-
I'm planning on my last guitar purchase for the foreseeable future. To paraphrase Senator Phil Graham, I have more archtops than I need, but less archtops than I want. I currently own several Eastmans (doesn't sound correct) including an AR910CE LTD, and AR610CE. I keep getting a nagging itch to buy a Peerless Imperial based upon all of the wonderful things that I've read here.
The other choice would be a Carvin SH575, which is obviously a completely different animal. I recently discovered this hot new guitarist named Pat Martino (what rock have I been under?) and I love his signature Benedetto. The Carvin seems similar to his guitar without breaking the bank.
So, what am I missing by not owning a Peerless?
-
01-22-2016 04:50 PM
-
i recently sold two very precious instruments to get an L5CES - and it is worth much more than both of them put together to me. in a class of its own if you want to play an amplified archtop. i played only boutique archtops for over ten years.
-
Someone please correct me, but isn't the AR910CE similar to the Imperial? In fact, aren't they all carved top hollows with floating pickups?
I have a Peerless and would personally pick a Peerless over an Eastman, but the Eastmans I've played have been pretty nice and I'm not sure the Imperial is that much more of an upgrade. Unless I'm missing something here.
On the other hand, what excuse do we need for GAS? I usually GAS after something quite different from what I already have.
-
The Imperial is a very fine guitar. IMO, Peerless makes very high quality instruments that will compete with many other more expensive guitars.
Love my Monarch 16. It represents an incredible value.
-
I have a Monarch which is as good as an instrument can be, amazing neck/action/playability/intonation/etc...
I would part with an Eastman for a Peerless.
-
No, a 910 is a carved instrument. An Imperial is not. It appears more as a "solid" spruce top
Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
-
I thought the Imperial was carved and the Monarch was "pressed". Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
-
All the specs that I read say that the Imperial is carved.
-
The Imperial has a carved spruce top, carved maple sides sides and back. Ebony fretboard, bridge, pickguard and tailpiece. Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
The Monarch has a pressed solid top. Rosewood all around.
Hope this helps....
Doc
-
If you have an Eastman 910ce I would not get a Peerless Imperial, both fine instruments, the craftsmanship on a 910 is a cut above Imperial and they are more similar than different.
-
I suggested the Imperial has a "solid" top as nothing about it appears carved. A 910 on the other hand, by it's appearance alone, is clearly a carved instrument. I've not seen anything in the build quality of the "imperial" that suggests a carved instrument, like a "910"...that's all I'm saying. Originally Posted by docdosco
If an Imperial is "carved spruce" why don't they appear as such is my question. Could the poly finish diminish the carved appearance? Perhaps...but I've seen no evidence in the appearance of the Imperial to suggest a "carved" guitar.
-
2b, Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop
It seems that, given the overwhelming preponderance of available information, it would prove difficult to maintain that the Imperial is not carved. The data includes:
1. The product description, specifications and photos on the Peerless website which includes a picture of the wood blank from which the body is carved.
2. The comments from Doc Dosco who plays and sells them.
3. The marketing verbiage on the GuitarsnJazz website.
It would appear to be an undeniable fact in the face of it and a clear example of "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck- It's probably a duck".
-
Groyniad - A request for you. With your experience playing multiple fine archtops if I understood correctly, could you list the top three or four in terms of overall playability, comfort, tone or whatever you think makes them special?
I had the marvelous privilege to attend what in the US is called The Newport Guitar Festival which for a time was actually held in Newport, RI in 2004 and 2006, two or three day deal each. Thirty or forty top acoustic guitar, archtops, and classicals by independent luthiers including Monteleone, Ribbecke, Manzer and others whose names I've forgotten. I especially loved playing the guitars of the first two luthiers, but there were many more. It was like being a kid in a candy store free to sample the goods. And the luthiers were there as well to meet.
One Monteleone I played was like a jewel in terms of the beauty of the woods, finish, and inlays. Sounded lovely as well. $37,000 and it would be mine. An older couple strolling by stopped to hear my playing and appreciate the guitar. The sweet woman turned to me and said, "You are a genius!" Sweet, but not true. In turn I thanked her but turned and said "The true genius here is this man, John Monteleone." Wonderful day. I checked my wallet. And put the guitar down.
-
My opinion is, once you get over 4k or so, it's about options, bling, uniqueness, and bragging rights, not necessarily in that order.
-
All respect to all you've mentioned. Having previously owned an Imperial its finish appears unlike any "carved" top I've ever known. Looks more like a solid top, than carved. Both top and underside. That's all I'm saying Originally Posted by jazz.fred
-
Guys please...
The Imperial is carved.... at least all the ones I have had come through here which is several dozen over nearly 10 years. I have 3 here now also, including my gigging guitar which has been my everyday guitar for 4 years.
