The ShadowMusic Web Community

JimN wrote:

Billyboygretsch wrote:Yes Virginian prototype

That's puzzling, because the Virginian was, of course, preceded by the GB65, which had the same body as the eventual Virginian.

I wonder why a Virginian prototype wouldn't be equipped with the available GB65 body?

Without checking, from memory, didn't the GB65 have a body with f-holes (though odd shaped) whereas the Virginian had a round sound hole?

cockroach wrote:

JimN wrote:

Billyboygretsch wrote:Yes Virginian prototype

That's puzzling, because the Virginian was, of course, preceded by the GB65, which had the same body as the eventual Virginian.

I wonder why a Virginian prototype wouldn't be equipped with the available GB65 body?

Without checking, from memory, didn't the GB65 have a body with f-holes (though odd shaped) whereas the Virginian had a round sound hole?

Very true, but it still would surely been easier to take a Virginian guitar top off the production line before the f-holes were cut, rather then construct a whole new and uniquely shaped top (and, let us not forget, back and sides as well)?

JimN wrote:

cockroach wrote:

JimN wrote:
That's puzzling, because the Virginian was, of course, preceded by the GB65, which had the same body as the eventual Virginian.

I wonder why a Virginian prototype wouldn't be equipped with the available GB65 body?

Without checking, from memory, didn't the GB65 have a body with f-holes (though odd shaped) whereas the Virginian had a round sound hole?

Very true, but it still would surely been easier to take a Virginian guitar top off the production line before the f-holes were cut, rather then construct a whole new and uniquely shaped top (and, let us not forget, back and sides as well)?

Maybe it had summat to do with a change to the internal body design, as regards bracing, struts etc? I'm sure I read something somewhere at the time- maybe in Beat Instrumental or a contemporary Burns advert or catalogue?

After all, I would guess in any case that the GB65 was not particularly successful or popular back then...and possibly neither was the GB66...maybe the Virginian was a final redesign attempt to improve sales...until the Steer came along, which always seemed to me to be an updated version of these style of models that Jim produced..

Perhaps dusty fretz can help us??

Please chime in Paul!

JimN wrote:That's puzzling, because the Virginian was, of course, preceded by the GB65, which had the same body as the eventual Virginian.

I wonder why a Virginian prototype wouldn't be equipped with the available GB65 body?

cockroach wrote:Without checking, from memory, didn't the GB65 have a body with f-holes (though odd shaped) whereas the Virginian had a round sound hole?

Very true, but it still would surely been easier to take a Virginian guitar top off the production line before the f-holes were cut, rather then construct a whole new and uniquely shaped top (and, let us not forget, back and sides as well)?[/quote]

cockroach wrote:Maybe it had summat to do with a change to the internal body design, as regards bracing, struts etc? I'm sure I read something somewhere at the time- maybe in Beat Instrumental or a contemporary Burns advert or catalogue?

Possibly - because the internal structure of the two guitars were radically different - but it'd still be easier to apply different bracing to an existing available flat-top than to make a differently-shaped top.

Even if the new top had to be thicker (very possible given the small Rez-o-Tube bridge to be fitted), the shaping template already existed!

cockroach wrote:After all, I would guess in any case that the GB65 was not particularly successful or popular back then...and possibly neither was the GB66...maybe the Virginian was a final redesign attempt to improve sales...until the Steer came along, which always seemed to me to be an updated version of these style of models that Jim produced..

Perhaps dusty fretz can help us??

Please chime in Paul!

The Virginian shared the body shape of the GB65, but was otherwise a very different guitar, with the Rez-o-Tube vibrato and Bar-Matik pickups (and "density" circuit, similar to the Vibraslim, Baby Bison and GB66). I'm sure you're right about the lack of success of the GB65 and the GB66. You tend to see more of the latter (which was the better guitar) about, though.

Regarding some of the various models Burns and Burns /Baldwin , I haven't ever read the books about Burns, so apologies if this is a daft question, but were the production and/or sales figures for the various models by year etc ever made available?

cockroach wrote:Regarding some of the various models Burns and Burns /Baldwin , I haven't ever read the books about Burns, so apologies if this is a daft question, but were the production and/or sales figures for the various models by year etc ever made available?

I doubt it.

I think there is a semi-official total for the Burns and Baldwin Marvin of around 400.

I read somewhere that the number of 'Marvins' was 360.