Vintage guitars

[billyboy]

Hi I was wondering if anyone knew anything about the MK 72 Gibson 6 string acoustic. How rare are they and when were they made. Also where and how do you find out what year your Gibson guitar was made. I understand it's from the serial number on the neck or inside the body of hollow bodies. Is there a book or website that has all the Gibson guitars ever made up to this date.

[KilgoreTrout]

Hi I was wondering if anyone knew anything about the MK 72 Gibson 6 string acoustic. How rare are they and when were they made. Also where and how do you find out what year your Gibson guitar was made. I understand it's from the serial number on the neck or inside the body of hollow bodies. Is there a book or website that has all the Gibson guitars ever made up to this date.

 

Here's some info on the MK-72

 

Here's a great site on vintage Gibsons

 

- Kilgore

[billyboy]

Here's some info on the MK-72

 

Here's a great site on vintage Gibsons

 

- Kilgore

[billyboy]

Thanks Kilgore for sending me the links to all that information. I am very disappointed in what I read about my MK 72. I have played for almost 50 years. And of all the guitars I have played 100's or more this one is miles ahead of all of them. I bought it in 1976 off the rack and set it up the way I wanted an acoustic to play for a lead guitarist. No calluses ever. Pure sound. Bottom end and piercing leads. Joyous. And from what I'm hearing from most people I think I will have this guitar buried with me if my children decide not to play guitar. It means that much. It is amazing. I hardly ever take it out of the house..... well I've played for a few friends parties with it, put it in it's case and said I have to take it home now. It looks exactly the way it looked when it bought it in 1976. The case is beat up a bit cause I spent 24 years on the road but it always had a home. Billyboy

[zurdo]

hi,

the best MK models were the MK-81 and the MK-99 because they were built by Richard Schneider himself.

 

I purchased a MK-81 back in 1980 from the Norlin (Gibson) Sales Rep. and still have it, it was a "demonstrator" given to the sales rep. to show to players, studios, stores, etc. It is a fabulous instrument; Nothing, absolutely no other acoustic guitar sounds like it or plays like it. I was told by the sales rep that it was built and detailed by Richard Schneider himself and it looks it, everything is so perfect, the woods are top-choice quality, the red binding everywhere, the finish still looks like glass. The removable pickguard is still in its factory envelope, and it came with 4 removable Bridge Saddles, of different heights and materials: 2 in Ebony, 2 in Melamine, and a very plush hardshell case. I started collecting MK Literature in 1978 and have a nice collection of Catalogs and Brochures of the MK Series guitars. Back then I was in Los Angeles Calif. and nobody knew much of anything about the MK Series.

 

I only play it at home, this instrument is a treasure and time will vindicate these guitars. I have played Martins and Guilds and to put it simply, nothing comes close to the silky rich sound of these guitars, particularly near the 5th thru 7th frets, where mine produces delicious harmonics. (personally I think Martins are way over-rated, they are a "status" symbol more than a player's instrument. you won't catch me with a Martin, been there, done that).

 

what I was told is that the production MK guitars, (MK-35, MK-53, and MK-72), did not come through with the expected assembly quality, and Schneider & Kasha protested to corporate about the "cutting corners" approach with the inner bracing and other aspects such as the flat finish. When corporate refused to change, and the guitars started coming back for deffects and literally falling apart, Schneider and Kasha resigned and the project collapsed. Norlin lost millions of dollars and the rest is history.

[KL]

I am very disappointed in what I read about my MK 72. I have played for almost 50 years. And of all the guitars I have played 100's or more this one is miles ahead of all of them. I bought it in 1976 off the rack and set it up the way I wanted an acoustic to play for a lead guitarist. No calluses ever. Pure sound. Bottom end and piercing leads. Joyous. And from what I'm hearing from most people I think I will have this guitar buried with me if my children decide not to play guitar. It means that much. It is amazing. I hardly ever take it out of the house..... well I've played for a few friends parties with it, put it in it's case and said I have to take it home now. It looks exactly the way it looked when it bought it in 1976. The case is beat up a bit cause I spent 24 years on the road but it always had a home. Billyboy

 

This is an example of how every guitar is individual. Even though the MK series was never very popular you clearly have one that is perfect for you. That's why it's so important to play a guitar before you buy it, as often you get one of a certain model that sounds out above the rest. I've played a great many Gibson and Martin acoustics that have been very disappointing while others of the very same model can be amazing.

