Eastman AR610 - Next step?

[Robin, Wales]

I am loving my Godin 5th Avenue acoustic archtop, and I am gigging with it at the moment (just mic'd). My duo partner has just bought a carved Eastman Mandolin and it has a really lush timbre and great build quality. I'm thinking about trading in my D-18, which isn't getting much playing time, and buying an Eastman AR610. It will be for gigging. I don't play jazz but play Carter style/bluegrass/Americana with a flatpick and also Travis pick with thumb pick and metal fingerpicks.

Would an AR610 be the right sort of step up? I may want a pick guard/finger rest as I have noticed I do use the one of the 5th Avenue. Can you get these as a separate item?

Any opinions welcome!

[Steve DeRosa]

Buy it, have a pickguard made, and enjoy it - it's one of the more stylistically-versatile archtops out there, and several reviews I've read have labeled it an ideal instrument for flattop players looking to make the transition...

[Robin, Wales]

Thanks Steve,

I'm really getting into playing the 5th Avenue at gigs. I bought that on your recommendation and it has been great. I saw a video on YouTube of a direct comparison between the 5th and the AR610. I could hear the difference quite clearly. The 610 was more lush and complex, with more bass. I can get one for the same price I would get for my D-18. I think that it could work well for me.

EDIT:

Here's a video showing a direct comparison between the 5th Avenue and the AR610. Not my playing style (or string set up) but I can hear quite a difference between the two. I like the dryness of the 5th Avenue, but I'm interested in trying the dark complexity and projection of the carved AR610 (spruce/mahogany). The 17" compared to the 16" also needs to be comfortable for standing and playing. Every review is with someone sitting and playing jazz........ no wonder archtops don't have great sales figures! It would be nice to have at least one review with someone standing on stage and playing/singing country.

[67goat]

I have the 805, which is very similar to the 610, but with maple vs mahogany. I also have a 5th Ave. The Eastman is hands down better in every way (tone, playability, build quality). It's more than the next step up, it's more like a flight of stairs up. I think it will work for your musical tastes just fine. That's a lot of the same music I play. Just find the strings that work for you.

A more in between step, but still excellent archtop IMO, is the Epiphone Masterbilt Zenith (f-hole version).

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by 67goat

I have the 805, which is very similar to the 610, but with maple vs mahogany. I also have a 5th Ave. The Eastman is hands down better in every way (tone, playability, build quality). It's more than the next step up, it's more like a flight of stairs up. I think it will work for your musical tastes just fine. That's a lot of the same music I play. Just find the strings that work for you.

A more in between step, but still excellent archtop IMO, is the Epiphone Masterbilt Zenith (f-hole version).

Thanks! I had wondered about going for the 805 and having the carved maple back and sides. However, from the videos I have heard I think that the mahogany will just possibly be a little more (dare I say it here!) like a flattop in timbre. I will have to play it in the house for practice sessions and whilst my wife never complains about the 5th Avenue at a gig - she sure does at home! She likes the D-18 - and it is her that I have to persuade that a quality carved archtop can be as sweet. Because if the AR610 arrives then the D-18 has to go.

You never get the real guitar timbre from watching videos but there are a couple of back to backs of the 610 and 805. The difference is noticeable and right along the expected lines - maple brighter, mahogany warmer - no surprises. I can hear why the maple is a classic (and I may end up there) but the mahogany could work a treat. Until I get them in my hands I can't really say - but my hunch is that the 610 may be the one.

[67goat]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

Thanks! I had wondered about going for the 805 and having the carved maple back and sides. However, from the videos I have heard I think that the mahogany will just possibly be a little more (dare I say it here!) like a flattop in timbre. I will have to play it in the house for practice sessions and whilst my wife never complains about the 5th Avenue at a gig - she sure does at home! She likes the D-18 - and it is her that I have to persuade that a quality carved archtop can be as sweet. Because if the AR610 arrives then the D-18 has to go.

You never get the real guitar timbre from watching videos but there are a couple of back to backs of the 610 and 805. The difference is noticeable and right along the expected lines - maple brighter, mahogany warmer - no surprises. I can hear why the maple is a classic (and I may end up there) but the mahogany could work a treat. Until I get them in my hands I can't really say - but my hunch is that the 610 may be the one.

Nothing wrong with mahogany. Some of my favorite guitars are all mahogany. I went with the 805 because at the time I couldn't find a 610 for sale and I really wanted an archtop without a pickup.

I justified it to myself by saying I would get around to learning jazz and swing music. Hasn't happened yet.

[derf]

Robin, I am a recent acoustic arch top convert and believer. I purchased a used AR 610 a couple of months ago. I have always been an acoustic flat top player using brass finger picks and a thumb pick. I am no longer a flat top player. The AR 610 is that good for me and for an amazing price point for a hand carved solid wood instrument. No idea how the AR 610 sounds out front, but from my player’s position I find it to sound great. It truly gives me the sound in my head. And yes, I play the 610 with brass finger picks and a thumb pick; I know a bit unorthodox. My only complaint is I wish the string spacing at the saddle on the 610 was a little wider, however, I will get used to it. I find the fret board radius to be much more accommodating to my old fretting hand than the flat tops and the C shape neck has a consistent width and feel up the neck. I have been lusting after an acoustic arch top of years and my only regret is is waited so long to try and buy. I think I made the right choice of mahogany over maple.

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

...The 610 was more lush and complex, with more bass...

I like the dryness of the 5th Avenue, but I'm interested in trying the dark complexity and projection of the carved AR610 (spruce/mahogany). The 17" compared to the 16" also needs to be comfortable for standing and playing...

Interesting that you should use those terms to describe the AR610 - a little background:

A number of years ago the late Jim Fisch (an expert on New York-era Epiphone archtops and co-author of Epiphone: The House of Stathopoulo, the definitive and now unfortunately out-of-print work on the history of the marque) was called upon to design a line of moderately-priced instruments for Eastman's archtop line, the result being the 500/600 Series; the latter - and the AR610 in particular - was based on what was said to be one of Jim's favorite instruments, the 17" Devon introduced circa 1950. Their lowest-priced (and last) professional acoustic and the only postwar pro model to be offered without either blonde or cutaway options, the pre-1954 versions were constructed with mahogany sides/back which tempered and mellowed the characteristic Epiphone cut end edge, without losing the volume and projection for which Epis were justly renowned (in a move to standardize features and cut costs in the wake of labor issues, later production - which had been moved to Philadelphia by this time - was fitted with the standard maple sides/back). A little-known fact is that it was also the first to introduce the large oval fingerboard inlays, which would figure prominently on certain Gibson-era Epiphones...

As I said earlier the AR610 is widely regarded as an ideal instrument for flattop players making the move to their first all-carved archtop, and as a lifelong aficionado of New York Epis it's been on my radar for a long time. Quite frankly, given the general scarcity of the mahogany Devon in general (and my birth year in particular) I've long been toying with the idea of retrofitting an AR610 to 1953 specs: pearloid-button Grover Rotomatics (TMK a drop-in fit, and visually similar from the front to the original Epiphone machines) and Frequensator tailpieces are readily available, a period-accurate pickguard (complete with a stylized Eastman script "E" reminiscent of the Epiphone "epsilon") and white trussrod cover could be made to order, and with the re-introduction of several historic '60s offerings by the current Epiphone operation my tech could probably source the requisite large oval inlays. Wouldn't sound quite the same (I owned a '46 Blackstone and played plenty more Big Band-era comp boxes in my lifetime, so I'm familiar with the real-deal tone) but it'd cop all the visual vibe as well as much of the period sonic mojo (especially with medium monels), and these days I figure that's about as good as it's going to get - unless of course the current 150th Anniversary reissue electrics do in fact prove to be the harbinger of the long-rumored historic archtop line, but that's a story for another thread...

