |
Ricky Davis
Moderator From: Spring, Texas USA
|
posted 02 February 2003 01:50 AM
profile
I absolutely Totally agree with everything Herb just said...and that is exactly what I believe.
I can't answer or give an opinion about a Super Pro...I'm sorry, cause I loose interest after the Pro II.
To me the best changer ever was the double raise/single lower...for sound and playability.....anything after that...there were too many "give this part a good idea; but forget about this part" thing.
I believe a rack and barrel system can play perfectly....as you will hear it when Ty Braddock's Cd comes out as I played a rack and barrel Professional...and it played and sounded great.
If set up properly...they can play and go and come back as good as anything...as I've done 3 single neck; two Professionals and one Pro II that were all rack and barrel and now play pefectly and I would take anyone of them in the studio.
My Pro II was the first year for the double raise/single lower nylon tuning system...and was around the '73 transition from Pro II's with barrels; to the nylon tuning system...double raise/single lower changer.
The Pro II's were basically a Professional body but a mechanism transition that took a couple of years and I've seen 3 major differences in mechanisms and they were all Pro II's....and I believe mine was the most awesome...with pullers on round crossbars w/a flat spot and set screw and the pullers had the round fittings that fit through a hole on the pullers and set screw to hold the rod in place and of course nylon tuners with double raise/single lower....well it was the easiest playing and best sounding ShoBud in one big beautiful package...if you ask me.
Ricky[This message was edited by Ricky Davis on 02 February 2003 at 01:55 AM.] |
Ed Naylor
Member From: portsmouth.ohio usa
|
posted 02 February 2003 06:53 AM
profile
I work on tons of Sho-Buds and all have good and bad points.Mechanically the Super is one of the best. It lacks tone and the "Fragile" die cast parts are a real problem. With the limitations on some of the mechanics I get the response that a Pro111 with alumin neck and a George L pickup can hold it's own with any thing out there.Weight is a majorfactor . The old "Fingertipppers" really had what I call a true"STEEL GUITAR SOUND".They must be fairly good and acceptable or I wouldn't get calls from happy owners that have owned one for 25-30 yearsEd Naylor Steel Guitar Works. |
Ed Naylor
Member From: portsmouth.ohio usa
|
posted 02 February 2003 07:35 AM
profile
Another point-I get calls asking "Should I sell my Sho-Bud".I say No unless you are losing your house or going to jail for back alimony payments.Right now they are selling well-but seriously-keep it as a family heirloom and someday "Little Billy" will be glad Aunt Minnie kept "Uncle Joe's" guitar that he loved and played so much.Save your pennies and buy a new guitar- but keep 'Redbird"How often have you regretted selling your 55 Chevy HT or the 77 Cordoba???? Ed Naylor Steel Guitar Works. |
Tommy M
Member From: Indiana
|
posted 02 February 2003 07:56 AM
profile
It has been my experience, that the Sho~Bud Pro II with the double raise single lower, is one dependable and great sounding guitar. I've owned two. I really don't think the wood or aluminum neck makes much difference in the tone. I've never dealt with the rack and barrel system, so, I can't speak one way or the other on that. Presently, I own a ProIII with double raise single lower and aluminum necks. I recently put a BL 910 in the C6th neck and am so pleased that I plan on putting one in the E9th neck. If I was in the market for a new/used pedal steel guitar, I would go with this model and have no fear. ------------------
Tommy Minniear
www.ntsga.com
|
Brian Herder
Member From: Philadelphia, Pa. USA
|
posted 02 February 2003 08:24 AM
profile
In the pictures I've seen of Ricky D's Sho Bud, the discs with the set screw that the pull rods go through, are not stock Sho Bud. The shaft of the disc is elongated, with a hole for the pull rod in the shaft, instead of the disc, the set screw then comes laterally, through the flat part of the disc, down the inside of the shaft...does that make sense? It's hard to describe, but looks like a very simple connection, without any "c" clips..easy to switch things around. Ricky, where'd you get those? They are really cool.
