Latest Built Sho Buds

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 7 Jul 2016 1:18 am

Some call them flawed, some don't, I don't. Yes, it is true that the design from 77/ 78 forward used Pot Metal parts which looking back now they could have improved on. Bottom line, there are a few thousand Pro I's, II's III's , LDG's and Super Pro's out there making great music .

I think they are getting a bad rap overall.

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 7 Jul 2016 7:09 am

The design was good, and the changer itself was fine, but with all due respect Tony, the pot metal was a disaster.. Not so much the broken knee levers that so many players talk about, but jeez every hole in every part that was made of pot metal was double the size and egg shaped in a few years, especially if it had to go up against a steel actuating device or pull rod.. Once the original chrome was gone, yikes! SLOP!... That being said, once any of the pot metal parts were replaced with machined aluminum, the issues were resolved permanently.. They are good guitars that sound and play beautifully.. They can be upgraded very easily, and will play as well and last as long as anything else out there.. Problem is, replacing all that pot metal with aluminum is a very expensive undertaking.. I have sold a couple of Buds over the years at a loss because I could not in good conscience sell a steel with all the holes egg shaped, and slop and noise everywhere...Good design, easy playing well built, and beautiful sounding steels that suffered from a REAL bad business decision... Yes they saved a few dollars by going with chromed pot metal, but the bud reputation suffered because of it.. If they had only gone with machined aluminum or even good grade stamped steel....... bob

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 7 Jul 2016 8:17 am

thx Bob , always appreciate and respect your view, but disaster ? So we have moved from flawed to disaster ?

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 7 Jul 2016 9:22 am

My pot metal guitar was a DISASTER. Perhaps some guitars only had knee levers or a few parts of them made of pot metal. Mine had pot metal knee levers, pot metal nut assembly, pot metal around the changer mounts. It was so dead that it sounded like a banjo. Purchased it direct shipped from Sho-Bud around 1982, D-10 with 8 knees and 8 floors, set up and signed by Terry Bethel! Although I paid wholesale for this guitar through Washington Music Center in Wheaton, MD, I still felt ripped off. The pot metal casting for the nut was so rough it was prickly. I sold this guitar a few months after receiving it because it was not playable on the bandstand due to the zero sustain and breaking knee levers!

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 7 Jul 2016 9:27 am

thx Greg. Are they all disasters ? Every Sho Bud made from 78 ish to 86 ?

I am guessing all latest era Sho Bud owners are in agreement

Glad you were able to sell your disaster. !

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 7 Jul 2016 9:39 am

Tony Prior wrote:thx Bob , always appreciate and respect your view, but disaster ? So we have moved from flawed to disaster ?

Disaster only because of the price involved to get a pot medal Bud to where it should have been when it was built..
I will defer to "flawed", thats a fair compromise!.. Here's a fair question..
Would it have really cost THAT much more for Sho Bud to have used a similar design with plain old stamped mild steel?... Not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than pot metal.. bob

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 7 Jul 2016 9:47 am

Bob I can't argue for or defend Sho Bud for what they built way back then or why, which was 35 +/- years ago. I wouldn't even know where or how to start . I guess it's easy to look back 35 years and say "should have" but I can say this, I own TWO later model Sho Buds one is a Super Pro the other a Pro I , I wouldn't consider either of them flawed, they are what they were for the times. Both excellent guitars with that evil Pot Metal !

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 7 Jul 2016 9:55 am

Well the Jim Vest guitar that was built by Paul Franklin Sr and sold to me for only $1200 by a Mr Seymour was a phenomenal guitar. Most of the Sho-Buds I have owned have been great guitars. The pot metal guitar deserves the title of disaster and shame on Sho-Bud for ripping me off!

A real nice Bud:

http://www.gregcutshaw.com/Sho-Bud/Sho-Bud.html

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 7 Jul 2016 9:57 am

Anecdotal evidence runs the risk of leading people to think it applies across the board.

My '78 wood-neck Super Pro, which I've had since '84, is entirely unlike what Greg describes. The material the keyhead and changer mount/tailpiece are made of is indistinguishable from the material in those parts on my '74 round-front LDG. It plays and sounds great and has wonderful sustain.

It does have the pot metal fingers like those pictured in the other thread, and pot metal bell cranks throughout, which don't have the egg-shaped holes that Bob described. It had the pot metal knee levers and brackets, but when a bracket snapped early on I replaced all the brackets and levers with aluminum.

(I also have a '79 LDG. It does have the egg-shaped holes, but is otherwise a fine guitar. I think the pot metal must be an inconsistent material, so it's the luck of the draw what you get in an individual piece.)

Did they really end up using pot metal for the keyhead and changer mount??

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 7 Jul 2016 10:07 am

Brint, my 84 Super Pro is unlike Gregs as well, as is my 81 Pro I. Both have pot metal fingers and pot metal bell cranks, no egg shaped holes though. Both are very tight guitars.

And you are correct, which is why I started this thread.

"Anecdotal evidence runs the risk of leading people to think it applies across the board"... which is true in many theaters...

Lane Gray · Post by **Lane Gray** » 7 Jul 2016 11:34 am

Most pot metal parts will probably be fine. But the metal is wildly inconsistent in structural or tonal quality, or both.

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 7 Jul 2016 2:00 pm

but yet many , as in hundreds of them maybe thousands, live on bandstands and sound great !

David Mitchell · Post by **David Mitchell** » 7 Jul 2016 6:35 pm

Did Sho-Bud ever build out of anything besides pot metal or pewter? I've owned about 5 Sho-Buds in the past and suffered a few broken knee levers but last week I bought an old Sho-Bud Fingertip which is a beautiful guitar built out of Brazilion rosewood and birdseye maple but it had one severe problem. It had a broken in two endplate on the changer end. I removed it and it was clearly plated pewter and couldn't be welded. I did manage to make it almost undetectable with J.B Weld. This is a very early fingertip with the old Emmons and ZB type Klusons. Most ornate 3/4" wood trim I've ever seen. Did they make aluminum parts too? Just wondering.

Edward Rhea · Post by **Edward Rhea** » 7 Jul 2016 6:47 pm

Casted Aluminum...check it with a magnet. Pewter will have magnetic properties, aluminum does not.

David Mitchell · Post by **David Mitchell** » 7 Jul 2016 7:23 pm

Thanks Edward! I will try that as soon as I can find a magnet. It's probably cast aluminum that I am looking at. I suppose pot metal is even worse with all the stories.

Ian Rae · Post by **Ian Rae** » 7 Jul 2016 7:27 pm

I thought pewter was a copper/tin alloy. Why would it have magnetic properties?

David Mitchell · Post by **David Mitchell** » 7 Jul 2016 7:37 pm

I think I read it was zinc and tin with varying degrees of each.

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 8 Jul 2016 12:11 am

I currently have two newer built Sho Buds, both have aluminum endplates. A recent 1975 Pro III that I owned also had aluminum endplates. So from my point of view and experience, YES, they used aluminum for the castings.

Edward Rhea · Post by **Edward Rhea** » 8 Jul 2016 2:58 am

Ian is correct...Pewter is not magnetic...the sun has bleached my brain! Sorry fellows!

Thanks for the correction!

David Mitchell · Post by **David Mitchell** » 8 Jul 2016 3:24 am

You all are correct. Glad my Sho-Bud is not 85% tin. That's good to know. The guy at a welding shop here told me it was pewter after he checked it. I didn't see him check it so I don't know how he arrived at that conclusion.

Pewter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia â€º wiki â€º Pewter
Mobile-friendly - Pewter is a malleable metal alloy, traditionally 85â€“99% tin, with the remainder consisting of copper, antimony, bismuth and sometimes, less commonly today, lead. Silver is also sometimes used. Copper and antimony act as hardeners while lead is common in the lower grades of pewter, which have a bluish tint.

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 8 Jul 2016 4:05 am

Sho-Bud did use cast aluminum, at least at some point. My Franklin has cast aluminum parts (end plates, necks and keyheads) and Mr Franklin told me he used the same company that made Sho-Bud cast aluminum parts.

Gene Haugh · Post by **Gene Haugh** » 8 Jul 2016 5:42 am

Sho~Bud Endplates, were sandcast aluminum made by Perfection Molders in Goodlettsville Tenn. The owner was a gentleman named Wilson McKee. On a trip to see Wilson and to check on Sho~Bud parts I had the privilege of talking to Mr. Paul Franklin who was there checking on his parts. This would have been in either 1981 or 82.

Richard Sinkler · Post by **Richard Sinkler** » 8 Jul 2016 10:41 am

I loved the Super Pro that I had. But, I kept breaking knee levers on my LKL knee lever. At the time, I had no internet and didn't know there were solid aluminum replacements. Had I known, I would probably still have the guitar, other pot metal parts and all. I used a knee lever off my Kline, and put on the Bud when I wanted to gig that guitar. They both used hex cross shafts. Wish I still both of those guitars.

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 8 Jul 2016 12:45 pm

Sho~Bud Endplates, were sandcast aluminum made by Perfection Molders in Goodlettsville Tenn. The owner was a gentleman named Wilson McKee. On a trip to see Wilson and to check on Sho~Bud parts I had the privilege of talking to Mr. Paul Franklin who was there checking on his parts. This would have been in either 1981 or 82.

If it was 81, he could have been checking on end plates for my 81 Franklin.

Dale Rottacker · Post by **Dale Rottacker** » 8 Jul 2016 1:41 pm

I've heard all the horror stories I think there are to hear about pot metal Sho~Buds. And maybe I'm just lucky, but I have about a 1980 or 81 Pro lll, not sure cause of bad memory. But bought it brand-new ordered it special, except for the pot metal of course. I've got one broken piece on it, I'm not even sure what it's called but it attaches to a cross rod, and the shoestring that I repaired it with has never failed. And that happened probably 25 or 30 years ago. That said, I've never broken a knee lever or any other part except that one little part near the changer which I was able to work around.

The Steel Guitar Forum

Latest Built Sho Buds

Latest Built Sho Buds

Sho`Bud castings