[Grog]

I picked up a Mark 72 about 15 years ago. After just a couple strums......... I had to have it! Even though I don't consider myself to be an acoustic guy, I figured that this would be the only acoustic I would ever need. I've read & collected quite a bit of info on them through the years and opinions are quite mixed. The results achieved by the prototypes were hard, if not imposible to reproduce in production. No two pieces of wood sound the same, so each guitar has to be judged on it's own sound and feel. If you can find one with great tone, you can most likely buy it for about half of what any other Gibson of that era would cost. After picking up an origional Mark Series store display, I bought a Mark 35 for cheap just to hang on the other hook. The sound doesn't come close to the tone of the Mark 72 I bought much earlier. They say just give it a 15 second test, if you like it, buy it. If not, let it go!

 

[billyboy]

I picked up a Mark 72 about 15 years ago. After just a couple strums......... I had to have it! Even though I don't consider myself to be an acoustic guy, I figured that this would be the only acoustic I would ever need. I've read & collected quite a bit of info on them through the years and opinions are quite mixed. The results achieved by the prototypes were hard, if not imposible to reproduce in production. No two pieces of wood sound the same, so each guitar has to be judged on it's own sound and feel. If you can find one with great tone, you can most likely buy it for about half of what any other Gibson of that era would cost. After picking up an origional Mark Series store display, I bought a Mark 35 for cheap just to hang on the other hook. The sound doesn't come close to the tone of the Mark 72 I bought much earlier. They say just give it a 15 second test, if you like it, buy it. If not, let it go!

 

[billyboy]

Wow nice to see another MK-72. How's the bridge holding out. Makes me wonder how many are out there. I'm taking mine into a guitar repair man who has over 30 years experience in Alberta Canada and he can't believe I have a model from pre 76 that is still together. He told me that whithin 6 months most of them that he had seen sold from his store had self destructed. I believe I also had a demonstration prototype model as a very good friend that had sold it to me said that it was very different from any other he had played or seen, so maybe it also had been made by the original designer and not from the assembly line. It truly is an amazing guitar so it is so nice to hear others report the same positive feedback after there has been so much negative press.Looks like we've latched on to a keeper. Yours looks in great condition as well. Mine still looks like new. Just starting hairline cracks in the finish but is very polished looking.What guage of strings are you using. I'm using extra lights and the intonation is still accurate all the way up the neck. I was informed that if that's what you've had on and are happy with it stay with that guage. But normally do not go with anything lighter than the light quage as there will be intonation issues. You've just made my Thanksgiving Day very special by the positive review of the MK-72. Keep on picking and grinning.(Did anyone actually install the pick guard. Looks so unique without one)

[billyboy]

This is an example of how every guitar is individual. Even though the MK series was never very popular you clearly have one that is perfect for you. That's why it's so important to play a guitar before you buy it, as often you get one of a certain model that sounds out above the rest. I've played a great many Gibson and Martin acoustics that have been very disappointing while others of the very same model can be amazing.

 

That is absolutely true. I don't know how many guitars that I have found for others told me that no matter how many they played they always preferred the ones that I had picked out for them for what they were willing to spend. Most have far exceeded there original value. I have always been happy with the one I've got but am looking for one that I can take to parties and not have to worry about whether it is vintage or not or rare or unique. But still has 2 play soft(low action) good intonation and still sound good. (not incredible just good) Is that possible say in the $200-$300 range.

[billyboy]

hi,

the best MK models were the MK-81 and the MK-99 because they were built by Richard Schneider himself.

 

I purchased a MK-81 back in 1980 from the Norlin (Gibson) Sales Rep. and still have it, it was a "demonstrator" given to the sales rep. to show to players, studios, stores, etc. It is a fabulous instrument; Nothing, absolutely no other acoustic guitar sounds like it or plays like it. I was told by the sales rep that it was built and detailed by Richard Schneider himself and it looks it, everything is so perfect, the woods are top-choice quality, the red binding everywhere, the finish still looks like glass. The removable pickguard is still in its factory envelope, and it came with 4 removable Bridge Saddles, of different heights and materials: 2 in Ebony, 2 in Melamine, and a very plush hardshell case. I started collecting MK Literature in 1978 and have a nice collection of Catalogs and Brochures of the MK Series guitars. Back then I was in Los Angeles Calif. and nobody knew much of anything about the MK Series.

 

I only play it at home, this instrument is a treasure and time will vindicate these guitars. I have played Martins and Guilds and to put it simply, nothing comes close to the silky rich sound of these guitars, particularly near the 5th thru 7th frets, where mine produces delicious harmonics. (personally I think Martins are way over-rated, they are a "status" symbol more than a player's instrument. you won't catch me with a Martin, been there, done that).

