Are Mark V's Still Desirable?

[pianorocker]

I saw someone linked a Craigslist post to a Mark V complete with stand and pedal for almost 2000 dollars.  I'm just wondering now that the MK 7 keyboards are out, is there still a large desire of the "ultimate" light, perfected Rhodes that the Mark V was supposed to be?  Especially since there rarity seems to coincide with them being as much as a fully restored MK I or II, and in the same ballpark as a brand new Rhodes MK 7 keyboard.

Anyone care to discuss?

[rockstardave]

Unfortunately, I doubt your post will last long due to referencing a certain model that is totally taboo here.  I can't even give you a proper response, because that will also be deleted (sad), despite the fact that a senior member of the board uses said model as his avatar....

All I can tell you is that I would love to own a MKV, and that the negative atmosphere between fans of the vintage models and the makers of new electromechanical pianos (unless maker happens to be VV) is a real disservice to everyone who loves real electric pianos.

[Cormac Long]

Folks,
   just keep M7 out of the discussion as much as possible. Thats the rules.

[Rob A]

I'm pretty sure we can answer the question here without breaking rules.

For my personal taste, there's nothing more desirable about a Mark V as compared to a Mark I, but I'd prefer it to a Mark II. Ironically, there are probably more differences between early and late Mark I pianos versus Mark II and late Mark I. But the improved action of the Mark V is the main selling point, with reduced weight probably coming in second. Maybe people just like the looks, they never appealed to me much.

Rarity makes them cost more today. (But that's not what the question referred to.)

Parts availability (or lack of) makes them somewhat less desirable.

Availability of new electromechanical pianos (from various makers ) is going to tend to set an upper boundary on the value of a Mark V. I'd suggest that maybe 80% of the cost of a comparable new e-piano is the practical upper limit on value for a Mark V.

That's just my opinion, let me know what you think.


_{edited for clarity}

[Rhodesman88]

I'm not sure why there is any debate at all regarding the Rhodes' Mk I, II, V, etc. and that new thing that calls itself a Rhodes.  
[...]
 I much prefer the nice warm mellow tones of my 1976 Stage and my 1977 Suitcase.  Even the treble has a nice round tone...[...]


_{mod edit: sections removed for rules compliance}

[pianorocker]

Folks,
   just keep M7 out of the discussion as much as possible. Thats the rules.

Sorry, was away when a lot of the drama apparently went down.  Will definitely focus only on the MK V. 

[pianorocker]

I'm pretty sure we can answer the question here without breaking rules.

For my personal taste, there's nothing more desirable about a Mark V as compared to a Mark I, but I'd prefer it to a Mark II. Ironically, there are probably more differences between early and late Mark I pianos versus Mark II and late Mark I. But the improved action of the Mark V is the main selling point, with reduced weight probably coming in second. Maybe people just like the looks, they never appealed to me much.

Rarity makes them cost more today. (But that's not what the question referred to.)

Parts availability (or lack of) makes them somewhat less desirable.

Availability of new electromechanical pianos (from various makers ) is going to tend to set an upper boundary on the value of a Mark V. I'd suggest that maybe 80% of the cost of a comparable new e-piano is the practical upper limit on value for a Mark V.

That's just my opinion, let me know what you think.


_{edited for clarity}

This is my opinion as well.  I guess the price and desirability goes hand in hand with it being extremely limited and rare.  However, the look does not impress me at all and the sound seems to be no different than any other.  As far as sound--and even feel go--I've always thought that unless we're talking about wood vs. plastic all Rhodes can be set up to sound pretty great. 

I guess my interest is that it seems that many that are looking for them or interested in buying them don't outwardly state it is for the collectable value.  Rather, they cite it as being the "ultimate" Rhodes.  But does a few pounds off and a factory action that is better really warrant such praise?  Again, I can't imagine I personally would ever choose a 2000 dollar MK V over a Restored MK I for the same price.

[Rob A]

The hammer design is different. The intent was definitely to be an improvement. Unfortunately, that also works against you if you need to replace broken hammers.


My philosophy: if it plays good, it is good.

[pianotuner steveo]

In regards to my avatar, that is actually MY piano, so I believe that is why it's OK.(The avatar is grandfathered to the old forum) The only other Rhodes I currently own is my home made piano bass,which STILL has no case..And yes, my 73 key is very similar to a MV except the weight ( I believe the V is lighter) and the electronics. In other words, it is every bit as real, and not a poor substitute. The action is pretty close from what I can remember about the only V I ever played.

[sean]

I agree too.

I have an '84 Mark V, a '79 Mark I, a '81 Mark II, and a '83 plastic-key mark II.  I used to own a 1973 Mark I.   
Of all these pianos, the 1973 was the magical one.  It had the worst action, but still a very sweet sound and vibe.  Anyway...

