So, a little bit of devils advocate here having read
@RichardsGuitars post about the new Eastman guitars. http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/94616/eastman-sb59#latest
Now for one I have never met Richard nor have I the unfinished battles that others seem to have -so peace brother, they look beautiful guitars, as I say this is me playing devils advocate. One day I intend to pop over and have a cuppa with you as you seem an interesting guy that I'd be happy to chat guitars with.
My thought process is this however: price point.
Any of us can go out and purchase an end of line Gibson for the same price as the Eastman, I can buy a secondhand one for less and in each scenario shop around to find a good one. The big benefit there for me personally is that I never hang onto a guitar for ever, so the resale will be a little more consistent. If I was feeling snobbish and wanted a US built instrument and am bothered by the country of origin, there are second hand Heritages and Collings that come in around the same price, give or take a few hundred. If I want another quality option or a secondhand bargain then there are Tokai amongst the other Japanese brands who make fine instruments, for less money and have an awesome rep. Maybach were another company that were of interest and being a European company felt geographically a little closer to home.
So I wonder, are the Eastman guitars just a little too pricey for what they are? I appreciate from a business perspective there is probably a better product margin and based on Gibsons history probably less quality control issues to resolve -this makes sense for a seller. The Eastman specs are always fantastic and I have nothing against where they come from -I have a beaten up Loar that is soooo well loved and gigged, it's a great guitar, but it costs just £600 new not 1500-1600. I also regularly gig a Taylor T3B that I know will never hold its value, so resale isn't everything, being inspired to play is.
I just can't help but wonder as a comparative cost and similar spec though if as a brand, Eastman set their prices too high, particularly as resale will always be so much lower? What do folks reckon? And Richard do chime in, I am genuinely interested to know what folks think.
Comments
No brainer for me, they are not worth the asking price if you flip guitars (which is most of us) and personally i dont think they are good enough to be keepers
On the other hand, not everybody likes to buy used stuff. The music shop in my home town never carried anything used, and the most expensive gear they sold was Encore.
However, even at a new price. Yes we often go into stores, are pleasantly surprised by what we try, and end up leaving with something we never planned to. But surely if we do a like for like on the multitude of Les Paul imitations and inspired by models in this price bracket, including the various Gibson offerings, would we really leave with an Eastman? I am not convinced that most of us would. If it was just under 1k, quite possibly that would change? Certainly their 335 copies that are often below 1k are very tempting indeed.
As for the SB59, Richard said it would £1399.
The Eastman SB59 does seem like a lot of money for what it is, which is a far eastern built 'imitation', but it has a few things which I believe 'bump' up the value, which include
- Seymour Duncan Antiquity HB's (£250 or so street value)
- Aged Gotoh Hardware (not sure if it's aluminium or not)
- One piece Fiji Mahogany body (found on Gibson R9's)
- Nitro finish
When it comes to wood and materials, it seems the Eastman counterpart is using things which are found on the highest priced Gibson reissues.
Of course, the resale value will never be as great but for many people that won't matter that.
I have claimed that these guitars are between 70% and 80% of a Fifties Les Paul......probably depending on the last guitar I played at moment of posting.
That is good. 80% is really good.
So I always say...save up the money and then look really hard for a GT or a Plaintop. I am not a vintage snob even though it looks that way. The Historic is the intelligent choice every time.
If they are not really good, then £1400 is a problem. Aesthetically (IMHO), the Eastwood looks a lot less visually appealing when compared a Gibson. If they are wonderful guitars, I'd be happy to overlook this.
It's got to come down to how good the guitars are. If you buy a Gibson which is not a great guitar, you will still sell it for reasonable money. If you buy a Maybach / Eastwood which is not great, any perspective buyer is going to judge it without the brand name for reassurance, and unless the guitar is really good, it's going to be worth very little (I'm not saying this is fair, but I think its a reality).
Ultimately, these guitars have to be judged with an open mind by people who have played them. If they are truly great, then they will flourish, if not, they will go the way of the other brands Richard has been involved with.
I think there is a lot of sense in what you say, how many times do all of us comment on the latest BS marketing from the big name brands after Namm? With a few exceptions we ALL do it, likewise though it doesn't change that there is only one Gibson or Fender and when they are great, boy are they great -you are spot on there dude.
I do fear that Eastmans (particularly their top end guitars) are hugely overpriced, but as you say thinking about passing it on for the next purchase should never be a consideration, being inspired should be the focus (though I must confess I am starting to get wise to my attention span). If I am honest about this, I am as likely to 'serially flip' a saved for and lusted after historic lester as I would be a cheaper far eastern alternative - so we end full circle at the old comment of try everything before you buy and buy what is best for you.
Unfortunately however, I also agree with Neil Young that there are only so many songs in a guitar so one mines it for what you can and then move on... it's a never ending circle, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't! :-)