Are Eastmans really THAT good?

[hardycreek1]

Short answer, yes.

Here's what Matt Keefer posted on FB:

"The beauty of Eastman is that they're built to a standard that only a few others can equal, but sold at a price that musicians can actually afford.

They represent a quality proposition that can't really be ignored."

[soups]

I don’t know who Matt Keefer is.

I’ve never played one that I wanted to own. I know a lot of people love them, but I have never been all that interested in any of the ones I’ve had in my hands.

[jdinco]

not the ones I had, but that was 7 or 8 years ago, so I'm sure they have improved. I hope.

[Brent Hutto]

I bought an entry-level E1D dreadnought in a bout of mid-2020 stir crazy acquisition. It was fine for what it was, came very nicely finished and set up and according to the dealer they seldom have to do any in-house setup or remediations on Eastmans.

But the "for what it was" part is basically a slightly overbuilt, not super responsive factory made guitar. If you strummed it solidly or really dug in flatpicking it had a balanced, rather neutral (to my ears) tone with a bit of woodiness to it. Not bad at all.

Played lightly, as I tend to do, it was rather quiet and plain sounding I thought. Compared to my "real" acoustic guitar (that cost several times as much and is hand built), well I just never wanted to play the Eastman at all after the first couple days.

I traded it in to Guitar Center after it sat unplayed for a year or so. There had been a price increase in the interim so I ended up getting about 2/3 of my money back out of it.

I'd imagine they make some $2,000 models that are quite nice. But there's no free lunch. A $500 or $750 dred is going to play and sound like a $500 or $750 dred.

[Wade Hampton]

I don’t know who Matt Keefer is, either, but I agree with what he said: Eastman makes terrific instruments for an affordable price. I own many instruments, including several high dollar custom guitars, and the build quality and tonal response of my Eastman 1SS-LTD compares favorably. It’s a professional quality instrument in every regard, and it cost me a fraction of what my other guitars cost me.

While I can see why not everyone would get along with its neck - it’s a bit chunkier than is common with non-vintage guitars - the guitar itself is magnificent.


Wade Hampton Miller

[mattwood]

I had an Eastman over 8 years ago, back when the finish was easily dented and there were some workmanship issues. I thought it was a fine guitar and only sold it due to GAS. I would not hesitate to buy one again as it seems their QC has only improved.

[Rogerblair]

I don’t know the name either, but I’ve had about three Eastmans. All well built, but the tone didn’t do it for me. Just personal preference. No right, no wrong.

Roger

[Mandobart]

I have two Eastman instruments - a MDC805 mandocello converted to an AR805 and an E2OM-CD. I also have a Martin HD-28 and a 000-15SM. The Eastman's are built and finished just as well as the Martins.

The E2OM-CD plays and sounds great, and cost me all of $500. It's the only cedar topped flat top I have, so it's not a direct comparison to anything else. I like it just as much as any of my other 7 guitars. The Eastman archtop is the only archtop guitar I have - it doesn't really compare directly to any other guitar I have either.

I have played other great archtops by Gibson and D'Angelico, and no, the Eastman does not compare to these IMO. But Then I didn't like either of these enough to bring them home.

[Bridgepin]

I would take another look, but I didn't care for the few I've played.

[Bowie]

It's all personal taste. For my money, no. And, I don't get the hype. The overtones are kinda absent compared to the guitars they are trying to copy. But, that's just me.

[fitness1]

I owned probably a dozen of them - back before prices went nuts they were a great value if you were looking for a decent backup. Most of the ones I owned were the mahogany 10 series and 500 series (with one E40D) As someone stated above, decent sounding instruments when you dig in, but just a little overbuilt for the most part.

That said I haven't owned one in probably 3-4 years, so maybe they have improved a bit.

[warfrat73]

I've owned 2 Eastman Guitars and a Mandolin (still own one of each), and played quite a few more. They're good for the money, but across the range that I've played, I've found them to be a bit brash and unrefined and too trebly for my tastes. Competent, but uninspiring in my experience.

[fpuhan]

Last November I had the opportunity to play several different comparable models of Taylor and Eastman guitars at a shop that is an authorized dealer of both.

The Eastmans were nice. And their prices were quite attractive.

But every one of the Taylors played better and sounded better.

So, if price is a consideration, I think an Eastman will suit you just fine. But if you want a superior guitar, Taylor would get the nod, in my book.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by hardycreek1

Short answer, yes.

Here's what Matt Keefer posted on FB:

"The beauty of Eastman is that they're built to a standard that only a few others can equal, but sold at a price that musicians can actually afford.

They represent a quality proposition that can't really be ignored."

Mr. Keefer (whoever that is) seriously underestimates my ability to ignore…

[Bill Kraus]

Originally Posted by hardycreek1

Short answer, yes.

Here's what Matt Keefer posted on FB:

"The beauty of Eastman is that they're built to a standard that only a few others can equal, but sold at a price that musicians can actually afford.

They represent a quality proposition that can't really be ignored."

Average guitars.
Who is Matt Keefer?.