Eastman Guitars vs Gibson ES-175

**Sphereacidburn** · 05-26-2009, 04:55 PM

Does anyone own a Eastman or a Es-175 I just want to hear people suggestions and stuff in the end I will make my own decision but don't hold back on telling me what you think about each one

**mr. beaumont** · 05-26-2009, 07:16 PM

i've played both. here's my opinion, and it's not as facetious as it sounds...

if you want to impress someone, get the gibson.

if you want to impress yourself, get the eastman.

i really feel that the current eastmans are superior instruments, but the name will never carry the prestige of gibson.

that said, if you can find an older 175, maybe with a P90 or a CC, which sometimes don't cost that much more than a new one, and those got vibe for days...

i'm usually not a snob like that, but when it comes to gibsons, they really don't make 'em like they used to.

*this post needs an edit, 12 years later.

I still think Eastman guitars are very high quality, and I think there is little value in buying a new 175 because the cost of a used, likely better 175, is not prohibitive.

Since I made this post in 2009, Eastman has made a 175 like guitar. I do not feel it is of tge same quality as Eastman's carved guitars, and it does not sound much like a 175.

**Jive Turkey** · 05-26-2009, 08:41 PM

"i'm usually not a snob like that, but when it comes to gibsons, they really don't make 'em like they used to."

Not snobby at all. I don't know if it's got to do with quality control or just poor setting up at the store, but I've played some outrageously-priced Gibsons with more buzzy frets than the First Act strat copies down the wall. There's that, and the fact that the pups they come with are often in need of a replacement even after you've paid a couple grand for one.

My Epiphone Les Paul Custom (with buckers ripped out and crudely replaced with '57 Classics) sounds just as good as some of the $2800+ Gibsons semi-hollow and hollowbodies I've played with the added bonus of the twang I like for some blues and rockabilly. There's a dude on here who plays great jazz with a thick, full-bodied yet bright sound on a Tele, so there.

I never played one of these Eastmans, but I read on here a lot about you guys playing them, so I'll have to check one out some day.

**rio** · 05-26-2009, 09:49 PM

The fit and finish of my Eastman was there since day one, minus the pickup but that was easily replaced. Great sound and feel. Every Gibson I have tried anytime recently has really been hit or miss...or I should say mostly miss. I mean really poor workmanship.

e: I should say that I do wander to other guitars but whenever I come back to the Eastman I am just like "man this guitar is just great".

**Blair** · 05-26-2009, 11:39 PM

Which model of Eastman do you have rio?

**nick gagg** · 05-27-2009, 09:16 AM

i recommend the ar 803 ce it blows gibson into the weeds shame yamaha dont make the ae1200s anymore that was superior to gibson as well why pay for a name- why not pay for a superior instrument!

**rio** · 05-27-2009, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Blair

Which model of Eastman do you have rio?

An 805ce - that's a picture of it in my avatar. After trying them all I thought that for me a 16" body was a good compromise between size and tone, and because of the good acoustic sound I wanted something with a floater. The pickup was pretty easy to change except that it is bigger than the stock pickup, so I had to cut out a little more room in the pickguard.

**dh82c** · 05-27-2009, 12:22 PM

Eastmans are a great sounding, playing, (and to some) looking guitar. Having said that.. I find the Eastmans more of an acoustically rich beast. A 175.. not so much (and that is part of their charms.. they are more of an electric instrument). For the money I find the Eastmans a little overpriced but if you find one used... grab it!

**derek** · 05-27-2009, 02:34 PM

I have owned 2 ES175s, and an Eastman 810ce. I have played the John Pisano (closest thing Eastman makes to a 175) model, and most others they make, along with their acoustics. Very different beasts. I don't think Eastman does a very good job at capturing the 175 vibe at all, but they have their own thing.

The 810 I owned was a wonderful instrument, very well made, highly playable, and just overall beautiful. It had a floating pup, and I discovered I just do not care for that sound as well, so I sold it.

