-
I have 2 Eastmans. An AR 371 and a T386. I love both of these guitars. I got over the name on the headstock back in the early 80's when the Japanese finally figured out how to build quality guitars. I had a killer AS 200 that I foolishly let go of. I will not make the same mistake with these guitars.
-
04-19-2016 11:28 PM
-
My primary guitars are a '63 and '66 Kessel and an '89 175. Both have enough scratches that I never freeze up in fear over scratching them. My only judgement is sound and to me, the eastmans archtops just don't have the sound that I like. I do like the el rey but it's neck heavy. Same with the 184 and 185. The 186 and 386 series are nice and not neck-heavy but the cheap hardware and electronics are a turnoff. Eastman has capitalized on cheap labor and people's desire to buy an off the shelf, shiny new guitar for less money than a gibson. That's fine but they just don't sound like a gibson. And that's fine too. Everyone has a right to decide what they want and like.
The cheap finish is not simply a product of their old vs new guitars. There is something in their formulation or application that causes the finish to flake off at a much faster rate than any gibson, guild, fender, etc. Just look at any used eastman on ebay for examples. You never see gibsons with the finish flaking off. My 50 year old and 30 year old gibsons don't have that issue for example...
And their 371/372 guitars may look 175-esque but they sound *NOTHING* like a 175. Anyway, they are nice, budget archtops. Nothing wrong with that.Last edited by jzucker; 04-20-2016 at 07:00 AM.
-
Why Eastman can do what they do isn't just capitalizing on cheap labor, but on the absurd pricing policies (combined with a waning reputation) of companies such as Gibson. Some Japanese, "first-world" brands offer comparable and more consistent instruments for half the prices Gibson demands, and Japanese workers are not worse off than Gibson's, far from it, to my knowledge, so it's not just a matter of labor costs but plain corporate greed. I have little experience with Gibsons but I have difficulty believing they know something or have some kind of magical recipe other builders haven't been able to figure out after decades of guitar building industry. As to the finish flaking off on Eastmans, I'm surprised to read this, there may have been cases but I haven't seen any, certainly not mine which was built in 2007, almost 9 years ago. Maybe 30 years from now?
Last edited by m_d; 04-20-2016 at 07:44 AM.
-
Show me an example. The high end guitars from Ibanez (PM-200 and GB-300) retail for over $5000 so while they are cheaper than Gibson they are not bargains.
It's not a matter of magical recipe but the proof is in the pudding. Point out any eastman that can cop the L5, johny smith or 175 tones. You can't because they cannot do that. Like it or not, the gibson tones have become the standard that we measure all guitar tones by. Heritage guitars are much cheaper and they have managed to come close to gibson tones. I wish they'd make a 175 type guitar. Their H550 sounds like a tal farlow and has some similarities to the 175 in terms of plywood tone. The eastman plywood guitars don't cop the same vibe.
If you haven't seen eastmans with flakey finishes you've been hiding in a basement somwhere. There are *COUNTLESS* examples of this.
Originally Posted by m_d
Last edited by jzucker; 04-20-2016 at 09:57 AM.
-
It's not a matter of magical recipe but the proof is in the pudding. Point out any eastman that can cop the L5, johny smith or 175 tones. You can't because they cannot do that. Like it or not, the gibson tones have become the standard that we measure all guitar tones by. Heritage guitars are much cheaper and they have managed to come close to gibson tones. I wish they'd make a 175 type guitar. Their H550 sounds like a tal farlow and has some similarities to the 175 in terms of plywood tone. The eastman plywood guitars don't cop the same vibe.
Gotta agree with Jack on this. Think of it this way. First Gibson invented the archtop....then...when electrification came into the picture....they invented the "thick top archtop"....completely different animal than either the acoustic L4's, L5's, or L7's that preceeded them. So...the L5-CES, the 175, 165, 350, etc.
For better or worse, I don't think anyone else has really figured out how to produce this sound. (Heritage comes close, and could maybe come closer, if they dared. Patrick, our former confrere, called it "not flying too close to Air Force 1.")
I've tried an acoustic floater Eastman in my local music store. I wasn't impressed---treble sounded plinky and the bass sounded boomy. Some of this is just my taste...I think acoustic-y archtops are kind of problematic in a group setting or when played loudly...they just end up sounding either shrill or boomy, or kind of disappear in the mix. I've seen Russell Malone twice live with a group behind him in a medium-sized venue (medium club and outside at Detroit Jazz Fest.)...once with a Buscarino, once with an L5-CES...the latter sounded better, IMO, though less layered. (I also have a luthier-made Benedetto type floater, as well, that I paid VERY little for...sounds great solo or played quietly, but even played against a backing track at a medium volume, the L4-CES or Aria Pro II 175, or Heritage 550 just come through better.)Last edited by goldenwave77; 04-20-2016 at 10:35 AM.
