Eastman AR372CE vs Gibson ES-175

[Paul Hughes]

Eastman AR372CE V Gibson ES175

The ES 175 was the first guitar I ever really, really wanted – since I was a kid. I’m now at the age (40s) where I can finally afford one so over the last couple of years I’ve trawled round music shops playing any 175s and copies and thought I’d share my thoughts on those hours of research in case anyone else is doing the same.

People on this forum always say “depends what you’re looking for” so first let me say I was looking for a 2 pup, 175 style archtop with Florentine cutaway as a gigger for a variety of styles in the jazz/blues/roots/country area. My method when I’m buying guitars is I tend to decide what style of guitar I want, look for good reviews, look for good aesthetics then go and find them to play to test sound/tone/build and (for me) the most important part – playability, ie can I get on with the neck.

My search of dozens of candidates came down to two finalists - Eastman AR372CE V Gibson ES175. I played them side by side on a couple of occasions.

GIBSON ES175
PROS: Nothing looks better to my eye. It’s simply an iconic, brilliant looking guitar. Despite niggles with Gibsons mentioned on this forum I found the build quality to be excellent. The neck setting is the most robust thing I’ve ever seen on a guitar. It’s built like a tank. The finish and fittings are beautiful. Plugged up, I thought the sound was great but compared to other makes I found it a touch muddy at times and lacking definition and range – However, it is a great sounding guitar. It’s also the Gibson I’ve always wanted.

CONS: On the standard version and reissue versions the neck was not to my taste. They’re mainly the “baseball bat” style although one model has a neck that appeared to be closer to a 70s Les Paul neck. The thicker necks are quite deep to the extent I found them uncomfortable to play. This is a personal fit thing but I do have biggish hands so think other will find the same. What I found inexcusable on the “out the box” models I played is that the nut was often way too high and on occasion gave odd voicing/intonation on the first fret as a result. Also the factory strings from Gibson are so poor and light that I was finding it difficult on some occasions to assess the guitar. In the UK the guitar is currently around £2900. At that price I want those things to be right, not an aftersales set-up thing.

EASTMAN AR372CE

PROS: Great looking guitar at £800 in the UK. Instant reaction head to head was – the neck is fantastic. Much more playable than the Gibson, the pups are a bit hotter and the sound was a bit brighter with more range. The wood build and finish are excellent. I’ve heard about a greenish tinge to some of the early ones but the burst on the ones I tried is beautiful. Deep rich amber/tobacco that match the volume/tone controls. While the neck is undoubtedly a work of computer science it feels like a work of art. It’s really, really playable. Thinner than the ES175 and nicely finished with bevelled fret ends. The neck also has a touch of “fight” in it when playing (if that makes sense) that I really like and the Gibson lacked. I really couldn’t get bored playing the neck on this. Tonally I think it sounds great and my only issue is that it’s so resonant and sustaining that it did feedback a couple of time when cranked up. Not often though – easily dialled out.

CONS: It’s not as deep and generally not as substantial a build and finish as the Gibson 175 and perhaps sounded a very slight touch “newer” than the Gibson – ie the Gibson does have slightly more character to its tone but it’s a subtle difference I think would be imperceptible in a band. The chrome tailpiece, machine head covers, pickup up covers are good/OK but a guitar anorak would probably prefer something more unique on a guitar of this quality. The factory strings are terrible but not half as terrible as the Gibson factory strings.

WINNER: Eastman AR372CE

It was a no brainer for me. I thought the Gibson was better built but I far preferred playing the Eastman. It was more playable and tonally varied than the Gibson in my opinion. In fact I told the guy in the shop I’d take it after about 90 seconds of testing and then played it for a further ten minutes. I’ve not stopped playing it since I got it either – it’s an instant old friend. After two years of searching and trying I didn’t decide to buy it on a whim. It was just a really good guitar.

The price wasn’t my primary consideration this time but at less than a third of the price of the Gibson it’s not a third of the guitar. In fact the Eastman is a viable alternative to the 175 that can stand its own at less than a third of the price.

I hope this is useful and would welcome alternative opinions.

Cheers

[Para]

I'm surprised you found the necks thick on the Gibson 175's but then I haven't played the modern ones, my ES175 is an old sixties one and the neck is quite slim, I would say it's a flattish D shape. In my experience the Asian built guitars have excellent necks and are very playable.

[Paul Hughes]

Hi Para,

I found information on the various 175 necks hard to find and would welcome any info anyone has but my understanding is;

50's Baseball bat profile
mid 60's on LP style thinner profile neck.
Recent standard issues - somewhere in between.
Current reissues - Back to baseball bat neck profile.

I did consider a mid 60s 175 but I need a reliable gigger and vintage guitars in my experience are just a bit more vulnerable to gigging wear and tear.

Personally I like a mid/wide fingerboard and a relative slim neck profile depth. Therefore, even some of the slimmer 175s I tried felt a bit chunky in the hand. Therefore the Eastman neck was always a winner for me.

[3625]

I concur about the new 175's having uber chunky necks. One of the main reasons I sold my 2006 175 was because I couldn't make friends with the neck profile - and like the OP I don't have small hands. It's not just the thickness, but the profile itself - some chunky necks I find really comfortable, but not this one.