Having said that, I don't claim to know the pedigree of every Imperial ever made. I also have enough respect for all the guys here (.....well there was that political thread that left me wondering on one member) that I would take note of a member's comment. There was something about a certain 'Imperial' that didn't feel right to someone.
I am not just trying to politically correct and be nice with my playmates in the forum, but I am interested to find out why one Imperial didn't cut it with a member. That guitar was most likely carved, but if it was a dog (and those things happen) it may not have sounded carved. If it was an Imperial with a routed in PU, then that was a Lou special from NJ. He had Peerless cut PUPs into a guitar that was designed as a floater so that he could exclusively market them (apparently only from his store and website - not to any other dealers). He special ordered these models and I was told I could not order them direct, except once for a guy that really wanted one from me.
Lou was the distributor for Peerless in the US for about 2 years. 2008 - 2010 (I believe). That arrangement ended and the distribution went up for grabs again. Lou has remained a dealer though and stocks and sells a ton of Peerless. I have no bones to pick with Lou. When he was the distributor he left me alone on the west coast. He could have demanded as US distributor that I cease and desist buying direct from Peerless during that time but he didn't.
Anyway, the routed PU was done to the Monarch and to the Imperial. I had one back in those days and never got another. That particular guitar had no volume. It was wonderful plugged in but it didn't ring my bell unplugged. I imagine I could have managed to get more but it would have been on the QT and I simply passed any requests for routed PUPs back to NJ.
These models are fine now from all reports but in the beginning, I suspect Peerless was still working out the bracing issues. So it is possible that the guitar in question being discussed might have been a crack guitar. Not with the workman on crack, (funny thought for Korea) but one produced in between the cracks.
Otherwise, I can't say what may have made said guitar seem peculiar. I would need more info, like a serial #. I could track down the history of it at that point.
-
Doc, the Imperial I owned had a floater. I'm not doubting it's carved if you say it's carved. I'm saying it doesn't feel or sound like any "carved" instrument I've owned. Nor does it look like a "carved" instrument, perhaps due to its Poly finish. Nor does the Cremona look or feel like it has a "carved" Maple top, with it's laminate back and sides. Is it the Poly finish that negates the "carved" appearance or tonality to the tops of the Imperial and Cremona? Perhaps.
I'm not trying to debate. I'm simply sharing my personal experience.
-
I'm in 2b's camp. I am not saying that Peerless is inferior to Eastman, absolutely not the case (imo) I think they both make excellent instruments, but to me the two manufacturers approach to the instruments - feel, playability, weight, etc are not necessarily similar. The Eastman AR910ce - in my opinion stands above any Peerless I've played, it is the top of their line, hand carved by a single Eastman craftsman, they are also - again in my opinion - a significant cut above the 6 & 8 series Eastman archtops.
I also believe that if you want an archtop with an L5 or Wesmo tone and vibe, Eastman doesn't make one, but Peerless has several, excellent guitars, but different.
-
Everyone has a different take on things. That's what makes the world go around (and around)
If everyone prefered Peerless, then Eastman and the other makers in that class would be on the ropes. Clearly all are alive and well. All I can do is give my take, which I admit is not completely unbiased as a Peerless endorsee. But I am not an evangelist either. I don't preach Peerless above all else.
I saw the Eastman booth. They had a big display.They seem to be selling well. A few guitars were marked at just under 4K. That is nearly a $1000 over the Maestro, the most expensive Peerless model, and almost $1500 over the Imperial. On the other hand they had a bunch of guitars marked around $1000. (these Peerless prices are US prices)
Any price doesn't signify grade of wood or features or overall quality or sound as we see by Gibson marking a plain Jane pressed top guitar at $4700. That might be just the ticket for some Gibson lovers. Far be it from me to cast aspersions and all that....
However at the Peerless Imperial price point, (sells at just over 2K here) the guitar is a wonderful instrument to me. It has what I deem important in woods, finish and sound. And playability of course. My tastes are not reflective of everyone, and not every guitar comes out of the factory perfect in every respect. Peerless do have a good track record in the US and a lot of happy players.
But still there are those that prefer other makers in this price class. And there are those with objections or concerns with a particular instrument.
As to the poly finish, I have some sweet sounding Peerless carved tops. I guess the finish effect is debateable. The Cremona does have laminate sides and back with a carved maple top. The sound is still nice acoustically and amplified it doesn't 'seem' to suffer much, although maple doesn't ring my bell as much as spruce. Harder wood, harder sound. Either Peerless found the laminate maple sides and back didn't matter as much with a carved maple top, or the price of material made it necessary. Not sure which.
I have a Leela (16" Cremona) 40th anniversary model here I haven't opened yet. Only 50 made a few years back. I ordered one that must have been hidden in a stock room. Plus 2 Cremonas, one from the NAMM display and one in the batch I just ordered. I will try to open and test everything this week.
So many guitars.... so little time.Last edited by docdosco; 01-26-2016 at 01:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos