To owners of bourgeois guitars

[Pura Vida]

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

I actually kinda think that Eastman will close USA Bourgeois in around 2 or 3 years time and move all production to their factory in China. Once they get the lay of the land as far as Dana's Boutique build/voicing style, they have way more than enough talent with their crew in China to build the top line models, and it doesn't make a lot of large factory business sense for them to keep Bourgeois going when they can do it in China at a huge cost savings. They just have to prove to the Bourgeois marketplace/buyer that they can build just as good a top line Bourgeois guitar in China as the US, and maybe even cut the top line model prices to the buyers from the overall production cost savings of making them in China.

Hope I am wrong to be sure, but I fear this is Eastman's overarching plan...alas...


duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

Originally Posted by paulzoom

I would be glad to make a wager on that. Eastman is not dumb. They know the name Bourgeois has prestige. It's the reason they partnered with them in the first place. If they felt they could build as good a guitar, they wouldn't need to buy them in the first place. I will bet you that all three models (Bourgeous, Borgeous-Eastman hybrid, and Eastman) will all have their place in the marketplace.

I'd also take that bet. Eastman purchased Wm. S Haynes, which is a MA based woodwind company, making high end flutes and other instruments ($5-15k and up). And they still maintain Eastman Winds, which is more affordable instruments for students and others. I agree with Paul that there's plenty of room in the market for all three groups and price points and from their current sourcing.

[B Chas]

I've seen buyers replace all the upper level talent within a year or two and others not change a thing, as long as profits remain. Never know what the future will bring.

Love my Dana built OM.....

[ethanay]

I know this is an old thread, but my understanding is that the result of the Bourgeois - Eastman partnership is very similar to what PRS is doing with its "student edition" and S2 lines, albeit in reverse (IIRC Eastman approached Bourgeois, then Bourgeois vetted Eastman, whereas PRS approached Asian factory partners).



The main differences in my mind is that it is on a smaller, more personal hand-crafted scale, and much more thoughtfully-arranged as a mutualistic symbiosis between two relatively small companies a literal world apart. Eastman has a production process and philosophy that is already very similar to Bourgeois. According to Dana, it has resulted in more US job opportunities at Bourgeois (50% increase moving toward a doubling) plus improved benefits and healthcare: https://www.pegheadnation.com/peghea...geois-guitars/ The COO details the win-win-win at 4:40.



I like that it's people coming together across the world and cultures and economies to improve circumstances for everyone. More job opportunities, better compensation for workers in both places, better value for consumers and more diverse price points. This is the type of marketplace competition and even disruption I love to see. It's a unique model and I hope to see more of that type of thing in the future from more companies, because it's a market philosophy driven by collaboration, care for people and passion for quality craftsmanship.



The speculative concerns here seem premised on the idea that either the people at Bourgeois are not telling the truth about what's actually going on as to the nature of the deal, or that Bourgeois was somehow "duped" by Eastman. I don't think that citing Eastman's majority ownership is sufficient evidence. We don't know what that means, exactly. I feel like Dana had a lump in his throat when he said it, for transparency's sake, knowing that it's the basis of a lot of the speculative concerns such as those expressed in this thread, and might be taken out of context to put more fuel on the fire.



I just don't see where concerns are valid and grounded. Contrast this with Fender's complete(ly destructive) acquisitions of Tacoma and (to a lesser extent) Guild, for example...(Long Live the Papoose! The Papoose is dead!) In a world where there's no shortage of things to feel concerned about and fret over (intend the pun if you wish), I don't see this partnership as "yet another thing to worry about." Quite the opposite, I see it as a creative act of collaborative problem solving that gives my cynical heart a little bit of hope, at least for the future of Bourgeois and Eastman and the good people involved in both. Maybe I'm wrong. I tend to play the role of the cynical skeptic, but this is a rare occasion where I actually hope I'm right.

[srick]

In all of these discussions and speculations about the collaboration, there’s one bottom line that is given short shrift. Dana is about 70 years old now. He knows he’s not going to live forever and he wants to take care of his employees and have some sort of succession plan. He probably wants to take a little time for himself too.

The Eastman collaboration offered that opportunity.

There’s a tendency to think that every guitar manufacturer is at the Taylor, Martin and Gibson level as far as production goes. That’s just not the case. I see this perception showing up in another thread about Iris Guitars, yet there are barely 600 of them in existence! Adam and Dale (Iris Guitar’s owners) are running a very small shop with maybe ten employees. The economics on that scale are very tight. Dana’s shop is not much bigger. Maintaining your market share, increasing production numbers, growth, etc. are problems that leave very little room for error. When you are a Taylor, Martin or Gibson, a bad decision can usually be absorbed. But at the Bourgeois level, the potential consequences of every decision are much greater.

The Touchstone series are really good guitars. And honestly, at this quality\price point, you are really splitting hairs as to whether the Asian made guitar vs. the All-American guitars are that much different from each other.

Small business is tough. There’s no room for error. I applaud Dana for looking forward, maintaining a high level of quality, and especially for looking out for his employees.

[joeappel]

Originally Posted by srick

Small business is tough. There’s no room for error. I applaud Dana for looking forward, maintains an high level of quality, and especially for looking out for his employees.

Well said. This is the take that I had also.

[Pura Vida]

ethanay, srick: good points made by both of you. I agree that people don't realize the small scale of these guitar makers. Even Eastman, who is probably 10-20x the size of Bourgeois is only a fraction of Martin, Taylor, and Gibson. The stakes are higher for these smaller companies.

[Br1ck]

A fine shop in my area had Bourgeois guitars for a while, and found them hard to sell for whatever reason. Maybe because SCGC is in their backyard, or a host of other irrelevant reasons. I've played a few and found them to be very fine guitars, but they to me didn't stand above their competition. Neither did they stand below. And like their many competitors, none had me willing to pay two to five thousand more than the typical well made factory fare. That might be the state of my wallet more than anything. Also I'd much rather pay the premium for old wood rather than a boutique build.

Not to say most boutique guitars are not really good. They are. But Martin would get my money if I were to splurge.