Opinions of Gibson MK 35 Guitar

[Rob Mercure]

Folks,  Very slightly OT but I good friend is considerining the above guitar for around $700, I believe, in more-or-less "showroom" condition.  Since I've not seen the instrument, and might not have a chance before he gets it (a great singer, middlin' guitar player, incapable of adjusting a truss rod - FYI) do these have any particular problem that you'all know about?  I remember when they came out back when Gibson moved to Nashville and, although I've seen a number of terrible Nashville made Gibson acoustics, the Mark series are supposed to be of overall better construction but I'd like the opinion of someone who's worked on one.  And any other details/trivia about the instrument.

 

Around here everybody is into bluegrass instruments so a guitar reputed to have good string-to-string balance like the MK-35 is extremely undervalued (as is my Martin D-25K) while almost any rosewood Martin is worshipped so if the instrument is in the described shape my friend may get a nice bargain (he's not a BG player).

 

Thanks

 

Rob.

[Eric Steven Johansen]

I've owned two of the MK series guitars and was not impressed at all by their tone. These were made following the Kasha/Schneider design so should have been superlative sounding guitars but I think Gibson was not up to the task. Price wise $700.00 is about the highest dollar a 35 might bring on the vintage market. Steer him towards an OM or 000 style if you can.

[Rob Mercure]

Thanks Eric,

Not many foks seem to have experiences with these it seems.

Rob

[mike carne]

Back in the day these were seen as a Major mistake by Gibson.In the UK Yamaha were seen as a better bet
so Mark series didn't sell and used ones changed hands for peanuts! Pay for sound not logo!

[Ned Knepp]

Everyone has their own opinions of any given guitar and I think that it's best to consider a guitar based on your needs and expectations but, in my opinion, it is a mistake to relegate the Gibson Mark series guitars to just a logo.

They were/are different but I remember playing one of these and wishing I could afford to buy it. They were quirky and different in sound from what most people thought a "Gibson" should be like but I also remember that they sounded pretty good, if different. I thought they were pretty well build in comparison to a lot of other guitars and it seems to me that the problem Gibson had with them was a complex building process and high prices. They were just too expensive for most people I knew and I didn't know anyone then that actually bought one.

I don't think everyone would like these guitars and it might be a good idea to try to find one to play before buying one but paying a "peanuts" price for a guitar you like isn't such a bad thing.

Ned