Shires Q series

ttf_robinsjanis · Post by **ttf_robinsjanis** » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:57 am

Hello!
I'm looking to upgrade to another trombone, I'm investigating Shires Q series, particulary interested in Gold brass bell and Axial flow valve.

Any opinions on these trombones?

ttf_conn88plyr · Post by **ttf_conn88plyr** » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:34 am

These have become a real favorite in the shop and in fact my favorite configuration is the 30GA with gold brass bell and axial flow valve. Most players find that the response, quality of sound and overall playability outstrip the price point and the components are truly interchangeable with custom Shires components. With all of the upside on these horns I really consider them to be entry-level Shires and a great value...

ttf_loudtrombone · Post by **ttf_loudtrombone** » Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:15 pm

A few months back I spent about two hours in a local dealer's practice room play testing a Shires Q30YA, Q30YR, and the two new Eastman versions of the same. I was impressed with all four instruments but especially with the Q30YA tenor with yellow brass bell and axial valve. I was informed by Samantha Glazier that the bell on the Q30YA is similar to the Shires 1YM T8 bell. It would really be interesting to try one side by side with a Shires custom with 1YM T8 bell, yellow tuning slide, axial valve, and TW47 slide.

ttf_BillO · Post by **ttf_BillO** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 7:24 am

I wonder, are components for the Q series available separately?

ttf_Burgerbob · Post by **ttf_Burgerbob** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:22 am

I have a friend that bought the gold bell/axial Q series at ITF. It was one of the best tenors at the show, no question.

ttf_BassBoneFL · Post by **ttf_BassBoneFL** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 11:24 am

IMO, the Shires Q Series is one of the best values out there. There is little/no difference between them and the Custom series except for the engraving, number of options, and price. In addition, if you get the urge to run down the rabbit hole, the Q series is compatible with all Custom series parts.

ttf_conn88plyr · Post by **ttf_conn88plyr** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:29 pm

Quote from: BillO on Aug 30, 2017, 07:24AMI wonder, are components for the Q series available separately?
To the best of my knowledge they are; the wait time vary a bit on the Q series due to the time Shires spends with them at the beginning and end of the process and so components may not be immediately in stock but available to order...

ttf_Torobone · Post by **ttf_Torobone** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:20 pm

I tried the Q series bass at a clinic here in town when they first came out. A friend bought one a couple of months ago. All positive comments match my experience.

The components are made in USA, then shipped to China for assembly, and finally shipped back for QA and sale. This keeps the cost down.

It is a modular horn, so you can swap parts. I felt the choices that were made by Shires were very, very good.

ttf_Malec Heermans · Post by **ttf_Malec Heermans** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:50 pm

I'm curious about how this works. On the face of it it seems crazy, but I'm a Shires guy.

ttf_Torobone · Post by **ttf_Torobone** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:06 am

This was covered by Ben Griffin in the Shires Q&A thread.

The short version is that the assembly is an expensive, labor intensive part of making trombones. Making the components in the US means that the parts are made by Shires. The parts are shipped to China where the horns are assembled. The finished instruments are shipped back to the US (the parts are all US made, so no duty is payable) for QA and sale. This is a global solution to the high cost of a quality instrument.

I have a great, carefully selected Yamaha, so I'm not in the market for a new bass. If I was, the Q Series would be at the top of my list.

ttf_wgwbassbone · Post by **ttf_wgwbassbone** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:12 am

Quote from: Torobone on Aug 31, 2017, 06:06AMThis was covered by Ben Griffin in the Shires Q&A thread.

The short version is that the assembly is an expensive, labor intensive part of making trombones. Making the components in the US means that the parts are made by Shires. The parts are shipped to China where the horns are assembled. The finished instruments are shipped back to the US (the parts are all US made, so no duty is payable) for QA and sale. This is a global solution to the high cost of a quality instrument.

I have a great, carefully selected Yamaha, so I'm not in the market for a new bass. If I was, the Q Series would be at the top of my list.

FWIW I'd rather pay a few dollars more and have the horns assembled here by quality techs. I cannot be that much in savings once you've paid for shipping to and from China.

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:52 am

A cursory search of aquatic freight services reveals that the current price of one way shipping from Boston to Beijing is around $1200. (For a full container). (100 lbs of merchandise is around $200 in a shared container, fwiw). Containers are pretty large (20' x 8' x 8'6"). That's 4' larger than a full size vehicle but then also 8' high and wide. You could ship a ton of parts over and then ship them back as they were finished or as demand justified it. I'm sure warehousing in Beijing is cheaper than in Boston as well.

So even assuming that they used a full container and it was not filled to capacity... Let's say they only sent 30 horns worth of parts over, which I would imagine would be a huge waste of space but for the sake of calculation you could see that they would spend only $40 in shipping per unit. ($1200 shipping price / 30 horns = $40 shipping).

As you approach something like 100 horns worth of parts, you're talking about $12 per horn to get them over there. Possibly more to get an assembled horn back, but even if it took up twice as much space (and thusly twice as much cost) you're only looking at $36 to ship it back to Boston per horn.

It looks like the Q series retails around $2695 and a new custom Shires at $4995.

If they are sending 100 horns over at a time (ignoring for a moment what % of those are tenor and which are basses), the difference is $4995 - $2695 = $2300. Assume that it also costs a few dollars in addition to the $36 per horn figure to get to and from the port... possibly 20-30 per horn. $24 makes it an even $60 per horn. That leaves $2240 as the difference excluding shipping costs. (The contribution of the shipping raises the price by approximately 2%).

I would suspect they are sending more than 100 horns over per shipment, but that is pure speculation. In either case, a very small percent of the price is due to shipping costs from one major port city to another port city. That might not be the case from, say, Wisconsin to Beijing, but Boston has very easy access to the ocean.

ttf_Dan Hine · Post by **ttf_Dan Hine** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:32 am

Quote from: wgwbassbone on Aug 31, 2017, 09:12AMFWIW I'd rather pay a few dollars more and have the horns assembled here by quality techs.

A few dollars more, $2400 more. Close enough, right?

ttf_MikeBMiller · Post by **ttf_MikeBMiller** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:48 am

Quote from: wgwbassbone on Aug 31, 2017, 09:12AMFWIW I'd rather pay a few dollars more and have the horns assembled here by quality techs. I cannot be that much in savings once you've paid for shipping to and from China.

I don't have a dog in the fight here as I have never owned a Shires, but I don't know of a reason that a Chinese tech cannot be a "quality" tech. I'm sure they are well trained and the guys in MA are doing a thorough inspection of the horns before final sale.

ttf_wgwbassbone · Post by **ttf_wgwbassbone** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:25 pm

Quote from: Dan Hine on Aug 31, 2017, 10:32AMA few dollars more, $2400 more. Close enough, right?

Just comparing the current prices of the horns is not a true or fair judge of the system. If it were as cheap asa Matt K says then everything in the world would be made in china.

Quote from: MikeBMiller on Aug 31, 2017, 10:48AMI don't have a dog in the fight here as I have never owned a Shires, but I don't know of a reason that a Chinese tech cannot be a "quality" tech. I'm sure they are well trained and the guys in MA are doing a thorough inspection of the horns before final sale.

And I'm not starting that argument regarding good or bad quality. Bad stuff is made here in America. Look no further than the American auto industry. Their quality control is pitiful.

ttf_Matt K · Post by **ttf_Matt K** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:06 pm

Well it is that much to ship from port city to port city. Obviously lots of things happen in central parts of both countries as well, where rail, air, and road transport are more common. So if this were in Kansas it would raise the price, although the cost of shipping a container by rail form anywhere in the US is actually not all that much either. Containerization has really decreased the cost of production because of how standardized everything can be.

In this case, a good comparison case would be the Getzen 3047AF to the Edwards Custom series. Very similar pattern; same parts but just configured and stamped differently. (Bracing in different locations, but bell, valves, slide, etc. are same part). The difference in price is a little over $1k. I would suspect the spread to be very similar on the Shires series from having the folks at the Boston factory focus on specializing in their particular activity and having streamlined use of inputs (raw brass sheets, etc.) into outputs.

So take that $2240 figure and take off roughly $1000. That leaves $1200 in differences in labor cost.

While labor in China is also cheaper, one also has to bear in mind that the Eastman workers are probably producing other instruments as well. So, for example, let's say that the assembly process is 4x as lengthy as the production of bells. You could have two ways of handling it:

1) Throw 1x your normal amount of laborers at it over the course of roughly 4x time (it takes 4x as long to do, but there are no extra employees)
2) Hire 4x as many employees and get it done in 1x time.

The negatives of getting everything done quickly are that temporary workers are less skilled than full time, and full time workers might be idle when other phases of production are occurring.

Well, with a full staff of Eastman workers who are probably full time, they can handle an influx of materials when they arrive and get it done in perhaps 1x time. Instead of being idle then, they go to making flutes or whatever else Eastman is producing.

So in this case, the Q series when viewed in isolation with the rest of Shires production specifically seems like an anomaly, but when viewed as part of the parent company the increased volume is probably lowering the fixed cost of having n full-time skilled employees.

Using my hypothetical, if you take out 4x of the time spent by the people at Boston and the contribution to difference in labor costs starts to get really thin (1200 * 4x; x = $300 per horn). The 4 is, of course, arbitrary since I don't have their actual accounting info, but really anything from 2 - 6 is definitely reasonable. Maybe even more.

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 1:48 pm

Let's look at it from a slightly different standpoint.

There are probably more workers at Eastman in China than in Hopedale. They can hire more workers in Hopedale (and work to train them) or use Eastman workers who may be somewhat underutilized and are at least semi-trained to do assembly. Thus the Hopedale workers can concentrate on the manufacture of parts (bending of tubes, spinning of bells, etc.) while the final assembly is done overseas. The Hopedale staff do QC on the returns from China and make sure it's to Shires specs.

Another thing that keeps the Q cost down is the limited number of parts used. By not having to make and warehouse a lot of custom parts that are only sometimes called for, the cost of the Q is reduced.

Most of the Q customers will be amateurs like me and students who will probably not make any major changes to the instrument. I'd bet Ben Griffin can describe the average horn almost any High Schooler wants or needs -- and that's a Q. Not too many of us can feel the difference between a seamed red brass tuning slide and a regular yellow brass tuning slide

ttf_loudtrombone · Post by **ttf_loudtrombone** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 2:56 pm

Quote from: Matt K on Aug 31, 2017, 01:06PMWell it is that much to ship from port city to port city. Obviously lots of things happen in central parts of both countries as well, where rail, air, and road transport are more common. So if this were in Kansas it would raise the price, although the cost of shipping a container by rail form anywhere in the US is actually not all that much either. Containerization has really decreased the cost of production because of how standardized everything can be.

In this case, a good comparison case would be the Getzen 3047AF to the Edwards Custom series. Very similar pattern; same parts but just configured and stamped differently. (Bracing in different locations, but bell, valves, slide, etc. are same part). The difference in price is a little over $1k. I would suspect the spread to be very similar on the Shires series from having the folks at the Boston factory focus on specializing in their particular activity and having streamlined use of inputs (raw brass sheets, etc.) into outputs.

So take that $2240 figure and take off roughly $1000. That leaves $1200 in differences in labor cost.

While labor in China is also cheaper, one also has to bear in mind that the Eastman workers are probably producing other instruments as well. So, for example, let's say that the assembly process is 4x as lengthy as the production of bells. You could have two ways of handling it:

1) Throw 1x your normal amount of laborers at it over the course of roughly 4x time (it takes 4x as long to do, but there are no extra employees)
2) Hire 4x as many employees and get it done in 1x time.

The negatives of getting everything done quickly are that temporary workers are less skilled than full time, and full time workers might be idle when other phases of production are occurring.

Well, with a full staff of Eastman workers who are probably full time, they can handle an influx of materials when they arrive and get it done in perhaps 1x time. Instead of being idle then, they go to making flutes or whatever else Eastman is producing.

So in this case, the Q series when viewed in isolation with the rest of Shires production specifically seems like an anomaly, but when viewed as part of the parent company the increased volume is probably lowering the fixed cost of having n full-time skilled employees.

Using my hypothetical, if you take out 4x of the time spent by the people at Boston and the contribution to difference in labor costs starts to get really thin (1200 * 4x; x = $300 per horn). The 4 is, of course, arbitrary since I don't have their actual accounting info, but really anything from 2 - 6 is definitely reasonable. Maybe even more.

I suspect that some, if not all, of the Chinese manufacturers get some subsidies from the Chinese government to offset the costs of shipping products abroad. It is in their interest for their products made in China to be circulated inexpensively globally. Case in point are the low shipping prices - many times free or rather built into the cost of product - of some of the goods we buy on Amazon or Ebay. I purchased two low cost instruments directly from China and the shipping was free. Cost of returning the same instrument back to China? Very high.

ttf_bonesmarsh · Post by **ttf_bonesmarsh** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:08 pm

Yes.

As a third world country, trade agreements are in place with first world countries to subsidize shipping. There is an internal review going on with the Canadian post office currently, to hold the Canadian government responsible for the millions of dollars worth of postage that China owes Canada Post for delivering million of small packets of Chinese plastic cr*p.

Hundreds of containers are stranded on docks in Canada holding millions of packages that have almost no postage on them.

Your Wessex trombone costs $20 to $50 to build, and it is subsidized shipped to first world countries.

It is not the Chinese government subsidizing the shipping, it is the first world countries doing the paying.

ttf_MikeBMiller · Post by **ttf_MikeBMiller** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Quote from: bonesmarsh on Aug 31, 2017, 05:08PM

Your Wessex trombone costs $20 to $50 to build,

Are you guessing or is that documented somewhere? Seems like the parts would cost way more than that.

ttf_Burgerbob · Post by **ttf_Burgerbob** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:06 pm

China is not a third world country.

ttf_bonesmarsh · Post by **ttf_bonesmarsh** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:43 pm

Every country ( including my own, Canada, sadly) has portions of the population who exist in third world conditions. ( Unclean drinking water. Lack of pubic security. Michael Moore in the US would likely be working on a documentary about the US third world right now.)

I'm not guessing about the $50 price on a double Thayer valved bass trombone. Go to ALIBABA, which is the Chinese version of Ebay. Alibaba has a surprising list of offerings from the JinBao factories. Prices, prices for the price per unit when you purchase stock in thousands of units....the lead time required to buy your order of 2,000 pretend Thayer valved trombones?? Its all there.

I didn't look into the price for a straight trombone. I didn't want to be surprised.

ttf_BillO · Post by **ttf_BillO** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 9:11 pm

Quote from: loudtrombone on Aug 31, 2017, 02:56PM
I suspect that some, if not all, of the Chinese manufacturers get some subsidies from the Chinese government to offset the costs of shipping products abroad. It is in their interest for their products made in China to be circulated inexpensively globally. Case in point are the low shipping prices - many times free or rather built into the cost of product - of some of the goods we buy on Amazon or Ebay. I purchased two low cost instruments directly from China and the shipping was free. Cost of returning the same instrument back to China? Very high.
You are 100% correct Ken. The Chinese government practically fully funds all small scale shipments.

It's actually ingenious and I commend them for it. It's allows tiny companies, or even individuals, to set up a business whereby they can provide for themselves and at the same time bring in (collectively) vast quantities of foreign money. The Chinese are no fools.

All that said, this practice actually scuttled my last business enterprise. My company designed electronic prototyping products. The products were fairly unique, but in order to break market share, you have to meet current demands. To make a long story short, while my gizmo cost no more than the Chinese made gizmo, the Chinese could ship it to my customers in North America for a fraction of what it cost me.

Make no bones about it, my Chinese competition is top quality. Just as good as what I can make here. I don't blame my customers. They could buy a $30 module from me and pay $19 shipping, or they could by an equivalent $30 module from China and pay $3 for shipping.

Do you want to know what pisses me off the most? It is that Canada Post (or USPS) deliver the Chinese item to my customers. For some inexplicable reason, Canada Post would charge me $19 to ship an item 300 miles to a customer in Montreal, but would deliver the same sized parcel from China which enters the country 3000 miles away from the same customer for a fractional share of the $3 that China Post charged my competition.

My own government put me out of business. Nice, eh?

The Chinese understand international commerce. North America does not. Bet on it.

ttf_bonesmarsh · Post by **ttf_bonesmarsh** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 4:31 am

Yes, Bill.

Google : Canada Post Richmond B.C. You'll see the constant media reports of the hundreds of containers sitting untended and unopened at port where the backlog is over 6 months to open the containers which will be then worked by postal workers " When they get to it."

It is likely the same in the US.

ttf_BGuttman · Post by **ttf_BGuttman** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:54 am

Getting back to Robins Janis: Yes, a Shires Q is a good choice. Don't know where you can get one where you are (Baltic States) but by all means take a look at one.

ttf_griffinben · Post by **ttf_griffinben** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:56 am

Some words about the Q-Series instruments themselves.

This a result of our partnering with Eastman several years ago. As long as I have been here, there has been a demand for a lower priced, entry-level professional instrument from Shires. We tried addressing this before independently through the Pro-Select, Master Series, and then Standard Series instruments that were completely built here in Massachusetts. While excellent instruments and a great value, they had limited success in the market.

Eastman had previously asked us to design and instrument for them that they completely built, the Eastman by Shires. This was a more successful instrument in the marketplace, mainly the combination of price and quality, which were unique at that time. While these were very good, Eastman did have final say on the design and changed some aspects of the instrument based on what they though the market demanded.

The new Q is a marriage of these previous ideas. Shires has final say on the design and quality. It is built to our standards and we quality check and do final tweaking on every horn. There are many Eastman parts on the instrument, again, built to our standards and specifications. We make the machined parts and send them for assembly. We have sent and continue to regularly send our technicians to Eastman factories to inspect processes and teach techniques. They have enthusiastically adopted our suggestions and we've seen a tremendous jump in quality of what arrives at our shop.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we maintained a hard line on quality. If the instrument wasn't good enough it couldn't have a Shires name on it. To Eastman's credit, they took all of our criticisms and fixed them without protest. Just like our Custom Series instruments, we continue to develop and refine the instruments. Eastman is 100% on board and we've been very happy with the results; they share our commitment to making the best horn we can for this market.

For the specific questions being asked in this thread thus far, the Q has limited options, two bells for bass and tenor and two valve types for tenor. The handslide, leadpipes and tuning slide remain the same for the bass and tenor models, respectively. All Q Series instruments are completely compatible with Custom Series instruments so that you can interchange individual components. We did find some fit/compatibility issues with early Q instruments and these will be modified or replaced as necessary if you run into any issues. The individual components are marketed for individual sale as of this writing.

There's been a lot made about shipping these things back and forth. Eastman is a large company that has been importing instruments for many years. Adding several dozen trumpets and trombones to their commercial shipping container is of zero issue when it comes to cost.

Are they good horns? I really do think so. (I want a Q36YR for myself.) But you should try them. I certainly think they are worth cross shopping against other horns at their price point.

Feel free to send me any individual questions to [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url], I'll be glad to help.

Best,
Ben

ttf_BassBoneFL · Post by **ttf_BassBoneFL** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:51 am

Quote from: griffinben on Sep 01, 2017, 06:56AMSome words about the Q-Series instruments themselves.

This a result of our partnering with Eastman several years ago. As long as I have been here, there has been a demand for a lower priced, entry-level professional instrument from Shires. We tried addressing this before independently through the Pro-Select, Master Series, and then Standard Series instruments that were completely built here in Massachusetts. While excellent instruments and a great value, they had limited success in the market.

Eastman had previously asked us to design and instrument for them that they completely built, the Eastman by Shires. This was a more successful instrument in the marketplace, mainly the combination of price and quality, which were unique at that time. While these were very good, Eastman did have final say on the design and changed some aspects of the instrument based on what they though the market demanded.

The new Q is a marriage of these previous ideas. Shires has final say on the design and quality. It is built to our standards and we quality check and do final tweaking on every horn. There are many Eastman parts on the instrument, again, built to our standards and specifications. We make the machined parts and send them for assembly. We have sent and continue to regularly send our technicians to Eastman factories to inspect processes and teach techniques. They have enthusiastically adopted our suggestions and we've seen a tremendous jump in quality of what arrives at our shop.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we maintained a hard line on quality. If the instrument wasn't good enough it couldn't have a Shires name on it. To Eastman's credit, they took all of our criticisms and fixed them without protest. Just like our Custom Series instruments, we continue to develop and refine the instruments. Eastman is 100% on board and we've been very happy with the results; they share our commitment to making the best horn we can for this market.

For the specific questions being asked in this thread thus far, the Q has limited options, two bells for bass and tenor and two valve types for tenor. The handslide, leadpipes and tuning slide remain the same for the bass and tenor models, respectively. All Q Series instruments are completely compatible with Custom Series instruments so that you can interchange individual components. We did find some fit/compatibility issues with early Q instruments and these will be modified or replaced as necessary if you run into any issues. The individual components are marketed for individual sale as of this writing.

There's been a lot made about shipping these things back and forth. Eastman is a large company that has been importing instruments for many years. Adding several dozen trumpets and trombones to their commercial shipping container is of zero issue when it comes to cost.

Are they good horns? I really do think so. (I want a Q36YR for myself.) But you should try them. I certainly think they are worth cross shopping against other horns at their price point.

Feel free to send me any individual questions to [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url], I'll be glad to help.

Best,
Ben

Just to add personal experience to this. I tried a few of the Q basses when they arrived at the local Shires dealer (Husonics) several months ago. I found them to be excellent instruments that are worthy of the Shires moniker. IMO, they are the best "bang for the buck" out there and they have moved to the top of my "recommended list" for schools and students on a budget looking for new instruments. In the past 6mos several students (HS and College) who I have worked with have selected one for purchase after trying several other options. (without me present)

Yes, I am a Shires "artist" and have been for about 10yrs. As such, I play their instruments and receive no payment for doing so, or commission for sales. I do so because their instruments work for me and I like the company dedication to quality and innovation.

ttf_BassBoneFL · Post by **ttf_BassBoneFL** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 7:51 am

Quote from: griffinben on Sep 01, 2017, 06:56AMSome words about the Q-Series instruments themselves.

This a result of our partnering with Eastman several years ago. As long as I have been here, there has been a demand for a lower priced, entry-level professional instrument from Shires. We tried addressing this before independently through the Pro-Select, Master Series, and then Standard Series instruments that were completely built here in Massachusetts. While excellent instruments and a great value, they had limited success in the market.

Eastman had previously asked us to design and instrument for them that they completely built, the Eastman by Shires. This was a more successful instrument in the marketplace, mainly the combination of price and quality, which were unique at that time. While these were very good, Eastman did have final say on the design and changed some aspects of the instrument based on what they though the market demanded.

The new Q is a marriage of these previous ideas. Shires has final say on the design and quality. It is built to our standards and we quality check and do final tweaking on every horn. There are many Eastman parts on the instrument, again, built to our standards and specifications. We make the machined parts and send them for assembly. We have sent and continue to regularly send our technicians to Eastman factories to inspect processes and teach techniques. They have enthusiastically adopted our suggestions and we've seen a tremendous jump in quality of what arrives at our shop.

Not to beat a dead horse, but we maintained a hard line on quality. If the instrument wasn't good enough it couldn't have a Shires name on it. To Eastman's credit, they took all of our criticisms and fixed them without protest. Just like our Custom Series instruments, we continue to develop and refine the instruments. Eastman is 100% on board and we've been very happy with the results; they share our commitment to making the best horn we can for this market.

For the specific questions being asked in this thread thus far, the Q has limited options, two bells for bass and tenor and two valve types for tenor. The handslide, leadpipes and tuning slide remain the same for the bass and tenor models, respectively. All Q Series instruments are completely compatible with Custom Series instruments so that you can interchange individual components. We did find some fit/compatibility issues with early Q instruments and these will be modified or replaced as necessary if you run into any issues. The individual components are marketed for individual sale as of this writing.

There's been a lot made about shipping these things back and forth. Eastman is a large company that has been importing instruments for many years. Adding several dozen trumpets and trombones to their commercial shipping container is of zero issue when it comes to cost.

Are they good horns? I really do think so. (I want a Q36YR for myself.) But you should try them. I certainly think they are worth cross shopping against other horns at their price point.

Feel free to send me any individual questions to [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url], I'll be glad to help.

Best,
Ben

Just to add personal experience to this. I tried a few of the Q basses when they arrived at the local Shires dealer (Husonics) several months ago. I found them to be excellent instruments that are worthy of the Shires moniker. IMO, they are the best "bang for the buck" out there and they have moved to the top of my "recommended list" for schools and students on a budget looking for new instruments. In the past 6mos several students (HS and College) who I have worked with have selected one for purchase after trying several other options. (without me present)

Yes, I am a Shires "artist" and have been for about 10yrs. As such, I play their instruments and receive no payment for doing so, or commission for sales. I do so because their instruments work for me and I like the company dedication to quality and innovation.