Eastman 505 vs 505CC

[paulcw16]

So the more expensive CC has the contoured body edge but no binding on the neck which is usually a feature of a better instrument I thought. Please educate me. Thanks.

[randybrown]

No neck binding is probably an aesthetics decision due to having no binding on the body.

[paulcw16]

No neck binding is probably an aesthetics decision due to having no binding on the body.

I'm a newbie. Is binding functionally better than no binding?

[standing.wav]

I'm a newbie. Is binding functionally better than no binding?

My understanding of binding is that it is more an indication of craftsmanship than serving a functional purpose. That's not to say it's purely cosmetic; I mean that it proves the builder is competent.

[maxr]

No fingerboard binding may save you a few $$s on a refret if/when you need one, depending how it's done? And, if it's not there, it can't come loose...

[TheMandoKit]

I was always told that, in the guitar world at least, binding protects the edges of the top, and to a lesser extent, the back, from impact that would lead to chips, splits, and cracks. I suppose similar rationale would apply to mandolins. Never had a fretted instrument without body binding, except for a Larrivee parlor guitar. It never left my house, so it didn't really have a chance to get dinged up, so I don't know.

Binding on fretboards always seemed to me like more of an aesthetic choice, although Huss & Dalton says that no fingerboard leaves them without binding, because binding means that you don’t see—or feel—the fret ends, and it keeps the finish from chipping away from an unbound board. For an "unbound look," H&D binds ebony fretboards in ebony, so there you go.

Obviously, bowed stringed instruments are different, so I guess I don't know about any of this. Maybe some of the builders can weigh in.

[maxr]

Binding on fretboards always seemed to me like more of an aesthetic choice, although Huss & Dalton says that no fingerboard leaves them without binding, because binding means that you don’t see—or feel—the fret ends, and it keeps the finish from chipping away from an unbound board.

If guitar fretboard binding is done well, it feels good, but if not... A few years ago Gibson turned some USA made Les Pauls with terrible fingerboard binding - poor fit, poor cut, ridges down the sides - you wouldn't see a Chinese made Eastman 'Les Paul' with work that sloppy. I hope that's fixed now, but I prefer unbound - if you can see the fret ends, you can get them fixed quickly and cheaply if you need to.

[rsgeek]

No neck binding is probably an aesthetics decision due to having no binding on the body.

Actually, the CC stands for "Comfort Contour" -- the idea is that the rounded edge (vs. less-rounded binding) is more comfortable for long-term playing. So, avoids using an armrest.

[webber]

This is similar to how Rickenbacker will sell you a regular 4003 or a 4003s without any binding, although in that case, the 4003s is slightly cheaper at MSRP. Most bass players prefer the feeling of the un-bound 4003s (including myself), and they trade for a slight premium second-hand due to scarcity.

For what it's worth, my mandolin is fully bound, and I ended up putting an armrest on it to save myself the slight discomfort of pressing my arm against the binding while playing. If you prefer the looks of the 505, there's no reason why you couldn't put an armrest on it later and get similar comfort to the 505CC.