My Pro ll looks exactly like Ricky's (only with the stock discs), but the changer is all single raise/lower except for 4 double raise fingers. Has anyone ever seen another one like this? It has the nylon tuners.[This message was edited by Brian Herder on 02 February 2003 at 08:30 AM.] |
Ken Byng
Member From: Southampton, England
|
posted 02 February 2003 09:48 AM
profile
I have to totally agree with Ed Naylor's assertion that a Pro 111 with alloy necks and George L's in place "can hold it's own with any thing out there". I don't want to start a wood versus alluminium neck thing as it's been done to death on the forum, but it is a combination that certainly works for me.I would love to do an A-B comparison with my guitar and an MSA Millenium loaded with E66's. Even if I were to get other guitars, my Pro 111 stays with me. Just a final note - I was a UK sales rep in the mid to late 70's for ShoBud. The Super Pro's sounded OK to me - the fragile levers were unacceptable in my view. Many people who bought the Super Pro over here resorted to re-engineering much of the undercarriage with more substantial alluminium or stainless steel parts.
|
Ricky Davis
Moderator From: Spring, Texas USA
|
posted 02 February 2003 10:26 AM
profile
Yes Brian those are ShoBud parts. That is what was on the LDG's when they came out...and to me is the best fitting one can ask for on those pullers(bell cranks).
Brian; yours sounds like it was a single/single with originally barrel tuners on pullers(another transition) but since there were no racks...than you had to have extra pull holes on a couple of the changer fingers....so those were plopped in there and then all nylon tuning rods were put in to replace the barrrel/metal tuning rods.
"and yet another transition"........before my double raise/single lower.
Ricky[This message was edited by Ricky Davis on 02 February 2003 at 10:29 AM.] |
Ed Naylor
Member From: portsmouth.ohio usa
|
posted 02 February 2003 11:05 AM
profile
Sho-Bud used many variations in their changers.I have worked on hundreds of them and do not recall seeing a connector as Ricky described. I use a connector like that as a replacement part , but all I ever saw were Rack and Barrell, Brass 2 position and the later Hex shaft with 5 hole die cast fingers with the "Clip" There were Single R/L Double raise Single lower, also D/R D/L and Triple R and double lower.The later Maverick had changer fingers that were "Stock" top portions of the "Die cast" fingers. By changing back to the old Al 6061 finger the tone improved. Believe me I have seen every concievable set up. If it works- Be happy. Ed |
Ricky Davis
Moderator From: Spring, Texas USA
|
posted 02 February 2003 11:47 AM
profile
E-mail me and I'll send you the pics of this connector; and then you'll remember which one it is.
Ricky |
Frank Parish
Member From: Nashville,Tn. USA
|
posted 02 February 2003 12:07 PM
profile
I've got one of these early Pro-II's. Ricky said it was a 70 model. It had the rack and barrell system and played great but would not stay in tune for very long. I took it to Duane Marrs and he told me they never did stay in tune that well. This was the single raise/single lower changer fingers. I found some of the newer double raise/single lower fingers and they fit right in with no modification at all. The only difference is one has two holes for the raise and the other has only one. So after new rods still using the old bellcranks it now has nylon tuners and stays in tune. The changer fingers appear to be of the same metal and I can't tell the difference in the tone at all. This wasn't an expensive project and the guitar plays better than most of the guitars I've played and has that great old Sho-Bud tone. |
Brian Herder
Member From: Philadelphia, Pa. USA
|
posted 02 February 2003 12:29 PM
profile
Hey, sorry Ricky, I've just never seen those connectors before. The LDGs I have seen have had the same arrangement as mine underneath. Does anyone out there know where to get some of the connectors like Ricky's? They really look like an improvement over the ones with the C clips. |
Ed Naylor
Member From: portsmouth.ohio usa
|
posted 02 February 2003 01:13 PM
profile
Brian- I have them.Ed |
Ricky Davis
Moderator From: Spring, Texas USA
|
posted 02 February 2003 11:21 PM
profile
quote:
but all I ever saw were Rack and Barrel, Brass 2 position and the later Hex shaft with 5 hole die cast fingers with the "Clip"
Gosh Ed; than you've only seen half of what ShoBud put out than.......ha... ...and I have seen 4 different ways to attach a rod to the pullers(other than racks)......and all made by Shobud through the years.
Ed I think your great and have done a great service....but tell me where you got those connectors that you have that are replacement parts like mine were??
Have fun.
Ricky |
Leon Roberts
Member From: Tallahassee,FL USA
|
posted 03 February 2003 05:56 AM
profile
I've played the same early 70's Pro-III Sho-Bud for 25 years, give or take a couple. I solved the changer problems by using the new type Sho-Bud changers and replacing the zinc upper parts with aluminum. Some folks think the sound of the Professionals came from the aluminum uppers and the big body.
 To insure that all my multiple pulls start and terminate at the same time, I machined my pulling fingers from aluminum with 14 holes.