-
The PM-200 sells at Sweetwater for $3500. Originally Posted by jzucker
Ibanez Pat Metheny PM200 - Natural | Sweetwater.com
-
There have been COUNTLESS great jazz recordings made on import (Asian) guitars for decades, sorry. Many current greats record on import or luthier models, Graham Dechter and Peter Bernstein for instance. Do they fall short of the "standard" somehow? Also, in proportion far more people will chase the Gibson tone unicorn, than they will the Eastman unicorn, so there's really no valid basis for comparison. Many Gibsons may be great - the futile chase and the cost are just not worth it for me.
Last edited by m_d; 04-20-2016 at 12:27 PM.
-
??? Most Yamaha, Ibanez Prestige, Seventy-seven, Fugijen hollows and semi-hollows, probably others, all made in Japan, cost half their Gibson counterparts...
-
There are lots of great guitar sounds in the world, without a doubt
Lots of room for everyone...but the Gibson guitar sound is, for some, what they want, and I think it's identifiable...just like the sound of a Marshall amp for rock.
Still, suppose the Beatles had played Strats through Fender amps?...would that have detracted from their signature sound...course they had lots of sounds.
-
What's that got to do with anything? We were talking about eastmans. No doubt Gibson is over-priced. I never said otherwise. Furthermore, I don't think even a new gibson archtop sounds like an older one. My late '90s Tal Farlow can't hold a candle to my similarly constructed '66 Barney Kessel. Nor does a new 175 sound like my '89. However, they are still a lot closer to the classic tones than the eastmans are. To me, the eastmans sound like acoustic instruments with a pickup added as an afterthought. Originally Posted by m_d
I think they studied benedetto but should have studied classic gibson instead. IMO of course. I think the el rey and T186/T386 are exceptions. I like the way they sound but they use some really horrible quality pots, jacks and switches, not to mention the poor finish.
And a slight tweak to the el rey to fix the neck heavy balance would do wonders. The El Rey is a brilliant instrument and I haven't heard anything else come close to it.
And for those who have never seen an eastman with a finish issue...
https://www.google.com/search?q=east...hrome&ie=UTF-8
-
It sounds as though one of the reasons that Eastman has been a polarizing manufacturer is that they focus on acoustic instruments with floating pickups for supplementary amplification, and some folks are buying them hoping they will sound like Gibson laminates with built in pickups.
The situation sounds to me more like a contractor who reaches for the wrong tool and then blames the tool for the less than desirable results.
I like both Gibson and Eastman tones, and apparently that makes me unusual.
-
I've owned several eastmans with set-in pickups so it's not just the wrong tool for the job. It's just (for me) the wrong tool. And the overall low quality of the finish and the hardware. Originally Posted by Klatu
-
Couldn't disagree more about "low quality of the finish and the hardware". I suppose they might not have been great early on, but there are zero issues with any of mine. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
It's simply got to do with the fact that there's half a dozen good to excellent Gibson alternatives on the market for a lot less money, among which I would include used Guilds. Although I did see two used H Roberts Fusion and es 137 for around 1.5k recently which seemed reasonable. I agree Eastman could be a bit more reactive, cosmetics are so-so and most models like the El Rey don't seem to ever change at all.
-
You've owned a T386/186 or el rey? If you don't see any issues with the hardware, I cannot trust your judgement. The switches are awful in those guitars and the wiring is comical. My T386 was from 2015 Originally Posted by djelley
-
I have not. I also don't judge a brand by one or two models. My ES339 has a bunch of issues, but I still generally like Gibson. Come to think of it, all of my Eastmans are single pickup archtops. I suppose their semis could have issues. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
If you've been poor enough, long enough, you often appreciate stuff differently.
After having my first guitar (junk) stolen and having to play other junk I waited
& worked 20 years to buy my first good flat-top (Gibson.) It was another six or seven
years before my first "real" arch top.
My AR371 has an excellent neck, the only profile of its type
in my harem, and only weighs 5-1/2 lbs.; feels good.
Yeah, I'd rework some stuff for regular playing out, big deal.
I've got several Gibson archies but my Eastman will always have a home here.
Be grateful for everything, tomorrow, you are dead.
-
I'm not sure why we need to argue over which guitar sounds the best, or which is the best value. Some prefer Eastman, some Gibson, and other crazy people like me think Guild guitars are the best for tone and value. Some buy guitars for how they play, others how they sound, and still others for the name that is on the headstock. Ultimately, whatever makes one pick up a guitar and play for hours is all that matters, and many guitars are capable of having that effect on people.
-
what is the point of commenting on a thread with a premise that was made in 2012? Seriously, since then Eastman has taken their place as a good quality affordable archtop and they've done well. As I've seen, the quality in a decade has been great coming out of here and I have and would buy another.
I don't understand nor find the "polarizing" remark to be relevant today.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale