School me on the Gibson Mk series?

Caffeine_Vampire

As they say on telly, ‘I know notheeng’.

Strat_a_tat_tat

School me?????

Caffeine_Vampire

Strat_a_tat_tat said:

School me?????

Yup.

DavidR

I owned a Gibson Mk 53 which I bought in 1979. I had just qualified from university and traded in my Yamaha FG for 'my first decent guitar'. Disappointed doesn't really cover it. I think I bought it from Denmark St and was still young enough to feel a little threatened by going into guitar shops. Took me a day or two to realise how truly awful a guitar it was. Anyway, work took over and I had a decade or two when I wasn't playing that much. Sold it virtually unplayed about 1988.

What do I remember about it? Heavy. terrible action. sounded rubbish as fingerstyle guitar. Better when strummed, which I didn't, much. Ugly. 

I eventually sent it with a friend to a guitar show in London with instructions that he should bring me back the best classical guitar he could buy with the money.

Apologies to all those who think Gibson Mk's were brilliant but I'm willing to predict there aren't many. Apologies too to Gibson who now make some lovely instruments.

Caffeine_Vampire

DavidR said:

I owned a Gibson Mk 53 which I bought in 1979. I had just qualified from university and traded in my Yamaha FG for 'my first decent guitar'. Disappointed doesn't really cover it. I think I bought it from Denmark St and was still young enough to feel a little threatened by going into guitar shops. Took me a day or two to realise how truly awful a guitar it was. Anyway, work took over and I had a decade or two when I wasn't playing that much. Sold it virtually unplayed about 1988.

What do I remember about it? Heavy. terrible action. sounded rubbish as fingerstyle guitar. Better when strummed, which I didn't, much. Ugly. 

I eventually sent it with a friend to a guitar show in London with instructions that he should bring me back the best classical guitar he could buy with the money.

Apologies to all those who think Gibson Mk's were brilliant but I'm willing to predict there aren't many. Apologies too to Gibson who now make some lovely instruments.

That’s what I was looking for, thanks.

ronnyb

There was one for sale near me a short time ago... I didn't bother. I think it was a mark 72 at £800. I did a bit of research and the reviews weren’t very positive. Described as sounding like a laminate Epiphone or a wooden Ovation. They weren’t cheap new either $749 in 1975 equates to $3600 today.

Rusty-Strings

Having never played one and the only example I have seen was in a workshop for repair, I can only comment on them by their poor reputation. I do recall it was Gibsons attempt to design an acoustic "scientifically"!! Whatever that means

meltedbuzzbox

Caffeine_Vampire said:

Strat_a_tat_tat said:

School me?????

Yup.

No.

Caffeine_Vampire

meltedbuzzbox said:

Caffeine_Vampire said:

Strat_a_tat_tat said:

School me?????

Yup.

No.

Maybe?

Teyeplayer

Looks like a prs to my untrained eye.

p90fool

Strat_a_tat_tat said:

School me?????

"Schooling" has been used as verb more over the last year than ever before, do try to keep up there at the back.

maltingsaudio

@DavidR pretty well nails it, Gibson tried to scientifically design a guitar and the results were rubbish. Heavy build heavy action no tone

ICBM

Teyeplayer said:

Looks like a prs to my untrained eye.

maltingsaudio said:

@DavidR pretty well nails it, Gibson tried to scientifically design a guitar and the results were rubbish. Heavy build heavy action no tone

Interestingly I played a very expensive PRS private stock acoustic just like that recently. Probably the heaviest wooden acoustic I’ve ever picked up... sounded like a cheap Takamine.

maltingsaudio

ICBM said:

Teyeplayer said:

Looks like a prs to my untrained eye.

maltingsaudio said:

@DavidR pretty well nails it, Gibson tried to scientifically design a guitar and the results were rubbish. Heavy build heavy action no tone

Interestingly I played a very expensive PRS private stock acoustic just like that recently. Probably the heaviest wooden acoustic I’ve ever picked up... sounded like a cheap Takamine.

The difference between the PRS and the Gibson will probably be that the PRS will improve and open up after a few years of playing, these things have had 50 years to do so and still won’t!

