The Steel Guitar Forum

Brad I couldn,t agree more


"Bottom line is that one should not have to pay to have a new Sho bud 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."

Bottom line is that one should not have to pay to have a new Sho bud 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.

That might make sense if there were any new Sho~Buds..... the majority of the 'Buds out there are at least 30 years old.

Guys and Gals,

There have been several posts that go either way. I am an old 50 year old guy who absolutely loves the mechanics of my steels. I just kept all of the mechancis of my 1974 and made a new body; Birdseye maple natural color with 9 coats of water based polyurethane gloss. It is a little more square than it's sister. It took a month of labor and love in a dark garage to make this beauty. All else is original equipment underneath. I will take old style and finish over the new fake mica. I honestly believe these steels are a part of us when we play. They put out what we put into them. As for the tone, I'll stick with the old. During my rebuild, I played an early Rustler that put most of the new fakies to death. Sorry newbies. I am just an old guy I guess.

This is my new ClinCher Pedal Steel Guitar. It is call the Signature Series - Golden D10. I am about 80% done. Some electrics, pickups pedal rods and then setup. Thanks for looking. Play well.

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

Brint Hannay wrote:
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.

Brint, thank you. Brad's statement was 180 degrees out from my understanding, but not being a Shobud historical expert, I elected to keep quiet.

Greg Cutshaw wrote: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..

When I served my violinmaking apprenticeship back in the '70s, my Master taught be an easy trick to spot a good fiddle. Lots of wear. Just because an instrument is old doesn't necessarily mean it is a fine instrument. Signs of heavy use (not abuse) 9 times out of 10 means it's a good instrument, and that's why someone played the dickens out of it. If you see an instrument that shows signs of age but no wear, proceed with caution.

TB: no argument here that you unfortunately got hold of a bad model year design, and in your place I would have been just as PO'd as you. But to run around saying that every Shobud guitar ever made is a POS is just ridiculous. You mentioned running a poll to prove that the majority agrees with you. Where is it? I'm a-waitin', and time's a-wastin'.

In the vintage guitar world, I often hear the argument that worn instruments sound better. I believe it's not the use that makes them sound good, but they were used a lot BECAUSE they sounded good. The mint ones a lot of times suck just as bad 50 years later as they did when they were new. That's why they are still mint. Embrace the wear and be proud of it. That wear is a sign that someone else also loved it.

I just read Johnny's post. Well, you know, great minds and all!

Johnny I do not have to conduct a poll - the evidence is in

"Msa's from the 70's and 80's had great undercarriages - the majority of Sho buds did not!!"

That's why former employees from Shobud are kept busy trashing the pot metal and rebuilding them with the good metal MSA and others have always used."

I have a '79 Pro II custom that plays and sounds like a dream. All original parts too. I guess I'm lucky.

A friend of mine has been a union shop foreman for 25 years. He told me that he has a machine that he can put any part in it and (supposedly) it will design and cut a new one out of aluminum.

I may do this after reading all of these horror stories. Just in case.

If your opinion of all Sho-Buds being trash, is based on a single pot metal era guitar, you have really not experience Sho-bud the way most of us "die-hards" have. My first guitar was a push-pull Emmons. It sounded great, stayed in tune and I had it set up by someone who really knew what he was doing, and it played great. My first double neck was a Sho-Bud crossover. We have all heard the horror stories on that one. It was a tuning nightmare, but I was hooked on that look and that sound,,, Man what a sound. My next guitar was an MSA classic. It played way too easy. I couldn't feel that string pull like I did on the Emmons, and that bugged me. I hated the fake rosewood look, it never sounded good to me, and it was as heavy as the Sho-Bud. Even though it played like butter, and was never out of tune, I never got used to this one. I always yearned for that Sho-bud look and sound in a guitar that would stay in tune. I also had always wanted a ZB custom, like Tom Brumley played with Buck. Those old guitars just had a style about them that a lot of the new ones don't have. I can't imagine being that impressed with anything made by someone who thinks Formica is more attractive. I think if I had kept the crossover, I'd have figured out how to make a tunable guitar out of it, and I'd still have it. Those 'Buds with the two hole pullers and barrels are way better guitars than the pot metal era guitars. The rack and barrel guitars (other than crossovers) are also better guitars. There is not a sound that compares to the permanents. That old Texas Troubadour tone is what I'm talking about here. I know a lot of you are looking for something different than this, but please don't insult us by insinuating that we are ignorant and tone deaf because we don't hate our Sho-Buds as much as you hate the obvious clunker that you had.

I agree with Bobby, The look of the ZB is "to die for". IMHO they're great sounding guitars too.

The old MSA's workmanship and engineering was and is better than some of the modern "CNC" guitars in my opinion. Look at how little these guitars have worn and how tight and smooth their mechanisms still are.

My Franklin built Pro II was just awesome. I sold it to buy a newer guitar with a more compact body and more knee levers and a more modern tuning rather than refurb it.

I lost $500 on my pot metal Sho-Bud. No sustain and no mass on any of the sound conducting metal parts. What a sham!

It's hard to generalize about Sho-Buds, there's just too many different models, builders and vintages of them.

Greg

I actually have thought that maybe someday I'd buy a trashed MSA and build Sho-Bud style maple body for it's hardware. As a former machinist, I admire a lot about the precision of the machine work in the MSA, It just seems that some character was maybe lacking because of the process of mass production, where Sho-bud maybe lacked some precision as a result of the same.
I guess it's not fair for me to judge all MSA based on my experience with the one I had either.

Greg said: "No sustain and no mass on any of the sound conducting metal parts"

This proves every (pot metal) Sho-Bud is not created equal. Mine sustains great. It sustains as much as the old wraparound push/pull I had.... Proving not all brands (or designs) always live up to their reputation.... good or bad.

One man's pot metal is another man's gold!

When I say the parts had no mass, I am specifically referring to the piece of metal that held the roller nut in place. When you tapped on it, it sounded like plastic and the weight of it was very close to plastic. As far as the tone of that particular guitar, it was as is you were playing it with a plastic bar. It had a kind of muted banjo sound to it. It was THAT dead.

Greg

Here's a good definition of the word "pot Metal" from Wikipedia:


Pot metal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Pot metal is a slang term that refers to alloys that consist of inexpensive, low-melting point metals used to make fast, inexpensive castings. There is no scientific metallurgical standard for pot metal; common metals in pot metal include zinc, lead, copper, tin, magnesium, aluminium, iron, and cadmium. The primary advantage of pot metal is that it is quick and easy to cast. Due to its low melting temperature no sophisticated foundry equipment is needed and specialized molds are not necessary. It is sometimes used to experiment with molds and ideas before using metals of higher quality. It is sometime referred to as white metal, die-cast zinc, or monkey metal.[1] Examples of items created from pot metal include toys, furniture fittings, tool parts, electronics components, and automotive parts.[citation needed]

Pot metal can be prone to instability over time, as it has a tendency to bend, distort, crack, shatter, and pit with age.[1] The low boiling point of zinc and the fast cooling of the newly-cast part often allow air bubbles to remain within the cast part, weakening the metal.[1] Many of the components of pot metal are susceptible to corrosion from airborne acids and other contaminants, and the internal corrosion of the metal often causes the decorative plating to flake off.[citation needed] Pot metal is not easily glued, soldered or welded.[1]

At one time, "pot metal" referred to a copper alloy that was primarily alloyed with lead. 67% Cu, 29% Pb & 4% Sb and 80 Cu, 20% Pb were common formulations.[2]

The primary component of pot metal is zinc, but often the caster adds other metals to the mix to strengthen the cast part, improve the flow of the molten metal, or to reduce cost.[dubious – discuss] With a low melting point of 419 °C (786 °F), zinc is often alloyed with other metals including lead, tin, aluminium and copper.


Greg

Sorry you got a bad one...... I played a pot metal Bud for many years, it sounded good and was mechanically sound. The three Sho~Bud guitars that I own now are:



73 LDG all original works great
74 LDG all original works great
75 6139 was all original and working great when I got it... I have added 3 knee levers and installed Coop Super Fingers. I installed the Coop fingers only because they have longer throw than the originals on this particular guitar. i was trying out some oddball changes and string gauges.

( Thank you, Gene Haugh for the dating info!)

In NYC I have rebuilt quite a few steels.... I get a lot of referrals from local music stores. I have seen some really bad stuff, mostly ebay guitars bought by newbies. I don't want to be contrary here.... but two of the worst, worn out, wrecks were MSA Classics.

The original post was New steels vs Old. I am a fan of old steels, but I do own a couple of modern guitars that are fabulous. ( Williams, Lamar) I think that you can go either way and, most likely, do just fine. Try to get some expert advice on the particular guitar before you buy, and watch out for online sales if you don't know what you are looking at, or if you are buying from someone who doesn't know anything about PSGs.

Clint Jones wrote:I just kept all of the mechanics of my 1974

From a ZB? Looks ZB to me.

Danny Bates wrote:Greg said: "No sustain and no mass on any of the sound conducting metal parts"

This proves every (pot metal) Sho-Bud is not created equal. Mine sustains great. It sustains as much as the old wraparound push/pull I had.... Proving not all brands (or designs) always live up to their reputation.... good or bad. :?

I have two LDG's: a round-front ('74, I now know thanks to Gene Haugh), all original with two-hole pullers and barrels, and a '79 (thanks to Gene again) with all original pot metal era parts except 3 out of 4 knee lever brackets. They are both, in my opinion, wonderful instruments--and the round-front is my sentimental favorite because I love the look and because the specs are like Lloyd's--but, as I have posted in another thread, I find that the '79 "pot-metal" guitar has slightly more sustain than the '74 (which has a LOT). My '78 Super Pro sustains great also.

Neither of my "pot metal era" Buds has a suspect piece of metal holding the roller nut as Greg describes. They both unquestionably have cast aluminum keyheads that are all one solid piece with the roller nut mounting, albeit somewhat less bulky than the "Gumby" keyheads. I can't speak to later examples.

Leslie,

Clint explains in another thread ....

It was a Linkon D-10 from 1974

Here' s link...

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... t=#1506837

Pedal steels are like a barrel of pistols..........the best one is the one that works when you need it.

Leslie - It is a 1974ish Linkon D-10 where the body started to crack and fall apart. The mechanics I think are some of the best I have seen. I think Wayne did a fantastic job with these. It is quiet and fairly smooth. I built the new body out of Birdseye maple. I spoke to Wayne when I purchased the guitar and he said it was designed around the ZB and I think he mentioned that it was the one that Tom Brumley played. Tom was my all time favorite steeler and one I fashion my own playing after.

Thanks for the reply.

Bottom line is that one should not have to pay to have a new Sho bud 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.<<

Yes TB, The sad thing is, SB had the ability to build great Steels and did build some Great Steels but they elected to increase their production and lower their quality control to almost zero resulting in many, many people, myself included, receiving sub par steels..its really a shame because they had the best looking Steel on the market.

Brad,

I can understand the pain you must've felt when you found out your Sho-Bud guitar was a lemon.

I bought a new steel guitar in 1981 from a reputable steel guitar company that's still in business...(If anybody's curious, PM me for the company name) The pedals and knee levers were constantly going out of adjustment. During a vacation, I drove over 600 miles to the factory to have it set up properly. It took a week and cost somewhere around $350 to have the factory completely tweek it. By the time I got back home it was completely out of adjustment again. Luckily a friend talked me into trading it to him. But because of that frustration, I quit playing pedal steel guitar for years.

A friend of mine put so much money in a boat, he had a guy take it and sink it in the bottom of a lake. This was after wasting thousands of dollars in many futile attempts to repair it.

Hey Danny, I guess we have to take our lumps and move on...I understand that the Mullen G2 is getting good press, as is the Williams and Excel...also the Sho-Pro seems to be another winner...at this date we sure have a lot of choices...makes one wonder why there are so many builders if there is no money in this business.

You betcha Brad, If they're not giggin' with 'em, hopefully they're enjoying them at home.

I like what Roual said:

Pedal steels are like a barrel of pistols..........the best one is the one that works when you need it.

I still like my old steels best but my E9th "Stage One" is lightweight and has great action and tone... plus I don't care (as much) if it gets scratched up .... I just wish they made a D-10