Are Eastmans really THAT good?

[neomastino]

Originally Posted by scotchnspeed

Not at all. Built on the backs of unregulated labor compared to the likes of comparable guitars built in western countries. And still lacking in quality by comparison. Considering that, save your money and support your art and true artisans with a real investment.

I also agree with this statement. (i have posted a few times as to my why behind this) but Scotch's statement summarizes my position well.

[doctone]

I've just opened a second user account with my real name, Matt Keefer.
Ask me anything if you want to know more details about my Eastman experience.

[johbren]

love mine AC322ce , ac622ce, ac822ce. sold off my taylors kept my eastmans.

[fantex]

I've been happy with my MD315 mandolin and have my eye on their parlor E20P.

[dodge]

Just got my Eastman E10-OM last week. Last one I owned was about 13 years ago(same model) build quality and sound on these current models is vastly improved. I was actually in the market for a Martin OM but after trying the Eastman I didn't see the need to shell out more than twice the amount for a Martin. Though not for everyone I think in the 1k-2k price point they are certainly worth a look.

[Dogsnax]

I was just getting ready to pull the trigger on a new Eastman E20 00 and then stumbled on this thread (which has given me pause..).

I do believe I read recently that in 2019 Bourgeois and Eastman entered into a collaboration in 2019. I'm thinking this has probably had a positive impact on the quality of Eastman guitars. Thoughts?

[davenumber2]

Originally Posted by Dogsnax

I was just getting ready to pull the trigger on a new Eastman E20 00 and then stumbled on this thread (which has given me pause..).



I do believe I read recently that in 2019 Bourgeois and Eastman entered into a collaboration in 2019. I'm thinking this has probably had a positive impact on the quality of Eastman guitars. Thoughts?

Their quality was fine before Bourgeois.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by Dogsnax

I do believe I read recently that in 2019 Bourgeois and Eastman entered into a collaboration in 2019. I'm thinking this has probably had a positive impact on the quality of Eastman guitars. Thoughts?

I don't see how, to be honest. Bourgeois is handling the most important part so it's not like Eastman workers are getting any experience on building better sounding instruments in that collaboration.

I do think it hurts the Bourgeois name. I took them off my list of prospective future buys as introducing a budget line might hurt the image as a whole, as thus impact the resale value of their more high end instruments. I've seen this happen with other brands.

I don't think Eastman quality is affected one way or another. If anything, maybe the rub is a good look for Eastman. I don't see how it would change production though.

[Sadie-f]

Not good enough to consider buying *for me, ymmv*.

I went considerably out of.my way (due to the positive reviews here) to go try and E20OM last year, playing a/b against my OM-28.

Beyond feeling the construction is in the clunky/heavy side, and not loving the C profile neck, even less the taller frets, while the tone was good, and worth the price point, it was a far cry from the degree of expressive I get iny Martin (which in turn pales against my Santa Cruz OM).

And to the "it's more handmade than Martin et al .. master craftspersons" crowd .. this isn't news. Virtually all manufacturing in China relies on more hand labor, less advanced manufacturing systems. I'd rather have a guitar with the neck playability dialed in on a Plek than one that's simply filed/sanded to flat by a factory worker.

[dyna]

My answer to the OP:
NO.
they are ok I guess, but overrated, especially on this forum for some reason.
I have owned two. A E1D which was ok for the money, just.
I then stepped up to a E10 SS with the ”warnish” top.
Unfortunately I bought it online.
When I got it, it looked like a six year old
had rubbed it with steelwool in random directions all over the top.Had to send it back.
Even the shop admitted it looked terrible.
Good sounding guitar though, albeit a little characterless.

[pagedr]

Originally Posted by Bowie

I don't see how, to be honest. Bourgeois is handling the most important part so it's not like Eastman workers are getting any experience on building better sounding instruments in that collaboration.

I do think it hurts the Bourgeois name. I took them off my list of prospective future buys as introducing a budget line might hurt the image as a whole, as thus impact the resale value of their more high end instruments. I've seen this happen with other brands.

I don't think Eastman quality is affected one way or another. If anything, maybe the rub is a good look for Eastman. I don't see how it would change production though.

It's mind boggling to me when I see someone claim they won't buy a guitar because of potentially poor resale value. So if you played a Bourgeois (or another brand) and loved the way it sounded and played you would let the possibility of poor resale stop you from buying it? Insane.

[RussellHawaii]

I don’t know how good they are or aren’t, as I’ve never played one. I’ve never tried to play one.
I only buy something made in China if I have no choice. Since I have choices I’ll buy guitars made elsewhere. I like supporting my local economy first. But I’d buy a guitar made in a distant land, just not China.
I don’t intend any disrespect to those who disagree. Different strokes…

[SaintClarence27]

Originally Posted by pagedr

It's mind boggling to me when I see someone claim they won't buy a guitar because of potentially poor resale value. So if you played a Bourgeois (or another brand) and loved the way it sounded and played you would let the possibility of poor resale stop you from buying it? Insane.

I don't see an issue with it. If you expect to sell a guitar once you're done with it, then the cost of the guitar is $(what you paid)-$(what you sell it for)-$(opportunity cost or what you could have made investing the money). The second variable being lowered essentially means that the cost of the guitar is higher. That said, I'm not planning on selling my guitars, but for one type of collector/player, I don't think it's unreasonable.

[pagedr]

Originally Posted by SaintClarence27

I don't see an issue with it. If you expect to sell a guitar once you're done with it, then the cost of the guitar is $(what you paid)-$(what you sell it for)-$(opportunity cost or what you could have made investing the money). The second variable being lowered essentially means that the cost of the guitar is higher. That said, I'm not planning on selling my guitars, but for one type of collector/player, I don't think it's unreasonable.

But outside of buying a guitar for a specific recording project, why would anyone buy a guitar with the expectation of selling it? I don't understand that.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by pagedr

It's mind boggling to me when I see someone claim they won't buy a guitar because of potentially poor resale value. So if you played a Bourgeois (or another brand) and loved the way it sounded and played you would let the possibility of poor resale stop you from buying it? Insane.

If I'm spending several thousand on a guitar I do care about it holding value. If that's insane to you... ok, sure...
Selling an instrument to get another is always a real possibility so not caring about resale would just be stupid on my part.

I have a custom Bourgeois in Brazilian rosewood and when I heard about the Touchtone line, I did get an "ugh..." feeling because I want this instrument to hold value. I have another instrument that was very high value until the maker started doing budget lines, then the value dropped bit. So, it's something that has directly impacted me before.

The other thing is, I can get any number of other brands that sound and play just as good or better so it makes zero sense to me to buy one that might not hold value as well as others that are just as good.