Strangefan

I agree with the above, they were shit in the 90s and they will be shit now, they were discontinued for a reason,  regardless of the crappy vintage moniker they will  still be turds. 

artiebear

The MK series were a massive failure at a time when Gibson under Norlin  were trying to reboot as an innovative company ( these guitars came along about the same time as the RD series on the electric side of things ).

The fan bracing pattern used was never meant for a traditional steel string acoustic guitar according to Richard Schneider, a guitar builder who worked with Michael Kasha ( a non playing scientist who got interested in the effect of bracing on classical guitars )

According to Schneider, the bracing used for the MK series was meant for an acoustic jazz instrument ( think an evolution of the Maccaferi ). Gibson took it and created an overbuilt acoustic guitar which was the trend in the 70's ( Martin were over building their guitars as well, but not to the extent of the MK series ).

The other glaring issue is that the original Kasha/ Schneider bracing pattern was for a 12 fret guitar not a 14 fret, a good idea for one is not necessarily great for the other..

All the ones I have played have been poor, but would make a decent stage electro acoustic .

Regarding PRS private stock acoustics, I totally agee with @ICBM. They are the heaviest built guitars out there in the series money bracket. In terms of opening up down the line ?, the heavier the build, the more time it takes.  I have played quite a few since they came out and came to the conclusion that at that kind of money, there are a hell of a lot of great acoustic guitars that would be ahead in the queue.

ICBM

artiebear said:

Regarding PRS private stock acoustics, I totally agee with @ICBM. They are the heaviest built guitars out there in the series money bracket. In terms of opening up down the line ?, the heavier the build, the more time it takes.  I have played quite a few since they came out and came to the conclusion that at that kind of money, there are a hell of a lot of great acoustic guitars that would be ahead in the queue.

The one I played cost about £10K and was both heavier and worse-sounding than a typical Eko Ranger... and I'm totally serious.

For that kind of money you could buy a really quite decent vintage Martin.

guitargeek62

ICBM said:

Teyeplayer said:

Looks like a prs to my untrained eye.

maltingsaudio said:

@DavidR pretty well nails it, Gibson tried to scientifically design a guitar and the results were rubbish. Heavy build heavy action no tone

Interestingly I played a very expensive PRS private stock acoustic just like that recently. Probably the heaviest wooden acoustic I’ve ever picked up... sounded like a cheap Takamine.

V.surprising! I’ve played a handful of those (mostly Angelus models, plus 1-2 Tonare Grands) and all of them have been nothing less than astounding!

Do you know remember the wood spec of the one you played? They have a very interesting bracing pattern which (to my ears at least!) adds a hell of a lot of warmth and dynamics to the top. Admittedly they are braced very heavily on the sides, but that’s very much by design. I can’t remember noticing the weight on them at all though. Still, each to their own

ICBM

guitargeek62 said:

Do you know remember the wood spec of the one you played? They have a very interesting bracing pattern which (to my ears at least!) adds a hell of a lot of warmth and dynamics to the top. Admittedly they are braced very heavily on the sides, but that’s very much by design. I can’t remember noticing the weight on them at all though. Still, each to their own

Remarkably, it was one of these...

https://www.prsguitars.com/index.php/acoustics/model/private_stock_martin_simpson_acoustic

I was shocked firstly that someone like him would even have a stupidly expensive signature model, and then even more so when I felt how heavy it was... but neither of those were anything compared to what I thought when I heard it.

artiebear

ICBM said:

guitargeek62 said:

Do you know remember the wood spec of the one you played? They have a very interesting bracing pattern which (to my ears at least!) adds a hell of a lot of warmth and dynamics to the top. Admittedly they are braced very heavily on the sides, but that’s very much by design. I can’t remember noticing the weight on them at all though. Still, each to their own

Remarkably, it was one of these...

https://www.prsguitars.com/index.php/acoustics/model/private_stock_martin_simpson_acoustic

I was shocked firstly that someone like him would even have a stupidly expensive signature model, and then even more so when I felt how heavy it was... but neither of those were anything compared to what I thought when I heard it.

Still about half the price of a Sobell MS signature model using highest grade wood options, but in the case of every PRS private stock I have played ( including some artists own guitars ) about two thirds over priced. The target market for these guitars quickly shifted from the established high end acoustic market (think builders like the aforementioned Sobell etc ) to the PRS private stock fans who recognise the headstock, price ticket and exclusivity within that context as desirable factors.