The Steel Guitar Forum

Kevin what you say is true, but why could they not have built it right in the first place, instead of having to get someone else to rebuild it later???

Danny Bates wrote:Joseph Barcus said:

as long as my wife carrys my stuff in and out I have no problem with the weight

Female roadies... That's where it's at!

oh my ....

TB, because the quality control at Sho-Bud was severely lacking. Same with ZB's. Which is why we brought ZB mechanics up to date. Manufacturing is much better today. Same with Gretsch.

A Zumsteel, MSA, Emmons Mullen or Carter never had that problem and never needed to be cooped either!! <<

Hey tb, Also, Add a Williams 600 series to your list of Steels not having to be rebuilt. When one pays over $2000 for a Steel it should be good from the start...I agree with KH that QC was lacking at SB.

I agree that QC was inconsistent at ShoBud. That's certainly not to say every SB guitar is a POS and needs an overhaul. Mine is a fine guitar, and I paid a lot less than $2000 for it. Lloyd and many others seem to have done OK with theirs.

Like many others I paid $2000 for a good looking LDG that was substandard with a trashy pot metal undercarriage. Telling me that Lloyd and a few others got good ones doesn't make me feel any better. Bottom line the majority of them were trash and had to be rebuilt ironically mostly by former Sho-bud employees... of course for a price. Besides at the same time MSA and a number of others were making quality instruments.

I wasn't trying to make anyone feel better. Just saying that I don't agree that most Shobuds are trash. That's my opinion, and you're certainly entitled to yours. I do agree that some of their later guitars, especially those with potmetal parts in the undercarriage, were substandard. Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with your LDG (now I'm trying to make you feel better...). We're fortunate that we have many brands of quality guitars to choose from.

i dont agree that the majority of sho-buds were trash. that sounds like an ignorant assertion. they may have been slightly cruder than the newer higher tech designs but functioned well as designed. i played a used professional for ten years with no problems. most used sho-buds 'don't' need to be cooped. they can easily and cheaply be reconditioned slightly if need be without 'designer boutique' parts. their design is simple and logical. lots of owners just seem to like to spend money like a hot rodder....for instance...i wouldn't buy a steel and have it sent straight to an expensive restoration person without looking at it and playing it first, but it seems that many on the forum do!

Kevin Hatton wrote:TB, because the quality control at Sho-Bud was severely lacking. Same with ZB's. Which is why we brought ZB mechanics up to date. Manufacturing is much better today. Same with Gretsch.

This brings my argument full circle. Leave the old clunker at home and have a newer machine to play at live shows.

Msa's from the 70's and 80's had great undercarriages - the majority of Sho buds did not!! I think that the concensus is that, that is true, or do i have to conduct a poll?

I still have a '72 MSA S-12U, and a '74 MSA SD-12U, & they both still have great under sides & both still look very good.

Ernie

Almost forgot, I still have a Shobud Pro III, with those pot fingers, but thats all, it has the old pedals & bellcranks, not like those Super Pro's [ha ha] with those narrow little pedals horrible knee lever contraption that breaks all the time!!

Ernie

Some guys want a Lexus and some guys want a '57 Chevy... No biggie.

If the guitar sounds good and stays in tune, that's what's important to me.

The other night, I saw an old guitar playin' friend (who's played nothing but country music for years) and I told him I have Emmons and Sho-Bud's and he said "Sho-Bud, now that's a good pedal steel"

I played a Rack and barrel for 35 years, when I had it
cooped my wife said get rid of it. I never had a problem with it never had it worked on, gave good service all thoses years.
I have traded back now have a shoBud Professional, my wife is happe with the sound again, she has better ears thaan I do.

ernnie

tbhenry wrote:Msa's from the 70's and 80's had great undercarriages - the majority of Sho buds did not!! I think that the concensus is that, that is true, or do i have to conduct a poll?

I certainly would agree that the majority (if not ALL) of 70s - 80s MSAs had good undercarriages, and were very well designed and built guitars overall. But the part about the majority of Shobuds being trash? Go ahead and run your poll! As long as your poll is comparing apples to apples (i.e., pro model guitars only; I don't think it would be quite fair to compare a Maverick to a Millennium), I think you should get yourself ready for a big surprise.

Recently there was a "what is your fave psg" poll on the forum. IIRC, Shobud came in second only to Emmons. Like I said before, I'm sorry your LDG was a lemon, but that certainly doesn't mean the majority of Shobud guitars were! That's like saying, "I bought a Ford and it sucked, therefore all Fords suck". A little research on your part about model year design changes would have saved you a passel of grief. The vast majority of earlier model LDGs were fabulous guitars. Were I you, I'd be mad at myself rather than Shobud!

