Pretty undeniable

[DenverSteve]

V-Class for me have been about the same as X-braced. Mine sounded far too bright with the factory strings on it. Once I replaced them with Martin SP's it sounded much better. The next change will be to D'Addario EJ16's or Martin Clapton's Choice and see where they lead me.

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by Dbone

Not a bad summary but I will say: There is a growing bias against Taylor because of v class...my opinion...

If anything, the comments in this thread have tempered a bit my willingness to generalize too much about how widespread the "thinness" in the Taylor line is because of v class...I'm going to try to keep more of an open mind...

Who knows, I may need to look around more. The Yamaha LL36 I'm supposed to get might not be coming...Not sure yet, but there might have been a mix up...Starting to feel like Yamaha Canada might have promised me a unit that was already spoken for...I'm hoping to know next week what the heck is going on...bah...Maybe I'll trial a few more Taylors just in case ;-0

There have been the occasional posts around here, not necessarily in the V-class threads though, to play the guitars as guitars and to try to ignore the name on the headstock when shopping for an instrument.

So, I agree that keeping an open mind is a good idea. Otherwise, you might miss out on a particularly stellar guitar for your needs. The difficulty is that, no matter how we might try to ignore the sentiments against a manufacturer or a particular direction a manufacturer has taken, we are influenced.

Despite what is generally said around here about V-class, I am amazed at the tone of my K14ce Builder's class. I was never particularly impressed with the tone of the 914, as nice as it looks. It didn't matter if it was V-class or not.

There are folks around here who consider the mid to late 90s as a "golden era" for Taylor guitars. I have read a number of rave reviews of Taylors from this period. I bought one, and found that the sound simply didn't suit what I wanted. I am sure that those for whom that sound is ideal, really do believe that era to be among the best of Taylor.

So, it is not always the case that the prevailing biases around here would necessarily also be true for your own unique needs. It is certainly not a question of right and wrong, because these are personal opinions rather than statements of fact. Simply, not everybody likes and wants the same sound in a guitar.

Tony

[zoopeda]

"The Dude abides."

If I had to choose between grabbing any random Taylor out of a sack (blindfolded) and and random Eastman (also blind)--especially if the Taylor is a "v-class"--I'd pick the Eastman. They're not the greatest guitars in the universe, but, on average, I prefer them to most Taylors (Andy's re-imagined x-braced 814s aside). Eastman builds a great guitar for the money.

[JohnW63]

hand-made guitars built by skilled craftsmen and sold at a lower price point are a better value proposition than mass-produced, machine-built guitars

Hang on, are you implying that Eastman guitars aren't touched by machines and Taylors are all machine made ? No machine builds ANYTHING at Taylor.

There are hands on both and machines used in the process on both. I think that machines should be used where speed and precision are needed. After that, send it to the craftsman to make a great guitar or not. Remember when guitars had a lot of variables and you really couldn't tell if you got a dud or not ? Yeah. Made made can also me mistakes made. Martin has a lot more machines doing the work than they used to. It improves consistency.

The implication that Bourgeois guitars got together with Eastman because they are the BEST is not really what this deal is about. I'll bet it has as much to do with PRICE and how much they promised to build in a given time. Bourgeois feels the need to get in a lower price range market. This was the company they could strike a deal with and with the terms they wanted. But, I don't make my living selling Eastman guitars. Pondering why they didn't hook up with Taylor to build them is a red herring on the video guys part.

[Dbone]

Originally Posted by JohnW63

Hang on, are you implying that Eastman guitars aren't touched by machines and Taylors are all machine made ? No machine builds ANYTHING at Taylor.

There are hands on both and machines used in the process on both. I think that machines should be used where speed and precision are needed. After that, send it to the craftsman to make a great guitar or not. Remember when guitars had a lot of variables and you really couldn't tell if you got a dud or not ? Yeah. Made made can also me mistakes made. Martin has a lot more machines doing the work than they used to. It improves consistency.

The implication that Bourgeois guitars got together with Eastman because they are the BEST is not really what this deal is about. I'll bet it has as much to do with PRICE and how much they promised to build in a given time. Bourgeois feels the need to get in a lower price range market. This was the company they could strike a deal with and with the terms they wanted. But, I don't make my living selling Eastman guitars. Pondering why they didn't hook up with Taylor to build them is a red herring on the video guys part.

Well if you read the press release on Bourgeios’ website it would suggest different, but I see where you are going with this for sure...

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by Dbone

Well if you read the press release on Bourgeios’ website it would suggest different, but I see where you are going with this for sure...

Yeah...and just like Taylor with V-Class Bracing, Bourgeois is going to put their very best spin on why they are partnering with Eastman.

The fact that Bourgeois is doing this tells me that they are very likely looking at the current and future retail guitar markets, and the imminent decline of the Baby Boomers buying power and realizing that their current USA made Bourgeois price point may not...{;-)...be the most stable or profitable part of the future retail guitar market to be selling in, like it has been for the last 25 years.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[Nick84]

Originally Posted by Dbone

Yeah, I did gather he had a relationship with Taylor in the past that dissolved for some reason...certainly don't know the details...

I hear where you are coming from. He is only human and might carry some bitterness...Not totally sure...I don't really pick any up if there is some to be honest...He comes across as being reasonably impartial towards looking at things for what they are if I'm being completely honest...my opinion only...

You need to see his other videos to build up the picture. There is a 28 minute one about V bracing and another recent video about buying a cort CJ mini over a Taylor GS Mini when he doesn’t actually have a GS Mini to compare to the cort in his video.

Like I said I watch a lot of his videos with interest but his thing with Taylor I’m bored of now it’s gone on for years.

[rabbuhl]

Originally Posted by Nick84

I usually watch Richards videos with interest and one thing that constantly crops up is that he really does not like Taylor. I got into a brief debate with him over this video on Facebook.

He told me that Eastman use far better quality tone woods than Taylor. Obviously his opinion. I asked him how he had measured this or where he obtained this information and he didn’t respond.
I also pointed out that the difference is cost is due to the location and if you asked Eastman to produce the same guitars for the same price but in the US they wouldn’t be able to and probably would be more than the equivalent Taylor.

He used to be a Taylor dealer and something clearly went sour which has left him very bitter which does show in his videos at times. Anything he has to say about Taylor I tend to take with a pinch of salt. Especially a comparison video recorded on a mobile phone.

I like Richard's video and am looking at their offerings to compliment my Taylor 214ce.

My comments on the video:
(1) The average house price in San Diego is $545,000 vs $7,280 in Beijing. For reference, at La guitar, a Taylor 314ce is $1999 while an Eastman AC322CE is $851. Import costs may make the Taylor a bit more expensive in the U.K.
(2) Like Nick said what if Taylor made their guitars in China. How much would they cost?
(3) Taylor has incredible customer service. They replaced the body on mine for free and just did a neck reset for free to make the action playable.
(4) Strumming at home is one thing but for live performance you see a lot of musicians with Taylors. What is a pro going to choose?

Richard recommended to me these guitars: Eastman AC322CE, Eastman AC422CE, Faith Neptune Cutaway Electro Mahogany, Faith Legacy Neptune, Auden Artist Mahogany Austin Spruce Cutaway. They are all affordable guitars but in the long run I'm concerned about the resale value. The Faith and Auden are U.K. made guitars. I am looking for a great guitar which is not too expensive and would be great for gigging. I am thinking a used Taylor, Gibson, or Martin. Or maybe a new Eastman.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by JohnW63

Hang on, are you implying that Eastman guitars aren't touched by machines and Taylors are all machine made ? No machine builds ANYTHING at Taylor.

There are hands on both and machines used in the process on both. I think that machines should be used where speed and precision are needed. After that, send it to the craftsman to make a great guitar or not. Remember when guitars had a lot of variables and you really couldn't tell if you got a dud or not ? Yeah. Made made can also me mistakes made. Martin has a lot more machines doing the work than they used to. It improves consistency.

The implication that Bourgeois guitars got together with Eastman because they are the BEST is not really what this deal is about. I'll bet it has as much to do with PRICE and how much they promised to build in a given time. Bourgeois feels the need to get in a lower price range market. This was the company they could strike a deal with and with the terms they wanted. But, I don't make my living selling Eastman guitars. Pondering why they didn't hook up with Taylor to build them is a red herring on the video guys part.

I think most people are referring to CNC Machines. To the best of ny knowledge, Eastman still does not use these. There is a significant amount of work done "by human hands" on Eastman's. A lot more than Taylors.
Why would Taylor want or need to hook up with Bourgeois? I'm just curious.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by Nick84

I usually watch Richards videos with interest and one thing that constantly crops up is that he really does not like Taylor. I got into a brief debate with him over this video on Facebook.

He told me that Eastman use far better quality tone woods than Taylor. Obviously his opinion. I asked him how he had measured this or where he obtained this information and he didn’t respond.
I also pointed out that the difference is cost is due to the location and if you asked Eastman to produce the same guitars for the same price but in the US they wouldn’t be able to and probably would be more than the equivalent Taylor.

He used to be a Taylor dealer and something clearly went sour which has left him very bitter which does show in his videos at times. Anything he has to say about Taylor I tend to take with a pinch of salt. Especially a comparison video recorded on a mobile phone.

I would like to add that a long-time reputable Taylor dealer I know parted ways with them when Bob bowed out. I was told that the two factors were the direction Taylor was headed and the increased demand to stock more product.
Nothing new about that. They told me that Taylor's never sold as well as Martin's in their market and they also sold other high end brands so they decided to discontinue the brand.

[Beakybird]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

Why would Taylor want or need to hook up with Bourgeois? I'm just curious.

I agree. This is a strawman argument.
Comparing the Eastmans to a defective Taylor is not fair.
He rambles too much.
That Bourgeois chose to partner with Eastman doesn't prove that much as there aren't many Chinese companies with great distribution lines around. Most Chinese guitar factories are part of or partnered with a first-world company like Yamaha, Takamine, Gibson, Guild, etc.
That Eastman makes great instruments is a valid point.

[Nick84]

Originally Posted by rokdog49

I would like to add that a long-time reputable Taylor dealer I know parted ways with them when Bob bowed out. I was told that the two factors were the direction Taylor was headed and the increased demand to stock more product.
Nothing new about that. They told me that Taylor's never sold as well as Martin's in their market and they also sold other high end brands so they decided to discontinue the brand.

It’s been a long time since Richard Carried Taylors. Well before Andy Powers arrived. He says one of his reasons for not carrying them is he couldn’t sell something to people when it was so poor and there were better options out there.

[KevWind]

Form the objective viewpoint of "what would be valid comparison video". What is "Pretty undeniable" is, it hard to imagine a more invalid video comparison.

Setting aside the obvious "Totally subjective" nature of guitar tone preference and inevitable expectation bias attached to it itself .
Given his self admitted promotion of Eastman coupled with his obvious bias against Taylor by virtue of his completely slanted, rhetoric involved in his attempt at dismissal of the Taylors production process. His lack of objective credibility alone should raise neon red flags for the viewer.

But all that aside::::::
Simply from the video production aspect alone, the video has basically little to no merit (at all) AND It could not matter less what actual brands of guitars were being played and compared . The entire production format for the video and comparison, is ill-conceived.
The extended time delays between, inconsistency of actual playing, and then the incessant distracted rambling, render it pretty much useless, from an objective analytical standpoint.

[$ongWriter]

Originally Posted by musicman1951

I have conflicting opinions on this video. The guy is a salesman and that's fine, but it obviously colors things a bit.

My first thought is that if all you play are the full strum chords in the video I'm not sure you want any of these guitars (at least I wouldn't). I hope that doesn't sound snarky, but for my ears they have considerably more jangle than I appreciate. Having said that, I have no idea what microphone he used, how many mics, or if he just used the build in on his video camera/phone. And I have an absolute personal bias for more depth in the sound, which is just a personal preference (as opposed to good or bad).

Did it seem a little disingenuous to use a Taylor in need of some work? Probably.

I have played some really lovely Bourgeois guitars and came close to buying one when I opted for the Lowden. A step above a Rolex? I think that's the salesman talking again, but that's really neither here nor there.

I worked as a guitar salesman when I was in college. I suggest you take everything from a guy who wants your money with a grain of salt.

Some nice looking Eastman's there. I played one a while back and thought it was a lot of guitar for the money.

I took the Rolex comment as pretty spot on...the saying in the watch world is if you want to impress your car dealer... buy a Rolex....if you want to impress your accountant...buy an IWC or Patek Philippe....I personally like Omega much better than Rolex...two of the Rolex's I owned did not keep good time...the first one I owned...which was the cheapest...was a great watch. I think the best Taylor has ever done was the X braced 814ce DELUXE...I've never played a bad one. I also liked some of their 12 fret guitars...at the current time the only Taylor I own is a Prototype...it has great mahogany, with a cooked Adi top...it's the 16 size..and it sounds huge...and if I ordered it from Taylor (if I could) it would cost the same as a Collings....AND...Taylor has been lying for years about their pick up system....I emailed them years ago and said just put a mid sucking sleeve on one of the three buttons and let me suck the mid metallic sound out of this guitar....they didn't listen....(Just my thoughts...)

[tbeltrans]

Originally Posted by $ongWriter

I took the Rolex comment as pretty spot on...the saying in the watch world is if you want to impress your car dealer... buy a Rolex....if you want to impress your accountant...buy an IWC or Patek Philippe....I personally like Omega much better than Rolex...two of the Rolex's I owned did not keep good time...the first one I owned...which was the cheapest...was a great watch. I think the best Taylor has ever done was the X braced 814ce DELUXE...I've never played a bad one. I also liked some of their 12 fret guitars...at the current time the only Taylor I own is a Prototype...it has great mahogany, with a cooked Adi top...it's the 16 size..and it sounds huge...and if I ordered it from Taylor (if I could) it would cost the same as a Collings....AND...Taylor has been lying for years about their pick up system....I emailed them years ago and said just put a mid sucking sleeve on one of the three buttons and let me suck the mid metallic sound out of this guitar....they didn't listen....(Just my thoughts...)

How much of the "sounds huge" can be attributed to the "baked" top? I would describe my Taylor, with its "baked" top as also "sounds huge". It is the first guitar with "baked" top I have owned, and it sounds "huger" than any other guitar I have owned except maybe a 1917 Martin I had for a while, whose top would have similar characteristics to a "baked" top by virtue of its age.

Tony