Just how good are those imports?

[Eric_M]

Originally Posted by LarryVe

I see a general stigma here regarding Asian imports as if Asians aren't capable of producing good products. The cars on the road in America should be a lesson to everyone. There are more import cars on the road being driven than American cars because they are generally more reliable and have less problems.

I am in Japan and from what I have observed, Japanese people have a deep respect for the work that they do no matter how small the task. They are more jovial and more patient than Americans performing similar lines of work. The reason being is that patience, understanding, and stewardship is ingrained into their culture.

I would say that before you judge and write off Asian imports as cheap and inferior, that you at least educate yourselves on how they approach work and their culture in general so you can gain understanding as to how they view life. It is pretty eye opening and enlightening. We can learn alot from them.

I don't think Japan is part of that discussion anymore; I think "Made in Japan" is widely regarded here in the States as a mark of quality, as it should be. Japanese-made guitars are rarely imported here these days so few of us really have a sense of how nice they are.

When folks here refer to Asian imports, these days I'd say that means China and Southeast Asia. And unlike Japan, I don't think manufacturers there are necessarily in the business of producing high-end instruments. Like Japan in the '70s and '80s, the approach seems to be to produce guitars that are more or less copies of American instruments at a fraction of the cost.

[AndrewG]

Just as an addendum: Andres Segovia owned and played Yamaha GC70 and GC71 classical guitars, in concert. You don't get a better endorsement than that. Then there's Paul Simon, John Denver, James Taylor, Bruce Springsteen, John Lennon...

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by Rmz76

I believe the only reason Blueridge isn't rated higher is due to lack of availability of this brand. Yamaha is no surprise, being a widely available budget/value leader. If this is the case than the high availability of Yamaha and a few other brands and the rarity of others is no doubt skewing the poll numbers and why this should really be taken with a grain of salt.

For the reader considering which of these builders makes a guitar closest to whatever American vintage counterpart you may be looking for (if you are looking for a more vintage inspired guitar), I would say if you are looking for a vintage Martin sound for less than a grand, Blueridge is the only builder that gets you in the ball park and if you're looking for a builder to get you a close approximation of a banner era J-45, Eastman (E10SS) is the way to go. Yamaha builds a fine acoustic, but their models are all contemporary and simply good in their own right. The most sought after acoustic be it by boutique builders or coming as reissues from the big builders are typically based on vintage designs. So by that criteria I would put Blueridge and Eastman in a league above Yamaha.

To provide a specific example, consider the D28

Modern Martin D28 - $2600. USD


Martin D28 Authentic 1941 - $6800. USD


Blueridge BR160A - $820. USD
(essentially Blueridge's interpretation of the vintage D28 models, comparable in materials to the D28 Authentic)


Of course there only so much a studio grade recording with a low amount of processing can tell us, but it certainly can tell us how close of a recorded sound the guitar gets to the real thing and that's of quite a bit of value to most. The question here isn't if a $800 guitar can perform at the same level as a $6800 guitar, the question is does it get us in the ball park and close approximation. If it's even half a good of quality as the D28 Authentic what does that say? The Authentic is after all over 8x the cost. The BR160A (which many players do not even know exist) would probably be a dream come true to many a bluegrass player on a budget if the company behind this brand did a better job with distribution and marketing.

What the audio recording is not telling you in this case is the exceptionally build quality of Blueridge, these are truly "lightly built" guitars considering their price point and poly finishes. They feel and play as if they should cost a lot more. Eastman's do as well. Considering the low volume both of these builders put out they are essentially boutique builders denied of that title because of where their factories are located. As I've pointed out before I'm sure Collings is producing more guitars at this point than Eastman. With Eastman you find the finer appointments of not only all solid woods, but also hide glue construction and even nitro finishes. What more could they do to gain more respect, I believe the only answer is move their headquarters to the USA and use American craftsmen. I really think the quality is so good that it is the negative sentiment towards Chinese imports that keeps them from a higher rank among acoustic enthusiast.

I'm providing this perspective but I think with both Blueridge and Eastman you have two exceptionally good brands that remain widely unknown. Meanwhile other budget brands are winning out simply because they are doing the business side of things better (distribution, marketing, endorsements, etc...) better but not necessarily because they are building a better suited product for most players.

The same qualities and spec (including nitro finishes), you list with Eastman guitars are to be found in the Yamaha 'L' series from model 26 and up. Yamaha may build 'budget' guitars (the same as Martin and Taylor do), but it is not a 'budget brand' whatever the perception might be. I'm guessing many detractors or critics never saw or played anything from Yamaha that wasn't an FG. I'm afraid I can't agree with your last paragraph. Yamaha, for example, are confident enough in their high end instruments that they evidently don't feel the need to plaster ads all over the music press. Have you seen an ad for the LL56 or LL86 anywhere? The 56 costs more than a Martin D-42, and the 86 half as much again as a D-45.

[MHC]

Originally Posted by mercy

The thing that killed this poll for me was the word exceptional. The word import and exceptional just dont go together.

See, I don't get this. Why don't "Import" and "Exceptional" go together? Lowdens are imported guitars and they are exceptional, Ted Astrand makes exceptional guitars, and they would be an import, so too would Henkes & Blazer guitars. I recently played an imported Boucher guitar that I would certainly characterize as exceptional. And so on...

I know this tends to get some people hackles up, but when I was looking for a rosewood OM under $2K, I tried many brands that were wonderful. I did try several Martin OM-21s and they were great, but I went with the Eastman E8OM. Same woods and honestly the one I got had equal build quality. But, I preferred the tone of the Eastman over the two Martin OM-21s. Richer, more robust. In this case, expense was not the issue.

That said, I would not necessarily call my Eastman an "exceptional" guitar - but an "excellent" guitar. However, I recently played a Martin OM-28 and... uh... I'd definitely trade my Eastman for that one - but no one wants to do a 1:1 trade

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by MHC

See, I don't get this. Why don't "Import" and "Exceptional" go together? Lowdens are imported guitars and they are exceptional, Ted Astrand makes exceptional guitars, and they would be an import, so too would Henkes & Blazer guitars. I recently played an imported Boucher guitar that I would certainly characterize as exceptional. And so on...

I know this tends to get some people hackles up, but when I was looking for a rosewood OM under $2K, I tried many brands that were wonderful. I did try several Martin OM-21s and they were great, but I went with the Eastman E8OM. Same woods and honestly the one I got had equal build quality. But, I preferred the tone of the Eastman over the two Martin OM-21s. Richer, more robust. In this case, expense was not the issue.

That said, I would not necessarily call my Eastman an "exceptional" guitar - but an "excellent" guitar. However, I recently played a Martin OM-28 and... uh... I'd definitely trade my Eastman for that one - but no one wants to do a 1:1 trade

Good points, well made.

I'm afraid that (from my point of view as an Englishman) many Americans have a problem understanding that the USA is just one country, and not unique in the capability of production .... of varying qualities.

For many years the USA has made a big business of making high volume instruments, whilst with the exception of Yamaha in Japan, most other nations tended to make instruments on a far smaller (one/two man and small factory) basis.

HVP (high volume production) does NOT mean consistent quality as the larger American brands have all demonstrated over the years.

Most large factory (HVP) production outsourced to the far east were based on quantity and price which is what gave fuel to the notion that outsourced meant poor quality.

I have watched the "Faith" brand initiated by Patrick Eggle - for the last few years because I happened to meet Patrick giving a talk on his guitars and his Far-Eastern subsidiary.

PJE made fine acoustic guitars retailing in a similar price point as Collings, Santa Cruz etc., and the Faiths were excellent value for well under £1000.

Now I see Faith guitars equal in quality in the shops for £900 (including case) which are frankly equal to Eggle acoustics .... which seem to have been discontinued.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Mark Stone

Of course they do. Pick up a Kazuo Yairi instrument some day -- I would rank mine as "exceptional". I'm sure there's plenty of other examples, also.

Well, so far over 300 folks here on the AGF are of the mind that there are some exceptional, lower-priced imports in the marketplace.

[Gmountain]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Well, so far over 300 folks here on the AGF are of the mind that there are some exceptional, lower-priced imports in the marketplace.

There were 129 voters.

[Toby Walker]

I meant over 300 choices were thought to be exceptional.

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Well, so far over 300 folks here on the AGF are of the mind that there are some exceptional, lower-priced imports in the marketplace.

