Burns Double-Six

polly_mathis · Post by **polly_mathis** » Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:18 pm

First off let me apologize for my complete lack of Searchers knowledge, I'm posting here because this is the only node of the Forum where I've seen mention of Burns guitars.

OK, so I know close to zero about Burns guitars either, I just started uncovering some info in my search for another electric 12-string to serve as backup/variety to my Rick 660/12.

Was just curious about the Double-Six model (especially the recent Korean-made reissue), could y'all weigh in who have had some experience with these? I'd be most interested to know how they compare with Ricks' sounds, playability, build quality.

Thanks a bunch!

admin · Post by **admin** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:48 am

Andy: As you know, the Searchers had Burn's guitars for a while including 6, 12 and bass models. The large horns were not very attractive and I suspect figured in the the Searchers' moving away from their endorsement of these guitars. Perhaps John McNally will be able to fill us in.

From all accounts, the Korean reissue of the Double Six plays just like the original. Mike Pender had a Burns double-six in green finish like the one below. They are available for around $750 US these days.

I have played only one of the Burns six string models which I found to be rather large and somewhat unattractive. Their 12 strings did figure in some of the early British music although they do not stack up to the quality and the sound of the Rickenbacker 12 string at least in my opinion.

That Hank Marvin used the Burns six string is not a bad ad though.

polly_mathis · Post by **polly_mathis** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 3:11 pm

Peter, thanks for your reply!
Interesting what you say about the size of the guitar. I posted the above because I'd been trawling the 'bay for alternative 12ers and had found a Korean dbl-6 (in the not-quite-so-cool-as-the-above-greenburst sunburst), and since posting have heard back from the seller that the nut width on that guitar is a hair shy of 50mm/2" -- wider even than my Guild JF30-12!
I agree the Burns probably wouldn't hold a candle to a Rick 12. Ain't it hard not to be biased against non-set-neck guitars? Certainly difficult not to go ga-ga over every aspect of my own 660/12 (except what I considered to be a poorly cut nut, but my luthier is fixing that presently).
Guess I'm in the minority on this, but I think those oversized horns are cool as can be, they've got a sort of wild-west gaudiness that I like. Betcha Burns guitars go great with a ten-gallon hat and alligator boots!
OK, still pondering, wavering btwn the Burns and a perhaps a Danelectro. Both have the gaudy going on, the Dano's got light weight and 1/2 price tag in its favor, the Burns has got cowboy exotic. Decisions, decisions. Maybe I should just wait til my 660 gets back from the shop, this might just be 12 string withdrawal, after all!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:13 pm

IMO the green 'burst is dreadful. Whether the Japanese borrowed it from the Brits or vice-versa, in the darkest days of the mid-'60s, is debatable, but it's ugh in my book.

Also really worth trying to source/acquire for an alternative 12 is a Charvel Surfcaster. These, however, are experiencing a rise in popularity and thus asking price as well.

polly_mathis · Post by **polly_mathis** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:24 pm

Paul, thanks for pointing out the Charvel, I'm not familiar with that guitar. Is that a pic of a six-string above? It looks like it incorporates a few RIC trademark designs, hmmm. I'll keep my eyes peeled!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 5:55 pm

The twelve is identical in appearance and if I'm recalling correctly, it has the Rick-style headstock, too.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:06 pm

winston · Post by **winston** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:00 pm

I like the 12. Paul are they a nice instrument from a players perspective?

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:01 am

I've never played one, but have heard nothing but good things.

I wish I could say that I have one, but the last ones on eBay were quickly scooped up and none ever turn up at guitar stores around here.

Surfcasters in general are very well-made guitars, and the lipstick tube pickups are legendary single-coils.

I do wonder about the Rickenbacker visual cues packed into these guitars--the triangular neck inlays, the crescent or slash sound hole, and of course the wonderful headstock.

To me (not an attorney) these would appear to be Rickenbacker trade dress violations.

winston · Post by **winston** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 7:01 am

Sounds like there would be a high spirited bidding war if one were to come up on e-bay for auction.

I wondered too about the more than apparent Ric features. That to me though, is what makes this instrument (particularly the FG and JG models I have found on the net) very appealing.

To my eyes that is a very nice looking guitar.

Thanks for the information. I had never had an opportunity to see the SC3 model before now.

kevin · Post by **kevin** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:32 am

I seem to recall hearing that Charvel paid Rickenbacker for the use of their trademarks.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:22 am

I can't believe that Rickenbacker would dilute their hard-earned product identity by allowing anyone to do this.

Still:

Surfcaster-slash soundhole-triangle inlays-12 string headstock=just another semi-cool guitar that sounds better than it looks.