 

what I was told is that the production MK guitars, (MK-35, MK-53, and MK-72), did not come through with the expected assembly quality, and Schneider & Kasha protested to corporate about the "cutting corners" approach with the inner bracing and other aspects such as the flat finish. When corporate refused to change, and the guitars started coming back for deffects and literally falling apart, Schneider and Kasha resigned and the project collapsed. Norlin lost millions of dollars and the rest is history.

 

 

Have you had a chance to play the Mark 72. From what you stated I have reason to believe that mine was also a demonstrator or prototype cause the person who sold it to me was a friend salesperson who I had previously told him what I was looking for in a guitar and he had set it aside as it was so superior to others he had played and saved it for me until I was able to travel back to his store as I was touring at the time. The first time I picked it up I was sold on it. Because there was no demand for that type of guitar he was able to sell it to me at below their cost as they just wanted it moved. I believe the list price was $1500.00 Canadian at that time and I paid less than half so I was quite happy how it has all worked out over these last 34 years. Were there many 81 or 99's produced. I sure would be interested in playing one of those one day. Do you think many are still around.I will post a picture of my Mk-72 as soon as I learn how to do it.More into guitars than computers. Go figure.

[zurdo]

Have you had a chance to play the Mark 72. From what you stated I have reason to believe that mine was also a demonstrator or prototype cause the person who sold it to me was a friend salesperson who I had previously told him what I was looking for in a guitar and he had set it aside as it was so superior to others he had played and saved it for me until I was able to travel back to his store as I was touring at the time. The first time I picked it up I was sold on it. Because there was no demand for that type of guitar he was able to sell it to me at below their cost as they just wanted it moved. I believe the list price was $1500.00 Canadian at that time and I paid less than half so I was quite happy how it has all worked out over these last 34 years. Were there many 81 or 99's produced. I sure would be interested in playing one of those one day. Do you think many are still around.I will post a picture of my Mk-72 as soon as I learn how to do it. More into guitars than computers. Go figure.

 

hi, I did try a production MK-72 but it was dissapointing (action and sound-wise) and it looked like it had been "repaired"; It had the "flat" finish" too, not glossy. who knows, maybe you do have one of the demos, but I would not use the Serial Number to date it, 1975 through 1978 was a confused time at Gibson, having been bought by Norlin, and 1977 serial number Decals were being applied to guitars that left the shop in 1976. Go figure. The old "we gots to move these refrigerators..." took precedence in those days.

 

Regardless, do not assume that these guitars have any monetary value, because they don't; I've seen them for $1,500. and less on eBay. They are not appreciated or understood by players who prefer the "honky" sound of a Gibson Jumbo-Elvis, or a J-160, or a Dove, because they saw so-and-so playing one onstage, (the same old Strat-Les Paul syndrome);

 

the latter guitars have nothing special about them, even if they are made with the finest woods, their sound is obsolete, the only Gibson acoustic with a rich refined and balanced sound is the MK Series. That is the legacy that Richard Schneider left us, too bad his work is not appreciated.

 

have you noticed how large the MK guitars are?

 

String gauge? I use medium gauge with a wound Third. I do not like plain Thirds on acoustic or electric guitars. Remember I come from the 1960's when there was no such thing as "light gauge", if you wanted real light gauge guitar strings you used Banjo or other strings.

 

Zurdo

[Grog]

My Mark 72 has held up real well, it plays as easy as an electric, which is one of the things that I was after in an acoustic. The Mark 35 on the other hand, was repaired improperly with epoxy. That's how I bought it so cheap, under $250. I use light gauge strings, .010 on the high "E", I know most acoustic guys prefer .012, but I'm more of an electric guy & I think it is easier on the bridge. Both of my guitars play great as far a how they are set up, but I have seen some Mark guitars that were impossible to set up. I remember reading that the Mark Series was the first guitar that was produced at the newly opened Nashville plant. It must not have gone well with all of those new employees, because it was eventually moved back to Kalamazoo where the skilled workforce would have done a much beter job. By then, it might have been too late to salvage it's reputation. The Mark 72 & higher models are some of the few guitars Gibson has produced with rosewood back & sides. I still come across NOS pickguards, bridges, bridge inserts (which came in 3 sizes to allow for weather changes) on ebay. One seller even put the origional form clamps (molds) up for sale. I'll attach a page from the origional sales brochure, showing the testing that Gibson put the guitar through to make sure the new design would hold up. This was the first major change in acoustic design since Martin came up with it's X bracing from what I recall. If Gibson would have stuck with it, it might have influenced the way todays acoustics are produced.

 

[billyboy]

hi, I did try a production MK-72 but it was dissapointing (action and sound-wise) and it looked like it had been "repaired"; It had the "flat" finish" too, not glossy. who knows, maybe you do have one of the demos, but I would not use the Serial Number to date it, 1975 through 1978 was a confused time at Gibson, having been bought by Norlin, and 1977 serial number Decals were being applied to guitars that left the shop in 1976. Go figure. The old "we gots to move these refrigerators..." took precedence in those days.

 

Regardless, do not assume that these guitars have any monetary value, because they don't; I've seen them for $1,500. and less on eBay. They are not appreciated or understood by players who prefer the "honky" sound of a Gibson Jumbo-Elvis, or a J-160, or a Dove, because they saw so-and-so playing one onstage, (the same old Strat-Les Paul syndrome);

 

the latter guitars have nothing special about them, even if they are made with the finest woods, their sound is obsolete, the only Gibson acoustic with a rich refined and balanced sound is the MK Series. That is the legacy that Richard Schneider left us, too bad his work is not appreciated.

 

have you noticed how large the MK guitars are?

 

String gauge? I use medium gauge with a wound Third. I do not like plain Thirds on acoustic or electric guitars. Remember I come from the 1960's when there was no such thing as "light gauge", if you wanted real light gauge guitar strings you used Banjo or other strings.

 

Zurdo

[billyboy]

hi zurdo yeah the serial number is MK-72 0 0219924. Any idea on when it was produced as I have narrowed it down to late 76 to early 77 when I purchased it new off the rack. I believe it had been set up according to the information I had given to the salesperson in what I was looking for in a guitar so when I sat down to play it I made my decision right then and there to buy it. And if they are still bringing in $1500.00 I'm okay with that but I would never sell it for that.My partner at the time had purchased a blond J-200 and I didn't like playing it then and I don't like playing it now but it sure is a durable guitar and took quite a beating as we toured the country.And it has appreciated substatially since then. They both were listed at $1500 at the time. Man your description of the MK-72 having a rich,refined and balanced sound is exactly the way I would describe mine as well. And yeah I really like the size of the guitar and is very comfortable and relaxing to play as it fits nice to the body while playing it and doesn't even require a pick guard as it is easy to strum without gouging the bottom part of the guitar on the follow through stroke.

It's funny that you mention why people buy certain guitars after they see someone famous play one. I started up one of the first "Country Rock Bands" in western Canada. I played lead guitar using only a Les Paul Deluxe 69 Goldtop, a black 70's Les Paul Custom, and a ES-TD 335 which I used the phase out switch to sound like a Strat or Telly when required. It was unheard of in those days. Now you turn on the set and watch music award shows and concerts and most country artists are using Gibson Les Pauls etc. Im trying to get some pictures out but still haven't mastered how to attach them to this post.

[billyboy]

My Mark 72 has held up real well, it plays as easy as an electric, which is one of the things that I was after in an acoustic. The Mark 35 on the other hand, was repaired improperly with epoxy. That's how I bought it so cheap, under $250. I use light gauge strings, .010 on the high "E", I know most acoustic guys prefer .012, but I'm more of an electric guy & I think it is easier on the bridge. Both of my guitars play great as far a how they are set up, but I have seen some Mark guitars that were impossible to set up. I remember reading that the Mark Series was the first guitar that was produced at the newly opened Nashville plant. It must not have gone well with all of those new employees, because it was eventually moved back to Kalamazoo where the skilled workforce would have done a much beter job. By then, it might have been too late to salvage it's reputation. The Mark 72 & higher models are some of the few guitars Gibson has produced with rosewood back & sides. I still come across NOS pickguards, bridges, bridge inserts (which came in 3 sizes to allow for weather changes) on ebay. One seller even put the origional form clamps (molds) up for sale. I'll attach a page from the origional sales brochure, showing the testing that Gibson put the guitar through to make sure the new design would hold up. This was the first major change in acoustic design since Martin came up with it's X bracing from what I recall. If Gibson would have stuck with it, it might have influenced the way todays acoustics are produced.

 

[billyboy]

Wow isn't that an interesting article.So some of them are durable and it not just a freak of nature that mine has held up so well over the years. Cause I was wondering if it did help by using only extra light strings on it, especially the bridge. I also bought it because it played more like an electric than other acoustics as I played lead in the band and only used Les Pauls and a ES-TD 335 on stage. And they all were set up to practically play by themselves. I had no callouses ever playing 6 nights a week and probably averaging 8 hours a day including learning tunes and band practises and then the four to five hour gig at night. I only had one extra bridge insert and one pick guard come with the case. If you know of any books I can purchase with more information like the one you posted please let me know as I would gladly order some. I really think if more people got to play MK-72's that were set up properly there would be a better appreciation of what the guitar has to offer.