I think the older Sho-Buds are the most desirable. However, if one is going to be your front line guitar, it will need a lot of TLC like the one below
Leon |
Ed Naylor
Member From: portsmouth.ohio usa
|
posted 03 February 2003 06:01 AM
profile
Ricky- Coca -Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken don't give away their secrets. Ed |
Neil Lang
Member From: Albert Lea, Minnesota, USA
|
posted 03 February 2003 09:47 AM
profile
I am playing my Super-Pro almost exclusively at this time out on the job. I also own a Pro II that I brought back to life about 5 years ago. They are both from roughly the same era, and have pretty much the same mechanics. They both play great & stay in tune. Played through my Nash,1000 they sound very close to the same. I do notice that the pedal stroke on the Pro II is a bit longer, just a tad. The Super Pro has had less play and is therefore "tighter" and less noise.
For what its worth?
Neil |
Bill Fall
Member From: Boston, MA, USA
|
posted 03 February 2003 10:15 AM
profile
I'm with you, Neil. I've had a wood-neck Super Pro for 20 years & love it - well made, highly functional mechanical design & and nice sound. The only thing I'll concede to its critics is that the inferior metal of the changers is more prone to wear. |
Ricky Davis
Moderator From: Spring, Texas USA
|
posted 03 February 2003 10:30 AM
profile
quote:
Ricky- Coca -Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken don't give away their secrets. Ed
ha ...I like that Ed...that's a perfect answer pal..and I'll respect your secret..
Ricky |
Jerry Hayes
Member From: Virginia Beach, Va.
|
posted 03 February 2003 12:01 PM
profile
Probably the best sounding guitar I've ever had was a single 12 ShoBud I bought in 1977. It was one of those single wide blue stained maple all wood guitars and had the wide pedals. The single tens and D-10's at that time had the narrow pedals and a different changer. A year or so after I got it, I sawed off the sides of the pedals with a hacksaw and made them into the narrow style. My 'bud was the double raise, single lower model. I did have some problems with getting an even tone with it though. I don't know whether or not it was with having the extra two strings or not. I was playing a Randall Commander II amp at the time and when I'd tweak it where the high strings sounded good, the bass strings would be very muddy and when I made them sound good, the top strings would be to tinny & shrill. A friend suggested a pick up change and said he'd seen a ShoBud with Emmons pickups in it before. I ordered an Emmons single coil 12 string pick up and installed it in the ShoBud. I had to trim off the bottom plate so It'd fit into the hole but it was well worth the trouble. When I strung it up and tuned it up the whole problem was solved. It was equal with great tone all the way across the board. I played that guitar for about 12 years before I sold it after I bought my BMI, I wish I had it back today!! The guy I sold it to in '89 or '90 is still playing it and loving it. ------------------
Livin' in the Past and the Future with a 12 string Mooney Universal tuning. [This message was edited by Jerry Hayes on 03 February 2003 at 12:06 PM.]
|
Chuck McGill
Member From: Jackson, Tn
|
posted 03 February 2003 03:23 PM
profile
I've played the same Super Pro since 1978 and
had no trouble and what a tone this guitar
has. I think all guitars are not the same and
there are some better than others no matter
what name is on the skirt. |
RB Jones
Member From: Burlingame, California, USA
|
posted 03 February 2003 04:19 PM
profile
I know it's a student model, but what do you guys think of the Maverick, especially the 50's ones with birds-eye maple? ARe they adequate for what they were designed for?RB |
Joey Ace
Sysop From: Southern Ontario, Canada
|
posted 03 February 2003 04:51 PM
profile
From the SGF Entry Page: quote:
"For many years, most of the world's steel guitarists were isolated from each other. Information about the instrument was hard to find. The Internet has changed all that. Today steel guitarists of all skill levels share their knowledge with many other players every day."
|
Larry Harlan
Member From: Thomas, OK, USA
|
posted 04 February 2003 05:47 AM
profile
To Leon Roberts and all others. The middle picture on your post with the light blue background showing the bellcranks, particularly the one on the right is exactly what I did for my 67 Fingertip. I milled a 4-hole, MSA-type bellcrank with set screw into the groove of the crossrod and used the brass rod ferell with set screw. I believe it now has the best action it's ever had and is the most mechanically dependable it's ever been.
Best regards, Larry Harlan
67 D-10 Sho-Bud fingertip, 9x4[This message was edited by Larry Harlan on 04 February 2003 at 05:49 AM.] |
Ed Naylor
Member From: portsmouth.ohio usa
|
posted 04 February 2003 06:09 AM
profile
The old "Maverick" was a superb guitar.Removing the "Coat hangers" and adding R/L fingers on strings 2-4-8 and a more stable bell crank system they make a wonderful guitar. I have rebuilt and sold kits for tons of them. They were stable, looked good and sounded good. Remember they are merely a "Narrow" version of the Pro 1. In the past I many times have widened the body and with the pad they are great. Ed Naylor Steel Guitar Works |
David Doggett
Member From: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
|
posted 04 February 2003 11:02 AM
profile
RB, around 1973 or 4 I traded a metal-body round-neck Dobro even to Bobbye Seymour for a slightly used early model Maverick. I took it down to Sho-Bud and they replaced the entire undercarriage and added a 2nd knee lever. And while I watched them do that, they served me some venison stew from one of Shot's hunting trips. Talk about service.The guitar was painted with baby blue enamel. That was a cool '60s color, but it was the '70s and I wanted wood. So I stripped it and stained the body like cherry wood and left the neck natural, then put a bunch of coats of laquer on it. It was gorgeous. It was good maple, but not birdseye, or at least very few birdseyes. When I got it out recently to start playing again, some of the tuners were shot, and the old tuner head didn't have rollers, just string grooves cut in a solid head. So I bought a Pro type head complete with new rollers and installed it. The new head didn't sound as good as the old one. It had a hollow or ringing sound, possibly the overtones coming through from the strings behind the nut, or possibly because the nut area was cut out underneath to fit over the end of the neck. This guitar plays a lot of basic stuff, has good action, and sounds pretty good, but not as good as a Pro model, or my new Fessy S12U, not to mention my S12 Emmons P/P. However, the Maverick is very compact and light. For beginners, or amateur old timers who just want the basics in a light, simple instrument, an old Maverick is not bad. ------------------
Student of the Steel, and cheap instrument connoisseur: customized 1970 Sho-Bud Maverick, Fessy S12U, Emmons S12 E9 P/P, Nashville 400, Fender Squire, Peavey Transtube Supreme into JBL 15", 1968 Gibson J50, '60s Kay arch-top, 7-string Raybro, customized Korean Regal square-neck, roundneck Dobro 90C, 1938 Conn Chu Berry tenor sax, '50s Berg mouthpiece, Hamilton upright piano. You make it, I'll play it (more or less)
|
Bruce Derr
Member From: Lee, New Hampshire, USA
|
posted 05 February 2003 12:02 PM
profile
I paid my rent for two years playing full time on an old Maverick back in the '70s. It was a great steel. It had the grooved nut, no rollers. It had 4 knee levers I hacked together myself. (Three of them actually worked pretty well.) I loved those lawn-furniture legs. I could set the thing up in two minutes. It was light to carry, too. I should have kept it as a spare when I got my Kline, but I didn't (money was tight).My first steel was a Sho Bud S-10 rack-n-barrel 6+2 that I bought new in 1973. I would like to have a Sho Bud again, but I play a 12 now and S-12s don't seem very common. |
Chris Forbes
Member From: Beltsville, MD, USA
|
posted 05 February 2003 12:19 PM
profile
I should think it's obvious that my two Sho-Buds are most certainly the most desirable!! And no, you can't have them! I'm too greedy. Redd Volkaert offered to buy one when he saw it sitting in the studio we were recording in. I told him only if he paid me $10,000 (I told you I was greedy!!). |
RB Jones
Member From: Burlingame, California, USA
|
posted 10 February 2003 04:09 PM
profile
Ed, Bruce, David,
Thanks for the info on the Maverick. |
Kenny Foy
Member From: Lynnville, KY, USA
|
posted 10 February 2003 07:47 PM
profile
I have a Maverick, birdeye,rounded front with curved levers with 4246 stamped in the frame.It does have coat hangers on the end ofthe rods,but not triple trees. On the other it has what you call the barrels. W
here does this one fit in the equation? Could you add levers to it. This guitar stayed in tune and just never needed tuning. And it souned very good. |
Kenny Foy
Member From: Lynnville, KY, USA
|
posted 14 February 2003 05:53 PM
profile
h[This message was edited by Kenny Foy on 14 February 2003 at 05:57 PM.] |
RB Jones
Member From: Burlingame, California, USA
|
posted 14 February 2003 09:16 PM
profile
Kenny,
Ed Naylor, who left a post above, knows how to add levers to Mavericks.RB |
The Steel Guitar Forum
