Eastman SB59 issues, advice appreciated!

mikeyrob73

The Power of Fretboard 

Musicman20

I am glad forums and the internet exist when problems arise. Before all of this, people might have been stuck with arguing with a manufacturer or store...

Great to see Eastman have been in touch. Fair play on Richard for refunding you early.

It should never have got personal...I don't understand why it got to that level. I'm just glad the OP got the support from the forum and the mods handled it very well. 

If I was Eastman, I would be having a meeting with the retailer about how they want their brand portrayed.  I would also be offering the OP a hand picked Eastman at a significant discount direct to him....that kind of customer service only costs the manufacturer the profit from the guitar and it causes waves of good customer service vibes!

mbe

Let's be honest here, Eastman's excuse for the major defect was poorly executed. 

Collings

mbe said:

Let's be honest here, Eastman's excuse for the major defect was poorly executed. 

Playing devils advocate maybe Eastman don't consider it a defect as even though the bridge is low/at the bottom of its adjustment as long as the action meets their specification they may consider it fit for purpose. Maybe they just have wide tolerances on their neck angles?

mbe

Collings said:

mbe said:

Let's be honest here, Eastman's excuse for the major defect was poorly executed. 

Playing devils advocate maybe Eastman don't consider it a defect as even though the bridge is low/at the bottom of its adjustment as long as the action meets their specification they may consider it fit for purpose. Maybe they just have wide tolerances on their neck angles?

Then there's precious little scope left for subsequent fret dressings maintaining a lower playing action. 

skunkwerx

mbe said:

Collings said:

mbe said:

Let's be honest here, Eastman's excuse for the major defect was poorly executed. 

Playing devils advocate maybe Eastman don't consider it a defect as even though the bridge is low/at the bottom of its adjustment as long as the action meets their specification they may consider it fit for purpose. Maybe they just have wide tolerances on their neck angles?

Then there's precious little scope left for subsequent fret dressings maintaining a lower playing action. 

I don't know how much these guitars are, but I agree. Even on very cheap guitars, there has to be room for adjustment and wear.. I mean string gauge's change things, wood moves etc.

But mainly, every player has different set up requirements. 

Having a neck angle so bad it requires a component to be at max setting with no more room for travel though... 

If you're correct (you could be, who really knows!), then boy.. those tolerances arent really up to spec.

I'm sure I've seen Gibsons have something similar? Like bridges or tailpieces at silly settings to compensate for a bad neck angle.. 

soma1975

So should I get an Eastman 386 or not?

Fifty9

Fair play to Richard

Musicman20

skunkwerx said:

mbe said:

Collings said:

mbe said:

Let's be honest here, Eastman's excuse for the major defect was poorly executed. 

Playing devils advocate maybe Eastman don't consider it a defect as even though the bridge is low/at the bottom of its adjustment as long as the action meets their specification they may consider it fit for purpose. Maybe they just have wide tolerances on their neck angles?

Then there's precious little scope left for subsequent fret dressings maintaining a lower playing action. 

I'm sure I've seen Gibsons have something similar? Like bridges or tailpieces at silly settings to compensate for a bad neck angle.. 

I think I have as well....very rare...but yes...

boogieman

Fifty9 said:

Fair play to Richard

For doing the refund early? Absolutely. I’m not quite so sure that insulting his customers deserves a pat on the back. Obviously I haven’t seen the whole email trail but from what’s been shown in this thread it sounds poor business practice. 

steveledzep

The man has been embarrassed into coughing up.  Atrocious customer service.  Wouldn't buy from him.

gregm

Musicman20 said:

skunkwerx said:

mbe said:

Collings said:

mbe said:

Let's be honest here, Eastman's excuse for the major defect was poorly executed. 

Playing devils advocate maybe Eastman don't consider it a defect as even though the bridge is low/at the bottom of its adjustment as long as the action meets their specification they may consider it fit for purpose. Maybe they just have wide tolerances on their neck angles?

Then there's precious little scope left for subsequent fret dressings maintaining a lower playing action. 

I'm sure I've seen Gibsons have something similar? Like bridges or tailpieces at silly settings to compensate for a bad neck angle.. 

I think I have as well....very rare...but yes...

I paid just over €1800 for this guitar to put it into perspective, I had a tech take a look at it to do a third party report that I had arranged anyway and would have had to pay for it, so arranged it today to be completed before it gets collected tomorrow. I will have it in writing tomorrow with the technical jargon, but essentially what he said is that there was only 0.75mm left on the high E side of the bridge for adjustment before the wheel hits the face of the guitar. The high E at the 12th fret was 1.4mm and the Low E was 1.34mm, I wasn't comfortable lowering the High E side any further hence why it was higher than the low E. There is a little more play on the bridge on the High E side and the neck he said was as straight as it could be, so adjusting it would only end up with a back bow and make the guitar unplayable. In comparison I have my Maybach aged 59 set at 1.34mm on low E and 1.1mm on high E and my Gibson Traditional also set at this exact same height. Both play beautifully without any buzz at this level, I have arthritis so the lower the action the better. I have an epiphone joe perry set even lower than this and still plays amazing.

The guitar did sound better than I had even expected plugged in and very bright unplugged and the wood looked very high quality, just bad luck, lost money on it, ended up without the guitar I wanted and that is it I suppose!

skunkwerx

gregm said:

Musicman20 said:

skunkwerx said:

mbe said:

Collings said:

mbe said:

Let's be honest here, Eastman's excuse for the major defect was poorly executed. 

Playing devils advocate maybe Eastman don't consider it a defect as even though the bridge is low/at the bottom of its adjustment as long as the action meets their specification they may consider it fit for purpose. Maybe they just have wide tolerances on their neck angles?

Then there's precious little scope left for subsequent fret dressings maintaining a lower playing action. 

I'm sure I've seen Gibsons have something similar? Like bridges or tailpieces at silly settings to compensate for a bad neck angle.. 

I think I have as well....very rare...but yes...

I paid just over €1800 for this guitar to put it into perspective, I had a tech take a look at it to do a third party report that I had arranged anyway and would have had to pay for it, so arranged it today to be completed before it gets collected tomorrow. I will have it in writing tomorrow with the technical jargon, but essentially what he said is that there was only 0.75mm left on the high E side of the bridge for adjustment before the wheel hits the face of the guitar. The high E at the 12th fret was 1.4mm and the Low E was 1.34mm, I wasn't comfortable lowering the High E side any further hence why it was higher than the low E. There is a little more play on the bridge on the High E side and the neck he said was as straight as it could be, so adjusting it would only end up with a back bow and make the guitar unplayable. In comparison I have my Maybach aged 59 set at 1.34mm on low E and 1.1mm on high E and my Gibson Traditional also set at this exact same height. Both play beautifully without any buzz at this level, I have arthritis so the lower the action the better. I have an epiphone joe perry set even lower than this and still plays amazing.

The guitar did sound better than I had even expected plugged in and very bright unplugged and the wood looked very high quality, just bad luck, lost money on it, ended up without the guitar I wanted and that is it I suppose!

So thats about £1500 here.. 

Thats a hell of a lot of cash. I wouldnt be happy and would have sent it back if it was a guitar at £300, but 1.5 grand on ANY brand/guitar and it really shouldnt be having build issues like this, let alone pass any form of factory QC THEN a shops own set up and inspection.. 

Cols

@gregm - given that the head shed of Eastman has been in touch and smoothed things over (and the guitar sounded good), would you consider going back to them for a replacement? I’m sure they’d take pains to make sure it was absolutely perfect, given all that’s transpired.

guitarmanessex89

I have one. A good setup and set of Suhr Thornbuckers have made it an absolutely killer guitar. I'm not defending the above, but the tech who worked on mine was stunned at the quality of wood - he was reeling the species or mahogany.
As a package they're amazing for the money. A little tweak and it betters my old R8.

I get your points, but I'd rather have the better plank of wood and spend a little time fine tuning it.

Teyeplayer

guitarmanessex89 said:

I have one. A good setup and set of Suhr Thornbuckers have made it an absolutely killer guitar. I'm not defending the above, but the tech who worked on mine was stunned at the quality of wood - he was reeling the species or mahogany.
As a package they're amazing for the money. A little tweak and it betters my old R8.

I get your points, but I'd rather have the better plank of wood and spend a little time fine tuning it.

This is exactly where I’ve found myself too. Don’t be put off by this one, a good Eastman really is a great guitar. 

gregm

Cols said:

@gregm - given that the head shed of Eastman has been in touch and smoothed things over (and the guitar sounded good), would you consider going back to them for a replacement? I’m sure they’d take pains to make sure it was absolutely perfect, given all that’s transpired.

He has offered to send photos of what is available, I've never played an R8 or R9 but the sound quality on the Eastman was superior to my Gibsons and as I said above the wood used is visibly very high quality. But it is a lot of money and I have other guitars I would consider equal or better in some ways. The one piece body and the ebony fret-board are hard to get at that price though but there are no shops in Ireland that stock the LP version.

I am just glad it is over for now or hope it is anyway, a huge amount of time and money wasted over this, I don't know to be honest. If I hadn't had the issues I would have played it more but for the little time I did it seemed like a keeper alright. The next one might have a nice flame and sound very different, it is the big issue of buying online!

brucegill

Am i the only one thinking that’s a seriously low action requirement? Or is that normal for most of you? Honest question. Not a dig. 

Fair play to richard for the refund prior to delivery. He did bring that on himself though after the not very professional response. 

I have to to say I will never worry or stress about not having a Fender or Gibson logo on my headstock anymore. Shit does happen. It’s all been sorted. Everyone should be happy. We are a propped fussy lot when you look at it, let’s be honest. We want the best at half the price and setup to be perfect etc etc. I would hate to be a retailer in this day and age. 

Hope you end end up with something you love! If it helps, the last 4 guitars I’ve found that I really want are in Irlend, and I’m in Essex lol. 

GoldenEraGuitars

@brucegill if you reread @gregm ‘s post that stated the action height you’ll note that he says he has arthritis. 

richardhomer

brucegill said:

Am i the only one thinking that’s a seriously low action requirement? Or is that normal for most of you? Honest question. Not a dig. 

It is - and probably about as low as any guitar will take, assuming it’s not only destined to be used for legato/high gain styles.

PRS guitars typically allow very little adjustment below factory action specs - but there is ‘enough’ scope to go a little lower if you really want to. Presumably they are confident enough about the stability of their guitars that engineering them to such tight tolerances doesn’t cause problems.