Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 16:44The ShadowMusic Web Community
An archive of Shadows facts
http://shadowmusic.co.uk/
Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Page 1 of 1
Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 16:44Re: Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 16:52Bit OTT on price ,I sold mine No 5 of 40 for 7.5k 18 months ago
Re: Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:02HOW much?
JN
JN
Re: Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 17:19JimN wrote:HOW much?
JN
£7,500 it was mint condition !
Re: Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 24 Jan 2013, 18:30I saw a well-used 1962 Fiesta Red Stratocaster in Guitar Center (Hollywood) yesterday.
Price: a smidgeon under $50,000 (!).
JN
Price: a smidgeon under $50,000 (!).
JN
Re: Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 25 Jan 2013, 12:44This is a silly price for a 40th, particularly as all the bits and pieces aren't with it...
I rejected the first one I had because the top E string kept falling off the fingerboard and seemed out of alignment. I was then offered someone else's low number, which again was a poor player. I eventually had number 38 (or was it 36) from the second batch, and, on removing the CE sticker from the neck plate, discovered that the "gold plating" came off with it.
I also discovered that the lower edge of the scratchplate - which couldn't be seen without looking for it - was slightly melted as if by a soldering iron. I was aware that the LED side marker dots had been installed in the UK, so I investigated, and on removing the scratchplate, discovered splinters in the woodwork where holes had been drilled (apparently with a blunt drill) to connect the LEDs to the battery. Moreover, where a circular saw had been used along the lower side of the neck to install the lights, the resulting fillet was refinished in a lacquer which was not the same as the original...
So I jumped up and down, and was sent the neck plate and complete-with-electrics scratchplate of number 40 in exchange for mine... so...
Further digging around discovered the reason for the string alignment problem. Apparently, at the last moment - and at the suggestion of Chris Kinman whose pickups had been used, Hank changed his mind about the bridge opting to discard the narrower two post bridge with solid saddles, for the wider spaced vintage variety. Unfortunately, by this time, the necks (with the narrower fingerboard had been made and finished... so that's how they went out.
The neck was like rubber on these guitars and I had to adjust the truss rod according to season.
It made a great modern Hank sound - remember my Waffles sound file? ( http://shadowmusic.bdme.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=125&p=336&hilit=waffles#p336) but was not a good instrument in my opinion...
Tin hat on...
I rejected the first one I had because the top E string kept falling off the fingerboard and seemed out of alignment. I was then offered someone else's low number, which again was a poor player. I eventually had number 38 (or was it 36) from the second batch, and, on removing the CE sticker from the neck plate, discovered that the "gold plating" came off with it.
I also discovered that the lower edge of the scratchplate - which couldn't be seen without looking for it - was slightly melted as if by a soldering iron. I was aware that the LED side marker dots had been installed in the UK, so I investigated, and on removing the scratchplate, discovered splinters in the woodwork where holes had been drilled (apparently with a blunt drill) to connect the LEDs to the battery. Moreover, where a circular saw had been used along the lower side of the neck to install the lights, the resulting fillet was refinished in a lacquer which was not the same as the original...
So I jumped up and down, and was sent the neck plate and complete-with-electrics scratchplate of number 40 in exchange for mine... so...
Further digging around discovered the reason for the string alignment problem. Apparently, at the last moment - and at the suggestion of Chris Kinman whose pickups had been used, Hank changed his mind about the bridge opting to discard the narrower two post bridge with solid saddles, for the wider spaced vintage variety. Unfortunately, by this time, the necks (with the narrower fingerboard had been made and finished... so that's how they went out.
The neck was like rubber on these guitars and I had to adjust the truss rod according to season.
It made a great modern Hank sound - remember my Waffles sound file? ( http://shadowmusic.bdme.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=125&p=336&hilit=waffles#p336) but was not a good instrument in my opinion...
Tin hat on...
Re: Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 25 Jan 2013, 13:19A great report David if you are thinking of buying one, not so good if you are trying to sell one......... 
Re: Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 25 Jan 2013, 13:48Didn't someone on this site previously own this guitar? Or perhaps it was from the previous Shadows site, but I seem to recall a member talking about having No 40 of the 40. Perhaps my memory is playing tricks. I agree 100 per cent about the overpricing for a guitar which is minus several of the original bits, including the original CoA I believe. The case looks nice.
Re: Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 25 Jan 2013, 16:04Derek Misselbrook wrote:A great report David if you are thinking of buying one, not so good if you are trying to sell one.........
It's just being straight so that if someone is buying one to play, they know the pitfalls. And if they're buying it as an investment, they can be aware of its limitations. Keith got an exceptional price, but if you're trying to collect the set then you pay the price when the missing piece comes up...
Re: Fender Signature Hank Marvin 40th Ann (1998)
Posted: 26 Jan 2013, 13:27David
You were clearly unlucky with your 40ths which must have been very disappointing for you. The fact that at least two out of the 40 didn't come up to scratch doesn't say anything for quality control.
However, just to show that there's always another side of the coin, I can honestly say that I've always been very happy with mine. I haven't had any of the problems you describe except that in the first summer I had it (the scorcher of 2006) the neck did move a but a tweak of the truss rod put it right and I haven't had to touch it since. If I was being finicky I would say that the fret markers don't quite line up with the D and G strings (but that's also the case with some of my other guitars and it doesn't really bother me). I use it regularly and I find it very comfortable to play. I agree with you that it has a great modern Hank sound and, to me, the 40th is the most attractive of the various CS Hank guitars in colour and general appearance.
Although I obviously keep an eye out for one coming onto the market the value is of academic interest because I've no intention of selling mine.
Cheers.
Tony
You were clearly unlucky with your 40ths which must have been very disappointing for you. The fact that at least two out of the 40 didn't come up to scratch doesn't say anything for quality control.
However, just to show that there's always another side of the coin, I can honestly say that I've always been very happy with mine. I haven't had any of the problems you describe except that in the first summer I had it (the scorcher of 2006) the neck did move a but a tweak of the truss rod put it right and I haven't had to touch it since. If I was being finicky I would say that the fret markers don't quite line up with the D and G strings (but that's also the case with some of my other guitars and it doesn't really bother me). I use it regularly and I find it very comfortable to play. I agree with you that it has a great modern Hank sound and, to me, the 40th is the most attractive of the various CS Hank guitars in colour and general appearance.
Although I obviously keep an eye out for one coming onto the market the value is of academic interest because I've no intention of selling mine.
Cheers.
Tony