converting a D-10 to single with pad?

Terry Sneed · Post by **Terry Sneed** » 26 Jun 2011 6:57 pm

Would it effect the tone of a 73 Sho-Bud Pro II if you took the back neck off, and everything that would include, changer, fingers, rods, linkages, etc, and put a full size pad on the back? I think I could handle a D-10 with split cases, but don't have the $300 -$400 to buy one. $:\$
Terry

Jim Palenscar · Post by **Jim Palenscar** » 26 Jun 2011 9:32 pm

While I'll bet that there are ears out there that could hear a difference if an immediate A/B tone could be had, IMHO most of us could never tell the difference.

Ray DeVoe · Post by **Ray DeVoe** » 27 Jun 2011 2:49 am

Hi Terry

I beleive that you will see a lot of these conversions as we go forward. There are only so many used S 10's out there, and there are many of us older dudes that just can's handle alot of weight anymore.

I think that alot of players enjoy having a pad as an arm rest and taking the second neck off sure gives a guy alot of backup parts. The only real visable give away is the large end plate opening on an all pull guitar. Im sure that someone will figure out a way to even make that look good with an insert or something as we are an "inventive" group.

Steel amplifiers keep dropping in size and weight. Now all we need to do is get the steel guitar down to a manageable weight.

RD

Rich Peterson · Post by **Rich Peterson** » 27 Jun 2011 4:28 am

I have seen so many Les Pauls, Strats, Teles, 335s "improved" by people who later regreted modifying the instrument, that I have to wonder whether this makes sense.

While the E9 tuning is the most used today, the PSG is fading in what passes for country music these days. But Sacred Steel and the use of lap steel in blues show that you can't assume that extra neck will always be superfluous. Music developes in new directions, and people like Zane King and b0b keep developing new copedents and approaches to the instrument.

Current PSG designs are so much lighter in weight that it makes more sense to me to just get a different guitar rather than modify what you have.

Tony Glassman · Post by **Tony Glassman** » 27 Jun 2011 7:04 am

Rich Peterson wrote:I have seen so many Les Pauls, Strats, Teles, 335s "improved" by people who later regreted modifying the instrument, that I have to wonder whether this makes sense.

While the E9 tuning is the most used today, the PSG is fading in what passes for country music these days. But Sacred Steel and the use of lap steel in blues show that you can't assume that extra neck will always be superfluous. Music developes in new directions, and people like Zane King and b0b keep developing new copedents and approaches to the instrument.

Current PSG designs are so much lighter in weight that it makes more sense to me to just get a different guitar rather than modify what you have.

+1

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 27 Jun 2011 7:06 am

Any customization beyond adding a knee lever or two will change the sound. Whether it's noticeable depends on the change AND the ears of the listener.

There are quite a few LDG's out there that sound superb. That's a much safer route, IMHO.

It cracks me up how folks think that a single neck guitar on a double body weighs so much less than a D-10. Maybe 6 or 8#? Maybe 10% less. Whatever a changer + a few rods + bellcranks weighs.

I play exclusively SD-12 guitars for many reasons and don't really care how much it weighs. I've never met a lightweight guitar that sounded and felt right to me. AND I HAVE TRIED. To each his own, but I'll take my old push-pull over any guitar I've seen -- heavy and clanky though it be. With a two wheeler or a wheeled case, 70# or so isn't that big a deal, even to an old codger like me. Just my preference.

Bottom line: I wouldn't do the surgery if it were my guitar. I'd sell it to someone looking for a nice old D-10 and find an LDG.

Per Berner · Post by **Per Berner** » 27 Jun 2011 7:09 am

This type of operation would be totally reversible, so why not?

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 27 Jun 2011 7:55 am

Because of the cost. If you can do it yourself, fine, but pay a skilled steel guitar tech to strip all the C6 hardware, add the pad, remove any unneeded pedals from the pedalbar, then reinstall it and set it up to use or sell as a D-10. It will likely approach half the value of the guitar.

All that to save 6-8lbs??????

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 27 Jun 2011 9:08 am

You could always just put the pad on the E9 neck and concentrate on the C6...

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 27 Jun 2011 9:13 am

weight won't be a problem if we just lobby to have the anti-gravitational technology released that has been hidden from us for so long. we will be able to use our old session 500s again.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 27 Jun 2011 9:29 am

Larry Bell wrote:It cracks me up how folks think that a single neck guitar on a double body weighs so much less than a D-10. Maybe 6 or 8#? Maybe 10% less. Whatever a changer + a few rods + bellcranks weighs.

Just a quibble: Here's an excerpted quotation from Walter Stettner's Lloyd Green Tribute website, concerning the original conversion to his pre-LDG guitar:

Here are some interesting remarks from Lloyd about this guitar and the course of action, taken from a correspondence between Lloyd and Ricky Davis, one of the leading experts when it comes to technical details and the restoration of old steel guitars (and, of course, a great player!)...

"When all of the C6th parts underneath were removed they then removed the 5 pedals connected to the C6th (none of my knee levers were connected to the C6th). We then put the parts on a scale, they weighed 18 lbs."

Larry Bell wrote:I play exclusively SD-12 guitars for many reasons and don't really care how much it weighs. I've never met a lightweight guitar that sounded and felt right to me.

I haven't tried them all, but I agree the overall lightweight-designed guitars I've tried don't sound right to me.

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 27 Jun 2011 9:59 am

Brint
Lloyd's original conversion was a CROSSOVER if I recall correctly == much more iron removed to convert it to a single, I'd suspect. Don't have the actual numbers -- maybe Walter or Lloyd have more info.

Terry Sneed · Post by **Terry Sneed** » 27 Jun 2011 5:27 pm

Current PSG designs are so much lighter in weight that it makes more sense to me to just get a different guitar rather than modify what you have.

Your right about the weight, but these lightweight guitars just don't have that old Sho-bud tone . IMO

Thanks to all..
Terry

John Turbeville · Post by **John Turbeville** » 27 Jun 2011 6:02 pm

I did that to a baldwin crossover 1969 and it worked out great. It was way more than 8#, with the neck and 5 pedals and gear removed. The sd-10 is right at 40#, a pretty comfortable weight for an old sho-bud. I just kept all the parts, if I or anyone wants to put it back together. Oh, I built a really cool pad and used fender black tolex to cover it.

Michael Yahl · Post by **Michael Yahl** » 27 Jun 2011 8:38 pm

Terry, let's step back and back and look at this from another perspective.

Let's say you have a pristine '57 Chevy Bel Air. Your wife/girlfriend doesn't like that beautifully shaped steel dashboard because it hurts her feet when she kicks back and puts them up there on that hard surface.

Do you cut that dash out and put it in the back yard and put a padded dash in? A good bodyman can weld it back in right?

I'm not getting into the vintage/value debate, but what ultimately happens is those parts that are removed usually get lost, or sold, or something and then this instrument is never the same. I'm working with a young soldier that inherited his great uncle's MSA. His uncle had passed and either the guitar wasn't in the case or someone simply separated them for whatever reason, but the case with the pedal bar, rods, and legs, was given away never to be seen again. He received just the guitar body. We're now trying to fix it up. You just never know what's going to happen.

This is akin to the '57 Bel Air. So many were cut up for rods/stock cars/etc. and utimately scrapped. There are few left in good condition today. Just like the old 'Buds, they don't make 'em anymore, but somebody out there would give their eye teeth and first born to have one 'just like it'. If they keep being 'modified', at some point there will no longer be any left in 'original' condition.

Like many other PSG's, their makers have gone to see the eternal Emmons/Newman concert above. I feel that although they may not hold a lot of financial value, there will always be someone who longs to have one of these old instruments with that patina of sound and history. Just like the '57's. This includes all of the older stuff, ZB's, Rusler's, MSA's, Marlen's, and so forth. Somebody wants to love them.

I would rather see you gentlemen who are looking for something lighter, look into trading for say, another 'Bud of the same vintage but in the S10 or SD-10 factory configuration. Or, sell it outright and buy another.

I'm sorry for the rant but I recently acquired what's left of a late '60's Sho-Bud Professional. This one has a 7xxx series serial number that supposedly was part of the numbers kept personnally by Shot. The end plates are bent and welded aluminum and I believe that they pre-date the cast endplates. The pedal bar is also cast and not extruded. A piece of Sho-Bud history? I don't know, someone gutted it, cut holes in the C6 deck apparently attempting an LDG conversion, put some cobbled together mechanics in it, and basically left this guitar valueless for anything. Another '57 for the boneyard.

Please give some consideration to what you have and that perhaps someone else can love it as it is. If I was in the position, I would make you and offer and find you another to fit your needs.

Thank y'all for your tolerance. I'm done now....

Per Berner · Post by **Per Berner** » 27 Jun 2011 10:01 pm

One of the perks of buying something is that it's yours, and you can do what you like to it. Of course I wouldn't want a hypothetical neighbour to turn his pristine classic car into a blinged-out lowrider, but at the end of the day it's none of my business.

And the fewer unmolested original Buds there are around, the more the one in your closet will be worth

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 28 Jun 2011 6:47 am

Of course, someone can do what they please with their own property. But Terry asked for advice, and I'm with Larry and Michael - why do this to a perfectly well-operating vintage Sho Bud? I agree with all their arguments - when things get converted, there is a strong tendency for parts to get lost or otherwise messed up, there's really no acute shortage of good SD-10's out there, and with most of them, I don't think it'll save all that much weight. I just tore apart, cleaned, and set up an old 12-string universal Sho Bud with Super Pro mechanics - that whole mechanism just doesn't weigh a ton. Then there's the vintage-value aspect - that's not as obvious, but I do think that as time moves on, old Sho Buds will be worth (possibly much) more in excellent original working and cosmetic condition.

Why not just get a nice LDG or another Sho Bud SD-10 (either original or already converted)? Lloyd didn't have that option back when - there was no such thing. And maybe it would make sense on an old Baldwin Crossover - I rarely if ever hear anybody argue that this particular crossover mechanism worked adequately, and that might actually yield significant weight savings. I've played a couple of them, they did sound great - they were beasts, but cool. I think they're rack-and-barrel, correct? Cool guitars if you want to deal with that type of mechanism, and they seem to be available inexpensively due to all those issues.

But I wouldn't take a neck off a nice working vintage Sho Bud D-10 at this point in time. You asked.

Per Berner · Post by **Per Berner** » 28 Jun 2011 6:55 am

Personally, I wouldn't find it difficult to save all the removed pieces in the same place for later re-assembly, but I can understand where you're coming from, Dave.

BTW, I used to own a Pro III Custom D-10 that had been expertly converted to an SD-10 with 4+5 (hard to tell except for the empty hole in the endplate), and you're right on one more point: It still was heavier than most, can't have been much loss in weight. Tone was still 100 % vintage Sho-Bud, though.

Mark Eaton · Post by **Mark Eaton** » 28 Jun 2011 7:04 am

18 lbs. is a pretty significant chunk of change. Maybe some missed that in the earlier quote from Brint that he gleaned from Walter's site in regards to Lloyd's original conversion done for him by Shot Jackson.

That same figure was also given by Lloyd in an interview he did for The Journal of Country Music in I believe 2005, an article from which I have quoted here on the forum on several occasions.

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 28 Jun 2011 7:28 am

Terry, Here's what will help you out greatly. Can be found at Wal-Mart for about $40. Folds up real flat for easy transport in your vehicle. (See the pics below)

I believe you will learn that C6th neck someday, and if you remove all the hardware to save a few lbs, you will realise you have not gained very much--not enough to make it worth it. It will bug you, knowing you now can't pursue C6th.

I also believe the mass in those old shobuds contributes greatly to the overall tone. The weight is important to the tone equation, yet inconvenient, if that makes senses. You have one of the holy grail 'buds, if it's the early roundfront with barrels behind two-hole pullers. This model is THE representative of Shobud's finest hour, mechanicly AND tone wise, AND overall beauty. Shobud could have quit right there, with the Pro II roundfront and the LDG--both with barrels behind two-hole pullers.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 28 Jun 2011 7:36 am

Mark - to our understanding, that was an earlier Crossover or Fingertip guitar, I can't recall - but it was late 60s, no? I already agreed that it might be reasonable for a Crossover, since it would make the guitar more usable and save significant weight. However if this is a later mechanism, I don't think the savings are anything like 18 pounds - as I said earlier, I just tore apart a Super Pro mechanism, I don't think there's that much to them.

I would, in no way, ever molest an original Sho Bud Fingertip D-10 at this point in time. Hardly any out there in original condition, that is collector fodder.

Per - sure, parts can be saved. But I wonder what percentage of guitars (of any kind) that are torn apart ultimately have all the original parts to restore when and if that time comes. I'll bet that percentage is not as high as one might think, unless you're dealing with someone who is very organized and professional about how they handle them. Even on something simple like a vintage Fender 6-string electric guitar, where the vintage value of the original parts is starkly obvious, I cannot tell you how many times I have seen reversibly-modified guitars whose owners ultimately, over the course of time, had either lost or messed up the parts needed to restore to original condition and were seriously singin' the blues when they went to sell them.

James - totally agreed. And I also have that exact fold-up dolly - has been cutting the mustard for the last 5-6 years, takes a licking and keeps on ticking, and definitely saves my back on a long haul from the car/van/whatever.

James Morehead · Post by **James Morehead** » 28 Jun 2011 8:12 am

Dave, That was a crossover that Lloyd had converted, to the best of my knowledge. It would have had racks, and the rails the racks were mounted to, (and the rails monted to the wood) in groups of 4, normally. There would have been the newer style wide cast keyheads (with Schaller tuners) with the wide brass rollers. Pullrods might have been aluminum or steel. Of course about 15 brass barrels would have been removed. The changer amounted to a mounting "comb" and the single/single fingers, and of course the wood wrap-around-neck. With the removal of 5 aluminum pedals, Shobud probably cut down that long 1/2" STEEL axle to accomodate the 3 pedals for E9. It's uncertain if they altered the big cast frame that were characteristic of crossovers.

Don't forget, you have to ADD BACK IN, the weight of the pad, which is a piece of plywood with foam and tolex.

I intend to measure the difference in a Professional and a Pro II, with taking away the C6th vs. leaving it on. I have access to all the parts---just need a light scale. My curiosity is stirred up.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 28 Jun 2011 8:28 am

I agree with the idea that there are plenty of SD-10s already around, LDGs or already converted examples, and D-10 Sho-Buds that are still unaltered, not being a renewable resource and still desired by many, should not be converted.

Just pursuing the specifics of what the weight reduction would be for "academic" interest, while I've never seen a crossover and don't know what parts exactly had to be removed from Lloyd's guitar, the guitar we're talking about here is a '73, which very likely means it is barrels behind two-hole pullers. It also means it has Gumby keyheads and wide pedals. Removing one Gumby, five pedals, and one changer housing, all of which are chunky hunks of cast aluminum, plus the changer itself and undercarriage parts (none of which are the lightweight "pot metal"), seems to me that they would probably weigh more than 6-8 lbs., though perhaps less than 18.

But I'm with James 100%. The barrels behind two-hole pullers period was the all-too-brief golden era of Sho-Bud, and Pro IIs from that era should be preserved!

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 28 Jun 2011 10:35 am

I missed the '73 in the original post. Definitely not Super Pro mechanics, my bad. But good Lord, don't tear up a barrels-behind-two-hole-pullers D-10, if that's in fact what it is. Not enough of them around, fer sure. BTW, Terry - what mechanism is this? I think it is relevant.

Is it possible that a '73 could be rack-and-barrel? Not sure about the exact time chronology. I had a (I believe late) '72 R&B S-10. Sounded great, but I pretty much decided to go to a wider body, so I traded it. So I'm gonna hold out for a BBTHP D-10 - but only after I consolidate in the steel guitar and amp department first.

Michael Yahl · Post by **Michael Yahl** » 28 Jun 2011 10:47 am

Yes, my Professional is a R&B built in 10/1972 #2594. From what I've seen is that there are no definitive lines as to when the R&B's ceased and the 2 holes started. they were intermixed for at least a years time of production.

James, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

The Steel Guitar Forum

converting a D-10 to single with pad?

converting a D-10 to single with pad?

convert to SD-10