Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Famous Guitar Replicas: Why do they need to be "aged"?


SGFan2

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I was wondering why replicas of famous guitars need to be "aged". I can definitely understand why some people would like to have a guitar that sounded "exactly" like an original iconic guitar (Clapton's Lucy, being a good example), but to want a replica that has all the aging marks of the original seems a bit too much for me. After all, they are "replicas", not the original instrument. Furthermore, replicating the marks of the original guitar ought to be a costly process (I imagine it must be done by hand").

 

Signature Models are new guitars that follow the artist's specification. Do you think there would be a market for "technical" copies of famous individual guitars (i.e., guitars that have the exact specification of famous guitars, but that look new)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah...

 

Actually it appears to me Gibson is pretty much doing things that way, as opposed to some other manufacturers.

 

For what it's worth, I do some first person living history stuff - and the idea of using 150-year-old clothing and other items that look old is ludicrous. If I'm living in 1867, I'm wearing recently manufactured clothing, etc., just as my great grandfather did in '67... So that's what I wear when I'm presenting as though I were just plucked from the past.

 

I figure the same thing on guitars.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps some people like guitars as a wall art that looks quite closely to the image it was made after at the time the remake was done. As for me, being a player I would like an instrument that feels flawlessly but comes close to the sound of the original. The latter often seems to be reduced to wood species and make of pickups, pots, capacitors etc. However, I think that wood species should not be selected for looks only but for sonic properties, too. It's a matter of course that one can artificially age magnets which isn't even obvious, but not woods. Predicting the tonal behaviour of a certain piece of timber is the hardest task IMHO, and so there always will appear certain differences. Each guitar will be an individual piece in the end, even when created in mass production, and rightly can be seen as a single item or one-off. Therefore I think that finally looks may be able to support a player's imagination when striving for a specific sound, and artificial aging may be a part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

I've never liked any of the "road-worn," "relic-ed," "aged," or any of those worn-out and dinged-up looks. I hate 'em all... I want a new guitar and I want any marks put on my guitars to be only the marks I put on 'em...

 

I don't like a guitar that looks like a trashed-up beater...

 

Shiny, glossy, new guitars make me happy...

 

Having said that, clearly there's a market for it and the makers are getting a huge profit by mimicing years of wear and travel on a guitar for whatever reason. If there wasn't a market for it, nobody would be doing it, but clearly lots of people like 'em that way. I'm just not one of them!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Gibson has been doing this in good taste in my opinion. I think Fender, on the other hand, has taken it too an extreme with some of the heavy relics they've been producing. But no matter how much I play I think I show more signs of age then my guitars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Interesting thoughts here. I bought a 2012 ES-175 '59 VOS, because I liked the look of the yellow binding, dull finish and aged looking hardware. But, I would not want it to be beat up, for myself that is too much. But I can see the charm in a limited run copies of the artists guitar ( I almost bought an EVH Frankenstein worth $25,000, instead I opted for the Charvel Art Series and took care of my Van Halen fix). They would however be collector guitars and rarely played. My .02 cents worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its all about Money but I cannot understand why anyone would spend more to get less... after all , buying a new guitar, it usually Shiney , unmarked, and not beat to crap for the sake of a buck.. down the road ... when will you be able to tell if the Guitars beat or is it the way it was bought new?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Wow just wow is all I can say.

Sorry FZ,,my 1st response was in really poor taste,,dont mean to offend . Seriously,,I dont think it matters what the cosmetics are,,if you get great sound+ playability,,thats all that matters really. Now ,,if you are a "collector" and have $$ to get anything you want,,well then thats a bit different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...