The Mark V is not light-years beyond the Mark II.  It is a mild improvement in mechanics, no detectable improvement in sound, and a questionable change in styling.  The Mark V is a refinement, but not a life-changer.

The Mark V is only a teensy bit lighter than the other pianos: when I move it from place to place, I can't tell the difference in weight.  They are all too heavy for me to lift by myself.  I don't think the weight reduction adds any value whatsoever, except on a marketing poster or in a truckload full of pianos.

The Mark V plays great, but so does the Mark I and the Mark II.  All three models have a nice light action, they all have some degree of double-striking, they all have hilarious key bounce, they all need backchecks, they all make clickety-clackety noises. 

The plastic-key Mark II is the only one that is easy to walk away from.  The plastic-key action is not hateful, well not unlovable, well... maybe I don't like it very much, but it still is a good instrument.  It feels good enough to be useable, and it sounds just beautiful... just like a Rhodes.


I think that if all the folks that wanted a Mark V actually had a chance to own a Mark V for a month, then their desire would wear off; or they would at least realize that the Mark V is not some supernatural supermodel.  I personally cannot imagine wanting to gig with the Mark V.  I would be too afraid it would get damaged.  It would be all to easy to trash it, and then repair parts are too scarce and expensive.  A nice Mark I or Mark II can get trashed too, but the wood case is repairable; the tolex is repairable; the keys, hammers, and dampers are replaceable.

Then there is the question of style.  You have to see the Mark V in person to understand how dated it looks.  It doesn't look vintage, it just looks dated.  It has funny molded-in cheekblocks, the bulbous protrusions on the back of the case, the dull flat sheet-metal name rail, and the blue racing-stripes.  It will remind you more of "Samsonite" rather than "Formula 1." 

I think the coolest-looking Rhodes is the round-top Mark 1.  At first glance, it looks like an old vintage professional instrument.  It screams Cool.   My second choice is the plastic-key era Mark II, because I like the all-black name rail.


I definitely don't think the Mark V will command a higher price than a nice and clean Mark 1.

[pianorocker]

Really great insight Sean.  All I know is that I've never seen a MK V advertised on eBay or somewhere where people knew what they had that went for less than 1000.  In fact, I'd say there have been plenty of MK I's in amazing condition that have just been passed on, while any MK V generates a great deal of interest.

[Rob A]

I think that if all the folks that wanted a Mark V actually had a chance to own a Mark V for a month, then their desire would wear off; or they would at least realize that the Mark V is not some supernatural supermodel. 

Well-put.

I think the coolest-looking Rhodes is the round-top Mark 1.  At first glance, it looks like an old vintage professional instrument.  It screams Cool.   My second choice is the plastic-key era Mark II, because I like the all-black name rail.

Two thousand bucks and it's yours. You can take it home with you. As a matter of fact I'll throw the black keys in for free.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN5V-6yCbpg

[martin]

i think the new ones havent been demo'd properly. i need to hear one through a twin before i make my mind up. a friend of mine who is md for corrine bailey rae tried one and he says its the best thing he as ever played, and he has a mint '79 mark one. i think the two need to be compared side by side. also the new ones just might not have the best set up you like on the demo's

[Groove4Hire]

I have rebuilt five Mark Vs and I own a mint one myself. I have also teched every piano from 60s Sparkletop suitcases and pianobasses to all the different Mark 1 models through the 70s, the Mark IIs, the Mark III EK-10, numerious Dyno-My Pianos and the Mark V as well as the the new one... In my opinion, the Mark V is up there among the very best pianos ever made.

The Mark V has a problem with its hammerpins due to the increased hammerthrow which in turn takes its toll on the hammerpins. They wear out or break. If so should happen, all is not lost. You can rebuild a Mark V with broken hammers to an axlerod solution which I believe Steve Woodyard had up for consideration when they designes the piano. Due to cost and limited time they had to stick with the hammercombs from the Mark II...

My favourite is my 1974 Suitcase Mark 1. The tone in this one can't be beat. The action was crap though so I rebuilt the whole thing and now it plays like butter. I love my Mark V. It is so dynamic and a joy to play and I also love the feel of the keys. The Mark IIs from 1980 and 1981 are great if they're set up properly. I find something to like in every model I own... The Mark V is a wonderful piano, it plays great and sounds great and it's rare. If you get a  chance to buy one, I would recommend warmly.

As for "the new one", feel free to PM me and I will give you my opinion about it ;-)

[martin]

my friend has played the modern keyboard in question, and it does have a better action he says, also all the demoes are out of a class d amp, maybe they sound better thru a twin. sorry if ive broke the rules. but the vv piano sounds amazing i think, more of an early 70's sound.

