17" Peerless Monarch vs. Eastman Pisano 880. Thoughts?

**GregMath** · 06-01-2017, 03:20 PM

I am trying to decide between a 17" Peerless Monarch and an Eastman Pisano 880. I'd like a good value, but less expensive archtop that I don't have to worry about babying. I'll point out that the Eastman I'm looking at is $450 more expensive than the Peerless, so I obviously want to factor this in when deciding. I will be able to test out the Monarch in person because it is being sold locally, but I can't test the Pisano.

Here is what I am looking for in the guitar. I certainly want it to sound nice amplified, but I was envisioning this as a guitar that I can practice with acoustically as well. I am mainly concerned that it has a nice tone and is generally pleasing to listen to acoustically. It would be a bonus if it had decent volume acoustically.

I was first attracted to the Monarch because it has a solid wood top with a floating pickup. Therefore, I thought this would help with its acoustic qualities. However, I recently read that it has a soundpost inside that might hamper this. So this made me somewhat less eager about it. I've listened to many clips of it amplified and enjoyed the tone though. With the Pisano, I know it's also solid wood and has a built-in pickup. I've heard better things about this guitar acoustically, but I don't recall anyone comparing the acoustics of these two specific guitars.

I am curious if any of you have opinions about these two guitars: especially if you've played one or both of them before. Which would you choose and why (taking into account the $450 difference in price)? Thanks for the help.

**omphalopsychos** · 06-01-2017, 04:21 PM

You can practice with the Pisano unplugged, but it won't sound that great. I have one. It's a great electric guitar and has enough acoustic volume that you get a rich blend, but I don't play it without plugging in. Because of its shallow depth, the acoustic sound of the guitar is very bright. A 17" will be more rewarding for that purpose.

**lammie200** · 06-01-2017, 05:22 PM

Monarchs are nice, but they aren't really acoustic guitars in any sense. Besides the sound post, I think that the body woods are fairly thick and the construction is pretty rigid. There isn't slotted bracing to join the top and back to the sides as I recall. Great guitars but meant to be plugged in IMHO.

P.S. I had a Monarch and traded it for a Jazz City. The Jazz City is more like an acoustic, but it also has a sound post. I think that it is quite a bit smaller than the one that is in the Monarch though.

**skiboyny** · 06-02-2017, 08:01 AM

I've owned both. Thats a tough call. I think I'd choose Monarch. The only pause though is neck width. If your more comfortable with 1.75 gotta go with the eastman.

Originally Posted by GregMath

I am trying to decide between a 17" Peerless Monarch and an Eastman Pisano 880. I'd like a good value, but less expensive archtop that I don't have to worry about babying. I'll point out that the Eastman I'm looking at is $450 more expensive than the Peerless, so I obviously want to factor this in when deciding. I will be able to test out the Monarch in person because it is being sold locally, but I can't test the Pisano.

Here is what I am looking for in the guitar. I certainly want it to sound nice amplified, but I was envisioning this as a guitar that I can practice with acoustically as well. I am mainly concerned that it has a nice tone and is generally pleasing to listen to acoustically. It would be a bonus if it had decent volume acoustically.

I was first attracted to the Monarch because it has a solid wood top with a floating pickup. Therefore, I thought this would help with its acoustic qualities. However, I recently read that it has a soundpost inside that might hamper this. So this made me somewhat less eager about it. I've listened to many clips of it amplified and enjoyed the tone though. With the Pisano, I know it's also solid wood and has a built-in pickup. I've heard better things about this guitar acoustically, but I don't recall anyone comparing the acoustics of these two specific guitars.

I am curious if any of you have opinions about these two guitars: especially if you've played one or both of them before. Which would you choose and why (taking into account the $450 difference in price)? Thanks for the help.

**WilliamScott** · 06-02-2017, 09:34 AM

I have a Pisano 880 with a solid top and floating pickup. It is great both acoustic and amplified. I think they are fairly rare, though.

**Longways to Go** · 06-02-2017, 10:10 AM

If you are looking for a good Eastman with a great acoustic sound I can recommend the AR810ce. I got one a couple of weeks ago and I absolutely love it, both plugged in and unplugged. I'm guessing it's cheaper than the Pisano, too.

**SierraTango** · 06-02-2017, 10:20 AM

I own a '05 Pisano 880 that I bought new and have played a Monarch. The 880 was my main gigging instrument for several years, I used it on literally hundreds of gigs. She now is backup to my Benedetto Cremona.
Neither one of the guitars you are serious about is going to be much of a acoustic cannon, although I once strung the 880 with bronze acoustic strings for a recording session and it did a passable imitation of a acoustic archtop. That guitar flat out works best for my needs with D'Addario Chromes 12-52, while the Benedetto just loves TI's. If I want acoustic volume I grab my Dupont.
The 880 has one of the most comfortable necks I've ever played, and I've had many, many archtops. On a three hour gig you will love that aspect of the 880. I use the 880 over the Benedetto on Big Band gigs, as the 880 is less prone to feedback at higher volumes.
I would pay the extra $450 no question for the 880, I would also find a way to play both back to back before dropping the dime.

**skykomishone** · 06-02-2017, 04:02 PM

I've played them both, and prefer the Pisano. I agree with SierraTango regarding the neck. A dear friend of mine has a very special one that he got from a guy who knows a lot about them, and when I visit, I play it, and don't want to put it down. It's that awesome. The neck is very, very nice! In fact, I've tried to buy it from him, but he's not parting with it.

**lawson-stone** · 06-03-2017, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by lammie200

Monarchs are nice, but they aren't really acoustic guitars in any sense. Besides the sound post, I think that the body woods are fairly thick and the construction is pretty rigid. There isn't slotted bracing to join the top and back to the sides as I recall. Great guitars but meant to be plugged in IMHO.

P.S. I had a Monarch and traded it for a Jazz City. The Jazz City is more like an acoustic, but it also has a sound post. I think that it is quite a bit smaller than the one that is in the Monarch though.

Your comments about the Monarch's construction are just flat wrong. Yes it has a sound post, but as the picture attached here, which is of the innards of my Peerless Monarch, you can see it has entirely traditional archtop construction, with kerfed lining for both the top and the back and non-kerfed parallel bracing.

Given how much effort and money go into purchasing these guitars, it's important that we make accurate claims about how they are made.

17" Peerless Monarch vs. Eastman Pisano 880. Thoughts?-img_6845-jpg

17" Peerless Monarch vs. Eastman Pisano 880. Thoughts?-img_6845-jpg

**lammie200** · 06-04-2017, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by lawson-stone

Your comments about the Monarch's construction are just flat wrong. Yes it has a sound post, but as the picture attached here, which is of the innards of my Peerless Monarch, you can see it has entirely traditional archtop construction, with kerfed lining for both the top and the back and non-kerfed parallel bracing.

Given how much effort and money go into purchasing these guitars, it's important that we make accurate claims about how they are made.

17" Peerless Monarch vs. Eastman Pisano 880. Thoughts?-img_6845-jpg

Calm down dude. I had a 16" version, but I could be mistaken.

**GregMath** · 06-04-2017, 02:38 AM

So I tested the Peerless Monarch yesterday and the gentleman I purchased it from is giving me a 3-day trial with it. It's very attractive (it's a blonde one with wood upgrades, or so the seller said). I am very much enjoying it so far. The only strange thing I've noticed is that this Monarch definitely doesn't appear to have a sound post, and I can't see any evidence that it was previously there and removed. Hmm. I'm not sure if I should be worried by this, or happy that the acoustic sound is probably better since it's gone. Feedback doesn't seem to be a big issue and there's no top sinking. What do you guys think?

Here's a link to some pictures:

PictureTrail: Online Photo Sharing, Social Network, Image Hosting, Online Photo Albums

**lawson-stone** · 06-04-2017, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by lammie200

Calm down dude. I had a 16" version, but I could be mistaken.

Hey you're right. I was too sharp in that last line. My apologies!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

**skiboyny** · 06-04-2017, 08:18 AM

You shouldn't be worried. That guitar looks to be one I owned. It was said (by the selling dealer) that some were shipped thru without sound posts. It was sent to me because of it's acoustic properties. Hand picked for it's voice. It's a great example I think.

Originally Posted by GregMath

So I tested the Peerless Monarch yesterday and the gentleman I purchased it from is giving me a 3-day trial with it. It's very attractive (it's a blonde one with wood upgrades, or so the seller said). I am very much enjoying it so far. The only strange thing I've noticed is that this Monarch definitely doesn't appear to have a sound post, and I can't see any evidence that it was previously there and removed. Hmm. I'm not sure if I should be worried by this, or happy that the acoustic sound is probably better since it's gone. Feedback doesn't seem to be a big issue and there's no top sinking. What do you guys think?

Here's a link to some pictures:

PictureTrail: Online Photo Sharing, Social Network, Image Hosting, Online Photo Albums

**lammie200** · 06-04-2017, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by lawson-stone

Hey you're right. I was too sharp in that last line. My apologies!
...

No problem. I could be mistaken and it would be nice if someone that had the 16" could chime in to tell us about the construction. As far as the sound post goes, I think that one of the USA vendors writes about it on their website. They say that it can be removed and that they would either do it on request, or instruct one on how to do it. The 16" that I had was pretty stout. It may have been able to survive without the post - I don't know for sure though.

**JMoto** · 06-04-2017, 03:33 PM

I have the opposite issue, my local store has the Pisano but no Monarch's around. I really wanted to like the Pisano but ended up getting a 175 after it was so disappointing. It's entirely possible that this was just a clunker but it sounded quite dead, I did not love the plugged in sound and the unplugged sound was not for me at all as I practice that way at night to not wake up my kid. Side note, it had a big scrape down the front of it that they said was just normal wear and tear. Further online research shows that these might have a delicate finish. Again, it was just enough issues I wasn't comfortable with to put me off of them. I'm glad you got to try the Monarch, I vote that one of the two!

**rio** · 06-04-2017, 09:37 PM

I have a 2005 805ce and it is an extremely comfortable guitar to play. I have played a few Pisanos too and they are great guitars. A student of mine has a Pisano and it had me seriously considering getting one but I ultimately chose something else.

It is definitely loud enough to play acoustically for practice but it is not the kind of tone you would want to mic or anything. It is loud enough but thin sounding, which isn't a surprise considering the depth and size of the body. I have not played a 680 and I am curious if the mahogany back and sides would help with that. I read something here years back from an Eastman rep saying that he preferred the 680 and so did John. My 805ce, however, has a phenomenal acoustic sound so it is not just the 16" part holding back the 880 and I would consider an 805 or 810 depending on the size you want. There is a very affordably priced 810ce for sale here with a hand wound Kent Armstrong pickup on it (which suits these guitars very well - it is what I have on my 805ce as well and it sounded better then any other pickup I tried on the guitar and that included a late 90's Benedetto floater).

The finish is thin but you just have to work about dings, not normal playing wear. I have not particularly babied my 805ce and it has not had any finish problems. This includes lots of my right arm rubbing against the lower bout while playing and sweating on it (I sweat a lot when I am playing for some reason). Some of the earlier ones had more finish problems which is why it has the reputation to have finish issues but mine is very early and has not shown any problems.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro