Eatsman AR480ce Disappointment

[EastwoodMike]

Gibson was a great example of this into the 1960s.

I don’t get an opportunity to try half a dozen or even 1 or 2 of the same Gibson hollow body where I live.

but from everything I heard from people on this exact forum is that the ES 175 varies so much in build spec one can never truly buy online and expect to get ‘the es-175’ sound whatever that is.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I don’t get an opportunity to try half a dozen or even 1 or 2 of the same Gibson hollow body where I live.

but from everything I heard from people on this exact forum is that the ES 175 varies so much in build spec one can never truly buy online and expect to get ‘the es-175’ sound whatever that is.

That’s true. But as I said, quality of design and quality of conformance to design are totally different things. Factors like wood choices and thickness, finishes, pickups etc are design specs - they’re the blueprint and materials list for the instrument. These all affect tone, feel, and look. These determine the quality of design, and they’ve varied greatly over the years.

Dimensions, tolerances, etc are also design specs. But how closely the finished instruments meet those specs is what determines quality of conformance. If the best design in the world is only loosely or inconsistently followed, the finished product can be a disaster. This was what plagued the cheap Asian products that swept into the US markets after WW2 and established “MIJ” as a bad thing in the minds of most Americans.

Until the dark days in which Gibson’s finances fell off a cliff, leading to their sale by CMI (the parent company from 1944 to 1969, IIRC) to a brewing company called ECL (which later became Norlin), their designs did vary a lot. The 175 got heavier, its top got thicker, necks and pickups changed, etc. But quality parameters in assembly and finishing procedures were consistently and closely followed. Variance from design spec was rare - an occasional guitar may have slipped out the door with a gap or splice in its binding, but build quality was very consistent and variance was tightly controlled. You had a very high probability of getting a well made 175 that closely met the specs Gibson set for it. Different versions in different years sounded and played differently - but all were equally well made by the same team in the same factory. And by knowing the specs, you knew (and still know) which you were buying from that era.

When Gibson started chasing its tail, they changed their theme song to “Anything Goes”. They’ve always turned out some stellar examples of each model. But consistency went out the window and you could just as easily get a clunker as a keeper. Eastman seems to me to have much better quality of conformance to their designs than Gibson’s had since the mid ‘60s. So buying a used 175 made after the late 1960s can be a crap shoot. Buying an Eastman made at the beginning (1990s) or in the last 10 to 15 years is much less so.

[Gitpicker]

Per the original photo and the "gaps in the binding", are they actually gaps? Because these guitars often have a layer of purfling on the binding such as on this AR380CE. Or am I not understanding?

[Jx30510]

I'm very interested in this guitar, and reading as many posts as I can find, when I saw the title of this one "dispointment", I first said to myself.. aw no.. and when reading, aw yes