[billyboy]

I picked up a Mark 72 about 15 years ago. After just a couple strums......... I had to have it! Even though I don't consider myself to be an acoustic guy, I figured that this would be the only acoustic I would ever need. I've read & collected quite a bit of info on them through the years and opinions are quite mixed. The results achieved by the prototypes were hard, if not imposible to reproduce in production. No two pieces of wood sound the same, so each guitar has to be judged on it's own sound and feel. If you can find one with great tone, you can most likely buy it for about half of what any other Gibson of that era would cost. After picking up an origional Mark Series store display, I bought a Mark 35 for cheap just to hang on the other hook. The sound doesn't come close to the tone of the Mark 72 I bought much earlier. They say just give it a 15 second test, if you like it, buy it. If not, let it go!

 

[billyboy]

What are the other two blonde guitars on that thumbnail picture in your profile area (Grog)

[zurdo]

What are the other two blonde guitars on that thumbnail picture in your profile area (Grog)

 

Billyboy, I'm not Grog but they look like Gibson "Signature" Series to me. They are also very nice and un-appreciated guitars (and basses).

 

as to the Serial Number of your MK-72, if it is a Schneider-built demonstrator, it's a 1974-1975. If you google "Gibson Acoustic Serial Numbers", and if yours has an Applied Decal under the finish, on the back of the headstock, you will find it is dated to 1977 but you can safely ignore it.

 

is the finish glossy or satin? that is another giveaway. If it has the Satin finish, it's probably 1976, if glossy, 1974-1975. Otherwise ignore the Serial Number Prophets; with the MK Series guitars, there's no certainty no matter what anyone concludes.

 

As to the dollar value of these guitars, I agree they are worth mucho dinero, but think of it as a long-term investment, one day their prices will go sky-high. Otherwise enjoy it.

 

Another thing: these MK guitars record beautifully, they were originally designed with recording in mind.

[zurdo]

...am looking for one that I can take to parties and not have to worry about whether it is vintage or not or rare or unique. But still has 2 play soft(low action) good intonation and still sound good. (not incredible just good) Is that possible say in the $200-$300 range.

 

anything is possible, check your local Craigslist, but I really doubt you'll find any acoustic that plays or sounds like your MK.

 

Do you know what MK stands for? It stands for Dr. Michael Kasha, bioacoustic-physicist-scientist of the University of Florida who analized the acoustic sound properties of acoustic guitars and applied the findings to the MK guitars looking for the Holy Grail of acoustic sound. Check the page below:

 

http://www.jthbass.com/kasha.html

[Grog]

What are the other two blonde guitars on that thumbnail picture in your profile area (Grog)

 

The guitars in my thumbnail are Gibson's attempt to market guitars with Low Impedance pickups. '74 Les Paul Signature Guitar & Bass, '69 Les Paul Professional Guitar & origional Les Paul Bass, & '73 Les Paul Recording Guitar & Triumph Bass. The amp is a 1969 LP-12 AKA "The Monster".

 

 

I have a habit of collecting guitars from "Gibson's Land of Missfit Toys"!

[zurdo]

I have a habit of collecting guitars from "Gibson's Land of Missfit Toys"!

 

sorry but I would disagree, that's quite a collection of Gibson's finest instruments. I really thought it was going to be another collection of Les Pauls and Strats and Teles, (yawn), but by golly you gots some fine guitars there.

[Grog]

sorry but I would disagree, that's quite a collection of Gibson's finest instruments. I really thought it was going to be another collection of Les Pauls and Strats and Teles, (yawn), but by golly you gots some fine guitars there.

 

I've enjoyed collecting and playing them. I think Gibson has made a lot of great instuments that to this day, are misunderstood and underrated. Those are many of the models that have caught my attention through the years!

[billyboy]

Billyboy, I'm not Grog but they look like Gibson "Signature" Series to me. They are also very nice and un-appreciated guitars (and basses).

 

as to the Serial Number of your MK-72, if it is a Schneider-built demonstrator, it's a 1974-1975. If you google "Gibson Acoustic Serial Numbers", and if yours has an Applied Decal under the finish, on the back of the headstock, you will find it is dated to 1977 but you can safely ignore it.

 

is the finish glossy or satin? that is another giveaway. If it has the Satin finish, it's probably 1976, if glossy, 1974-1975. Otherwise ignore the Serial Number Prophets; with the MK Series guitars, there's no certainty no matter what anyone concludes.

 

As to the dollar value of these guitars, I agree they are worth mucho dinero, but think of it as a long-term investment, one day their prices will go sky-high. Otherwise enjoy it.

 

Another thing: these MK guitars record beautifully, they were originally designed with recording in mind.