Blueridge Vs. Eastman Vs. Recording King Vs. Stanford
 

Which brand do you like the most?
and WHY, please??

I went shopping for a new 000 or OM earlier this year.

I was able to choose my Blueridge from four guitars of the same model.

Of the four Blueridge BR-163's I tried one was good, one was very good and two were really good. When I pulled a 2.2K Martin off the wall and compared it to the two best Blueridges, the Blueridge i was favoring simply sounded better - so I bought the Blueridge.

I've had it a few months now and still love it. But I did replace the nut to get a little wider string spacing. Now it's my favorite small bodied guitar in my small collection of Taylors, Martins and one Blueridge.

I do wish there'd been more of a selection of Eastmans to choose from though. Very impressive workmanship and finish.

I did try an Eastman but they only had one and it was not spectacular. Maybe if I'd been able to play four Eastman's of the same model I'd have bought an Eastman.

I have never seen a Stanford. I have been impressed by the others, but Eastman got my vote. It is a true luthier shop, not just a factory. They are rapidly developing their own way., but devoted to learning and growing there skills. But consistency is the bug-a-boo for all MIC guitars, more so than any North American made guitars.

My second choice would be Recording King.

Unlike the other brands, Stanford is a little bit complicated..... There were some models (The "Performer" series) that were made in China. There may yet be some models made there (not sure) but the Performers are no longer being made. Then there are the Stanford "Furch" and Stonebridge models that are made in the Czech Republic and have a different sound to them. Those are (were) also significantly more expensive....most of them anyways. I have no hands on experience with the Czech-made stuff but for me the "Performer" (PSD) models represent mid-level Martin type sound at a fraction of the cost.....better than the Recording King and Blueridge examples I've played and equal to or possibly better than Eastman.

You didn't include Silver Creek, but I will....

I just received a Silver Creek T-170 and T-160 a week apart, and was really pleasantly surprised at the quality, tone, nicely book-matched tops, and overall playability of these instruments. These aren't the first I've owned and know about buyers' concerns re. lousy strings, poor tone, non-existent set-ups out of the box, and overall poor quality. I got to tell you, these two newest Silver Creeks have very decent strings, great tone, and very good playability. Sure, any new guitar is going to benefit from a set-up to meet the individual player's specific likes; but these two are extremely nice and playable right from Musicians Friend. If these two Silver Creeks are indication of what's coming out of China, we'll no longer have to qualify our praise with "for the money"....
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w...0/IMG_2141.jpghttp://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w...0/IMG_2143.jpg
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w...0/IMG_2144.jpghttp://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w...0/IMG_2129.jpg

Well if the Stanfords are close to the quality of Furch then this is the clear winner for me .... although Eastmans are also great guitars.

I have a Blueridge 160 and a higher end Eastman. I had the Blueridge first and loved it. Great guitar. But I decided that I didn't want to always be playing such a big guitar and got the Eastman. My Eastman has a totally different tone than my Blueridge. And it's tone can even make my poor playing sound good - it's wonderful. I'm a Blueridge fan, but an even bigger Eastman fan, based on my experience.

DAB

Pizza!!!!!

I voted Blueridge buuuuuutttt....I've never seen a Stanford or Eastman, and Recording King's nuts are a shade wide so I could never really test it as an equal. But I have owned 3 Blueridges, still own one, and I have never had a complaint about any of them.

I have never heard of a Stanford before. Spoiled as I am, it is hard to make a serious comparison between between brands of such diverse models and qualities as though they represented one quality entity in each case. I will say that the best Eastman's represent a build quality which is far superior to anything I personally have seen in the other brands. Not unlike trying to compare Martin's standard series to Gibson's or Taylor's production guitars. Eastman has been at it for some time and have put quality and long term commitment as high priorities.

There you have it first hand from a very respectable and talented luthier.

FWIW I sold my Blueridge and kept my Eastman. It was a nice guitar but not in the same league as the Eastman.

Blueridge for me Eastman's that I played were just a little blah no punch close to the BR's.

I'll go with the BlueRidge for now. Know very little about Eastman, aside from guitar fourms. After I hear a few of them I'll have a better idea. I've owned a BlueRidge and heard quite-a-few. Like their sound. Recording Kings sound okay from the 3-4 I've knowingly heard.

I was looking at an inexpensive 000 size and wasn't impressed with the RK's,I've never heard of Stanford and the Blueridge's were all dreads.I'm still looking for a dealer that carries Eastman.I tried a Loar 200 and didn't care for it either.Then I played a D-28 and was ruined for the day from inexpensive guitars.

I vote for Eastman. I had decided on a D-18 GE to go along with my HD-28V. I still had some saving to do, when I rolled the dice on an Eastman E10D. I am very pleased with the E10D and doubt I will ever be able to justify spending more to get the Martin. As much as I love my other Martin, this Eastman nails what I am after in a Mahogany dread.