[Robin, Wales]

Steve,

Thank you for such a comprehensive history. It does look like Eastman are picking the right folks to go to for their model designs. They have many specialist crafts folk who come from a background of hand carving orchestral stringed instruments - plus a large regular flattop guitar production line - so it should be no surprise that they can effectively put the two together given the correct design guidance.

So now the hunt to find an AR610 in the UK begins. I'm in no hurry, I'll just wait for the right opportunity to arise.

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

...I'm in no hurry, I'll just wait for the right opportunity to arise.

While you're waiting have a listen to a '46 Epi Blackstone, identical to the one I used to own but for the lack of a pickguard - and tell me if it's not one of the sweetest-sounding little 16" archtops you ever heard:

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Steve DeRosa

A number of years ago the late Jim Fisch was called upon to design a line of moderately-priced instruments for Eastman's archtop line, the result being the 500/600 Series; the latter - and the AR610 in particular - was based on what was said to be one of Jim's favorite instruments, the 17" Devon introduced circa 1950.

Interesting because the general consensus seems to be that the Eastman AR6/8/9xx archtops have all taken a good page out of Benedetto's book (and that this is clear from their sound signature).

IMHO, timbre is one of the things that can be assessed from (good/faithful) recordings (volume, not so much).

Re: playing standing: doesn't that mostly depend on weight? That's information you should be able to find only, and I expect the difference between the AR610 and the AR605 to be most notable in that department. The 1.25cm additional distance from the rim to the saddle shouldn't be much of an obstacle.

Do keep your eyes open for an AR605 btw; several people including Jonathan Stout have commented on how 16" models tend to be more appropriate for solo playing, with the somewhat louder 17" models more appropriate for comping. My own impression from the recordings I've listened too is that 17" models tend to be "too big for a napkin (nice trebles) and too small for a tablecloth (noticeably better basses)". There must have been Eastmans in the input data that led me to that conclusion.
Of course Ma Carter played a 16" L5; I think you have to assume that she would have had/found the means to update to a 17" (and x-braced!) model if there had been any indication that would have served her better.

[RJVB]

BTW, here's a relevant discussion (linked to the 1st post about the AR610; more further down).

Reminds me to point out that you'll probably want to find an older AR6xx if you're not excluding the possibility for there to be a PU. A floater won't change your acoustic sound (just introduce more potential buzzers) and you'll have a preinstalled fingerrest.

I don't know if you have anything against cutaways, but even if you don't need them for higher fret access they still help taking off some weight!

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by RJVB

Interesting because the general consensus seems to be that the Eastman AR6/8/9xx archtops have all taken a good page out of Benedetto's book (and that this is clear from their sound signature)...

They do, without question - I've played Eastmans and I've played Benedettos and there's a definite similarity in the upline maple models - but given the carved mahogany construction of the 600-Series (BTW also a feature of the first-run 1980's Heritage Eagle which boasted a hog top as well, with a special-order spruce option IIRC) I suspect the late Mr. Fisch was given some basic parameters, within which he developed what amounts to a latter-day realization of a postwar Epi Devon built to a specific price point - not totally accurate to its New York predecessor but well within the spirit and, as I said, about as good as it's going to get without going the far-pricier custom-build route...

[RJVB]

Are you saying the AR6xx aren't just a hog-backed version of the AR8xx - and by that I mean same specs apart from the woods used?

[RJVB]

BTW, here are a couple of recordings of a vintage L48 by I forget what's-his-pseudo-on-here:





Hard to imagine anything steel-strung sounding mellower/sweeter than this!

AFAIK that's a "solid-formed" top (= flat-top pressed into an arch) with a flat mahogany back. It was one of Gibson's budget instruments. Reverb lists several of them from 2 production eras. This one in Latvia is still for sale, for significantly more than what I seem to remember too!