The Steel Guitar Forum

http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Vintage-SHO-BU ... 286.c0.m14

Serial Numbered 009 ?

Nope, not a permanent. Not a Sho~Bud, either.

Doing reference with the FEW Permanent picture I could find, some things looked correct, and some didn't.

It would be great if there was a central location to find good pictures of every model they produced.

I really have NO knowledge of earlier models, so I'd love to be enlightened, if any of you feel so inclined.

Thanks.

From the limited exposure I have had to permanents, some of the undercarriage, the changers, the pedal board, pedal rods, maybe the end plates? could be from a permanent, but the body, necks, and keyheads do not look right. Probably a home made job using some sho-bud parts and other parts. It might be a nice guitar, or a parts guitar if you have a permanent.

i think it's a millier custom

p.w

Looks like it may be an early Miller.

Benton

The guitar is not a Shobud. But it is, basically, a "Permanent," as the bellcranks are welded/brazed onto the cross rods.
'59 Perm changer.



A '59 keyhead. Notice, no rollers. Of course, later Perms did have the roller nutz.

I too think it's a Miller.
As far as reference pictures of early Sho-Bud models, remember this was a small operation in Shot's garage at that time. There were no early model numbers, as they just made them to order, one at a time. You can't judge something as not looking Sho-Bud because it looks home made. Guess what, they were home made in Shot Jackson's home.
This one doesn't look Sho-Bud to me, but whoever made it had seen a few of the early ones.

John Billings, I drool like a Boston terrier every time you show pictures of that guitar of yours!

Why! Thank you Bobby! Wait 'till it's done.

On the ebay guitar, those fingerboards appear to be cast aluminum, like a Bigsby, but with raised Sho-Bud style markers. Someone went to a lot of trouble on those. It would have been much easier to make more authentic looking copy fingerboards.

Not a Miller either...

Jussi. What do you think it is? Not trying to sound as if I don't believe you, I know a lot of you guys know more than me. It's interesting whatever it is. If you've got some Miller pictures to compare, I'd like to see those too.

Nothing there is Marlen, and it doesn't look right for a Miller, either. I don't know what it is, but I know what it's not (a Sho~Bud). I can't tell if the pullers are welded, but if they are, it could be called a "permanent" (though I've never heard that terminology excepot on a Sho~Bud). According to Buddy, the first thing Shot designed when he got the idea to make a steel was the famous "shark fin" keyhead. He was very proud of the design, so I seriously doubt he'd have ever built a guitar without it back in those days.

The ser #009 is not right for Sho Bud, they didn't start making D10s for a while, the first were 8s,and 9s,looks like someone had cloned a Bud for profit. Ricky Davis could most likely set us streight on Bud serial #s. Also the fretboard looks like a modified dustcatcher with the edges trimmed.Miller-ish.The first Buds had no endplates as per the website below.

Bill

http://www.telusplanet.net/~gsimmons/shobud/models.html

Well.....if the serial number makes sense somehow, it's DEFINITELY not a Sho~Bud.

famous "shark fin" keyhead

Aren't they called Gumby heads?

Chris LeDrew wrote:Well.....if the serial number makes sense somehow, it's DEFINITELY not a Sho~Bud.

Bobby, while it does look very much like a Miller (or even Bud ), some features give it away. I seriously doubt Roger would've used a cast aluminium fretboard with fretmarkers similar to a Sho Bud. His fretboards were plastic and had different style fretmarkers. Also, most of Millers had a logo casted on the pedal rack, not all of them though, some had just decals. Also, the endplates on Millers had screws on the front. I have no idea what this is, but it looks really nice.
This topic has a bunch of pics of millers:
http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... ght=miller

Jeff Evans wrote:

famous "shark fin" keyhead

Aren't they called Gumby heads?

I got the "shark fin" term from Buddy. I don't know who came up with the "Gumby" term.

Bill, your most likely right about the modified dust catcher. The dust catcher era guitars are a little past my Sho-Bud interest range, so I didn't even think about that.
I think that someone made this. Reproducing the cross rods and belcranks would not be that hard for a good welder or machinist. The tailpiece looks machined. The pedals and pedal rack, and pedal rods all look early Sho-Bud, the pedal width has been trimmed a little. The endplate look sort of bud-like, but the casting looks a little heavy to me, especially around the part where it joins the apron doesn't look right to me.(?) The body is a little more square around the edges than a bud, and the Sho-Bud guys did a better job of making the figure in the wood jump out.You can tell in some of the pics, the wood is birdseye, but it they didn't help it out any in the finishing stage.
It puzzles me that some one who would go to all this trouble, and could do this good of a job, would not have made some sort of effort to find or reproduce a Sho-Bud style head piece. That kinda tells me that the original maker was making a steel to play, and someone later stamped Sho-Bud on it, hoping to get more in a sale.
Let's hear what you think.
This kind of discussion is way more fun than arguing about tone and taste.

Bobby and Bill,
When you zoom in on the fretboards, they look to be aluminum. You can see where the black paint has flaked off, and the resulting surface is the same as the lighter fret lines, and fret markers. And the light areas, markers, frets, and flakes, all look to be aluminum, not white paint. Wheeler?

As soon as you guys make a few more wrong guesses, I'll clue you in on the obvious, a clue,,, it's a 1961 Sho-Bud alright, From Nesbitt Lane in Madison TN. If I didn't have two closets full of them now I'd love to have this one (again). With very little work it could be a killer in the right hands.

Robert K. Seymour, (Bobbe)

Bobbe, were the non-typical headstocks an attempt to shorten the guitar? Were the fretboards aluminum?
I was curious as to whom those initials referred too!

Shorten the guitar, how observent! Yes.

Fretboards,thinking were reversed engraved plexaglas, but I also had a great pattern maker and friend that made me some boards in different styles, some of which I still have.

At the time the guitar was started, Shot claimed it was the 9th 10 string built.
Pedals were very noisy as I remember.

Bobbe