Comparison of Sho-Bud Pro III to other Sho-Buds

Jim Means · Post by **Jim Means** » 2 Aug 2009 6:28 pm

I would like to see a comparison and discussion of pros and cons of the Sho-Bud Pro III to other Sho-Buds both in sound and mechanics. James Morehead, Rickie Davis, John Coop and other Sho-Bud aficionados, I would appreciate your opinions.

Jim in Missouri

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 2 Aug 2009 8:46 pm

I have a Pro III, so I'll start the ball rolling with some thoughts on it. I play Zum and MSA Millennium universals, but I wanted one D10. When I was first starting out on pedal steel in the '70s, it was the top-of-the-line Sho-Bud. So I sort of wanted that model for nostalgia reasons. Bobbe Seymour once wrote that he liked Pro IIIs, because they were the first ones with modern mechanics (bell cranks with multiple holes, and a 3 raise/two lower changer). That sounded good to me. Also, I liked the aluminum necks. The Sho-Bud literature of the day said that was for improved sustain. I've never done side-by-side comparisons with wood necks, so that could be just sales hype. But Bigsbys had aluminum necks, and most modern pedal steels do, and I like the look. I also liked the slots to hold the ball ends while changing strings.

At the time I was not aware of the pot metal (zinc alloy?) issue. This causes wear problems, mostly the holes where the pedal rods attach to the cross-shaft cranks. But mine had little wear, and I don't play it much. So I'm not worried about that. they also have a reputation for breaking the knee levers.

The most serious complaint is that the the pot metal in the changer (the fingers?) causes inferior tone. I have TrueTone pickups in the Pro III, Zum and MSA Milly, so I can make a good comparison. Yes, the Zum and MSA sound slightly better, with a little more sustain. But I honestly would never notice the slight difference without a very careful side-by-side comparison. So to me, the Pro III has very acceptable tone, and no listener would ever know the difference. It's the sort of thing a player feels in a careful comparison, but that is automatically compensated with volume pedal technique and slight amp setting tweaks. By comparison, I have an '80s Emmons push/pull, also with TrueTone pickup; and it has a dramatically different feel and tone that I think a listener could hear under the right circumstances (live, solo, with no amp adjustments). The Pro III is much closer to the Zum and MSA (I would say negligible difference) than they are to the p/p.

If you are a tone fanatic, I've heard the Coop changers completely fix that supposed problem.

Bottom line, the Pro III plays and sounds like other modern pedal steels (starting in the '70s). And of course they look gorgeous.

The only Sho-Bud I would trade my Pro III for would be an early '70s Pro II with the 2-hole bell cranks. People very familiar with all the Sho-Buds (like Ricky Davis) say those have the best tone of all. And their two raise, one lower changer would handle all the changes I would want on a D10 I keep around just for nostalgia reasons.

Ken Byng · Post by **Ken Byng** » 3 Aug 2009 2:27 am

I have a Pro 111 Custom 8x6, in addition to a Pro 11 D12 and an Emmons push pull. I have also owned a ShoBud LDG. The Pro 111 has been my main guitar for 35 years, and has many miles on the clock. I know that some forumites on here dismiss the Pro 111 because the changer roller block is mounted directly to the body, and cite that for the guitar not having the classic ShoBud tone. I love the tone of my Pro 111 - it has great natural sustain and real clarity right across and up and down the fretboard. The pedal action is as smooth as butter.

As would be the case with any guitar that has been well used for 35 years, it has had some wear. I have replaced some of the under carriage with Coop parts (it is the teardrop lever model) and have polished grooves out of the rollers.

New lightweight Hatton split cases have lightened the load, and I can say that my Pro 111 will stay with me until I turn my toes up.

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 3 Aug 2009 7:25 am

I started on pedal steel with a Sho~Bud fingertip model.
I traded that off for a Pro III after a few years.
The Pro III was the only pedal steel in the store and after being used to the tuning problems with the fingertip, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I started playing the Pro III.

Cliff Kane · Post by **Cliff Kane** » 3 Aug 2009 9:24 am

Cool guitars. I would own one because they're unique for the Sho-Bud line and a good one probably sounds great. I had an LDG with the "pot metal" parts and the 3-up-2-down changer. It sounded great, it was easy to adjust and played really easy, and the changer was a handy thing to have. I had one bell crank break out of the five years that I had it. I think if you get a Sho-Bud with those parts and you like the guitar you might want to have a couple of spares (you can get them made out of aluminum). I have had parts break on other good name brand guitars, so I don't think this is a kiss-of-death if you like a guitar. I think the Pro III had different types of mechanics through its history, so an earlier guitar will have the pre-Super Pro parts and may sound different that the later model. Many people will make a blanket condemnation of the pot metal Buds, and sure they don't sound like other Buds (I like the sound of the Sho-Bud Permanent best of all), but some of them are really nice guitars and a lot of great music has been made with the later Sho-Buds.

Henry Matthews · Post by **Henry Matthews** » 3 Aug 2009 10:42 am

I have a Pro II/ ProIII/ Super Pro. No, that's not three different guitars, only one. My guitar says Pro II on the front, has aluminum necks like a Pro III and the shorter body of the Super Pro but still had the 3/4 inch drop between the two necks. It came from the factory this way and has never been altered in any way. I love the sound of the guitar and plays very easy and stays in tune but it does have the sustain problem and I have to really change my right foot technique when I play this guitar. I have two other guitars, a Rains D-10 and a 1970's Emmons D-10 P/P. I would have to say that the Rains is my favorite ax and is close to the P/P sound, and has more sustain. I will also say that the Sho-Bud has a tone of it's own and is very refreshing to play every now and then. The Pro series are denfinatly great guitars and will probably just keep playing mine every now and then. I been in touch with Coop about the new changers and may try them later.
There are pictures of this guitar on the topic "Show me your Bud' on about page three.

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 3 Aug 2009 11:00 am

To me, they all had strong points as well as weakness. If you enjoy playing the guitar, like it's looks and tone, then it's a great guitar for you.

My favorite all time shobud is the single single changer "the Professional" rack&barrel, with 5 knees and 8 on the floor all original. I wouldn't change a thing on it, except add a LKV this winter when I get more time. Like I need 6 knees, huh?? LOL!!

Larry Bressington · Post by **Larry Bressington** » 3 Aug 2009 11:42 am

My bog standard pro 2 is as standard as a ford escort.
It's an early 80's i was told. All the knee lever brackets did break off, Duanne marrs componants fixed that. Nothing else broke, except the pick-up went short circuit and i went with E66 pick-ups, it really cleaned up the tone like you would not beleive.
It's been a great road horse and still is 15 years since i purchased it, bounced around in many a trailor for 100's of 1000's of miles. [not joking]
I cant speak for other models, only mine.
With the few replacement parts it is well worthy of the extra work to repair them, they sound wonderful and play's quick, tight action as 'ken' said like butter.

I cant say a bad word about it, and i wont divorce her now, she's a sweet old girl!

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 3 Aug 2009 11:52 am

Larry Bressington wrote:
It's an early 80's i was told. All the knee lever brackets did break off, Duanne marrs componants fixed that.

Just clarify, if yours was '80's, it's a Pro II "CUSTOM". The "custom" era was when more and more pot-metal began to appear.

The original Pro II and the later Pro II custom are two different guitars and were the same in name only-------.

Jim Means · Post by **Jim Means** » 3 Aug 2009 2:39 pm

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your responses. At the moment I do not have a Sho-Bud. I'm really getting into the vintage sound and have an Emmons p/p and would like to have a Sho-Bud. It sounds like the Pro III would not quite have that more vintage sound. I have a mid 90's Zum for the "newer sound", whatever that means! In the early 80's I had an old Sho-Bud Professional D10 rack and barrel but got rid of it because of weight.

What can I say, we all do stupid things!

Please continue to post comparisons and opinions of the Sho-Bud models. I am learning lots

Thanks

Jim in Missouri

Barry Gaskell · Post by **Barry Gaskell** » 6 Aug 2009 3:03 am

Hi Jim
I've had two pro III's, both pot metal with all the aforementioned problems. My first one was an absolutely superb guitar and had a sound to match and like any Bud, once you get to know them, they're wonderful beasts and each has it's own character.
The second one I had was a bit of a dog. Broke strings all over the place and couldn't hold a candle soundwise or mechanically to my first one. They looked almost identical, but were like chalk and cheese.
I now have a Super-Pro and it is absolute magic. It looks so cool, plays like butter, sounds like a Bud should do, stays in tune, doesn't break strings and because I know Buds pretty well inside out as a result of previous guitars, I can isolate and sort any problems out that may occur (which they haven't on the Super-Pro)
I would say with all Sho-Buds, treat each one individually, as a one off, because they are all different. One will just seem so right, whilst another just somehow doesn't.
You've just got to love a 'Bud
Best of luck in your search
Barry

Ken Byng · Post by **Ken Byng** » 10 Aug 2009 1:25 am

Here is a very rare Pro III. Mica covered and black!

Like mine it has teardrop levers, and I bet it sounds amazing. Currently for sale at Bobbe Seymour's store.

Godfrey Arthur · Post by **Godfrey Arthur** » 30 Aug 2017 11:43 pm

James Morehead wrote:To me, they all had strong points as well as weakness. If you enjoy playing the guitar, like it's looks and tone, then it's a great guitar for you.

I tend to agree with the late Mr. Morehead.

Words to live by.

Not being as advanced as most of you here I have yet to arrive at the guitar's weaknesses.

Hits were made with these old generation guitars.

Jim Means · Post by **Jim Means** » 31 Aug 2017 6:04 am

Thanks Godfrey for resurrection of this thread. I always enjoy the discussion of these guitars. Some dis these old guitars for mechanic deficiencies but forget the sound of them is what made us fall in love with steel guitar in the first place. Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

Jim Means

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 31 Aug 2017 8:39 am

Having been the owner of a few PRO III's, I'll chime in. My first REAL Steel was a Pro III purchased new in 74 or 75. Black with Aluminum necks . I didn't know at the time what all the hooplah was about I just knew it was a nice Steel and cost $1250 from Sam Ash in NYC.

Since then I have had a two more Pro III's both 'redish stain with Aluminum necks. All were 8+4. All had the same two hole pullers and 3 up 2 down changers.

The most recent one I tore down to the changer fingers , cleaned and lubed everything. That Pro III was sold here on the forum and shows up now and then in the 4-sale section. It had remarkable tone, remarkable !

So , my take for Sho Bud Pro III's, it's not so much that it is a "Pro III" but rather has the Sho Bud single coils and the Two Hole puller system. I don't think the Aluminum necks offered anything in the way of tone or sustain, at least I couldn't tell. I've been side by side with a Pro II, same underside and they were the same to me. If I had to take a wild guess I would say that the Pro III's had Aluminum necks as the premium model because Emmons guitars had Aluminum necks. Of course thats just a guess.

Some of the earlier Pro II and Pro III's had the brass barrels behind the two hole pullers. I don't think there were all that many but some say those had even better sustain. Ricky can probably advise on that.

One thing of note, getting the C pedal string 4 tuned up is right at it's limit with the two hole puller. It gets there but not with a lot of extra adjustment. I found this to be the case with all 3 Pro III's with the two hole pullers. Sometimes string gauge can cause an issue here.

Other than being real heavy these Steels are iconic and can be had for some very low funding !

Ricky Davis · Post by **Ricky Davis** » 31 Aug 2017 6:47 pm

Well you can have the exact same mechanism on a Pro II and Pro III; but there "to me" is a huge diff in the sound; because the Pro II fingers and mounting is completely different than the way the Pro III has to mount via NOT to a tail piece like all other sho-bud models ; but directly to the wood on it's own bracket system; so the metal neck can wrap around the finger mounting system...and to me that is the first sound when you vibrate the string...>what is the string sitting on and what is it made of and what/how is it mounted......etc.
Ricky

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 1 Sep 2017 1:42 am

Ricky has better hearing than I do !

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 1 Sep 2017 3:58 am

I had one for years and liked it at the time.. It was a very good sounding guitar with quite good sustain, but did not have a classic Sho Bud sound, the way we think of it today.. To me, it sounded more like a "modern" steel as opposed to a vintage one.. When Bud started using pot metal across the board, the sound of their guitars changed.. Not a bad sound per se, but it was simply different from the "old" Bud sound... bob

Craig A Davidson · Post by **Craig A Davidson** » 1 Sep 2017 5:22 am

So Ricky which do you prefer? I prefer the Pro 2 sound.

Godfrey Arthur · Post by **Godfrey Arthur** » 1 Sep 2017 7:13 am

Jim Means wrote:Thanks Godfrey for resurrection of this thread. I always enjoy the discussion of these guitars. Some dis these old guitars for mechanic deficiencies but forget the sound of them is what made us fall in love with steel guitar in the first place. Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

Jim Means

Welcome Jim and well said!:)

Bob Carlucci wrote:I had one for years and liked it at the time.. It was a very good sounding guitar with quite good sustain, but did not have a classic Sho Bud sound, the way we think of it today.. To me, it sounded more like a "modern" steel as opposed to a vintage one.. When Bud started using pot metal across the board, the sound of their guitars changed.. Not a bad sound per se, but it was simply different from the "old" Bud sound... bob

Bob, what year/model is considered the "old Bud sound?"

Ricky Davis · Post by **Ricky Davis** » 1 Sep 2017 7:33 am

Craig I prefer the sound of my LDG over anything.
that's why it's the only steel guitar I have.

https://youtu.be/scaGSh9LxTA

Craig A Davidson · Post by **Craig A Davidson** » 1 Sep 2017 8:32 am

What you have Ricky is my favorite style of Bud. Wide pedals two hole pullers. I have two pro 2 Customs. One has the pot metal undercarriage and the other as you know has the next generation of undercarriage after yours. The older guitar sounds much closer to that Bud sound. The newer one is ok but doesn't quite have that growl. Both have wood necks by the way. On a side note the best one I ever had for tone was my fingertip which like an idiot I parted with.

Godfrey Arthur · Post by **Godfrey Arthur** » 1 Sep 2017 8:43 am

Ricky Davis wrote:Craig I prefer the sound of my LDG over anything.
that's why it's the only steel guitar I have.

https://youtu.be/scaGSh9LxTA

Nice rig. If space were no problem I'd get a Lloyd too.

Has that full sound stretch limo ride...

Weldon infowars Henson!

Soulful drag on that tune!

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 1 Sep 2017 9:00 am

Godfrey Arthur wrote:
Jim Means wrote:Thanks Godfrey for resurrection of this thread. I always enjoy the discussion of these guitars. Some dis these old guitars for mechanic deficiencies but forget the sound of them is what made us fall in love with steel guitar in the first place. Thanks to everyone for their contributions.

Jim Means
Welcome Jim and well said!:)

Bob Carlucci wrote:I had one for years and liked it at the time.. It was a very good sounding guitar with quite good sustain, but did not have a classic Sho Bud sound, the way we think of it today.. To me, it sounded more like a "modern" steel as opposed to a vintage one.. When Bud started using pot metal across the board, the sound of their guitars changed.. Not a bad sound per se, but it was simply different from the "old" Bud sound... bob
Bob, what year/model is considered the "old Bud sound?"

Rick knows the years better than I.. To me the "old sound" would be an early 70's 6139 or an early Pro I or II with round front, and a 1 up one down changer and rack/barrels, and the coil tap pickup.. I also like the sound of similar guitars with 2/1 changer and 2 hole pullers.. They started to sound more "modern" with the square front guitars, no coil tap, more sophisticated changers,... Thats to my ears anyway, we are all different.. I have owned several of both, and to me, the square front guitars with later pickups and pull systems, just sound different, more "generic and modern".. Not sure what models Buddy Charlton used back in his Ernest Tubb days but that to me was an epic, classic "bud" sound, except when they had the treble cranked too high,,, Even with the biting treble in some of those recordings, his Bud had a magic classic timbre that modern guitars simply don't possess.... bob

Ricky Davis · Post by **Ricky Davis** » 1 Sep 2017 5:01 pm

That is so right Bob Carlucci....totally agree with you.
To me; as soon as they got rid of the pin you hook the string on the finger; that's when they got rid of "Real aluminum" finger tops and then had the pot metal finger tops and you can tell they are the pot metal tops because they have that stupid groove you hook the string on.....and POT METAL Anything; ruined the REAL Sho~bud sound.
Mine is the single/single finger; just like used on the first professionals and first "Pro~II"; barrel tuning. But like Bob just mentioned; is the first double/single fingers were still aluminum with the pin..but now you can nylon tuner; as you can fix the rod to the roller/puller...and that's why those first nylon tuning "The Pro~II Custom" still sounded good....then; well> ....just forgetabouit...ha.
Ricky