NGD...Gibson Mark Series MK-72

[blue-wily-fox]

Latest is a '76 (circa, very difficult to peg down with serial numbers during this time with Gibson) MK-72, with the prettiest EI Rosewood I've seen. (sorry pic did not do it justice so I didn't post) I know this guitar has a lot of detractors, but based on this guitar, they don't know what they are complaining about. I've heard that some early production models actually self destroyed, and I've kept a "warning list" from a knowledgable luthier about the pitfalls to look for when purchasing, , But this has NONE of those problems. When I got it, the jumbo frets were filed almost flat, and was difficult to play, so I had my luthier refret the beast with medium frets and make a bone saddle for the guitar. The stock saddle was made from some kind of plastic, and was not intonated correctly. This Guitar is one of Gibson's unsung great guitars. A full 7 pages are dedicated to it in "Gibson's Fabulous Flat-top Guitars" (24, 137-142), no other guitar got that kind of press in this book. For a reason......Here is my review:

The first thing I noticed about this guitar is how HEAVY it was. Built like a Guild, like a tank. Fit and finish, workmanship is flawless. Schaller tuners with "Gibson" label work perfectly after all these years. Visually unique and very non-Gibson like, but the guitar was a great experiment for Gibson, and probably ahead of it's time sound wise and visually (I'll admit the bridge DOES take some getting used to visually, but apparently there is a reason) Again, prettiest rosewood I've ever seen. has a lot of black veins in it, which make a lot of folks think it is Brazilian. (but it is not) Huge curved neck block inside and with a mirror, you can see that this is not your uncle's "X"-braced cousin. Pickguard is removable, and a lot don't like the unique shape, but once you own one, you don't really care. The ebony/rosewood fretboard is beautiful looking in person, but the bridge, pickguard and fretboard, were probably just too much for the traditional Guitar public and Gibson traditionalists of the 70's. BIG MISTAKE. This guitar is NOT your thumpy mid range Gibson Jumbo, but it does have an amazing unique sound of it's own. Lots of volume, BUT the big sound is on the listener side, more so than the player side. Unbelievably EVEN sound across the strings. I mean EVEN. I've read that sound engineers LOVE this guitar because it is so easy to record, no thumpin' bass, no ringing over tones.....BUT this sound takes some getting used to, you don't believe you are playing a Gibson. The sound, as my luthier described it, is a hybrid flat-top/classical guitar tone and sound, if you can imagine. One thing strange I've found playing it, is that on first strike of a string or chord, the guitar just goes on forever sustain wise, and it seems to my ear at least, to get somewhat stronger (louder) a few seconds after plucking the string. As if the sound "grows" somewhat. Strange. I've not played a MK-81, but the guy I bought this one from also had a MK-53, (mahogany) which sounded somewhat "thin" to my ears, and maybe why these guitars generally have a bad rap. One thing that is regrettable, is that Gibson stopped making them after 3 years or so. Imagine what would have happened if they had continued this model, and improved and refined this guitar over the years, OR if Ren Ferguson, the once master Luthier at Gibson, got his hands on this design???!!!! If you google search, "kasha guitar design" which describes this type of bracing, you will find many luthiers who use this type of bracing in steel string and nylon string guitars, some costing as much as $20k!!??? Not for the faint of heart. I'm truly glad I got mine, (at a bargain price for Gibson guitars), and the short run, means mine is pretty rare compared to other Gibson production numbers (around 1200 MK-72's built)...so in my opinion, these guitars are undervalued, and underrated, mostly because of the mindset inertia of the guitar playing world, lots of hearsay opinions, from folks who say, "Yup, I played a MK-53 once back in '76, wouldn't give you a wooden nickel for it!!" That kind of opinions. These are good guitars, different looking, different sounding, but very good guitars. If you can snag one, it will probably need some work (as any 70 guitar probably would) but well worth the effort!!!

[geordie]

well done bwf, happy pickin.
I remember when they came to town, interesting that a big company was that daring back then.

[Wade Hampton]

Blue, I'm glad you found a good one. There are plenty of bad Gibson Mark Series guitars floating around, which I know from firsthand experience.

There were all sorts of production problems with those guitars when they were introduced, including a gluing procedure that resulted in the braces underneath the top gradually becoming visible as the top became translucent along those glue joints - whether from the glue itself or an industrial procedure that hastened the glue's curing time, I've heard both stated as the reason for that.

Your guitar was either built after Gibson changed that procedure or else was retopped. My guess is the problem had surfaced by the time your guitar was built and they'd corrected it.

I have to disagree with your assessment that this guitar failed in the marketplace because it was "probably just too much for the traditional Guitar public and Gibson traditionalists of the 70's." Bear in mind that these guitars were introduced right smack in the middle of the worst years of the Norlin era at Gibson, and most "Gibson traditionalists" were justifiably appalled by the acoustic guitars that the company was producing then, including the more traditional models that Norlin had thoroughly boogered up, like the J-45.

No, the reason the Mark Series guitars failed in the marketplace is that - at least at first - most of them were fairly bad guitars, and over-hyped, besides. Gibson had maintained a steady drumbeat of pre-release publicity for the Mark Series guitars in all the guitar magazines, so when the guitars themselves finally made it into the music store showrooms, all of us who read the guitar magazines eagerly rushed in to try them.

It was the biggest disconnect between price and hype on one hand versus tone and musical utility on the other that I had experienced up to that point. It was extremely disappointing for lots of us guitarists who had been led to expect great things. (I've since run across a few other very high dollar guitars that I found equally disappointing, but the Mark Series was the first experience along these lines that I'd had.)

It's been mentioned on this forum and others by many Gibson Mark Series guitar fans that the later guitars were definitely an improvement over the first ones to make it to the showrooms. There's no question in my mind but that my attitude towards them was tainted by the appalling examples I first encountered.

As for the shape of the bridge, that's part of the whole "Kasha Theory" stuff that inspired the Mark Series guitars. There are a few highly regarded guitar builders like Steve Klein who still build using the Kasha Theory as their inspiration, but these days it's generally been discredited in most instrument-building circles. Kasha Theory is kind of like EST in that it was one of those Seventies fads that hasn't stood the test of time.

Yes, good-sounding guitars can be built using Kasha Theory, but it typically has more to do with the quality of the workmanship and materials than it does with the reasoning behind the design.

Anyway, you found a good Mark Series guitar and spent the money to get it refretted and optimized. Good for you. You and your guitar tech performed a rescue there, and more power to you both.


Wade Hampton Miller

[Guitarfish]

Interesting info and review. I can add only one thing. The MK 53 was maple. The mahogany would be a MK 35.

Mr. Hampton, I would think you would know better than to judge guitars in a group statement. Some MK owners enjoy their guitars immensely. Only all Martins are perfect as we both know.

[Dru Edwards]

Some great reading here from both Blue and Wade.

Blue - congrats on the Gibson. The pic and bridge look like an art deco thing going on, or is it more of a Picasso thing. Am I the only person who thinks that headstock looks like PRS (I know this guitar predates PRS).

[blue-wily-fox]

Yes I heard about the "problems" with the early ones, and I was cautious, especially when I heard about a loose neck block problem common to the early ones, which is almost impossible to fix. There must have been a few that got through "unchallenged", because I'v met on line many, many happy owners, especially the MK-81 owners, where I think they used very high quality materials. Some of these happy owners have shared immense quantities of material with me, old catalogues, production numbers, etc. Quite a tight fraternity of owners. Very friendly and helpful folks. One guy even sent me along an extra saddle he had at no cost.....I remember that ad, "you meet the nicest people on a Honda"...similar sentiments for the Mark "family"