my '54 replica 175 (2016?) vs my Eastman 503 (2021)

[Groyniad]

Hi everyone - best wishes to all after no posts for ages (except one about string alignment which helped me a great deal)

Just thought I'd share some impressions I've recently generated by playing my 175 again after years of playing only Eastmans (580; 503; 905)

In particular I'm contrasting my 4k ish 175 (2 p90s) with my 503 (second hand mint 900 quid)

One really gets a sense of which way is up after not playing a guitar one knows really well for years, and then playing it again after using very different instruments

I'll try to be brief (difficult for me)

The 175 blew me away because it sounded so so cool - so fifties - so dry - so iconic. (hate that word - but no other will quite do) - I even liked the narrower neck and the string tension etc.

because it's really pretty heavy , all laminated (obv) and thick - it feels / sounds more or less awful unamplified - sort of plinky with a metallic twang from the tailpiece - but it can make a magical sound which is so perfectly close to the classic tone.

the real issue however is that it starts to feed-back at moderate volumes - really quite badly. one can reduce the effect by spoiling the sound (taking lots of bass out) - but even with this undesirable modification it still starts humming and making it difficult to focus on playing at relatively low volumes

in contrast - the 503 (carved top, laminated back and sides) feels and sounds lovely unamplified - produces a wonderful full even tone across the whole range - and resolutely resists feedback

the same is true of my 580, actually this guitar is even better - slightly thicker than the 503 with a fatter neck - sounds/feels even better unamplified and amplifies like feedback is a non-issue

(the 503 has a Seth lover in it - the 580 an hpag Armstrong - I prefer the Armstrong)

amazingly the super responsive 905 (which sounds absolutely nothing like a flattop with a magnetic pickup as one recent poster claimed - very little sustain - huge punchy projection) also behaves like feedback is a non-issue (Lollar JS pickup)

so I'm happy to let go of my wonderful '54 175 replica because whilst the Eastmans do not sound iconic - they feel like massively superior musical instruments. this comes across most obviously without amplification (which doesn't really matter - but shows what's going on with the guitar) - but they sound lovely too (so even, so easy to forget about). They're also super-comfortable - easy to play for hours etc. (The mass produced Armstrong pickup is fabulous - easier to use than the Seth Lover)

so even though my 175 has jazz mojo in spades - and I'm nuts about e.g Jimmy Raney, Tal Farlow, Jim Hall, Kenny Burrell and Wes - I'm much more into my Eastman guitars.

ive had a string of 175s since I got my first in 1993 - I've played thousands of gigs with them - and I've always had huge problems with feedback. I used an all mahogany Martin with a mangetic pickup for a good while because the 60s 175 I then had was so unfriendly on stage. the Eastmans make it possible to focus on the music even playing with a drummer and a piano player.

hardly brief.

[deacon Mark]

This does not surprise me at all even though the 175 is a jazz icon guitar. Each player finds things about a guitar they like and gravitate towards. So, while you can map a route to great jazz guitar and sound it is filled with branches depending on the player. Eastman makes players guitars, and you could very well pick up boutique expensive Benedetto laminate or even carved and find that it too is really not any better.

I did some work recently on Guild A150 savoy. Had a solid spruce top but I believe is pressed and mahogany neck. I was quite taken by how well and warm this guitar played and sounded for a $1400 guitar. It could give a real Guild AA at $5500 a run for the money no joke.

[ccroft]

It's always great to read about real world experience. Goes to show it's really really difficult (imposible?) to make decisions about what to get based on the internet. The human element cannot be underestimated.

There's a lot of stuff in your post that's contrary to the generally accepted wisdom: the stock Asian pickup is good, laminates feed back less than solids, Eastman guitars sound like flattops and are in every way inferior to anything with G on the headstock.

I love my Eastman 880 and will never let it go, even though it hardly gets any time since I got some other instruments.

I bet that 175 has more mojo though (whatever that is... :-)

[Groyniad]

indeed - whatever it is, it is too esoteric to pull me away from instruments that are much much easier to use - and feel more musical, more responsive but not too over-sensitive, both with and without amplification

[jads57]

Eastman 580,503,etc are fairly thin laminate built guitars. Same with their solid top models as well. I’ve owned Eastman 810CE, 805CE, JP 880, 803CE.
And while these are all well built and sound nice, they tend to be on the brighter side acoustically vs say Gibson or older Epiphones.

