Hypothetical choice Eastman/Martin

[vindibona1]

I think this an unrealistic hypothetical question. But perhaps the heart of the question is; would you choose an Eastman over a Martin if the Eastman sounded/played better?

The obvious answer would be "which ever one played/sounded better". And that would be a logical choice- for some. But there are some nuances involved. New or used? Buying it purely for playing pleasure, or is there an "asset value" component attached in the buyer's mind? And while gross dollars may not be a direct concern, perhaps VALUE (i.e. price paid vs going/future market price) a deciding factor?

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

Tone is subjective. To say there is no comparison though...
I find the Eastman square shoulder Adi Dreads to be tone monsters, but it isn't about being a "contest".
I owned an E20D that you could feel in your chest all the way down to your shoes.
They don't sound like Martin's. They sound good though.You prefer the Martin tone. Great. It is not necessarily an indicator of superiority when it's just opinion. I think you would find many would prefer some Eastman's over the low end Martins for lots of reasons and yes, I am sticking up for Eastman. I do own a D18.
Glad you're happy with your Martin.

I don't mean to suggest that Eastmans are not great guitars. But there are both objective and subjective tonal qualities. We all appreciate subjective aspects based on our preferences. We all hear objective aspects to varying degrees. Yes, there is always someone out there who will genuinely prefer a $200 Yamaha to a $5000 Martin Authentic or boutique build. But there are also aspects that objectively improve a guitar. So yes, some of it is I prefer Martin tone, and others prefer Eastman tone ($ aside). But I agree with one of the other posters that the Eastmans I've played have had much thinner sounding trebles than most Martins I've played. The Eastman's were all pushing 5 lbs and were rear braced, which my ears really did hear. (The Martin I ended up with was 3lbs 7oz--similar body size--by comparison. Again, a $1200 guitar...nothing "fancy"). My ears don't love Taylors v-bracing either, for the same reason, but there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who disagree with me there too. And my eyes didn't love the several Eastman examples with cloudy lacquer spots on them (i.e. back of headstock on several--To be fair though, I've only played about half a dozen Eastmans.). I've heard people make beautiful music with Eastmans and even less expensive guitars. But I do think folks who genuinely prefer the tone, fit, and finish of an Eastman over the tone of a comparable Martin standard, $ aside, are probably few and far between. But that is definitely part of what makes the world go 'round!

[DanleyJ]

Originally Posted by vindibona1

I think this an unrealistic hypothetical question. But perhaps the heart of the question is; would you choose an Eastman over a Martin if the Eastman sounded/played better?

The obvious answer would be "which ever one played/sounded better". And that would be a logical choice- for some. But there are some nuances involved. New or used? Buying it purely for playing pleasure, or is there an "asset value" component attached in the buyer's mind? And while gross dollars may not be a direct concern, perhaps VALUE (i.e. price paid vs going/future market price) a deciding factor?

Hypothetical is by definition a "what if" scenario. Never implied realistic. I was just trying to eliminate the money issue with guitars and trying to get folks to see this from a different perspective. But your heart of the question does fit into the scenario.

New or used, resale does not enter into my original post as I was just trying to find out why you would prefer one over the other. No other considerations were mentioned.

[DownUpDave]

I own both an Eastman, which I like a lot and a Martin. Everyone who has played my guitars always falls in love with the tone of that Martin.

If the house was on fire I am grabbing the Martin as I run out the door

[merlin666]

It's as hypothetical as expressing a preference to live in China or the U.S.A., not really a reasonable/sane choice for many people though possibly valid for some people.

[vintage40s]

Originally Posted by musicman1951

I read so much about Eastman guitars I pulled one down and played it for a while at the local music store... a lot of guitar for the money....

Originally Posted by RustyAxe

I bought an Eastman AC420B about nine years ago. A few weeks after buying I sold my Martin D-35, and never looked back. And yes, it was a contest regarding tone ... I liked the Eastman better! It wasn't about the money, it was just a great guitar....

Same here on both stories.

Last winter I pulled a new Eastman E20-OM off the wall and had to walk off with it. It was $1300, sounded similar to my D-35, was easier to hold, and played better. The store owner had given it a 2mm setup. The neck and string spacing is as good as the D-35 for flat picking, and better for finger picking.

I am not going to sell my D-35 anytime soon because I have had it for 50 years and don't need the money. But at age 77 now, when it gets down to the last one of my present 5 guitars, it will be the perfect Eastman E20-OM.

[vintage40s]

Originally Posted by Tony Burns

No choice here -Martin Wins

Big choice right here in this thread.
Eastmans are chosen over two Martin D-35s.

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by vintage40s

Big choice right here in this thread.
Eastmans are chosen over two Martin D-35s.

When you shake the trees of the Internet, you’ll find all kinds of people who prefer a $50 guitar over a prewar D-28 and visa versa. If you look hard enough, you’ll find two people who would rather have their hands sawed off than play guitar. This is no place for statistical analysis.

[Beakybird]

I remember strumming a $5000 D35 at CME and thinking that it was the worst guitar I'd ever played. Then I realized it was a left-handed instrument, and I was playing it upside down.
It's all about inspiration. If it makes your heart sing, and your body vibrate, then it's a great instrument.

[Scolaguitar]

I have both Eastmans and Martin. I love both. The thing is Eastman has all the ingredients to making excellent instruments. Yes there are duds like with any other factory made guitar. There's no reason you wouldn't find an Eastman that completes with the US made big 3 other than their geography difference. Their wood source is mostly from the same supplier as the other reputable companies.

I took my E1SS for a setup, cost less than 800, all solid wood, dovetail construction, you definitely get way more guitar for the money. Chatted with the luthier who worked on it. He said he could see why I liked it so much. He wanted to know where I got it and how much. I saw in the queue a Martin 40 series so they definitely work on the cream of the crop guitars...

We talked about Eastman. About how the guy who sold me the Eastmans has a few of his own. The luthier said, "oh yeah, music store people are pretty savvy, they often pick through them and grab the best ones for themselves..."

My point, Eastman competes with the big 3 and can hold their own. They'll have duds and fit and finish issues on some but the other US makers are certainly not immune to that. My Eastmans have plenty of saddle. My D-18 doesn't. In the end, it really comes down to what your ears prefer. Sometimes I prefer the Martin sound. Sometimes the Eastman.

[erhino41]

I have an eastman e20d and a martin ceo7.

No matter what anyone says, the name on the headstock absolutely plays some part in informing one's decision to buy, even if it is secondary to "tone".

Buckdancer's Choice in Portland held an Eastman event last Wednesday. To note, the fit and finish on the Eastman's were excellent. The setups were all purposely high, but all had vey tall saddles. The fret work was decent. Finish look great with none of the blemishes that used to be a big complaint. They were road worn from being toted from store to store, but I did not notice any mfg blemishes, and I did look them over pretty good. That being said they may have picked their finest examples to show.

I was able to play an e20om side by side to an om-28 and a 000-28. If all were equal, ie. purchase price and potential resale name cache, i would have chosen the e20om over the om-28 and I would have taken the 000-28 over the other two. The e20om was a better instrument than that om-28 I played, imo of course.

I also got to play an e10d that ran circles around the d-18 on the wall not, even close, imo again. That's not to say it would beat every d-18 in existence, but it beat this one.

I know it's not a direct comparison because of the difference between the tops, adi vs. Sitka. It's the only comparison I could make.

I did get to a/b my e20d to a D-28 marquis with the adi top once and preferred my e20d. That's biased though. Just the fact that the Eastman's are in the conversation is impressive.

They were all excellent instruments. I'm not a brand specific player. I choose what I think sounds best.

The beauty of the real scenario is that I could have bought four of the Eastman's for the 3999 tag on the 000-28. Granted it could be had cheaper than that, but that is what it was tagged at.

[backdoc]

Having owned two Martins (000-18, OM-15m) and three Eastmans (E20om, E6D, E20ooss), I’d probably pick Eastman every time. They are simply better built, better finished and far more durable. Their tone is different from Martin, but just as pleasing in their own right. Three neck resets on two Martin guitars in their first five years of life is just ridiculous. My Martins sound lovely, but I’m tired of them spending their lives back at the factory who can’t or won’t explain why.

[rokdog49]

I decided to jump back in this thread.
I have an Eastman E10 00 SS. It is comparable in appeareance and size to my friend's CEO 7. They do not share the same voicing. The Martin is typically Martin and my E10 is more "Gibsonesque", but not as dry. It also has an Adirondack top. From a quality standpoint there is little difference. I would give the edge to he CEO 7, but they are very close.
They are both nice looking bursts.
Mine is easier to play, but I consider that subjective and arbitrary so YMMV.
The CEO 7 isn't unique enough tonewise for me to want to invest in one over the E10 which definitely has a certain uniqueness to it. Since it's the only small body guitar I own, it's a keeper. Very fun to play.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by DanleyJ

If you had a choice between a Martin OM/000 and an Eastman OM and all were equal ....

Martins and Eastmans don't sound the same. Without falling on my face trying to describe the difference on tone, I'd just say that Eastmans have a slightly more modern sound. I think they sound more like a Bourgeois than a Martin. But YMMV.

So the question becomes which tone do you prefer, and do you find their playability similar?

[Sonics]

The correct answer is: The one that sounds best. However the reality is most people listen with their eyes. You can also throw in the 'loyalty' factor. Folk will defend their brand to the death despite being shown overwhelming contrary 'data'.

So predictably, in this 'hypothetical, I'm going with the Martin...