The ShadowMusic Web Community

It seems the Shads stage and studio used Burns guitars can now be bought (for a pretty penny) from Reverb for those of us with deep pockets.

I know Bruce still had his Burns, but I thought Hanks were stolen, never to be seen again. Thoughts anyone?

Oops, almost forgot, Hanks guitar is here: https://reverb.com/uk/item/49205158-burns-marvin-model-ex-hank-marvin-the-shadows-1964-white

Bruces is here: https://reverb.com/uk/item/49205370-burns-marvin-model-ex-bruce-welch-the-shadows-1964-white

Cliff

Edit, for those of you with Facebook, you can buy the complete set, including the prototype bass played by "John Rustle" (whoever he may be) here: https://www.facebook.com/DenmarkStGuitars

I would be highly cautious.

If Bruce still has his original instrument, why would he be suddenly selling it now?

Why would he have chosen the exact same trader handling the sale of Hank’s corresponding guitar?

The theft of the Burns instruments is well chronicled. If such an instrument is now for sale, is it not still stolen goods?

John Rustle? I suspect there’s a rustler about!

Caveat emptor …

Wise words Ian.

Of course, everything could be genuine and above board, but it seems quite a coincidence that all 3 instruments come on the market at the same time, especially considering the known history of Hanks Burns. The spelling error doesn't help with credibility either.

I would be interested in seeing the provenance they say they have from Bruce W and Burns.

Cliff

The advert also mentions that "Bruce's guitar" is a prototype non-trem version.

But Bruce's Burns was equipped in exactly the same way as Hank's, though Bruce removed the tremolo arm. Had that not been the case, there would have been no point in John Farrar eventually drilling and tapping a hole in the trem plate to accommodate a Strat tremolo arm. But he did.

JimN wrote:The advert also mentions that "Bruce's guitar" is a prototype non-trem version.

But Bruce's Burns was equipped in exactly the same way as Hank's, though Bruce removed the tremolo arm. Had that not been the case, there would have been no point in John Farrar eventually drilling and tapping a hole in the trem plate to accommodate a Strat tremolo arm. But he did.

You're right of course. One of the photos even shows the hole in the Rezotube that John made. Odd though, that for such expensive instruments the only photos appear to be old "stock" pictures, rather than an extensive set of recent photos. Then again, perhaps not odd at all .

Cliff

Just been browsing through some old threads (as you do) and came across this one from 2011: http://www.shadowmusic.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5237&sid=c64a35d0db0840cfbb17f5a394756e2e. The last couple of posts suggest that Barry Gibson was in possession of one of Hanks original Marvins. This makes sense, as Barry once told me that the body of Hanks Marvin was slightly larger than Bruce's - how would he know unless he had access to one to compare? I know Barry also had Johns prototype bass, and Bruce still had his Marvin, so could this be a case of Barry G having a clear out? I know Howard at Oasis was (is?) selling an AC30 belonging to Bruce, so I guess Bruce could be slimming down his collection also.

To be honest, I'm sceptical, but the seller has responded on Facebook to say new photos will be added soon. I shall watch with interest.

Cliff

I know that one time I visited Music Ground Leeds, their collectables dept upstairs had on glass case
display a prototype Burns Marvin reputed to have been used on the recording of Flingel Bunt in 1964
It was priced then at £25000 and had the pickup selector as I recall angled differently and certainly
pretty much off white by then.(probably round about 2002 and certainly before the Chinese2004 re issues)
Tempted- er no!!!

Mike

I always thought Hank's had a bound neck?

This one doesn't seem to!

Uncle Fiesta wrote:I always thought Hank's had a bound neck?

This one doesn't seem to!

I've seen photos of Hank with both (bound and unbound), though the bound neck seems more common. If it's the one referred to in the thread I linked to earlier, then I suppose it's possible it was used by Hank at some point.

I'm still a long way from convinced though - it will be interesting to see if more photos do actually get posted.

Cliff

Teflon wrote:

Uncle Fiesta wrote:I always thought Hank's had a bound neck?
This one doesn't seem to!

I've seen photos of Hank with both (bound and unbound), though the bound neck seems more common. If it's the one referred to in the thread I linked to earlier, then I suppose it's possible it was used by Hank at some point.
I'm still a long way from convinced though - it will be interesting to see if more photos do actually get posted.
Cliff

August 1965 (TOTP): No binding on Hank's "Marvin"...

November 1965 (despite what it says on the Youtube page) (SNATLP): No binding on Hank's "Marvin"...

I have an idea that the bound neck came along only with the Baldwin changes (ie, when the guitar's nameplate was changed).

This third video, which I had not seen before, has The Shadows playing Bombay Duck (probably in Australia). It cannot be before April 1967 because that's when the record was released (it was recorded in late February 1967): No binding on Hank's "Marvin", but the guitars do now have the "Baldwin" name-plates.