[Falling_leaves]

I was thinking to buy an AR371 before I purchased my John Pisano. I am after the an archtop which can sound from warm to dark, not bright and cold. I think the ES-175 will do the job, not sure about Eastman.

How does it sounds to your ear?

[eh6794]

Ill be buying an Eastman before long. Originally I wanted the 371, but I'm thinking 503 now.

So I made another thread asking about the differences between Eastman type guitars, mid range Gibson 175 guitars and high end Benedetto type guitars. Its interesting to hear your review.

Ps, I like the 371 tail

[Paul Hughes]

Falling_leaves there is a difference between the sound of the guitars but in reality it's nominal. Played side by side the default sound of the Gibson is darker while the Eastman is mildly brighter and hotter. However it is possible to dial a dark tone or a bright tone on both that isn't too different. I'm guessing (though I didn't try it) that with a couple of hours of noodling about i could get both guitars to sound close to identical. The tone was not an issue - just a difference.

While I know the following statment makes no logical sense hopefully the honesty makes sense - if the Gibson had a more playable neck I would have gone for the Gibson for the romance and undoubted finish and fitting even if it cost £2k more. However, I felt the Eastman played better and I'm convinced that recorded or live nobody could tell me the difference on a blind test.

[gggomez]

Eastman's are pretty cool. They do have a pretty bright sound across the range, I had to take my 371 back and swapped for the 503, the 371 was just too bright for me acoustically but plugged in I preferred the less woody more 175 type sound of the 371.

Pick ups are not the best, possibly the worst I have ever come across. Stick some Gibson 57s (even Epiphone 57s would be better) and proper tone caps in there and you have a good guitar plus 2 or 3 grand left in your pocket for a trip to Greenwich Village NYC to check out the ridiculous talent in every second little bar/pizza joint.

[newsense]

I had to take my 371 back and swapped for the 503, the 371 was just too bright for me acoustically but plugged in I preferred the less woody more 175 type sound of the 371.

Did you swap the 371 for the 503 because the 371 was too bright, or for some other reason ? Do you find the 503 less bright or more woody than the 371, both acoustically and amplified - can you describe the difference ?

[gggomez]

Yes the 503 is less bright (my house is filled with hard surfaces so everything sounds bright) than the 371 I had. Both good to play, after time with the 503 I think I should have stuck with the 371 (I think I was lured by the ebony fretboard and stunning timber of the 503 and the desire to go for my own sound. However, there is something about the tone of my 503 that I just don't like amplified and cannot get rid of it, even with an eq pedal. It is good with fingers but with a pick even the wife comments that it sounds tinny. I need to try it with some round wounds (currently using Tomistiche flats).

The Gibson pickup is such an improvement it is ridiculous. A 371 with a Gibson pickup would be a good amplified sound.

I have my eyes open for a Tokai 175 copy (have played their 335 and Casino copies and they are good, 175 hard to find) or the new Epiphone 175 Deluxe that comes with Gibson57's, upgraded tuners and a few other improvements as well as the ES225 reissue coming out.

For a direct comparison of the two guitars (there are other videos where they swap, note they are very light pickers and these guitars definitely sound better if you pick lightly, I do not):

Perhaps this is the best way to summarise the sounds - if you want a Lage Lund sound the 503 is closer, if you want a Gilad Hekselman sound the 371 is closer.

[gggomez]

Fixed my annoying tone problem. A $1 issue.

Pick gremmlins had cleaned me out of my preferred jazz picks and I have been using any old thing. Yesterday I stocked up on the purple 2mm JD Stumpy's and the annoying tone has gone, back to really liking the 503, so comfy to play.

[marinsmarcos]

I´m a Gibson fan and IMHO when you buy a Gibson you do not get only tone and playability. You buy its soul, tradition, history, the pleasure to have a GIBSON guitar. You get the energy of Jim Hall, Wes, Burrell, Kessell, Green, Carlton... That´s included on the price.

I used to have like almost 10 different Japanese/Chinese less than 1.000 USD archtops. Two years ago I sold them all and finally bought a 175 and a 135. Now I´m completely satisfied.

I think if you are only interested in sound/tone/playability get a Eastman, Epiphone, Guild, Ibanez, etc.. You´ll spend less money and easily get a good guitar and good tone.


Gibson: since 1902, US made, great sound, great resale value, but overpriced



Eastman: since 1992, Chinese, great sound, honest price.




Again, IMO, if you are looking for a guitar with good sound and playability for a reasonable price, get the Eastman.


But if you are looking for a guitar trying to fool out your "Gibson´s wish", forget it: get the Gibson!!

[gggomez]

Agree marinsmarcos, Eastman is gone.

Gibson es175 now for 4 months, never been so satisfied. Am seriously in love. Constantly say to my mates, my wife, my kids "Have I told you how unreal my guitar is". The tone is just at another level and is super versatile.

What's more I play it more than anything I have ever had. No more wasting time looking at guitars, maybe this one maybe if I put a pick up in that one. What is my favourite guitar tone? My tone. Never thought I would say that.

