gibson L12 and the more rare L10 are my favorite guitar,i'm a luthier and i think that your L12 is not a 1935 but a 1937 because of the flat plate tailpiece with cutouts who start in 1936 on the L10 and was add to the L12 and L7 in 1937 but was stop for most in 1939 when the L10 was discontinued.some have it untill 1941 but not after it.
@loupsnoir57 - It's hard to piece together Gibson archtops from this era according to their components alone. My L-12 has a serial number 927xx. The last serial in 1935 was supposedly 92800. 1937 would be 94101-95200.
You get a supremely clear sound out of your thumb. It's almost uncanny. You somehow get all the clarity of a pick and all the warmth and juicy goodness of flesh. I love it! Any tips?
@HendrixcommaMartin - Wow, thanks. Playing Flamenco on a traditional guitar meant for that music really helped. I focused on it for a year before I realized it was such a profound music that I would practically have to live another life to get really good at it. However, what I learned helped me with all the other styles I play as well. "Pulgar" is thumb technique and it's very important. I grow the nails on my right hand just beyond the fingertip.
I would never imagine myself saying this in a million years but I have to admit that the 2008 Eastman model sounded much better and more lush to my ears whereas the 1932 Gibson is a bit treblier sounding :O
@Ningirsutyr - You can't tell very much from a YouTube video, but also, it's important to remain unbiased. The Eastman is from their 900 series, which are crafted with their best materials and care. It is no cheap Asian guitar by any stretch. If you handled these two in person, you'd see that both are excellent, detailed, and beautiful sounding - but with different strengths and qualities. They are both "good" guitars, regardless of their different heritages.
Nice technique. Nothing beats the sound of the naked thumb-style accompanied by complementary finger pickin' or plucking. There is absolutely no way to fake that sound. Combine that technique with a good acoustic guitar and you are in sound heaven.
The Gibson sounded richer to my ears (as in restrained but more richer) vs the more open sound of the Eastman.
Thanks for the quick reply rp, I would put bronze strings on my Eastman, but it's a through body humbucker model (I did a post-production modification and switched in a non-floating Shadow pickup. I like it more because it rounds out the edge that the Benedetto's produced. Sounds closer to the acoustic timbre as well). I really have to agree about the even-ness of the Eastman, if you experiment with pick placement and attack you'll agree as well.
have you every strung any of your Eastman's with bronze wounds? I'd love to hear a non-cutaway Eastman strung with 13 bronzewounds rounds. That would be heavenly
@rpguitar have you noticed if the cut-away affects the acoustic projection at all. I would think that the cut-away interrupts the air flow in the body cavity and would thus negatively affect timbre and projection. The old Strombergs were all traditional 'spanish body' guitars with both shoulders in tact and they were loud as all hell. If I had the money, I'd surpass the Gibsons and get a real classic like a Stromberg. There's a reason why Green and Galbraith love those beauties. Great video, btw
@rpguitar have you noticed if the cut-away affects the acoustic projection at all. I would think that the cut-away interrupts the air flow in the body cavity and would thus negatively affect timbre and projection. The old Strombergs were all traditional 'spanish body' guitars with both shoulders in tact and they were loud as all hell. If I had the money, I'd surpass the Gibsons and get a real classic like a Stromberg. There's a reason why Green and Galbraith love those beauties. Great video
@pickinstone have you noticed if the cut-away affects the acoustic projection at all. I would think that the cut-away interrupts the air flow in the body cavity and would thus negatively affect timbre and projection. The old Strombergs were all traditional 'spanish body' guitars with both shoulders in tact and they were loud as all hell. If I had the money, I'd surpass the Gibsons and get a real classic like a Stromberg. There's a reason why Green and Galbraith love those beauties.
@Getgoingism - Hi Ruedi, I bought mine at archtop.com. They do show up on Ebay sometimes. Mine was a little special because of the tailpiece and being an X-braced model. Cheers - Roger
I actually think the eastman had a more singing tone and he appeared to play the eastman more easily then the gibson. I wouldn't say its an unfair match up.
You can't compare the sound of a center-hole acoustic and an f-hole acoustic with any purpose other than to enjoy them both and hear the EXPECTED DIFFERENCES. Strings, woods, whatever will be second in importance to the hole issue. Be careful about any comparison implications with this in mind.
I love my Eastman Jumbo Archtop AJ617 for its warmth, particularly for songwriting and performing. I love to play songs on it. Acoustic Gibsons are wonderful guitars - but they make me want to play jazz. I think lauriedepaurie was right, some of it has to do with if you are looking to find a vintage sound or a "new" crisp sound, the style of music and the cost.
The reason old archtops sound better, is because they are old...!!! Of course you can't compare them in terms of construction, tone, volume and above all price, but it does say something that this guy has both guitars...
@lauriedepaurie - I don't agree that old ALWAYS equals better as a rule. Old guitars often suffer in playability compared to newer instruments. This Eastman is far more comfortable to play than the L-12. I do think it's fair to compare these different instruments, because the market is chock full of both vintage and new options. Also, newer archtops are often built to replicate the designs of old - so how are they doing? Yes, it's a joy to own one (or more!) of each.
@rpguitar agreed, said it wrong. Good wood often gets better with age. Played some old archtops and I often liked them for their resonance, but they were harder to play. Is the L-12 set up higher than the eastman? A lot of old archtops are set up higher to make it louder, but it does make playing a lot harder. You're the master, I can't even play jazz properly :o)
@lauriedepaurie - This particular L-12 has a tightly radiused fingerboard; I'm betting it's close to a vintage Fender (which would be 7.25"). So to get the action reasonably low it really needs 13's. I prefer the slightly slinkier feel of 12's. But you are right about the old wood - it is something special on a guitar like this. And I am hardly a master but thanks for the good vibes anyway!
@rpguitar nice to chat with someone else that appreciates hard carved Eastmans. Something must be said about the majority of new Gibson hollow bodies being laminated and factory pressed with thicker woods. I'm sorta sure that older Gibsons like that L-12 are hand carved (clarification would be nice) but ALL Eastmans are 100% hard carved and have a thinner top. That means that the top resonates more freely. Question, what type of mic are you using, rp? USB, or studio?
@splanky87 - Thanks to you also for the thoughtful comments. I am sure that the older Gibsons were hand carved. What other options did they have back in the 1930s and 40s?? I'm using a Shure KSM32 large diaphragm condenser on this video. I now use Beyerdynamic MC930 small diaphragm condensers on my acoustic recordings though.
@rpguitar The Beyerdynamic seems a little outta my league price wise, have you heard of the Blue Yeti? MY iMac has an internal mic which is pretty good, but all my acoustic recording sound a little weak and 'canned'. I'm always working on my tone and attack, so a good playback on my recordings would give me better feedback. Love that oval hole, by the way. I think Howard Alden had the best tone with his Gibson Howard Roberts oval hole, the highs really sing. Thanks for the responses.
@reindeertigerteam Well it's a good thing you're inspired by someone who actually plays jazz chords rather than the idiot who plays power chords on an his electric fender and calls himself a "guitarist"
IMO, That Eastman is way too bright and "choppy" for most traditional jazz, whereas that Eastman doesn't really have the volume or tone to cut through, say, gypsy jazz.
Both guitars sound great in their own rights, but the tonal characteristics are VERY different. The comparison seems a little futile to me.
All that said, I simply enjoyed listening to both guitars. You really dig in with your right hand; sounds great.
@duboyous10 - Simply listening is part of the fun. There are preciuos few videos showing acoustic archtops played without a pickup in the equation. I now own a 1940 L-5N as well. They are all different, but the Eastman more than stands up in that crowd. I agree that oval and f holes are different, but I think some people are considering them as apples and oranges, and I don't think that's accurate. They are both acoustic archtop guitars - two species in the same family.
@rpguitar FYI, I meant that to say the *Gibson* doesn't have the volume or tone to cut through gypsy jazz.
As to what you said about them being in the same family, I guess I can agree with that. It might be important to point out for those interested in PURCHASING a guitar that while these are both archtops, each bears distinct design elements that result in very different sounds. Thankfully, your playing highlights the tonal differences between them. Play on my man!
@duboyous10 - I find that oval holes do come closer to the typical flattop sonic signature and response than f holes. But they are a nifty breed, because they retain the punchy immediacy that their archtop construction affords. Anyway, listening is half the fun as we've said a couple of times now! And thanks for doing that.
@sclogse1 - Yes, on both. They are acoustic guitars after all, and in this video they're being played with no amplification (I've since taken the pickguard/pickup off the Eastman actually).
@kyzrvlhlm1995 i guess... i still think my comparison makes perfect sense, i have played Eastman guitars and they aren't bad, i owned one of their nicer archtops for a little while actually but where does someone get off comparing a vintage Gibson to a Chinese made guitar, even if it is of decent quality? lol the eastman is blown out of the water by the gibson, PERIOD lol
archtop guitars are so great! Ive been searching for that mellow creamy tone and I was focusing on the amps, but wow these Eastman archtops are tossing everything I thought and sound amazing acoustic as well. A Jim Fisch series is my goal to buy - aesthetically anyways, havent heard it
@meinldrummerocdp - I did own a wonderful AR-604 (oval hole acoustic, no pickup). I should not have sold it. You can't really go wrong with the 6 series.
Ironically, the Eastman plugs in and sounds great for jazz, whereby the Gibson clearly does not plug in. :) I do love the aesthetics of the 1930's Gibsons. The pickguard on my guitar is original and looks nearly perfect, very rare to find one that hasn't fallen apart.
What really surprises me is the striking tone similarity between these two guitars. I may agree with you slightly, but the differences are, in my opinion, too small to be worth the Gibson price :)
I think the F holes and non cutaway body are what really make the guitar sound different from the Eastman. Archtops, by design, sound better (i.e., more archtop like) with F holes rather than round holes.
@dtrailen - Ha, thats what I thought I heard too. Rpguitar is probably just showcasing the open chords lower on the neck and the melody with that d-chord just happened to sound similar. But I did start tapping my foot and singing... :)
@dtrailen - Chuck Berry invented rock & roll on an archtop and Ted Nugent has being rocking out for decades on a Gibson Byrdland... whilst, unfortunately, wearing a loincloth.
I'm not sure what your point is. The Eastman's an oval-hole, the Gibson's an f-hole. Of course they're going to sound different---they're designed to.
Well, of course they are designed to sound somewhat different, but they ARE built for the same basic purpose, and it's fun to compare stuff. So... that's my point. Sorry it eluded you.
Oval hole archtops sound completely different from f hole archtops. You find that f hole guitars and oval hole guitars are not built for the same purpose if you know the history of archtop guitars or its mechanism.
I've owned a three oval holes and several f-holes, and I'm educated on the history of archtop guitars. The differences are not so dramatic where they can be called "not for the same purpose." It is truly splitting hairs.
@rpguitar You are correct on that account. I just sold my Gibson and bought an Eastman. I am completely convinced that they are on top of the (manufactured) guitar world especially the arch tops. I have owned several Gibby arches over the years and was blown away when my local tech handed me an Eastman. I bought a non logo 804ce from a dealer in CO. As for the cost go on Ebay and check the price. They have more than doubled in 4 years. My next guitar will be an Eastman Oval arch top.
@Kilgore40 - It really isn't a fair comparison because the tonal characteristics of a solid wood acoustic or semi-acoustic guitar, arch-top or otherwise, mellow with age. And, that L-12 he's playing is 75 freaking years old.
I think they're nice - I played a laminated model. I'm sure that 700 is sweet. The humble Godin 5th Avenue, though, at under $500 (!!) is a very appealing little guitar, and it's made in Canada.
yeah it's nice I played it today, the body is just too little. The LH700 is what I'm going to get however I am waiting until a version with block inlays comes out. I'm not paying a grand and then some for a new guitar to look like an economic model ahha, you know what I mean man?
The Eastman projects more, b/o the sound hole i would think. I love the sound of both these guitars but the Eastman edges out the Gibson in this application.
I'd go for the Gibson because it sounds like it resonates the sound better. But I don't like the intermittent bass E string that buzzes from time to time. Maybe that's just the action, I don't really know.
Yes, that's my fault. The guitar has an oddly extreme radius, like an old Fender (7.5" or whatever). I find set-up to be a little challenging as a result. Plus I was a little heavy-handed there I guess.
So hard to answer. Basically yes, but with caveats. The 74 year old Gibson has so much more mojo. The Eastman is more comfortable to play and a bit sweeter sounding, which suits my style.
I like the ?
HARLANGENEPARROTT 3 months ago
gibson L12 and the more rare L10 are my favorite guitar,i'm a luthier and i think that your L12 is not a 1935 but a 1937 because of the flat plate tailpiece with cutouts who start in 1936 on the L10 and was add to the L12 and L7 in 1937 but was stop for most in 1939 when the L10 was discontinued.some have it untill 1941 but not after it.
loupsnoir57 5 months ago
@loupsnoir57 - It's hard to piece together Gibson archtops from this era according to their components alone. My L-12 has a serial number 927xx. The last serial in 1935 was supposedly 92800. 1937 would be 94101-95200.
rpguitar 5 months ago
both of those guitars sound fantastic
MaximusDowns 7 months ago
You get a supremely clear sound out of your thumb. It's almost uncanny. You somehow get all the clarity of a pick and all the warmth and juicy goodness of flesh. I love it! Any tips?
HendrixcommaMartin 8 months ago
@HendrixcommaMartin - Wow, thanks. Playing Flamenco on a traditional guitar meant for that music really helped. I focused on it for a year before I realized it was such a profound music that I would practically have to live another life to get really good at it. However, what I learned helped me with all the other styles I play as well. "Pulgar" is thumb technique and it's very important. I grow the nails on my right hand just beyond the fingertip.
rpguitar 8 months ago
The old Gibson sound much better to me. No fret buzz like the eastman. A much more solid tone.
lee95757 9 months ago
I would never imagine myself saying this in a million years but I have to admit that the 2008 Eastman model sounded much better and more lush to my ears whereas the 1932 Gibson is a bit treblier sounding :O
Ningirsutyr 10 months ago
@Ningirsutyr - You can't tell very much from a YouTube video, but also, it's important to remain unbiased. The Eastman is from their 900 series, which are crafted with their best materials and care. It is no cheap Asian guitar by any stretch. If you handled these two in person, you'd see that both are excellent, detailed, and beautiful sounding - but with different strengths and qualities. They are both "good" guitars, regardless of their different heritages.
rpguitar 10 months ago
Nice technique. Nothing beats the sound of the naked thumb-style accompanied by complementary finger pickin' or plucking. There is absolutely no way to fake that sound. Combine that technique with a good acoustic guitar and you are in sound heaven.
The Gibson sounded richer to my ears (as in restrained but more richer) vs the more open sound of the Eastman.
I'm GangsterCorleone
gangstercorleone 11 months ago
Thanks for the quick reply rp, I would put bronze strings on my Eastman, but it's a through body humbucker model (I did a post-production modification and switched in a non-floating Shadow pickup. I like it more because it rounds out the edge that the Benedetto's produced. Sounds closer to the acoustic timbre as well). I really have to agree about the even-ness of the Eastman, if you experiment with pick placement and attack you'll agree as well.
pickinstone 11 months ago
have you every strung any of your Eastman's with bronze wounds? I'd love to hear a non-cutaway Eastman strung with 13 bronzewounds rounds. That would be heavenly
pickinstone 11 months ago
@pickinstone - You are hearing it with bronze strings. I put PB's on all of my acoustic archtops.
rpguitar 11 months ago
@rpguitar have you noticed if the cut-away affects the acoustic projection at all. I would think that the cut-away interrupts the air flow in the body cavity and would thus negatively affect timbre and projection. The old Strombergs were all traditional 'spanish body' guitars with both shoulders in tact and they were loud as all hell. If I had the money, I'd surpass the Gibsons and get a real classic like a Stromberg. There's a reason why Green and Galbraith love those beauties. Great video, btw
pickinstone 11 months ago
@rpguitar have you noticed if the cut-away affects the acoustic projection at all. I would think that the cut-away interrupts the air flow in the body cavity and would thus negatively affect timbre and projection. The old Strombergs were all traditional 'spanish body' guitars with both shoulders in tact and they were loud as all hell. If I had the money, I'd surpass the Gibsons and get a real classic like a Stromberg. There's a reason why Green and Galbraith love those beauties. Great video
pickinstone 11 months ago
@pickinstone have you noticed if the cut-away affects the acoustic projection at all. I would think that the cut-away interrupts the air flow in the body cavity and would thus negatively affect timbre and projection. The old Strombergs were all traditional 'spanish body' guitars with both shoulders in tact and they were loud as all hell. If I had the money, I'd surpass the Gibsons and get a real classic like a Stromberg. There's a reason why Green and Galbraith love those beauties.
pickinstone 11 months ago
I would have to give a slight edge to the Gibson, but both sound great.
609guitarbill 11 months ago
Hey Roger, Where do I find such a beautiful L-12.Greeting from Switzerland,
.Ruedi Bleuer banjo-bleuer@bluewin.ch
Getgoingism 1 year ago
@Getgoingism - Hi Ruedi, I bought mine at archtop.com. They do show up on Ebay sometimes. Mine was a little special because of the tailpiece and being an X-braced model. Cheers - Roger
rpguitar 1 year ago
How about those bongos? How do they compare to the Gibson and the Eastman! :)
invisaman75 1 year ago
I actually think the eastman had a more singing tone and he appeared to play the eastman more easily then the gibson. I wouldn't say its an unfair match up.
MSteinMusic 1 year ago
You can't compare the sound of a center-hole acoustic and an f-hole acoustic with any purpose other than to enjoy them both and hear the EXPECTED DIFFERENCES. Strings, woods, whatever will be second in importance to the hole issue. Be careful about any comparison implications with this in mind.
SeerTrulth 1 year ago
I love my Eastman Jumbo Archtop AJ617 for its warmth, particularly for songwriting and performing. I love to play songs on it. Acoustic Gibsons are wonderful guitars - but they make me want to play jazz. I think lauriedepaurie was right, some of it has to do with if you are looking to find a vintage sound or a "new" crisp sound, the style of music and the cost.
ehendin 1 year ago
my vote is on the gibson
William102582 1 year ago
The reason old archtops sound better, is because they are old...!!! Of course you can't compare them in terms of construction, tone, volume and above all price, but it does say something that this guy has both guitars...
lauriedepaurie 1 year ago
@lauriedepaurie - I don't agree that old ALWAYS equals better as a rule. Old guitars often suffer in playability compared to newer instruments. This Eastman is far more comfortable to play than the L-12. I do think it's fair to compare these different instruments, because the market is chock full of both vintage and new options. Also, newer archtops are often built to replicate the designs of old - so how are they doing? Yes, it's a joy to own one (or more!) of each.
rpguitar 1 year ago
@rpguitar agreed, said it wrong. Good wood often gets better with age. Played some old archtops and I often liked them for their resonance, but they were harder to play. Is the L-12 set up higher than the eastman? A lot of old archtops are set up higher to make it louder, but it does make playing a lot harder. You're the master, I can't even play jazz properly :o)
lauriedepaurie 1 year ago
@lauriedepaurie - This particular L-12 has a tightly radiused fingerboard; I'm betting it's close to a vintage Fender (which would be 7.25"). So to get the action reasonably low it really needs 13's. I prefer the slightly slinkier feel of 12's. But you are right about the old wood - it is something special on a guitar like this. And I am hardly a master but thanks for the good vibes anyway!
rpguitar 1 year ago
@rpguitar nice to chat with someone else that appreciates hard carved Eastmans. Something must be said about the majority of new Gibson hollow bodies being laminated and factory pressed with thicker woods. I'm sorta sure that older Gibsons like that L-12 are hand carved (clarification would be nice) but ALL Eastmans are 100% hard carved and have a thinner top. That means that the top resonates more freely. Question, what type of mic are you using, rp? USB, or studio?
splanky87 1 year ago
@splanky87 - Thanks to you also for the thoughtful comments. I am sure that the older Gibsons were hand carved. What other options did they have back in the 1930s and 40s?? I'm using a Shure KSM32 large diaphragm condenser on this video. I now use Beyerdynamic MC930 small diaphragm condensers on my acoustic recordings though.
rpguitar 1 year ago
@rpguitar The Beyerdynamic seems a little outta my league price wise, have you heard of the Blue Yeti? MY iMac has an internal mic which is pretty good, but all my acoustic recording sound a little weak and 'canned'. I'm always working on my tone and attack, so a good playback on my recordings would give me better feedback. Love that oval hole, by the way. I think Howard Alden had the best tone with his Gibson Howard Roberts oval hole, the highs really sing. Thanks for the responses.
--A
splanky87 1 year ago
To my ears the Gibson is much more mellow and sweeter.
ColinPRS 1 year ago
Your videos have inspired me to learn how to play the guitar.
reindeertigerteam 1 year ago
@reindeertigerteam - I'm humbled by that. I wish you luck and lots of fun!
rpguitar 1 year ago
@reindeertigerteam Well it's a good thing you're inspired by someone who actually plays jazz chords rather than the idiot who plays power chords on an his electric fender and calls himself a "guitarist"
HARDROCKR4U 1 year ago
Why compare an oval-hole to an f-hole?
IMO, That Eastman is way too bright and "choppy" for most traditional jazz, whereas that Eastman doesn't really have the volume or tone to cut through, say, gypsy jazz.
Both guitars sound great in their own rights, but the tonal characteristics are VERY different. The comparison seems a little futile to me.
All that said, I simply enjoyed listening to both guitars. You really dig in with your right hand; sounds great.
duboyous10 1 year ago
@duboyous10 - Simply listening is part of the fun. There are preciuos few videos showing acoustic archtops played without a pickup in the equation. I now own a 1940 L-5N as well. They are all different, but the Eastman more than stands up in that crowd. I agree that oval and f holes are different, but I think some people are considering them as apples and oranges, and I don't think that's accurate. They are both acoustic archtop guitars - two species in the same family.
rpguitar 1 year ago
@rpguitar FYI, I meant that to say the *Gibson* doesn't have the volume or tone to cut through gypsy jazz.
As to what you said about them being in the same family, I guess I can agree with that. It might be important to point out for those interested in PURCHASING a guitar that while these are both archtops, each bears distinct design elements that result in very different sounds. Thankfully, your playing highlights the tonal differences between them. Play on my man!
duboyous10 1 year ago
@duboyous10 - I find that oval holes do come closer to the typical flattop sonic signature and response than f holes. But they are a nifty breed, because they retain the punchy immediacy that their archtop construction affords. Anyway, listening is half the fun as we've said a couple of times now! And thanks for doing that.
rpguitar 1 year ago
The Eastman reminds Me of a "Howard Roberts" model. And I'm drooling over that L-12.
pveg65 1 year ago
Gotta ask, sounds like you're using round wounds on the eastman...
sclogse1 1 year ago
@sclogse1 - Yes, on both. They are acoustic guitars after all, and in this video they're being played with no amplification (I've since taken the pickguard/pickup off the Eastman actually).
rpguitar 1 year ago
haha how can you even compare these 2? thats like check out this mexican fender and here is a masterbuillt strat lol
DakotaPlaysGuitar 1 year ago
@DakotaPlaysGuitar - Um, NO, and that comment shows your ignorance.
rpguitar 1 year ago
@DakotaPlaysGuitar its to show the differences of a golden era guitar against a chinese made guitar of the now
am i right people!!!
kyzrvlhlm1995 1 year ago
@kyzrvlhlm1995 i guess... i still think my comparison makes perfect sense, i have played Eastman guitars and they aren't bad, i owned one of their nicer archtops for a little while actually but where does someone get off comparing a vintage Gibson to a Chinese made guitar, even if it is of decent quality? lol the eastman is blown out of the water by the gibson, PERIOD lol
DakotaPlaysGuitar 1 year ago
archtop guitars are so great! Ive been searching for that mellow creamy tone and I was focusing on the amps, but wow these Eastman archtops are tossing everything I thought and sound amazing acoustic as well. A Jim Fisch series is my goal to buy - aesthetically anyways, havent heard it
meinldrummerocdp 1 year ago
@meinldrummerocdp - I did own a wonderful AR-604 (oval hole acoustic, no pickup). I should not have sold it. You can't really go wrong with the 6 series.
rpguitar 1 year ago
absolutely BEAUTIFUL gibson, i have a 1947 Gibson L-48 thats in excellent condition
THESlvrmn 1 year ago
Comment removed
kingofskateop 1 year ago
Ironically, the Eastman plugs in and sounds great for jazz, whereby the Gibson clearly does not plug in. :) I do love the aesthetics of the 1930's Gibsons. The pickguard on my guitar is original and looks nearly perfect, very rare to find one that hasn't fallen apart.
rpguitar 1 year ago
Superb dem...thanks
englishdeltajazz 1 year ago 2
No - it's a traditional old Gibson archtop, with maple back and sides and a spruce top. The neck is mahogany however.
rpguitar 2 years ago
I liked this demo and comparison very much .... thanks !
While the Gibson - maybe because of age - does sound slightly fuller, it almost certainly costs a whole lot more than the Eastman
spilkblerp 2 years ago
this guy really would give us a more accurate judge if he didn't play finger style. but obviously the gibson is better.
GuitarCriti01 2 years ago
The L-12 sounds WAAAY better than the Eastman
EpiphoneArchtopLover 2 years ago
What really surprises me is the striking tone similarity between these two guitars. I may agree with you slightly, but the differences are, in my opinion, too small to be worth the Gibson price :)
brianraanes 2 years ago
I think the F holes and non cutaway body are what really make the guitar sound different from the Eastman. Archtops, by design, sound better (i.e., more archtop like) with F holes rather than round holes.
EpiphoneArchtopLover 2 years ago
@dtrailen - Ha, thats what I thought I heard too. Rpguitar is probably just showcasing the open chords lower on the neck and the melody with that d-chord just happened to sound similar. But I did start tapping my foot and singing... :)
pastorjoshbraun 2 years ago
whats the neck like on that eastman?
bebenavole 2 years ago
Did this guy actually play "My Woman from Tokyo" on an archtop?
dtrailen 2 years ago 7
Most definitely NOT.
rpguitar 2 years ago
@dtrailen - Chuck Berry invented rock & roll on an archtop and Ted Nugent has being rocking out for decades on a Gibson Byrdland... whilst, unfortunately, wearing a loincloth.
Hoopermazing 1 year ago
gibson wins , warmer sound.
haimcito 2 years ago
I the Eastman wins!
rhodesjazz 2 years ago
I love The Sound Of Ur Guitars!
SantaNaCss 2 years ago
I'm not sure what your point is. The Eastman's an oval-hole, the Gibson's an f-hole. Of course they're going to sound different---they're designed to.
zeppy13131 2 years ago
Well, of course they are designed to sound somewhat different, but they ARE built for the same basic purpose, and it's fun to compare stuff. So... that's my point. Sorry it eluded you.
rpguitar 2 years ago
Oval hole archtops sound completely different from f hole archtops. You find that f hole guitars and oval hole guitars are not built for the same purpose if you know the history of archtop guitars or its mechanism.
bullyflea 2 years ago
I've owned a three oval holes and several f-holes, and I'm educated on the history of archtop guitars. The differences are not so dramatic where they can be called "not for the same purpose." It is truly splitting hairs.
rpguitar 2 years ago
@rpguitar You are correct on that account. I just sold my Gibson and bought an Eastman. I am completely convinced that they are on top of the (manufactured) guitar world especially the arch tops. I have owned several Gibby arches over the years and was blown away when my local tech handed me an Eastman. I bought a non logo 804ce from a dealer in CO. As for the cost go on Ebay and check the price. They have more than doubled in 4 years. My next guitar will be an Eastman Oval arch top.
6stringdaveyM 1 year ago
The Gibson is definitely richer sounding. Warmer and a little more complex.
Kilgore40 2 years ago 2
@Kilgore40 - It really isn't a fair comparison because the tonal characteristics of a solid wood acoustic or semi-acoustic guitar, arch-top or otherwise, mellow with age. And, that L-12 he's playing is 75 freaking years old.
Hoopermazing 1 year ago
Hey have you seen the new Loar models? The LH 700 is an exact replica of a 20s L5... what do you think of them?
thecoolerkeg 2 years ago
I think they're nice - I played a laminated model. I'm sure that 700 is sweet. The humble Godin 5th Avenue, though, at under $500 (!!) is a very appealing little guitar, and it's made in Canada.
rpguitar 2 years ago
yeah it's nice I played it today, the body is just too little. The LH700 is what I'm going to get however I am waiting until a version with block inlays comes out. I'm not paying a grand and then some for a new guitar to look like an economic model ahha, you know what I mean man?
thecoolerkeg 2 years ago
The Eastman projects more, b/o the sound hole i would think. I love the sound of both these guitars but the Eastman edges out the Gibson in this application.
toddinjax 2 years ago
Good vid
SoundPlanner 2 years ago
Gibson, hands down
yakovest 2 years ago
my choice would be the Gibson it sounds richer !!!
namnoiz 2 years ago
I'd go for the Gibson because it sounds like it resonates the sound better. But I don't like the intermittent bass E string that buzzes from time to time. Maybe that's just the action, I don't really know.
sktzmn 2 years ago
Yes, that's my fault. The guitar has an oddly extreme radius, like an old Fender (7.5" or whatever). I find set-up to be a little challenging as a result. Plus I was a little heavy-handed there I guess.
rpguitar 2 years ago
gibson for me !
viniguitarjazz 2 years ago
I think your preference is the Eastman, right?
Or does it depend on the situation?
darvishjo 2 years ago
So hard to answer. Basically yes, but with caveats. The 74 year old Gibson has so much more mojo. The Eastman is more comfortable to play and a bit sweeter sounding, which suits my style.
rpguitar 2 years ago
Very coooooool makes me miss my D'Angelico (1943) already. How much did the Gibson cost you?......KEEPON STRUMMIN...DALLAS
Tototwice 2 years ago
About $4K even. It's a rare variant of a rare model.
rpguitar 2 years ago
the gibson sounds rounder.. the eastman is more straightly projected i feel..
aIIoutboy 2 years ago