The Steel Guitar Forum

I'm very interested in the '63 Madison guitar that David and Harry are producing. Does anyone have any experience with that horn, or is it too new yet?

Herb,

There has been some feedback about the Madison '63 on various threads, all very positive. I played it in Dallas and thought it came very close sound-wise to that Buddy Charleton sound he had with Ernest Tubb. It reminded me of a Professional as well, in that you can't seem to dial in a bad tone. If I had a choice of a Jackson guitar with no budget constraints, it would be a Madison '63 hands-down. Skip Edwards played it as well, same time I did. He too thought it was great. We both had a lot of fun just sitting there, picking away and marvelling at its tone. Also, some players demo'ed it at Bobbe's Jackson party a while back at his store, and the response was again very enthusiastic.

What I'm talking about b0be-san is the construction -- the spotty castings, the gaps in the aprons where they meet the end plates. Nothing on a vintage Bud approached the tolerances of the new guitars.

Yeah ZeeBee's are great and so are Marlins. I like the fact that the old-day's guitars all had a distinctive look, and tone while the new cookie-cutter jobs all look like variations of the (Emmons) theme...

'an "assembly line" look and feel to them.'

Really b0b?
There's a couple of gaps here, and note how nicely the changer screws are aligned.



I like the diagonal springs too! Couple of gaps. Nothin' serious.



Uhhhh,,, notice all the racks are backward, facing the wrong direction! See, they made a mistake putting one rack set together, and couldn't turn it around. So they just turned them all around, hopin' no one would notice!



Not to mention the Krell metal asteroid imbedded in the top of the pedal rack!



A guy would have to be just plain stoopid to want one of these "assembly line", carefully "quality controlled" beater guitars! I guess that's why I have 4 of them!

The 63 Madison sounded good in Dallas but they were going through FC Furlong powered cabs.
Now I can't decide if I want a Madison or a Furlong cab.. surly I can't have both, can I..??

Doh, apparently I was mistaken, the actual number of Sho-Buds built in a day at peak output was 150 NOT 1500. (I wish I could say that my zero key was faulty and that it was a typo, the truth is "old-guy-brain-cramp") That's still about one every ten minutes assuming working around the clock or one every three and a half minutes assuming an eight hour day. Not too shabby. If as Bobbe points out, there were 52 employees at the time, that would be a yield of about three guitars per employee per day. That means that an employee would be able to build a guitar in 2.6 hours. I assume that many of that output were Mavericks. Not unreasonable.

Thanks to all of the careful readers for the astute editing.

One could do math different ways but no one can deny the fact that Sho-Bud was the major force in getting pedal steel guitars into pedal steel guitar players hands.

TC

I assume that some of those 52 people did office work, shipping, management, etc. How many people were actually building the guitars?

We are so lucky that we now have so many builders to choose from...back in the 50's and 60's people had less of a choice so the few builders that did exist had the whole market to themselves. Competition usually improves quality. The people that do not improve quality usually go out of business.

There is less choice today. I see no difference in a Fesseden, Carter, Derby, Zum, Williams, GFI, etc guitar. They are virtually identical in construction, often use the same pickups from outside makers and look almost identical.

Boring looks and boring tone to me, myself and I. If you like all-pull guitars with nylon tuning heads, teeny-weeny pedals and giant decals on the front left you are in a golden age.

As far as quality, set up an old birdseye-maple Sho-Bud with 20 nickel-plated Grover Rotomatics on a fanciful headstock and then your cookie-cutter guitar of choice next to it, complete with formica body, Asian tuners and generic pickups.

We can agree to disagree, no problem. YMMV, and etc...

Kinda like cars now, in a way. Most look the same, unlike in past decades when you could really pick out the difference between builders.

What Chris said...

Tom Quinn wrote:There is less choice today. I see no difference in a Fesseden, Carter, Derby, Zum, Williams, GFI, etc guitar. They are virtually identical in construction, often use the same pickups from outside makers and look almost identical.

Boring looks and boring tone to me, myself and I. If you like all-pull guitars with nylon tuning heads, teeny-weeny pedals and giant decals on the front left you are in a golden age.

This is my BIGGEST peeve with new guitars....those ugly stickers they slap on that don't even try to NOT look like stickers. When dropping $3,000+ on a new guitar, can't the builders at least use a nice silkscreen for their logo? Not some clear plastic sticker? Ugh....

There is less choice today. I see no difference in a Fesseden, Carter, Derby, Zum, Williams, GFI, etc guitar. They are virtually identical in construction, often use the same pickups from outside makers and look almost identical.

I agree there are generally a lot of brands of steels these days--including several in that list--that have not a lot of substantial difference between them, in terms of construction and overall appearance. Which is not to say that their construction or appearance is bad. But, whatever your opinion of the construction and appearance of GFI, I think their instruments are clearly distinctive--they can't really be lumped in with the herd.

