Eastman is the new Martin

[hardycreek1]

I read that on a forum somewhere and it just rang true. 

For sure Martin lovers will yell kick and scream, but it works for me.

[TomC]

I agree that Eastman makes exceptional guitars and not just "for the price". That comment strikes me as both ambitious and ambiguous all in one short sentence. Maybe they will be when they have been making guitars for 191 years, but today ???? Without knowing the context, I would be reticent to agree with that statement.

For the record - I currently own two Eastmans (and previously many others) and no Martins.

[hallandboats]

I think that it's simply that they are known for handmade quality, and a bespoke look.

TBH I want a Martin really bad sometimes, but If I was high dollar I would definitely get a Larrivee or a Bourgeois, or a Thompson before a Martin 9 times out of 10!

[AlanSam]

I agree that Eastman makes exceptional guitars and not just "for the price". That comment strikes me as both ambitious and ambiguous all in one short sentence. Maybe they will be when they have been making guitars for 191 years, but today ???? Without knowing the context, I would be reticent to agree with that statement.

For the record - I currently own two Eastmans (and previously many others) and no Martins.

Tom - I agree that the Martin brand is iconic in large part because of its illustrious history, and owning one does confer a cerain kudos. Martin consistantly makes excellent guitars (I own three), and the best of them seem as good as any and better than most. However, I am not convinced that 191 years of history axiomatically translates into superiority. The only thing a younger company can't emulate is Martin's history.

[TomC]

I agree that Eastman makes exceptional guitars and not just "for the price". That comment strikes me as both ambitious and ambiguous all in one short sentence. Maybe they will be when they have been making guitars for 191 years, but today ???? Without knowing the context, I would be reticent to agree with that statement.

For the record - I currently own two Eastmans (and previously many others) and no Martins.

Tom - I agree that the Martin brand is iconic in large part because of its illustrious history, and owning one does confer a cerain kudos. Martin consistantly makes excellent guitars (I own three), and the best of them seem as good as any and better than most. However, I am not convinced that 191 years of history axiomatically translates into superiority. The only thing a younger company can't emulate is Martin's history. 

Completely agree with you Alan. But 191 years of business success means a lot of people were doing a lot of things right for a long time. The ownership of products produced by that brand bring a certain cachet. I think the statement that Eastman is the new Martin is too broad. Context would be nice.

[davenumber2]

If Martins, spec for spec, were the same price as Eastmans would you buy the Martin? I probably would. Eastmans are great but they don’t have the history of Martin. In the acoustic world, Martin is seen as the standard for good reason.

[RomanS]

I could easily afford a Martin, and also love their tone - why do I prefer my Eastman, then?

Well, it's because of the weird obsession of the Martin company to force baby-size necks on all their customers.
With Martin there is simply no choice in neck profiles (unless you want to pay $$$ for custom shop or Authentic series) - ALL of them have the cheesy super-thin "modified low oval" neck (even the "mod V" found on some higher end models is still pretty thin). No choice at all!

While I would wish that Eastman would offer each of their profiles on every single model, at least you can choose between thin profiles on the slope shoulder an AC models, regular/medium size on most dreadnoughts and OMs, and chunky necks on the parlors.

[sleigh]

Eastman is the new Martin? Nah. For one, Eastmans have their own sound (and it's a good one in my opinion) and don't sound at all like a Martin. They're also far more affordable. Given my income, especially now that I'm retired, I'd never pay the premium required to buy a Martin, or for that matter, an American-made Guild or a Lowden (both of which I'd love to own), a Bourgeois, a vintage Gibson, etc. I'm happy with the Eastmans I have.

[AlanSam]

I could easily afford a Martin, and also love their tone - why do I prefer my Eastman, then?

Well, it's because of the weird obsession of the Martin company to force baby-size necks on all their customers.
With Martin there is simply no choice in neck profiles (unless you want to pay $$$ for custom shop or Authentic series) - ALL of them have the cheesy super-thin "modified low oval" neck (even the "mod V" found on some higher end models is still pretty thin). No choice at all!

While I would wish that Eastman would offer each of their profiles on every single model, at least you can choose between thin profiles on the slope shoulder an AC models, regular/medium size on most dreadnoughts and OMs, and chunky necks on the parlors.

Roman - I'm all in favour of choice in guitar specs, within and across brands. One thing nobody seems to mention about Eastmans is their 12" radiussed neck profile which is found across all their models and is unique amongst large and medium volume guitar producers. I find this great for chording up the neck. But I can understand your frustration about a lack of neck choice within most guitar brands, including Martin's MLO. I have to confess I like the MLO neck - must be my baby-size hands fitting their cheesy super-thin "modified low oval" just fine LOL. On the subject of choice  it just struck me what a rough deal left handers have had over the years!

[tonyw]

It will be interesting to see how the Touchstone models do - they seem to be more on the level of the standard series Martins. Much as I love the Eastmans, there aren't any I would take over a D18/28 or OM28 (if someone else was paying).