[LyleGorch]

Love the neck on my '59 175 reissue. Gets more play than my '89 L5C.

[Archie]

I´m a Gibson fan and IMHO when you buy a Gibson you do not get only tone and playability. You buy its soul, tradition, history, the pleasure to have a GIBSON guitar. You get the energy of Jim Hall, Wes, Burrell, Kessell, Green, Carlton... That´s included on the price.

I used to have like almost 10 different Japanese/Chinese less than 1.000 USD archtops. Two years ago I sold them all and finally bought a 175 and a 135. Now I´m completely satisfied.

I think if you are only interested in sound/tone/playability get a Eastman, Epiphone, Guild, Ibanez, etc.. You´ll spend less money and easily get a good guitar and good tone.


Gibson: since 1902, US made, great sound, great resale value, but overpriced



Eastman: since 1992, Chinese, great sound, honest price.




Again, IMO, if you are looking for a guitar with good sound and playability for a reasonable price, get the Eastman.


But if you are looking for a guitar trying to fool out your "Gibson´s wish", forget it: get the Gibson!!

Gibson Es-175's are generally not very good because the design is poor. They are too deep with a poor tonal range and control. Bass is often all over the place, boomy and nondescript, whilst the trebles can be brittle and harsh. Its also not very practical as it feeds back pretty badly.

Nice looking guitar but I would be hard pushed to find one I found acceptable.

What Gibson does is not magic, joe pass is not speaking to you through his Es-175. There is no lineage. Gibson is a faceless corporation for profit that churns out old designs. The Es-175 is a laminate maple guitar a monkey could make one. If you like the taste of coolaid then pay £3000 for a name.

Non of the greats who had a truly good tone played an Es-175.

[TheGrandWazoo]

I´m a Gibson fan and IMHO when you buy a Gibson you do not get only tone and playability. You buy its soul, tradition, history, the pleasure to have a GIBSON guitar. You get the energy of Jim Hall, Wes, Burrell, Kessell, Green, Carlton... That´s included on the price.

I used to have like almost 10 different Japanese/Chinese less than 1.000 USD archtops. Two years ago I sold them all and finally bought a 175 and a 135. Now I´m completely satisfied.

I think if you are only interested in sound/tone/playability get a Eastman, Epiphone, Guild, Ibanez, etc.. You´ll spend less money and easily get a good guitar and good tone.


Gibson: since 1902, US made, great sound, great resale value, but overpriced



Eastman: since 1992, Chinese, great sound, honest price.




Again, IMO, if you are looking for a guitar with good sound and playability for a reasonable price, get the Eastman.


But if you are looking for a guitar trying to fool out your "Gibson´s wish", forget it: get the Gibson!!

Sometimes there are itches that can only be scratched by one particular thing. If you really want a Gibson, get the Gibson. You'll be happier.

[LyleGorch]

The bashing starts yet again.

[Archie]

The bashing starts yet again.

Always healthy to have an opposing view, especially if valid.

I will add that there are many versions of the Es-175 and some are better than others imo.

[marinsmarcos]

Sometimes there are itches that can only be scratched by one particular thing. If you really want a Gibson, get the Gibson. You'll be happier.

That´s the point!!

[mr. beaumont]

Gibson Es-175's are generally not very good because the design is poor. .

And yet that poor design is probably the most recorded guitar in jazz history, and one of the most chased after tones.

ArchtopHeaven, do you actually believe half the crap you say, or is it just fun to get a rise out of the kiddies?

[Franz 1997]

And yet that poor design is probably the most recorded guitar in jazz history, and one of the most chased after tones.

ArchtopHeaven, do you actually believe half the crap you say, or is it just fun to get a rise out of the kiddies?

For a second there I was tempted to dismantle his assertions...but then thought, nah. It's one way of getting attention, I suspect. And if ATH doesn't like 175s or Gibson, fine.

[Jim Soloway]

This thread reminds me of why sometimes I think the world was a much better place without the internet. I think I'll go practice instead.

[Max405]

I really shouldn't..

How would you like to be the actual dude who designed the 1st Gibson ES175 or L4 or whatever? I hope at one point in his life he sat back and said, "Damn, I'm Good"..

The original will always be the original. Uniqueness is the essence of life. I really like the El Ray Hollowbody. I think its a cool unique guitar. Eastman should make more of them, and make them more affordable.

If Gibson made a Guitar that looked and played just like a Telecaster, I would be very disappointed and would have nothing to do with it.

I am not big on copies.

JD

[Archie]

And yet that poor design is probably the most recorded guitar in jazz history, and one of the most chased after tones.

ArchtopHeaven, do you actually believe half the crap you say, or is it just fun to get a rise out of the kiddies?

Mr B we've been over this before. The Es-175 is not the most chased after tone. Its just the most iconic looking guitar because of its cheapness and availability. Thats the difference that you keep confusing. The tone everyone wants (not literally), is that of the L5.

[Broyale]

Even though my disdain for the ES-175 is strong, if a ES-175CC came up for sale, I would not hesitate to make an offer. That guitar made me a fan of both jazz and archtop hollowbody guitars.