Eastman vs Gibson - Is the tone gap as small as the price gap (audio comp'n)?

[Oscar67]

Beatles or Stones? Bentley or Rolls? Bösendorfer or Steinway? In my experience people make such choices and stick with them. Someone who wants a Gibson won’t settle for anything else unless being forced to do so by lack of funds. At equal price point it’s a no-brainer.

Personally I think Eastman guitars can be on par with anything. Last weekend I played an Eastman LP copy and a Collings LP copy costing five times as much. I would have chosen the Eastman, it sounded better to my ears. The potential of an Eastman guitar is second to very few others, but it might need a good setup to realise its potential. But to most folks the name on the headstock really really matters and emotion plays a huge part in that, probably a decisive part. Gibson is an American icon and most of us grew up with idols who played Gibsons (or Fenders for that matter). It doesn’t help that there are zillions of used Eastmans out there and buying a new one means burning at least 40% of what you paid in the single second it takes for the card machine to indicate that it got your money.

[Oscar67]

More importantly, I hear great playing in the OP’s first post with a sound that’s to die for. Thank you! As a listener I couldn’t care less if it was played on a polka-dotted BC Rich Mockingbird or a pre-war L5. As a player and gear nut it matters big time.

[213Cobra]

Thanks to tariffs, wood shortages, material and labor costs, etc, the best imported archtops now cost 2 to 3 times their MSRPs 5 years ago. A current thread about the tone of an Eastman 810CE got me thinking about the fact that a new Eastman 910 now lists for $6k and a new 810CE lists for $4500. That's getting closer and closer to the price of the grail. Now we'll find out if the best from Eastman and others can compete with a good older Gibson or other fine archtop purely on merit.

You can get a very nice L7C for the price of a new Eastman 905 or 910. The asking price range for a decent L5C seems to start at about $9k right now, and there are many other fine archtops available new and used in the $5k to $10k range (asking price). You can get one of many excellent luthier-built boxes for the price of a 910. For example, the American Archtop line currently starts at $6500 for a beautiful guitar that's laminated but gorgeous, very well made, and with fantastic sound and playability. So there's now a wide and fairly level playing field that encompasses a lot of wonderful guitars that were never direct competitors before (e.g. a new Eastman 910 and a new AA Dream or Bucky cost the same amount).

Many consider(ed) Eastman carved archtops to be second class instruments. Most of those who bought them did so only because they were so much cheaper than the "good" guitars that they really wanted. I recognized the tonal and playing qualities of carved Eastman archtops when I first encountered them over 20 years ago. But I was (illogically) afraid that a Chinese-made guitar would come apart in a few years and leave me with a pile of splinters that would be more costly to repair than it was worth. They sure did sound fine and play well - but I didn't have the confidence to buy one when they were truly dirt cheap.

They've now withstood the test of time, so I bought one about 5 years ago. I paid $2200 for my 17" 810CE7 new from Guitars 'n Jazz. I've since bought a new 16" Jazz Elite 7 from GnJ and a used El Rey 7 from another forum member. I love carved Eastman archtops! Over the last 60+ years, I've gigged with many archtops thick and thin, including a Vega, a 345, a 175, an L5C, a Guild X500, a 165, a Gretsch archtop whose model # I don't remember, and the Ibanez AF207 that's been my trusted sidekick since 1997. I will not need another gigging guitar for the rest of my life, and I'm fairly certain that my 3 Eastman archies will here long after I'm gone. But I know of no guitar I could get today that I would sell my Eastmans to buy. Even if there were a 7 string L5, I would not take it over them unless it was possessed by pure magic.

The thread linked above was started by the owner of a new-to-him preowned Eastman 810CE looking for ways to improve its tone. After posting a clip of mine for him to compare to his, I decided to compare mine to the grail. So here's my unamplified 810CE7, along with a YT clip of a '45 L5. There are also clips of my 810 and a nice L5-CES played amplified. I think my Eastman holds its own pretty well against these. I'd love to have done this with a $6,000 Eastman 910, but I don't have access to one. Still, I think the now-$4500 810CE acquits itself pretty well in what I think are comparable presentations of the Eastman 810 and the L5s (both acoustic and electric). The non-cut '45 L5 does sound absolutely beautiful - but I don't think the 810 is far behind, especially considering that it has heavy flatwounds on it. Amplified, I think the 810 and L5-CES are pretty comparable in tonal quality.

Whaddya you think - can the Eastman compete against name brand top dogs independent of price?

Here's my unamplified 810CE7 with TI JS113 flatwounds (picked with Dunlop Jazztone 204) closely mic'ed, entirely acoustic - solo intro, then with organ trio. I don't have and couldn't find a recording of a mic'ed acoustic archtop playing lead with a small group for comparison. But I think this track shows how great the 810 sounds acoustically in a small jazz group.



I just laid down this solo acoustic track on my 810 whle practicing. I don't think the mics and/or preamps in my Zoom Q2n-4K are quite as warm as those in my TASCAM digital recorder (used to capture the Soundcloud track above) or my Shure SM58s. But the sound quality is certainly decent.

Compare it to this 1945 L5 acoustic (round wounds - pick unknown):

Here's my 810 through my Blu 6:



And here's Andy Bartosh (who makes any guitar sound as good as it can possibly sound) on his amplified L5-CES. He's using more reverb than I am, FWIW:

In 2010 I bought an Eastman 910 Acoustic, and (I don't recall the model number) the oval hole acoustic archtop they were offering at the time. The workmanship on both was impeccable, thoroughly beyond reproach, so I didn't have a second's worry about durability. Voices were huge relative to size. Both were beautiful guitars in appearance, craft, playability and engaging, beautiful sound. I owned both until I sold a fair amount of my collection in 2023 for adverse reasons. They were both distinctly non-Gibson-like in sound and tone, but that was fine with me. If I wanted more Gibsons at the time, I'd have bought more Gibsons then. Having had a few Guild-Benedetto archtops (AA, JSA, X-700) it was clear to me that, as often reported, Eastman was working from Bob's template, and it sounded like it. That didn't make me unhappy. Those two Eastmans I had were in the realm of my G-B Artist Awards, sonically and acoustically, in playability, projection and dynamic tone. I had to sell during a period of medically-oriented uncertainty, and now wish I still had them even in the context of owning an array of splendid Gibsons and Guilds.

So, what I am getting to is that I don't think Eastman has to close "the tone gap" with Gibson. That's not been their objective. Eastman tone is qualitatively beyond reproach if you like it, and if one wants the exact sound of a Gibson, one should by one. Otherwise, for the tone (sound) they are aiming for (and attaining), Eastman has long ago "arrived." You can't fault their craft anymore, so it's only a question of whether one faults Eastman's chosen voice. This makes the question of whether Eastman can compete at its new pricing interesting. Well, there's nothing new in that level of archtop coming from Guild. Gibson threatens something archie this year, but it's not real yet. Heritage is in the market as a branded concern. There are the limited production (i.e.waitlisted) luthiers. Eastman has a continuing brand-building task to put themselves on the same footing as used Gibson archtops. But there are buyers who want new, a pristine guitar, a warranty and not what they might think is a beater. So, in that context, and their real-world ~$4800 retail price for a 910, I think Eastman can keep making sales and progress. The used Gibson market isn't going to strip Eastman of people who want new guitars.

Phil

[Archie]

As Phil mentions, Gibson and Eastman aren’t competing. Imo they are totally different archtops. A Gibson Citation might be in competition with an Eastman (both have floaters) but Gibson archtops are primarily electric archtops and they are braced for such. Having now studied Gibson carved tops for 4 years, I believe there is no special sauce, no special woods or carve. Gibsons sound fat and warm mostly because they have a deep body and are over braced for feedback and warranty reasons.

Eastman archtops are in the Benedetto style of acoustic archtops. Different scale length, neck angle, body depth and shape, less internal volume (as far as I can make out). They are also not tuned (as far as I know) so will be brighter with a thinner tone but with better projection. You could more easily use an Eastman for Gypsy jazz, than a Gibson. I personally do not want that sound in an archtop and prefer the more “electric” sounding carved archtops aka Guild Johnny Smith Award, Gibson Johnny Smith, Gibson L5CES, Guild X700 etc..

Most of these companies will not tune tops and or backs because there is only downsides in doing so. The increase in volatile overtones would make them a huge tone risk and the time needed to make them sound good, would remove any profits or push prices up.

I personally do not get on with Eastman guitars. I think they are acoustic for the sake of it but I do not find them to be refined at all. I couldn't imagine paying over £3K for a new one, given these are mass produced Chinese guitars but think anyone enjoying them for a fair price is probably having a good time. How else are you going to get to play an acoustic archtop with solid woods unless you pay a luthier? My critique would be that a Benedetto style needs to be done right and if done for the sake of it, the result will be a rather sterile guitar (which is my opinion of Eatmans).

The Gibson L5 in the video sounds much warmer, rounder and deeper than the Eastman. Comparing a relatively small bodied cutaway (Eastman), to a bigger non cutaway is not going to produce any other result. It’s like comparing a Gitane to a super 400 for exaggeration and the difference in tone between the two videos, is immediately noticeable.
The L5 humbucker also sounds much fatter than a single coil floater and again I find the difference to be immeditaly notiable.

Sorry I can't be with you on this one NeverShould but great playing, I’m really impressed. Although I reject your opinion on the tone, I do not reject your tone, I’d happily listen to that.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

More importantly, I hear great playing in the OP’s first post with a sound that’s to die for. Thank you! As a listener I couldn’t care less if it was played on a polka-dotted BC Rich Mockingbird or a pre-war L5. As a player and gear nut it matters big time.

The only words better to wake up to than these are my wife saying “I love you”! Thanks so much.

I agree completely that the music doesn’t care on what it’s played. Tone is tone, and a guitar that plays well and sounds great is one worth having, regardless of its maker and place of origin. I think Eastman is as good for a gigging musician ((or anyone who just wants a great sounding, playing, and looking archtop) as a used Gibson, Guild, Heritage etc at anywhere close to price parity. The main reason I’d buy an American luthier’s product new today instead of a similarly priced Eastman is to support them, which is a very good and important reason to do so (now more than ever, because they have so much imported competition). But per my original question in this thread, I do think that Eastman’s best can hold its own against American icons and will continue to sell well against them.

I bought Eastman when the best ones cost about $2k and a comparable US built guitar was more than twice as much. Over a 4 year period, I got 14”, 16”, and 17” carved solid wood archtops for a total of a hair over $6k, which is what one entry level American Archtop would have cost me. I’ve been gigging at least twice a week for years, so I needed backup and instruments I could play on crowded stages and in dives. My ‘97 Ibanez AF207 has been great - it’s tough as nails, but its sound is nowhere near as great as that of the Eastmen. When I bought it (new in 1997, when it came out), there were no other production 7 string archtops and it cost much less than half of the least expensive luthier built 7s.

With Eastmans (as with the Ibanez), I’ve not worried about damage from gigging or ruminated over resale value. But with price parity rapidly approaching, I’d buy Eastman or an American luthier’s product today over a used L5, L7, etc (unless I just wanted an L because of what it is). I think both Eastman and several US based luthiers can supply guitars that sound as good, play as well, and will do so for at least as long as a Gibson would with less maintenance needed and at lower long term cost.

With a Heritage 575 listing for $6k and a 717 at $13k, new ones are not even close to price parity with Eastman’s comparable products. They’re also sufficiently more expensive than many fine independent luthiers’ comparable guitars to keep them from competing. The least expensive carved American Archtop is $5k+ less than a 717. Used Heritage competes with new Eastman, and I think this is also a toss-up at best. From what I’ve seen, Eastman’s QC has been much better than Heritage’s for several years.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

The Gibson L5 in the video sounds much warmer, rounder and deeper than the Eastman.

There's a fly in my ointment! I agree with you, and I've been wondering since I started this thread why the Eastman sounds so much thinner and brighter (even a bit shrill) in the Manha de Carnaval video than it does live - especially since it has heavy flats on it. So I just re-recorded a fast pass through the tune using my TASCAM DR-40x to capture the audio......and the problem with the sound in the first take is the audio in my Zoom Q2n-4K video recorder.

I've foolishly assumed that the audio quality of my TASCAM DR40x digital audio recorder and my Zoom Q2n-4K video recorder was the same. Don't ask me why I assumed that, because I know better than to assume anything. And in this case, assuming has truly "made an ass of me". I don't know if it's the mics, the preamp, or something else. But using the same recording format (WAV 24/96) and settings, the quality of the Zoom audio is clearly below that of the TASCAM. Wow!! I've been using the Zoom to capture gigs for QC of my playing since I got it over the summer. The overall sound quality seemed OK, but I was only listening to the performances. The TASCAM captures what my guitars sound like, and the Zoom is not as accurate. I'll post about this separately, as it's a valuable lesson for all of us: digital recorders are not all the same. I'm going to compare these with webcam, phone, and tablet captures, and I'll compare the internal mics in the Zoom with good external ones.

Yes, the '46 L5 non-cut sounds better than the 810 (as it should). But the difference isn't nearly as great as it seems from that first video, and I think the 810 holds its own acoustically. I'm very happy with its tone behind vocalists, and so are they. Hear it for yourself:

TASCAM - notice how it sounds like the acoustic tone on Alone Together (in post #1). I also recorded that track with the TASCAM:

Zoom:

And here's the L5 clip for comparison:

[Rob MacKillop]

Archie, I get it that you and others have a poor opinion of Eastman guitars, but they vary - as with most brands. This is their take on the 175, which to me might not be mistaken for the real thing, but does sound beautiful:

Here’s their 910C - though you don’t get a sense of the volume:

Each of these guitars cost me under £2,000. At the time of purchase, the Gibson 174 was £3500. The closest thing I could find comparable to the 910C was the Gibson pressed-top acoustic archtops, which in my neck of the woods were over £6,000.

I’m not against Gibson by any means, but when you live in Scotland, LA and Shanghai are pretty much equidistant. I have no nationalistic feelings either way. But I do recognise that Gibson helped establish the “jazz guitar sound” and deserve credit for that. I wish I could buy high-end Gibsons, I really do…but…

[skykomishone]

Rob,
You've always sounded great on everything you've played! Keep it up! Great variety too! If I could have a fraction of your musical talent I'd be happy. I remember your Eastman's. They sounded great too! I've owned a few Eastman's. The Pisano was my favorite eastman model. In my quest for archtops, I've found what has been said that each guitar needs to be evaluated on it's own merits is true, due to variation in inputs and the build processes, are how well they are specified and controlled against a standard expectation. John Pisano deserves some credit for how those turned out. For sure.

[Stringswinger]

I do not think Archie is wrong with his assessment (I love that fat, warm Gibson sound he writes about. My D'Angelicos and Campellone have that sound as did my pre-Benedetto Guild AA and my pre-Gibson Epiphones). But I have played Eastmans that were up there with my Guild-Benedetto AA's tone wise, and while it is a different tone than the Gibsons, that is still a great jazz guitar tone. Anyone who saw John Pisano live, playing his Eastman will know that an Eastman archtop can deliver.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

The closest thing I could find comparable to the 910C was the Gibson pressed-top acoustic archtops, which in my neck of the woods were over £6,000.

I’ve only played 2 of these, but they were both equally dull and disappointing.

[Rob MacKillop]

I suppose we keep missing the point of the original post, but it has all been interesting nonetheless.

Listening to my recording of Estralita, I wonder why I sold that guitar. As I’m writing this I’m remembering selling it to buy a used Gibson 175, which I never got along with physically, which was unexpected. But I love Joe Pass and other great 175 players and their recordings - the very essence of jazz for most people. I love the sound of jazz, I’m just not a good improviser, and don’t mind admitting it. I guess I’ve just spread my interest too wide. But enough of me!

Both Gibson and Eastman make great (and sometimes indifferent) archtops, and we are lucky to have them to play with.

Yes, I would love a Pisano…

[jads57]

Just my perspective after owning numerous Eastmans 810CE,805CE,803CE Humbucker ,JP 880,ElRey2. I’ve also owned numerous Gibsons including 1973 L-5CES , 1963,1969 Byrdlands, 1967 175, as well as played numerous acoustic Gibson Acoustic Archtops.

Very different tonality and feel from both brands. If you like wider flatter 1&3/4” flatter necks as well as less mids than Eastman is a good choice!
If on the other hand you prefer rounder 1/11/16” necks as well as more pronounced mids,than Gibson is your obvious choice!

Price wise Eastmans is the way better deal,especially used!

[Stringswinger]

I suppose we keep missing the point of the original post, but it has all been interesting nonetheless.

Listening to my recording of Estralita, I wonder why I sold that guitar. As I’m writing this I’m remembering selling it to buy a used Gibson 175, which I never got along with physically, which was unexpected. But I love Joe Pass and other great 175 players and their recordings - the very essence of jazz for most people. I love the sound of jazz, I’m just not a good improviser, and don’t mind admitting it. I guess I’ve just spread my interest too wide. But enough of me!

Both Gibson and Eastman make great (and sometimes indifferent) archtops, and we are lucky to have them to play with.

Yes, I would love a Pisano…

Rob, listening to your excellent video of Estralita caused me to dig out my copy of that Mel Bay book with the transcription. I am sorry that the 175 did not work for you. That model of guitar has worked better for me than all of the others. But that DA on the cover of the Mel Bay book sure is a fine looking thing, eh?

[Rob MacKillop]

It is! I spoke to Mel’s son, Bill, about it. It was just one of many they had lying around the house back then. John would bring them for Mel to see and play, and often he’d go home empty handed!

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Here’s their 910C - though you don’t get a sense of the volume:

I think the sound of your 910C is mighty close to the ‘46 L-5. That’s very fine playing in all 3, Rob!

[Rob MacKillop]

Much appreciated, David. I dream of playing at that level again

[Archie]

Archie, I get it that you and others have a poor opinion of Eastman guitars, but they vary - as with most brands. This is their take on the 175, which to me might not be mistaken for the real thing, but does sound beautiful:

Here’s their 910C - though you don’t get a sense of the volume:

Each of these guitars cost me under £2,000. At the time of purchase, the Gibson 174 was £3500. The closest thing I could find comparable to the 910C was the Gibson pressed-top acoustic archtops, which in my neck of the woods were over £6,000.

I’m not against Gibson by any means, but when you live in Scotland, LA and Shanghai are pretty much equidistant. I have no nationalistic feelings either way. But I do recognise that Gibson helped establish the “jazz guitar sound” and deserve credit for that. I wish I could buy high-end Gibsons, I really do…but…

Rob don’t let my critique be confused with not being able to get a good/great tone from an Eastman. For a start no two Eastmans will sound the same, so there is automatically a pool of “great” to “meh “ sounding ones. Nor do I disagree with the huge value they offer compared to used Gibson’s.
I am naturally adverse to acoustic archtops because my experience dictates that this type of archtop, only REALLY works when made by a great luthier (unless you luck out on a mass produced acoustic archtop, which can happen). So naturally I’m going to compare any archtop that is an “acoustic archtop” to a Campellone, a Trenier, Benedetto etc.. How balanced is it, how rich is the response, does it bark or is it D’Aquisto smooth. For this reason I appreciate old Epiphones but don’t ‘like” their tone.
Given that I prefer the D’Aquisto "smooth acoustic sound", which is rich and warm but subdued, then Hofners, Eastmans, Laors etc.. are going to sound too bright for me. Just like Fender amps and why I don't use them.

I did recently play Eastmans 330 model and although I thought the fit and finish was little janky, the tone was very good and imo better than the equivalent Gibson 330 I have played (which was also slightly whiffy in the F&F department).

I agree there does seem to be people in the Eastman camp and those outside, but those inside are people who I respect and get great tone, like yourself. I even have complaints about my GBJSA and the GAA I had. Both are acoustic archtops that have some characteristics I would like to change, and if those characteristics were present in a luthier made one, I'd complain to the luthier. Acoustic archtops are much more volatile, that is why I prefer the reassuring embrace of a warm, over braced thick top. Better balance by default, lass bark, heavier tone.
That is why I errr away from Eastmans as I find them to be more on the Epiphone side of the coin, than the Gibson one. Not better or worse.

This is what I've been mulling over with my CNC work; how do you make an acoustic archtop that sounds like it’s been tuned without tuning it? I don't yet know of any company that has achieved this. Almost all companies that make acoustic archtops in production form, simply carve the plate and glue it to the body. The outcome of its balance and response is pure pot luck. Anyway a thought for another day.

[Rob MacKillop]

Does anyone know the difference between the Eastman 6xx series and the 8xx series? I thought the higher the number, the higher the quality, but I’m not sure where my AR371 (The 175-ish clone) fits in to this, as it seemed high quality.

[thelostboss]

Does anyone know the difference between the Eastman 6xx series and the 8xx series? I thought the higher the number, the higher the quality, but I’m not sure where my AR371 (The 175-ish clone) fits in to this, as it seemed high quality.

A vague memory from a few years ago - so don't hold me to it - was that the numbering was a mix of materials used and embellishments added, I think that 3xx and 4xx were all laminate, 5xx laminate back and sides with carved top, 6xx Mahogany back and sides with spruce top [all carved??], but unsure of the differences between the 8xx and 9xx. One of the numbering systems also indicated body size.

Not much help I know. Although I am fairly certain that the first run of 6xx models were all carved mahogany back and sides with a carved spruce top. They also had a flatter Venetian cutaway. I almost went home with one from a guitar show when they were first released in Oz but could not justify it to management.

tlb

[Rob MacKillop]

That sounds about right to me, especially the part about working within The Management rules.

[SierraTango]

A vague memory from a few years ago - so don't hold me to it - was that the numbering was a mix of materials used and embellishments added, I think that 3xx and 4xx were all laminate, 5xx laminate back and sides with carved top, 6xx Mahogany back and sides with spruce top [all carved??], but unsure of the differences between the 8xx and 9xx. One of the numbering systems also indicated body size.

Not much help I know. Although I am fairly certain that the first run of 6xx models were all carved mahogany back and sides with a carved spruce top. They also had a flatter Venetian cutaway. I almost went home with one from a guitar show when they were first released in Oz but could not justify it to management.

tlb

This is how I understood the Eastman system of numbering. The 910 is/was the top of the heap all carved with all the best solid woods and appointments. The 8 series just cosmetically less bling. The Pisano 6 series is solid carved spruce and mahogany. 4 series laminated.
Back in the late 90's I ordered a 7 string Eastman. Sadly it was absolutely the worst guitar I ever played-I could slide a credit card between the heel and the body. The finish was terrible and the electronics were a bad joke. A guy named Gordon was the US rep, Eastman was just starting out with archtop guitars. He refunded the purchase and I bought a Ibanez AF207, which was a stellar 7. Just ask Never.
I went back to 6 string and bought a Gibson Howard Roberts and giged with it for a few years. I had heard through the grapevine that Eastman hired Mark Lacey (RIP) to consult and watched the brand improve at NAMM shows. I was at NAMM around 2005 when they brought out the PIsano 880.
I was very impressed with it and got mine through my friend Bob November (also RIP)
Another story however when the recession hit in '07, that guitar kept food on the table gigging, a workhorse. Now days she's my backup for the Benedetto but I still love it.

[deacon Mark]

I have a Legrand and it sounds wonderful made as an acoustic and Gibson did a fantastic job. That said I can also tell you I have played a number of Eastman 810s and 910s which are acoustic guitars. On the whole they have nothing at all to be ashamed of sound wise. I have never done a side-by-side comparison but I can tell you for the most part Eastman acoustic archtop do a fine job. One might in a blind fold test pick them over a Legrand. That might a cool project.

In the end sound is important for sure but it does not determine the value that is goes much deeper in a process. If you are like Rob and want a fine carved top sound but not willing or able to shell out $10k for a Legrand, Eastman works fine. What also becomes another rabbit hole is comparing lesser models Gibsons of the same type guitar. I have played many L7s that sound great and better than any particular L5 or even Super 400. I actually find Eastman very good value however before I would go to an Eastman I would look at Heritage. Oh my I found another rabbit hole.

[Rob MacKillop]

Well, I think it’s great we have both. It’s not like Eastman will kill off Gibson, that’s more likely to be Les Paul clones from more than one brand, I imagine.

I’ve read here and elsewhere that Eastman archtops are based on Bob Benedetto’s, so they’re not going to sound like Gibson’s anyway.

I’ve only had a brief spell on a Benedetto - can’t recall the model… “Bambino”? or similar - and it sounded nothing like a Gibson or an Eastman. Modern D’Angelico’s too.

We are lucky to live in times of such choice, no?

[buduranus2]

I didn't get any audio clips, but I was out riding my Triumph motorcycle.

I had '75 Norton Commando 850 and a '79 Triumph T140 750. The Norton was quite the scooter, especially at 10:1 compression after shortening the pushrods. Too old to ride anymore, alas.

[SierraTango]

I had '75 Norton Commando 850 and a '79 Triumph T140 750. The Norton was quite the scooter, especially at 10:1 compression after shortening the pushrods. Too old to ride anymore, alas.

Both great rides! I'm still riding at 70, no plans to stop. I hit a cow on my Ducati 900SS/SP a couple years ago, but got right back on after surgery.
I'm a Italian bike guy. I sold my Ducati 999S last Autumn and went back to Guzzi. The Ducati was so intense, so focused it just wanted to faster. Also very uncomfortable, hot in the summer. My current ride a 02 Guzzi V11 Le Mans. Much more relaxed!