Now, having said all that, I do agree that even the best Shobuds out there are not necessarily the best "tool" for a professional steeler these days (although they could do worse!). There are many modern designs that are lighter, have much better pull action and sound great. Personally, I think there may be a smidgen of a tone penalty in some of these guitars compared to a vintage Bud or PP, but I certainly don't believe that any pro who doesn't play an old Shobud is an idiot! All things considered, there are "better" choices in modern guitars available today for the pro steeler. I suppose I agree with Leslie on that point. But I seriously doubt Leslie will be sitting his Shobud out by the curb with the rest of the trash, though.

But to say all Shobuds are crap is just pure nonsense. They are what they are, and I know my '74 Pro-II plays and sounds like a million bucks, stays in tune, and rarely breaks a string. It is pretty damned heavy, tho', and the pedal/lever action isn't as nearly slick as the newer model guitars. Still, I plan to keep it until I die.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. You've made it clear how you feel and I respect that, however, I strongly disagree with your opinion on how many others share your opinion. Actually, I'm pleased that some people think as you do. Keeps from driving the prices way up. I plan to add a LDG to my stable one day. But it won't be one of the pot metal jobs. Rack and barrel, maybe.

Have a nice day.

Sho Bud fret boards are not trash. I have a white one on each of my MCi and Carter. They are probably the best calibrated of all. Apart from their fretboards, though I don't care for shobuds!!

tbhenry wrote:Sho Bud fret boards are not trash. I have a white one on each of my MCi and Carter. They are probably the best calibrated of all. Apart from their fretboards, though I don't care for shobuds!!

What about those cool logos?

If Sho-Buds are mechanically junk and "modern steels are far better", you couldn't prove it by me. I have a '94 Mullen and '00's Williams and GFI. Of all my steels the one that has by far the smoothest, most effortless pedal/lever action is an all-original mid-70's Pro III, with the two-hole pullers and double/double changer. It's like playing air steel!

I don't maintain that Sho-Buds generally are better than modern steels. Nor do I intend to imply any criticism of the modern steels I have--they all play very well. But my personal experience is at odds with the "Sho-Buds are crap" argument.

Brint - good input. I only have one steel, so I can't make firsthand comparisons on the pull action; I only know what I read here about such things. And yeah, mine is heavy. But from a tone and tuning stability standpoint, I really, really, really (really) like my Pro-II. Trash, it ain't!!!

Brint Hannay wrote:I don't maintain that Sho-Buds generally are better than modern steels. Nor do I intend to imply any criticism of the modern steels I have--they all play very well. But my personal experience is at odds with the "Sho-Buds are crap" argument.

That statement expresses my sentiments precisely.

We're still a-waitin' on that poll, and time's a-wastin'! Bueller? Bueller?

The best thing I like about the newer steels is their compact body which takes up less room on stage and allows me to use the E9th left knee vertical on C6 with ease.

The Sho-Buds are awful when worn out just like any other guitar. They are just as good as any guitar for smoothness when their parts are in good shape. Some of this has to do with the basic engineering of some of the Sho-Bud models. Specifically, they seem to have very positive stops, very even pull pressure from the beginning to the end of the pull, and very little drag. My Franklin built Pro II custom was just as smooth as my 1970 Emmons PP. Both of these guitars were easily as smooth playing as my fairly new MSA Legend. Sho-Bud did a lot of things right from an engineering perspective and messed up a lot of things some years in their manufacturing. I've had a few brand new steels that sucked. One was a pot metal Sho-Bud that was assembled with many of the rods rubbing against each other and one was a very modern "precision CNC machined" steel that just didn't have constant pressure pulls and positive stops. Precision machining doesn't help much if the guitar is not engineered for smooth and predictable pedal action amongst other things.


Greg

I think SB made some great Steels and they made a lot of junk..there just was no constancy of quality. I bought one and ended up sending it back to Nashville to have Duane Marrs rebuild it for me. That potmetal rack and barrel system was a nightmare. The tunable collar system was better than the rack and barrel system. Bottom line is that one should not have to pay to have a new Steel rebuilt, they should be ready to go from the start.. I did not have this trouble with my Mullen or Williams, both were good from the start.

Hi Brad, My experience was similar to yours. I just sold mine while I could and some other fool bought it. I refused to have my new shobud rebuilt. Instead I got an MSA for the same price I sold the shobud for. And what a difference the MSA was. You would not believe how quiet the undercarriage was, and how beautiful it sounded.

Danny,
I didn't know Joe's wife was in that gooda shape. . . .WOW, WHAT MUSCLES! Must be Volga WV's best kept secret.

I think that pic is the back side of a Burma Shave poster!

Brad Malone wrote:That potmetal rack and barrel system was a nightmare.

Unless I am greatly mistaken, potmetal and rack and barrel have nothing whatsoever to do with each other!!!
No potmetal in a rack and barrel guitar, no rack and barrel in a potmetal-era guitar.