Marvin palm rest - onto a Marquee.

[noelford]

I'd be surprised if BG's answer would contradict Jim Burns. From my own point of view, until this discussion began, I thought it obvious that the bars are there to prevent inadvertent pressure on an otherwise very exposed and sensitive part of the tremelo system. In fact, I've just tried to bring the plate into contact with the bars on my Apache and even with full pressure on the arm, it doesn't touch.

[Bill Bowley]

Noel,

From what you just said you and I agree in our thoughts on the purpose of the bars.

Regards

[dusty fretz]

I realise this subject has now been hammered long and hard, but may I offer just a few more words. 'Hand rest' is indeed the commonly used title for this component, as propounded by Jim Burns during my many conversations with him over the years. However, Jim Nugent is actually correct when he says the description isn't really accurate, although I don't agree with his reasoning regarding function.

Various sources, including Jim Burns, indicate this part was definitely added to protect the bridgeplate from downward pressure. Burns obviously perceived this as a real problem, perhaps promoted by Bruce's strumming style back in the '60s, when he and many players favoured a higher slung guitar and consequent 'right arm along the instrument' angle of attack. Progressively lowering the playing position means there's correspondingly less chance of inadvertently pressing the plate, until protection eventually becomes virtually superfluous. 'Arm rest' might therefore be a more relevant name in terms of the component's original performance intentions, but I've used the term 'two-bar guard' in the past and offer this as a suitably definitive compromise, covering all possible reasons behind the presence of this particular part.

Anyway, knowing Jim Burns' love of bars, I'm sure he was very happy to put two on the Marvin back then, ensuring that the Rezo-Tube unit was safe behind 'em! I'll stop now.

[dave robinson]

My conclusion is that if Bruce's guitar was being detuned by his playing style causing pressure on the trem plate, why not just lock the trem so that it didn't operate, after all he doesn't or didn't need the trem. I have tried to play my Burns in a way that I could accidentally detune it by playing over the hand rest and it is impossible as my hands are nowhere near it.
On my Strat, the only time I have had pitch problems relating to this, is by unwittingly leaning heavily on the the bridge with the heel of my hand thus sharpening the pitch, but I have improved that by fitting all six springs and setting up the guitar in a way that it doesn't happen quite as easily, even after going back to 10/46 guage strings from 11/50s. At the end of the day design wise, it seems that Leo Fender had it right from the word go, my point being that it is the Strat type trem fitted to the Marqee.

[cockroach]

All this fuss about a device that deliberately DE-TUNES the guitar!!!!

signed

Fred Tele..

[mgeek]

Whilst I understand logically that the comparison tends to be made between the Marvin and the Strat, for me, the real Burns 'strat-beater' is the Vista Sonic. More of a utilitarian design, but still with the same basic specs.

Three killer pickups, brilliant trem made out of a massive lump of solid metal bolted onto the sycamore body, that's got to be better for the sustain than a bunch of loose screws!

I'm sure I'm gonna get shot down for this- but I've always felt the Marvin was 'a bit much', visually. Despite STILL being quite over engineered, the Vista Sonic just seems way cooler and more stripped down to me.

Whilst I'm being shot down, I'm gonna add- I'd never be seen dead with a strat! I find them really boringly ubiquitous now...sort of like turning up somewhere in the same clothes as someone else. There are a billion guitars out there that play as well as any strat ever did, so why stick with the formula?

Also sort of feel that the universal admiration for the Strat and Les Paul is what basically killed off all the amazing designs that were being made across the world in the sixties. Once the ubiquity of those two lead to the japanese copy market, there was just no room for the ambitiously wonky Italian guitars covered in accordian glitter, or mad japanese stereo guitars with four sets of pickups, or Wandres, or Weills, or Matons, or Murphs...

okay, Rant over!

[neil2726]

Maybe it was just cosmetic - they look better with the bars than without !

[JimN]

Maybe it was just cosmetic - they look better with the bars than without !

You're right - they do.

But even so, without the bars fitted, all you have to do is catch the rear end of the trem plate on an item of clothing as you are putting it down... It's easy enough to do... and the weight of the guitar will do the rest. The plate will de-mount from the V-shaped recess in the fulcrum bar and other terrible things will happen. It can't happen with a Stratocaster because the front edge of the plate is bolted down, but it can with a Marvin or Bison of the same era.

I've seen it happen (in a workshop). Or rather, I've seen it after it happened. It was that sight which revealed to me just what those bars were for!

Original poster (Darryl), re Post #28: Yes, you might be able to rest your hand on the bars if the guard is mounted in an appropriate place on the guitar. You might even be able to do it in such a way as to still allow damping at the brdge, but it'll need to be very finely judged as to position.

Before you do anything irrevocable, would you be able to take the guitar round to a friend who has a Marvin, temporarily remove the unit from his guitar, blu-tak it into (experimental) place on your guitar, moving it about as necessary, and see how comfortable it is?

I suggest that because a significant number of bassists who use the Shadows Bass have found the bars too awkward to use as a handrest and have removed them. It would be awful to drill four holes in the front of a nice guitar and then find it's too uncomfortable to play (a real danger, I fear).

Paul and Robbo have confirmed what I said in the first place: the guard on the Marvin is not a handrest, even if "handrest" is a nice convenient term for it. Robbo has also made a good point about string gauge and stability. Darryl: What gauge are you using on your Marquee?

JN

[JimN]

I'm sure I'm gonna get shot down for this- but I've always felt the Marvin was 'a bit much', visually.

You're actually in good company.

In an interview published in 1976 in the UK music magazine "Beat Instrumental" (clearly conducted in the summer of 1975), Hank, discussing the Burns guitars (this three years after swapping back to Fenders) said that the Marvin didn't turn out like he had expected, that he didn't like the "profusion of plastic on the body" and that it "looked very clumsy and was very heavy".

Despite these misgivings, he said it played "very well".

Mind you, there are a lot of people who think it leaves the Stratocaster miles behind in terms of visual attractiveness. I tend to vacillate between one position and the other on that...

JN

[Bill Bowley]

JimN,

Hank said: 'that the Marvin didn't turn out like he had expected' eh?

An interesting comment from a man who continued to use the BURNS for many years after Jim BURNS company had folded ( I assume buying a Strat as a replacement wasn't too difficult in the late '60's early '70's?).
His comments in this attachment were obviously 'misquoted' or 'ill advised' at the time. And I can see the look of displeasure on Hank's face in this pic attached as a member of MWF being forced (by who or what?) to continue using a guitar that was a disappointment whilst he 'saved up' to buy a Strat.Then again, he may have just 'changed his mind'.................