Apparently peeps seems to believe a published word as it's kinda chiselled concrete....
As a author of some published articles, I know first hand, what is published in print.... isn't always what was written behind the desk!
I wrote a article about the Burns Marvin with a genuine interview about the subject with Hank as one of the sources.
I wrote more then 4 A4 on my typewriter in early 91 ( I got into pc's in 92) in November of 91 it was published as a 1,5 page article....
It was edited by a editor who knew nothing about Burns and my '65 Marvin was the first he saw in the flesh, he was so keen that he insist to get pictured with it!
A sample, I wrote the Marvin were made predominantly in white and a few in Greenburst.
So he wrote made in white, in green and in sunburst....
So you see such tiny detail can give a different message....and mind you, it was a guitar magazine!
Perhaps Hanks words in the column where edited as well, so maybe the (few) prototypes that changed about 30 times, became 30 prototypes who knows????
The Marvin's MK2 for the Australian tour , in 79 it was published 2 green 1 white were build and the white was destroyed and never reached the shads , for decades it was copied dozens of times in publishing and on the sites.
Also after the film/tv footage was discovered in the late 80's, it toke almost 3,5 decades before it was changed in the new publishings.
Never-mind the times, I had to swim against the stream of all "armchair" experts who keep saying, just one was made!!!
It's known Hank visit Burns around the end of 62 ish....perhaps the possibility of a new guitar was talked about, that is not the same as ordered or commissioned.
You can clearly hear Hank telling in the sound snippet we ASK Jim Burns in the summer of 63, and yes we got a prototype....and the guitars towards the end of 63/ beginning 64.
So I attaches more value to what Hank said, than 35 years of wrongly copied publications by people who were not there....
Tin hat in place
Cheers Rob