I personally gravitate towards heavier built Gibsons for feel and tonality. But I’m currently playing both an Elferink Tonemaster for a carved top and a Benedetto Bambino for a laminate.

[Groyniad]

I think the Eastmans borrow heavily from Benedetto designs

I played a Sadowsky JH for ages - and the experience makes me think that the hybrid 503/580 with its carved top - is a genuine improvement on the pure laminate design

I figure its Benedetto plus genuinely old-world construction techniques (rooted in orchestral stringed instruments) which explain the quality of Eastman archtops

my 905 is easily the most impressive instrument I've ever had - and I've had e.g. four Andersons - three Campellones' - two Comins - three Sadowskys

both the way it plays (e.g. above the 12th fret) - and the quality of design and construction (woods; binding; pick guard etc.) puts it in a league of its own. photographs strongly suggest it's in the same sort of category as 30,000 buscarino instruments (!!). it cost 3.

[Groyniad]

Eastman 580,503,etc are fairly thin laminate built guitars. Same with their solid top models as well. I’ve owned Eastman 810CE, 805CE, JP 880, 803CE.
And while these are all well built and sound nice, they tend to be on the brighter side acoustically vs say Gibson or older Epiphones.

I personally gravitate towards heavier built Gibsons for feel and tonality. But I’m currently playing both an Elferink Tonemaster for a carved top and a Benedetto Bambino for a laminate.

Just for the record - the 580 and 503 are precisely not laminate built guitars - they are hybrid guitars: carved tops; laminated back and sides. This means they have some of the mellowness/warmth/deadness of e.g. a sadowsky jh acoustically - but with much more punch and freshness. I'm tempted to try a 403 - which is all laminated - but I've no reason to look further than the 580 for an electric arch top.

[jads57]

Thanks for the correction on the Eastmans in question. I guess my main point is yes they are brighter, and have less mids than say their Gibson equivalents.

To me Benedettos over all seem to be brighter as well,due to their construction and thinner plates. It’s not quite as evident on my Bambino Std, due to having 2 Humbuckers and possibly thicker top.
I do however feel these thinner tops have more of a Flat Top tonality vs the older Archtop pronounced mid range.

Good thing there so many choices available, and Eastmans are a great value as well!

[Archie]

Hi everyone - best wishes to all after no posts for ages (except one about string alignment which helped me a great deal)

Just thought I'd share some impressions I've recently generated by playing my 175 again after years of playing only Eastmans (580; 503; 905)

In particular I'm contrasting my 4k ish 175 (2 p90s) with my 503 (second hand mint 900 quid)

One really gets a sense of which way is up after not playing a guitar one knows really well for years, and then playing it again after using very different instruments

I'll try to be brief (difficult for me)

The 175 blew me away because it sounded so so cool - so fifties - so dry - so iconic. (hate that word - but no other will quite do) - I even liked the narrower neck and the string tension etc.

because it's really pretty heavy , all laminated (obv) and thick - it feels / sounds more or less awful unamplified - sort of plinky with a metallic twang from the tailpiece - but it can make a magical sound which is so perfectly close to the classic tone.

the real issue however is that it starts to feed-back at moderate volumes - really quite badly. one can reduce the effect by spoiling the sound (taking lots of bass out) - but even with this undesirable modification it still starts humming and making it difficult to focus on playing at relatively low volumes

in contrast - the 503 (carved top, laminated back and sides) feels and sounds lovely unamplified - produces a wonderful full even tone across the whole range - and resolutely resists feedback

the same is true of my 580, actually this guitar is even better - slightly thicker than the 503 with a fatter neck - sounds/feels even better unamplified and amplifies like feedback is a non-issue

(the 503 has a Seth lover in it - the 580 an hpag Armstrong - I prefer the Armstrong)

amazingly the super responsive 905 (which sounds absolutely nothing like a flattop with a magnetic pickup as one recent poster claimed - very little sustain - huge punchy projection) also behaves like feedback is a non-issue (Lollar JS pickup)

so I'm happy to let go of my wonderful '54 175 replica because whilst the Eastmans do not sound iconic - they feel like massively superior musical instruments. this comes across most obviously without amplification (which doesn't really matter - but shows what's going on with the guitar) - but they sound lovely too (so even, so easy to forget about). They're also super-comfortable - easy to play for hours etc. (The mass produced Armstrong pickup is fabulous - easier to use than the Seth Lover)

so even though my 175 has jazz mojo in spades - and I'm nuts about e.g Jimmy Raney, Tal Farlow, Jim Hall, Kenny Burrell and Wes - I'm much more into my Eastman guitars.

ive had a string of 175s since I got my first in 1993 - I've played thousands of gigs with them - and I've always had huge problems with feedback. I used an all mahogany Martin with a mangetic pickup for a good while because the 60s 175 I then had was so unfriendly on stage. the Eastmans make it possible to focus on the music even playing with a drummer and a piano player.

hardly brief.

Don’t say your ES-175 feeds back. I've just been getting it in the neck on another thread for mentioning the same thing! (Perhaps it's a British problem?)

Although now it's someone else's turn, so carry on

If you're looking to sell, DM me your price.

On another note, glad to see you're still around.

[Archie]

This does not surprise me at all even though the 175 is a jazz icon guitar. Each player finds things about a guitar they like and gravitate towards. So, while you can map a route to great jazz guitar and sound it is filled with branches depending on the player. Eastman makes players guitars, and you could very well pick up boutique expensive Benedetto laminate or even carved and find that it too is really not any better.

I did some work recently on Guild A150 savoy. Had a solid spruce top but I believe is pressed and mahogany neck. I was quite taken by how well and warm this guitar played and sounded for a $1400 guitar. It could give a real Guild AA at $5500 a run for the money no joke.

dM, someone else was recently commenting on the new Guilds and how good they sound. I tired them a few years back and didn’t think much of them. Quality control was all over the place. Now Yamaha are in charge, perhaps that’s done the trick?

[Franz 1997]

[QUOTE=Archie;1347489]Don’t say your ES-175 feeds back. I've just been getting it in the neck on another thread for mentioning the same thing! (Perhaps it's a British problem?)

/QUOTE]

I've had a few ES175s; 7 or 8. It's a generalisation to say "175s feed back", IMO. Some do far more than others. I found 60s 175s fed back very easily; a '65 I had was almost unplayable for that reason. On the other hand, I found 2 Norlin 175s to be very feedback-proof. Unsurprising; they were built like tanks, and ugly. But they were very useable gigging guitars. I found later 175s - 80s, 90s versions- to be somwhere between the two extremes. One easy feedback prevention device is to install soundposts, which can be removeable. I suspect some 175 players know this already. Electric tone is not affected, altho' acoustic tone obviously is.

I know nothing about Eastmans. But I expect Grauniad's 50s (?) reissue 175 would indeed feedback very easily, if an accurate re-issue. Apparently P90s don't help in this respect.

[ESCC]

I play a 1978 ES 175 CC and an Eastman AR 910 CE (Armstrong hand wound 12 pole p/up), very different guitars, love them both. I don't know that I could pick one over the other . . . it might depend upon what day of the week it is!

Enjoyed your review Groyniad!

[Groyniad]

[QUOTE=Franz 1997;1347539]

Don’t say your ES-175 feeds back. I've just been getting it in the neck on another thread for mentioning the same thing! (Perhaps it's a British problem?)

/QUOTE]

I've had a few ES175s; 7 or 8. It's a generalisation to say "175s feed back", IMO. Some do far more than others. I found 60s 175s fed back very easily; a '65 I had was almost unplayable for that reason. On the other hand, I found 2 Norlin 175s to be very feedback-proof. Unsurprising; they were built like tanks, and ugly. But they were very useable gigging guitars. I found later 175s - 80s, 90s versions- to be somwhere between the two extremes. One easy feedback prevention device is to install soundposts, which can be removeable. I suspect some 175 players know this already. Electric tone is not affected, altho' acoustic tone obviously is.

I know nothing about Eastmans. But I expect Grauniad's 50s (?) reissue 175 would indeed feedback very easily, if an accurate re-issue. Apparently P90s don't help in this respect.

I had a factory-black 60s 175 which turned up randomly in a tiny guitar shop in town before the days of the internet - that was the one which forced me to use a Martin acoustic for gigs because it fed-back so badly. the P-90 175 that's the subject of this post has performed well in small groups with an old Evans amp - but A/B testing at home shows it to be more prone to feedback than any of the Eastmans. It's funny that the capacity to make a great sound does not trump all other considerations: they're tools and a guitar can sound fab in ideal circumstances but still be a very difficult tool to use.