[The Real MC]

The Vintage Vibe EP is a viable option.

http://www.vintagevibeepc.com/

[Ben Bove]

Each piano has it's amazing points, and its drawbacks.  I say if you like the tone, it's desirable to you!  Mark Vs certainly have a much cleaner and consistent tone in my opinion than earlier pianos.

I share Groove4Hire's opinion that it's a well made piano.  If I remember correctly yes Steve Woodyard said he wanted to implement the pin solution but wasn't given the opportunity and with CBS closing and all.

As far as if the piano is desirable mechanically, my technical opinion...
Pros for the MarkV:
increased dynamic range with hammer throw.  You can really make them bark and get a much more pp->ff dynamic than other pianos.
highly consistent piano, consistent sound, actually "MADE" well across the board.
Dampers improved, tines don't hit damper felts on clean strike as often.
Low production, high value, higher collectability.  That's the only reason they cost so much.  Think of classic cars, if they only had a small production run of a certain car, it's value goes up from "rarity" only in some cases.
almost 20 years of experience behind piano design and many seemingly small but good improvements.
Slightly lighter (almost a joke!)
Jack labeled output (haha.)
Original stand could probably hold up a small european car.

Cons:
hammer pins will break over time with hard playing from increased hammer throw.  Yes they can be repaired.
"white tape" pickups are more susceptible to corrosion if piano was exposed to moisture or damp air.  (I don't think I saved this write up when migration took place on old forum and was lost.  But beware rusted Mark II and Mark V pianos with "10+ dead notes.")
Rubber standoff in high treble range if original, is probably worn out and tines will kick out of pickup range on initial hit so notes sound like dead spikes.
Lower production, therefore harder to find some parts such as keybeds, covers, original stand etc. and definitely Mark V hammers.
Did anyone ever find a source for the countersunk grommets?  Tonebar mounting screws go with special sunk-in grommets native to Mark Vs only.  If you have decreased sustain in tines or lateral movement of tonebar.
Action may be a little different and you either like or feel like you're doing "extra work" when playing.  Compared to other Rhodes action that is, not acoustic pianos.

I have one and I like it?  I'll probably still gig with a mid 70's one though as a workhorse.

[garagebandking41]

I certainly paid more for my Mark V than 2 of my Mark I's but as you see very few of these pianos, and I've never seen one near me at all, I also paid for it freight. Plus, its SUPER rare to find a "deal" with a Mark V. I got my Mark 1A for 500$. which i thought was a steal as it only had sticky keys, and 3 or 4 dead notes. 50$ and an evening, and the thing sounds like it's factory.

If you're the collector type, I'd say its definitely still (and always will be) desirable. As the last "true" Rhodes, it makes the set complete. I would never trade my V for the new models being made, even the VinVib ones. (which still outprice the mark v...)

I figure I paid 30% more than I should have, but I got a collectors item, a well built-piano, something unique, and no piano can beat the simple sophistication of the Mark V's looks...hah. The only thing i would disagree with, is that in all the Mark V's I've seen, I haven't come across one with dead pickups, I feel like they had more quality control with the mark v's pickups, as mine had none dead, and it was in New Orleans...pretty swampy.

Rhodes pianos are still pretty cheap considering how much an american fender strat goes for now. And while both have classic tone, Rhodes is its own instrument, you compare everything else to it. While a classic Fender Strat guys will always have Gibson guys screaming over them.

[tomogradymusic]

Were they ever desirable apart from being hard to get hold of? You can do an awful lot to improve the action of a mkI but you can't ever make a mkV sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCDl4jXomM
I will never want for any other instrument - my mkI suitcase is perfect. I know that no other Rhodes will ever beat the sound it makes; since I first heard a Rhodes I've known that I much prefer the Herbie / suitcase sound and I don't actually enjoy listening to the thinner, Chick Corea style stage Rhodes sound. I don't understand anybody that prefers the latter!

[Nitrofunk]

hammer pins will break over time with hard playing from increased hammer throw.  Yes they can be repaired.

Very interesting. How can they be repaired? I've had several broken Pins in my MK V and exchanged the Hammers, because I didn't know how to repair them.

[Kbjazzman]

For me .... I love this model so bad till I have to find the next one for spare but it turn out that now I got 4 units in my collection and if I find another one again .... I'll take it anytime.

[bumpyrhode]

If this is any indication of desirability I would say it's waning.
Highest bid was $1,175. It's been relisted with a BIN of $2,795.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120717728740&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

[oliisfullysick]

we just had this one advertised
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Rhodes-MkV-Stage-73-/260776627958#ht_500wt_1156
$10,500 anyone? haha