Eastman is making guitars that compare to small batch US makers for a fraction of the price. However, I have not seen a model that does what the 175 does. YMMV.

**Little Jay** · 05-28-2009, 06:22 AM

Maybe your question should be: modern-style-solid-wood-floating-pickup vs ES175-laminated-Humbucker-workhorse-style guitar?

Very different beasts imho. Me, I own a Furch with floating Kent Armstrong, wooden tailpiece and 25,5" scale. I also own a Condor ES175-copy (2 HB's, 24,75" scale).

Although they are both fine jazzguitars they are very different beasts. I like to take the Furch when things need to sound more open, acoustic or experimental even. For classic style (bebop)jamsessions with piano, drums, bass I take my ES175 copy.

Well, it all comes down to what notes you play anyway....

**Sphereacidburn** · 05-28-2009, 07:28 AM

Well, it all comes down to what notes you play anyway....

I like what you said I play in Like small Jazz Bands a Bebop/Ballad/Experimental Guitar Duo Joe Pass Style with my own arrangements kind of Chord Melodies

**rio** · 05-28-2009, 10:38 AM

I do wish Eastman would consider making laminate guitars, I know that is more of a stretch from handmade carved string instruments which is basically their thing, but some laminates would really round out their lineup.

**Sphereacidburn** · 05-28-2009, 05:05 PM

i'm usually not a snob like that, but when it comes to gibsons, they really don't make 'em like they used to.[/QUOTE] Made Bu MR.BEUAMONT

I am not saying you are right or wrong But I just hate it when people say this about anything of course they don't make them like they used to because they make them like they do in 2009 not like they did in 1979 or 1964 or 1949 they make them like they do in 2009 for better or worse people will be saying in 30 years they don't make Es-175's like they did in 2009 people are always going to say that but I doesn't make sense people in 30 years will say the same thing about the Eastman's even if they are better Gibson is always trying to improve but They don't change to much, my point is they make Gibson and Eastman like they do in 2009, I am not saying your wrong but I hate that statement

**derek** · 05-28-2009, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sphereacidburn

i'm usually not a snob like that, but when it comes to gibsons, they really don't make 'em like they used to.

Made Bu MR.BEUAMONT

I am not saying you are right or wrong But I just hate it when people say this about anything of course they don't make them like they used to because they make them like they do in 2009 not like they did in 1979 or 1964 or 1949 they make them like they do in 2009 for better or worse people will be saying in 30 years they don't make Es-175's like they did in 2009 people are always going to say that but I doesn't make sense people in 30 years will say the same thing about the Eastman's even if they are better Gibson is always trying to improve but They don't change to much, my point is they make Gibson and Eastman like they do in 2009, for Gibson will alway be changing in a pursuit of a better guitar, I am not saying your wrong but I hate that statement[/quote]

I agreed with everything you said until you got to the part I highlighted. I believe Gibson will always be changing in pursuit of a cheaper guitar. They choose to use cheaper laminated plates when better plates are available. They have serious quality control issues currently due to cost cutting measures.

I am sure they want to build a guitar they can be proud of, but they also want to build a guitar that keeps them profitable.

**Paul J Edwards** · 05-28-2009, 09:15 PM

For a while I was gassing for a Les Paul. I own a decent knock off that sounds and plays well.

So I went to Sam Ash and tried a new LP Standard. The one that people say are not like they used to be.
This guitar was way cool. Action to die for. Fit and Finish was world class. Sounded just like a an LP is supposed to. Some neat features like a lock on the input jack.
Yes they don't make them like they used they make them better with the wood that is available today.

I have not played a new ES-175 but I bet it plays and sounds great. In 50 years the wood will have cured and I bet your grandkids will drool over it.

**rio** · 05-28-2009, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Paul J Edwards

I have not played a new ES-175 but I bet it plays and sounds great. In 50 years the wood will have cured and I bet your grandkids will drool over it.