. . . . and there's probably a lot more than that on the AGF that believe also - but wisely will not say anything so as to not have to weather the negative storm of comments.

[perttime]

For me any new guitar would be an import - except for custom jobs.

Now, would I buy a €3000 or €5000 import from USA, or a domestic custom guitar at the same cost? Depends... First I'd have to have that amount to spend.

[geoawelch]

Toby,

Interesting poll and discussion.

Funny thing is, I asked for impressions of Alvarez Masterworks in another thread.

I'm looking to add another small guitar to the stable.

As an unabashed Eastman fan you would normally think I would be all over them, particularly interesting to me is the E20P

Yet I have a bit of a bias now - my local shop used to be an Eastman dealer and before buying the Taylor I was very interested in the E20OM and 00 from Eastman, but didn't buy as the four examples they had in stock at the time had various manufacturing flaws, some minor some fairly significant.

The lack of consistency was a major reason the shop owner stopped carrying the brand.

Now, I don't necessarily think this is a domestic vs import issue, at least with me, but rather my expectation has been affected.

Hope this makes sense.

George
Loudon, NH

[rwmct]

I think very few people who are skeptical of the Asian imports really believe that people in these countries can't make great guitars. Most are focused on the fact that they are made to hit a particular price point. While every production guitar probably has a price point in mind, the main reason the imports sell is the fact that they cost less than U.S. made equivalents. So the price point is a critical element in their reason for being. One reason the Eastmans are more accepted, IMO, is that they tend to be a little more expensive, thereby making one think that they probably have a little better materials and standard of workmanship.

One thing I mistrust on a lot of these imports is that they often have a fair amount of bling on them. I don't expect bling on an inexpensive guitar, and when I see it, I immediately think "there is labor and materials that should have gone into basic construction."

I think U.S. made guitars in the $1,500 price range (Gibson J-15, the basic U.S. made Guilds) are strong alternative to the better imports.

We, the buying public, have some great choices out there, though sometimes you have to look around quite a bit to find them in brick and mortar stores.

[tippy5]

If you want a quieter plain tone then they are great. I used a $225 Gretsch Rancher Jr (solid sitka top during the Korean years) for songwriting and class performing. It was more than adequate.

The only other cheap guitar that I loved was a Blueridge 140A (2007 1 11/116" days). But I sold that.
I have had the fortune of buying 30 plus acoustics over the last 20 years and the 5 or 6 I have give me the horse power I need.

But I am the first to admit that the price to quality curve of a good $900 guitar and a good $4,000 is not linear.
But generally the more you spend the better the guitar is.

[roylor4]

I voted for several choices: Eastman, Blueridge, RK, Alvarez and other (for me, Ibanez & G&L).

I have played a couple of guitars that were mind-boggling good - I played a SCGC 000 that made me drool. None of my guitars do that for me.

Several of my budget guitars hold their own against guitars in the 1-2K category though.

It's a matter of perspective, really. Are they "exceptional" compared to that Santa Cruz or even to the newer Taylor 324 I played a couple of days ago - no, not really.

But some of my acoustics do spank the pants off of many, much higher end guitars. That said, although I am quite satisfied w/what I have - I have yet to find my "lifetime" guitar.

Since the question in the poll was broadly worded, I would say that i find G&L Tribute electrics to be exceptional in most regards. I know it's not an acoustic, but the poll didn't say acoustic, just about brands.

[Fattymagoo]

Originally Posted by Gmountain

I think there are some good imports, and maybe some great ones.

No reason to think that they can't build exceptional guitars, but on the other hand, I have not yet heard anyone say they bought a Martin because it was as good as an Eastman, or a Taylor, because it punched above it's weight.

That's a reflection of the consumer, not the product.


Furthermore, Martin 15/16 series are often said to give the standard series a run for there money "especially for the price". Same can be said about Taylor 300 series vs the top end models. So what's different?... The name on the headstock and the country of origin (and of course, what that means to the consumer).

At the end of the day, it's just people making wooden boxes. It's not wizardry. Guitars are made to meet a certain price point, but when the Chinese pull out all the stops, they can make a guitar just as good as any American. My Eastman is AS GOOD as a Martin. My Blueridge however is not. The Blueridge is great for the price. My Eastman is just a great guitar.