Will Sho-Bud steel guitar's ever be built again?

Marty Holmes · Post by **Marty Holmes** » 1 May 2007 3:40 pm

Just courious will anyone ever be able to buy the rights to start building Sho-Bud steel guitars again.If not what will it take for them to be able to be manufactured once again?

Colby Tipton · Post by **Colby Tipton** » 1 May 2007 4:07 pm

I think it would cost to much to get the rights for the name.
Long live "ShoBud", the ones that have come and gone and God bless this earth for them.

Colby

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 1 May 2007 4:24 pm

John Coop can restore an original Sho~Bud to better-than-new specs with his precision parts that are even better than the originals. In my opinion, that's probably a better option than anything. Somehow I doubt that a revamped Sho~Bud operation would manufacture a steel that can equal a Coop undercarriage, unless Coop himself headed the operation. There are always opportunities to buy Sho~Buds for their beautiful lacquer bodies and then restore them to current precision status underneath by letting Coop do his magic or ordering his parts and doing it yourself.

The Jackson steel guitar is designed to capture the essence of the original Sho~Buds in a modern, state of the art steel. Although it does not resemble a Sho~Bud underneath, it is similar to Sho~Bud in sound quality and cosmetics. It is probably the closest you'll find in regards to a current production steel.

Good question, though. It makes me wonder what undercarriage design they'd incorporate if they did revamp the Sho~Bud guitar. There are many that believe the Sho~Bud sound died with the advent of pot metal and smaller bodies. I'm not sure about that, but I can say that a Coop undercarriage provides the best performance in a Sho~Bud both mechanically and sonically because it stays true to one of Sho~Buds great undercarriage designs of the 70's while making the necessary improvements that enhance sound and function. I have Coop levers on my Sho~Bud, and they are smooth and precise. They totally match the rest of the guitar but do out-perform the original knees.

Skip Edwards · Post by **Skip Edwards** » 1 May 2007 5:16 pm

I suspect that if Sho-Bud was still in production today it would be very similar, if not identical, to the Sho-Pro that Duane Marrs is currently making, as well as the Bud upgrades he's been doing for the last few years.
And then factor in the Jackson gtr, which might have been Sho-Bud's new whizbang model.

Michael Douchette · Post by **Michael Douchette** » 1 May 2007 6:02 pm

A trucking company in Florida was the last owner of the Sho-Bud patent, or facsimile thereof; not sure of its standing now.

Alan Brookes · Post by **Alan Brookes** » 1 May 2007 6:50 pm

...a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

If someone were to buy up the Sho-Bud name and start producing instruments they would probably use modern production techniques, There are plenty of builders out there that have built on the old technology and improved it.

So, buy an old instrument and play it as is, or have it rebuilt. If I could afford it I would have mine rebuilt.

As has been said, John Coop does outstanding work.....

Jeff Bottomley · Post by **Jeff Bottomley** » 1 May 2007 6:50 pm

Jeff Surratt SHOW PRO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jimmy Duvall · Post by **Jimmy Duvall** » 1 May 2007 6:51 pm

My pro ll fell off the truck in Texas once in '76 .Or was that the hay wagon in '77 .

Chris LeDrew · Post by **Chris LeDrew** » 1 May 2007 6:52 pm

Doesn't Gretsch (who is owned by Fender) still own the name?

Jeff Bottomley · Post by **Jeff Bottomley** » 1 May 2007 7:11 pm

not that jeff has bought the rights to the sho-bud name but has definately earned a place in building exquisite sho-bud replacement steels...

Michael Douchette · Post by **Michael Douchette** » 1 May 2007 7:20 pm

Chris, yes, Gretsch still owns the name, but not the patent...

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 1 May 2007 7:53 pm

The Shobud name seems to be forever locked down and unavailable---legally. But that's fitting and cool---it is such a deep, deep piece of the pedal steel guitar history, which most modern guitars are patterned after. If you really look at it closely, you will see that many of todays makers at one time or another worked for Shobud, thus learning their craft. Shobud is only a name in history now---but you can certainly see the "technical genetics", so to speak, in many of todays modern guitars. If the Shobud name were suddenly available right now, this day and age with the new technology and improvements for what it's worth, you would not have the shobud of old that we remember and love.(and remember, not every model shobud came out with was great. some models were dropped for a reason, all shobuds were NOT created equal!! AH--HA!)

Time Marches on---------- There will be a time when a quality vintage old shobud will just not appear on the "for sale" playing field--scarce. If you ever wanted an old Professional or Pro II, I wouldn't waste to much time aquiring one. That window of opportunity is closing. But then again, seems junk will always be around. JMO

Now if you are the kind of person who likes to take that "junker" and refurbish it, there is a certain satisfaction of knowing you can save an old "war-horse" shobud from disappearing off the planet, there are those who feel as you do. Chris LeDrew pretty well said it above.

So there are not many prospects for the old shobud guitars out there---You can put them away and never play them, or play them until they are worn smack out, and refurbish them for another 30 years. But then again they all wear out sooner or later. Just Like us. I prefer to think of the shobud name historically.

Brandon Ordoyne · Post by **Brandon Ordoyne** » 1 May 2007 8:06 pm

Would the new Jackson steels be considered the new age Sho-Buds?

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 1 May 2007 8:08 pm

I may be wrong, but I think most patents run out after 20 years, then it's a free-for-all. It's different about owning the rights to a name.

I think Jacksons would have used the shobud name if they legally could. But then again, they may have a different agenda-- they might want to let history be and go a different route. I don't know what would be politically correct--saying Jackson guitars are a "modern shobud". The technology is certainly different. And afterall, the Jackson brothers built the older shobuds when shot quit building. Good question.

Michael Douchette · Post by **Michael Douchette** » 1 May 2007 8:11 pm

James, you could very well be right where it's a moot point. It's been quite some time since I tried to track it down...

Tommy R. Butler · Post by **Tommy R. Butler** » 1 May 2007 8:51 pm

Gretsch

http://www.myspace.com/official_shobud

Mitch Ellis · Post by **Mitch Ellis** » 1 May 2007 9:08 pm

Which Sho-Bud's were good, and which one's were bad? Are the ones that have "Distributed by Bawldwin" on them any good? I've seen them, and they seem to be pretty old. What year are they? I have an LDG, but it's not one of the real old ones.
Mitch

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 1 May 2007 9:36 pm

Jeff Surratt's "Sho-Pro" IS the new Sho-Bud. Same with Jackson Steels.

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 2 May 2007 3:01 am

Have you ever thought that maybe the great old musicians of the good old days sounded that way because they were great musicians, not because of their equipment? I mean, if Carters and GFIs and Williams had been available in 1965 to Buddy Emmons and the Buckaroos and all, you might not have even heard of Sho-Buds. If Ibanez and Schecter had been making the exact same six-string guitars they are today and had them for sale in 1955, you might not have ever even heard of a Stratocaster or a Les Paul - or at least, I'll bet they wouldn't be selling for $250,000....

I try to separate out nostalgia and the antique-collecting gene from the tonal characteristics of a guitar. A few years back somebody here (?) posted some sound clips played on various guitars in a "Name that Guitar" kind of contest, and if I remember right all us seasoned listeners failed pretty abysmally.

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 2 May 2007 4:44 am

Dave you have a good point. But Shobud is the one who WAS there. Then Buddy Emmons broke away and started Emmmons so he could use his great ideas to make the pushpulls---another historical fork in the road. The historical tree has Shobud for the trunk, Emmons for the first branch, Promat off of Emmons. Carter, Franklins, Zums, ect. are more branches of the "great steel guitar tree" that Shobud is the trunk of. Same with Sho-Pro's. Same with Jackson's. Same with-------------------------Now the STUMP that great trunk rest upon are those earky attempts and earky ideas to add a pedal to a non pedal guitar here and there--the ones who did not survive simply because they didn't get themselves marketed very well, ect. It's like that with everything, like cars. Ford is the trunk, ect. Ford's stump was the horse and buggy, and horseless carraige ideas, that died without good marketing.

Even if Shobud name WAS resurrected, it would have evolved technically to the point of unrecognisable compared to what we all KNOW Shobuds "are". Let the name rest in peace. Or should I say---pieces. JMO

Dave is right about the sound clips. Many failed. I myself would have failed. I would do better in a live situation, though, as many others who failed might have. But the point I get from Daves comment is this. There are many modern guitars out there that sound fantastic, play fantastic, look fantastic, and ARE fantastic. But my '70 shobud sounds better than all the other guitars in the world. At least to ME, and probably for no other reason than my ear simply got used to "that tone" my shobud gives, and that's what satisfies my tonal "sweet tooth". Now, understand, MY '70 Professional sounds different than it did BEFORE John Coop's parts---and for the better----believe me. There was so much slack in the original parts from wear, a possum could hide up there. So to me, Rebuilding my '70 was a huge improvement in design and form to function. Kinda like rebuilding a '57 chevy with todays modern technology. I guess my '70 shobud is really a hybrid, best of both worlds----the old vintage look, with the modern mechanics underneath, and it sure beats the fact that this particular guitar was an unplayable piece of junk before John Coop resurrected it.

Mitch, the good models are what you like. Some like the newer "customs", some like the older styles like the roundfronts. Some like the old Fingertips and older yet Permanents. They all had good and bad in them. But they all had enough good in them to apeal to the masses. Some models evolved into other models, ands bad ideas were shed off. Like the old Baldwin crossovers--they shed that heavey cast frame to make a lighter guitar, and dropped the crossover mechanism---turning that model into "The Professional", which still had the noisey rack and barrel mechanics under it, so they dropped it, coming up with the barrels behind two hole puller system. In my opinion, they now had their best guitar ever right there in the Pro II. But shobud kept going, trying to compete in an ever changing market.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 2 May 2007 5:30 am

David Mason wrote:Have you ever thought that maybe the great old musicians of the good old days sounded that way because they were great musicians, not because of their equipment? I mean, if Carters and GFIs and Williams had been available in 1965 to Buddy Emmons and the Buckaroos and all, you might not have even heard of Sho-Buds. If Ibanez and Schecter had been making the exact same six-string guitars they are today and had them for sale in 1955, you might not have ever even heard of a Stratocaster or a Les Paul - or at least, I'll bet they wouldn't be selling for $250,000....

I try to separate out nostalgia and the antique-collecting gene from the tonal characteristics of a guitar. A few years back somebody here (?) posted some sound clips played on various guitars in a "Name that Guitar" kind of contest, and if I remember right all us seasoned listeners failed pretty abysmally.

David, there's a middle ground there, in the six-string world. I mean, between a five- or six-figure vintage Telecaster or Les Paul, and a modern Schecter or Ibanez. Fender and Gibson make Teles and Les Pauls today, some to very closely the same specs as the old ones, and while I love the "real vintage" vibe as much as anyone, if it walks like a Tele and squawks like a Tele, it is a Tele. And to many, myself included, there's still reason to prefer a Tele to an Ibanez.

As has been said, though, there is a lot more difference soundwise between the six-strings than the PSGs. The guitars are substantially more distinct models, while PSGs from Sho-Bud till now are different refinements of essentially the same intent. Forum discussions frequently deal with whether this steel or that one has "that sound". The Tele isn't even trying to sound like the Ibanez, or vice versa. But there are other factors that enter into one's love for or indifference to a particular instrument. A more recent thread started by a current steel manufacturer proposed a blindfold test and posited that most or all would fail to distinguish various brands, and advanced a theory of the psychological importance of the appearance of the instrument as a determining factor in brand preference. One could make a similar case for the "feel" of an instrument.

Someone could, if so inclined, make a Pro II to the same specs today, and for some it would be more desirable than a GFI. Debate between those who would feel that way and those who feel the opposite is surely pointless.

As with other things related to steel guitar, though, the market would seem to be limited enough that it wouldn't be worth anyone's while. There have been similar discussions in the Forum about whether anyone would "reissue" the old Fender PSGs, with similar conclusions. There are a lot of Sho-Buds still around, and particularly with the thriving refurb "industry", the supply probably meets the demand.

Erv Niehaus · Post by **Erv Niehaus** » 2 May 2007 7:27 am

Patents are good for 17 years and cannot be renewed.

Copyrights and Trademarks can be renewed over and over again.

Brian Henry · Post by **Brian Henry** » 2 May 2007 10:13 am

I think that Bigsby,Shobud, and early Msa should be viewed as prototypes. Buddy Emmons now gets his Shobud sound from a Zumsteel. Loyd Green switched to JCH for a few years and got his Sho bud sound. I think that modern pedal steels have been built on the shoulders of these prototypes; however, the sound and mechanics are far superior than the prototypes. Just my dimes worth!!

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 2 May 2007 10:27 am

Unless the rules have changed recently, patents are good for 17 years. After that, they may be renewed once (and only once), for a period of another 17 years. After 34 years have passed, the invention is considered "in the public domain", and anyone can produce it without restriction. Names and trade-marks, such as "Sho~Bud", are covered under copyright laws, and rights extend almost indefinitely. Artistic designs, such as the Sho~Bud "shark-fin" tuning head, may also be copyrighted and protected for a very long time, but nothing else (as a mechanical design) would still be protected.

Darvin Willhoite · Post by **Darvin Willhoite** » 2 May 2007 10:33 am

I have a patent (of course, it belongs to the company I work for), for a drive system for a construction machine, that was issued about 8 or 9 years ago. This patent is good for 20 years if we keep paying the maintenance fees every 5 years. If we do not pay the fees, the patent becomes void. It cannot be renewed beyond 20 years.