I played a ES-165 last year at a local store and it was sh*t. I mean like really bad, the finish was uneven, the frets were a mess, strings were very slightly off center... it might have sounded good but who knows when it was set up like it was. I also tried a 175 that was there and while it was a bit better (marginally) it was still not something worth it's price tag.

We aren't talking about comparing these guitars in 50 years, we're talking about a general lack of quality control and excessive cutting of corners. I don't doubt that you played a good LP but at the price point Gibson occupies ALL of their guitars should play, look, and feel great - not just a few. In that regard Eastman has the advantage right now. Used guitars are another story.

**Paul J Edwards** · 05-28-2009, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by rio

I played a ES-165 last year at a local store and it was sh*t. I mean like really bad, the finish was uneven, the frets were a mess, strings were very slightly off center... it might have sounded good but who knows when it was set up like it was. I also tried a 175 that was there and while it was a bit better (marginally) it was still not something worth it's price tag.

We aren't talking about comparing these guitars in 50 years, we're talking about a general lack of quality control and excessive cutting of corners. I don't doubt that you played a good LP but at the price point Gibson occupies ALL of their guitars should play, look, and feel great - not just a few. In that regard Eastman has the advantage right now. Used guitars are another story.

I hear what you are saying. I hear this from a lot of players it's just that I have not experienced the awful crap that people say about Gibson.

You trust the guys at your local store enough so that they don't buy seconds.

**NSJ** · 05-28-2009, 10:57 PM

Regarding new Gibsons:

First of all, they're all way OVER-PRICED. I've tried a bunch of 335s @ GC (they don't even bother to usually stock the HBs there-you have to, ahem, *special order them*). ok some of them are all right, still need a set-up (factory produced + GC incompetence), even if the necks are ok.

But $2800-3800 for a new? That's just plain terrible. $2800 for a Howard Roberts Fusion? Ridiculous.

I've owned some Heritages, and, granted, while I just sold them, they were great guitars, much cheaper than the Gibsons, less than half usually, and the workmanship is mostly hand crafted (i.e., much better).

Let's be honest here: you're overpaying for the badge, for the logo.

Factory made guitars will result in poor QC and workmanship, particularly with the necks, which due to the lack of QC, may need a $350 setup to plane them down evenly. When the factory guitar necks like Gibsons have different levels on the treble side vs the bass side, you know you're in for a world of hurt, it's not just a truss rod adjustment.

Ok, the Custom Shop, maybe something different in terms of workmanship. But even then, you're gonna pay through the roof.

I don't know a damn thing about their solid bodies/flat tops, but I suspect that the LPs are going to be way over-priced, except for maybe the *Les Paul Studio*.

So, Gibson often now means: over priced guitars, factory made, poor quality control, maybe some serious neck issues.

I have no idea why people who should know better have not tried out the Heritages (Eagles, 535s, 575s).

**Paul J Edwards** · 05-28-2009, 11:56 PM

A Corvette in 1954 went for $2500 bucks. Pretty steep at the time. Today a 'vette goes for like $50k+. Thats like 20X the price.

You could buy a house for like 20K in the early sixties. That same house today..... $500k.

So a Les Paul went for like $250 bucks in 1960. and $2500 today.

Wake up already.

**Paul J Edwards** · 05-29-2009, 12:20 AM

In the '50's an ES-175 was $175 bucks. Thats why it was so popular. It was cheap!

In 1955 the average income was 4,200 bucks.

So $175 is .042 of the average income.

Todays average income is like 60 k and .042 of 60k is 2520 bucks.

Hmmm we are in the same ballpark here.
Not over priced at all.

**theo** · 05-29-2009, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Paul J Edwards

In the '50's an ES-175 was $175 bucks. Thats why it was so popular. It was cheap!

In 1955 the average income was 4,200 bucks.

So $175 is .042 of the average income.

Todays average income is like 60 k and .042 of 60k is 2520 bucks.

Hmmm we are in the same ballpark here.
Not over priced at all.

good point!

**Sphereacidburn** · 05-29-2009, 08:06 AM

Guys every Guitar is made differently I have heard people who say Eastmans setup sucks the frets are uneven people say that about Gibsons to no Guitar is made alike PEOPLE YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT . I am not defending a Gibson or an Eastman but you have to know that every Guitar is made differently a Gibson ES-175 might play and sound awsome then you try another it sounds terrible I need a $350 set up the neck needs placement. Same thing with Eastman EVERY GUITAR IS MADE DIFFERENTLY like people

**derek** · 05-29-2009, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Paul J Edwards

I hear what you are saying. I hear this from a lot of players it's just that I have not experienced the awful crap that people say about Gibson.

You trust the guys at your local store enough so that they don't buy seconds.

Well, to me, this is the point. Unless you experience it yourself, then what the heck do the opinions of a bunch of anonymous internet dudes mean? Personally, I have sent back a brand new (2006) 175 due to problems in the bracing, had a buddy (pro player) who special ordered a custom Wes L-5, and after sending it back to Gibson 3x's for issues, wound up selling it. I have personally played 175's and 165's where the binding did not line up to the body, so you had a sharp edge, where paint was badly over sprayed onto the binding, and have seen tooling marks on the fretboards of LPs that would cut your finger.

One of the local mom and pop shops left here in KC used to carry Gibson, but they said they had to send back about 1 in 7-8 due to such quality control issues. Don't get me wrong, I love my 175, but I am highly skeptical of Gibson's QC. Doesn't mean they don't make some really good guitar, because they do.

On the flip side, while I have seen some Eastmans that weren't as good as others, none have had the issues I have mentioned above. Caveat Emptor.

**FWBO** · 05-29-2009, 05:33 PM

i've played both. here's my opinion, and it's not as facetious as it sounds...

if you want to impress someone, get the gibson.

if you want to impress yourself, get the eastman.

i really feel that the current eastmans are superior instruments, but the name will never carry the prestige of gibson.

that said, if you can find an older 175, maybe with a P90 or a CC, which sometimes don't cost that much more than a new one, and those got vibe for days...

i'm usually not a snob like that, but when it comes to gibsons, they really don't make 'em like they used to.

Mr. Beaumont is dead right. I recently bought an 06 Gibson ES-175 and sent it back to the shop.

Apart from the bridge being a disaster, where the fretboard curved away from the top of the body there was sawdust varnished into the finish. Various other issues that added together gave the impression that the people that made the guitar didn't give a $hit.

The "transfer" Gibson logo, everything about it just reeked of cost savings and corners cut - and these were just the bits you could see.

When you buy a Gibson you pay for the name.

I tried Eastman's guitars and the only reason I didn't buy was because I wanted a set in humbucker (Jon Pisano model?) and they didn't have that in stock. In terms of price and quality control they are a steal.

I go to a monthly jazz guitar club that holds workshop sessions, regular member players and also hosts pro jazz guitarists.

The number of Gibsons played can be counted on one finger. Lots of Eastmans, older Ibanez, a few Peerless and the pros all play handmade guitars, Sonntag etc.

You ask the pros why they don't play Gibsons and they just laugh and say they are a waste of money.

Who am I to argue they do it for a living?

**Sphereacidburn** · 05-29-2009, 06:17 PM

Okay I am not saying I like the Es-175 better I just hate that saying it doesnt make sense, but also don't buy a guitar until you try it out, then you won't have saw dust finished in with it or fret problems unless you like that in the guitar, same thing with Eastmans I really like the way they play but I also really like the way the ES-175 plays I set this forum to hear your views not for you to tell me that it sounds like I am defending the ES-175 I just wanted to know Pros and Cons on each Guitar OKAY