I also agree that there are several obnoxiously unattractive and over-large logos on various modern brands of steel. I won't name names--others may like the ones I don't like--but to me a little more understatement would be welcome. Steel players will know, or make the effort to find out, what make of steel they're seeing, without the need for a glaring nametag on the front, and the rest of the world couldn't care less.

b0b wrote:I assume that some of those 52 people did office work, shipping, management, etc. How many people were actually building the guitars?

Hi, Bob--

I worked at the Sho-Bud factor for a few months in 1979. At that time, there were five of us on the assembly line, on the ground floor. There was also a very able Japanese guy--I had the impression he was the most skilled assembly person in the place--who set-up the guitars. Above us on, I think, the third floor, was AJ Nelson's brother Doyle, who--if memory serves--applied lacquer and buffed. Also on the third floor was Gene Martin's (Acuff guitarist) son. On the second floor was a musician named Dusty who, I think, played the guitars before they shipped. Two people worked in the front office.

When I was there, it seems to me about 5-10 guitars a day came across my work bench. Lots of Mavericks, quite a few SuperPros and, I think, fewer Pro-Is,-IIs and -IIIs. I remember hearing a lot of talk about problems with the SuperPro, especially tuning problems. Likewise, the Mavericks tended to have problems.

Please bear in mind this was a long time ago, and I new almost nothing about pedal steel at the time. Production may have been down from its peak; a recession was about to hit. In fact, I got laid off as a result.

I remember sitting in my bathtub wondering how the hell I was going to pay the rent and buy groceries. Lucky for me, Harry Jackson hired me back at the Sho-Bud store when I got laid off. I really dug it when Harry would call me "Brother." He was a great role model for me, an example of honest, respectful behavior.

Andrew Roblin wrote:Lucky for me, Harry Jackson hired me back at the Sho-Bud store when I got laid off. I really dug it when Harry would call me "Brother." He was a great role model for me, an example of honest, respectful behavior.

When talking to Harry, he also refers to me as "brother". There is something so genuine about that exchange, and I can understand why it has stayed with you over the years. There is a warmness about the Jacksons that is epitomized by the way they treat others. Great post, Andrew.

Regarding steel guitar logos, the only thing that I do not understand is the necessity of saying "steel guitar" on the logo. It's like Fender putting "electric guitar" under the headstock logo.

After submitting the previous post, I realized I'd left out someone very important: George Edwards, who was then working with Kitty Wells. Many afternoons, George would come in to play the guitars at the Sho-Bud Factory. I think he was doing a final check on them. George always seems thrilled to be there.

When dropping $3,000+ on a new guitar, can't the builders at least use a nice silkscreen for their logo? Not some clear plastic sticker? Ugh....

So true. I find the logo stickers chintzy too, and they're used on some of the most expensive guitars available. I'm fine with mica axes but some decent logos would be welcome. The 3D, or raised ones such as the newer Carter logos are not bad.

Hey Andrew R. Thanks for your very valuable post..it is always great to hear from people that worked on the assembly line and know the real workings of a company.

Chris LeDrew wrote:Regarding steel guitar logos, the only thing that I do not understand is the necessity of saying "steel guitar" on the logo. It's like Fender putting "electric guitar" under the headstock logo.

I agree with you, but maybe if they put "STEEL GUITAR" on there REALLY BIG, we wouldn't get so many people asking "what is that instrument you're playing?" or complimenting us on our keyboard playing!

Good point, Brint!

I agree that the logos on most expensive steels look pretty cheap for items in their price range. As if steel did not already look enough like a box of hardware, why put a logo on that looks like it was designed by a generic mailing label program.
I would like to see steels that looked as if one of the old sports car designers had drawn it, and the mechanic figured out how to make it work. Who says that it has to have corners and end plates. How about some curves and "bumpers".
This thread has digressed a lot from the original question of sound. Maybe we should start a new one.

This thread has digressed a lot from the original question of sound. Maybe we should start a new one.

Good idea Bobby. I started a new thread about logos:

Click Here

Lee

>>But, whatever your opinion of the construction and appearance of GFI, I think their instruments are clearly distinctive--they can't really be lumped in with the herd<<

Brint H. I agree with your above statement, I would also say that the Williams should not be lumped in with the herd because its changer is designed differently than the herd. Bill Rudolph holds the patent on this changer and anybody using it will soon find themselves receiving a cease and desist order.

Over the years I have played many a craft fair and come to fiind some of the
leather workers making little coin or makeup pouches with 2 zippers.
one on top just the size for a bar or two and one on the side for coins that work
well for tuning tools or picks. I have 4 in assorted colours. Check out the
hand leather craftsman at a fair this summer. I am sure you will find a great
Bar and pick pouch.

Ok, I can't keep my mouth shut any longer. I'm not here to agree or disagree with anyone but here are my thoughts. I have owned at least twenty Sho-Buds over the past fourty years, every model from a 59 permanent to the Super Pro. I believe I know what Sho-Buds sound like. The Jackson Madison 63 sounds like a permanent Sho-Bud. The other Jackson guitars sound like Sho-Buds as well. The Jacksons are going for the permanent sound with all their models as that is the best sound Sho-Bud had. The engineering and workmanship is second to none and there are no finer people than David & Harry Jackson.