This one goes to 11 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Maybe I'm missing the point somehow, but I find something fundamentally dishonest in relic finishes. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Signature guitars, whether Slash, Page or Beck or Rory Gallagher's, being built exactly like the originals for fans who want to buy them. I get the point there. I love the releases of vintage spec guitars as few of us can actually afford a genuine '59 LP or '62 Strat, but come on already! If I'm going to fork out a big chunk of hard-earned on a new guitar, then I expect the finish to be perfect and I'll put marks on it by playing the thing over time, thank you very much. There's a word for artificially distressed guitars - artificially distressed anything come to think of it - and that's FAKE. I don't care if it was built by custom shop master craftsmen (and is it my imagination or are Fender the worst ofFenders here), it's not real wear and tear. The vintage guitars we love (& they copy) look the way they do because of the ravages of time & playing - it's called character, and true character is not created in a day. Would you buy a 4x4 with pre-scratched body and spray-on mud? Didn't think so, so why a guitar. You'll only look like a seasoned player with your well-worn guitar until the first note gets played. I think the last relic straw for me came when I heard about a guy in Johannesburg who was relic'ing instruments & cases, including new budget guitars, with marks & flight stickers to make them look well-travelled and gigged. Give me a break. Even makers like Vintage and Tokai are offering relic finishes, for pete's sake. My guitar - though well cherished - has some marks on it because it gets played & gigged all the time. My jeans have faded from riding motorcycles, not because Levi's pre-distressed them. Now I'm starting to hear of "experts" who can't tell the age & provenance of some guitars because they've been aged so well! Perhaps I've had enough of being bullshitted, but there's something about relics that sticks in my throat. As the saying goes, "A fool and his money are my best friends". What do you think out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibsonWarrior Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Maybe I'm missing the point somehow' date=' but I find something fundamentally dishonest in relic finishes. Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Signature guitars, whether Slash, Page or Beck or Rory Gallagher's, being built exactly like the originals for fans who want to buy them. I get the point there. I love the releases of vintage spec guitars as few of us can actually afford a genuine '59 LP or '62 Strat, but come on already! If I'm going to fork out a big chunk of hard-earned on a new guitar, then I expect the finish to be perfect and I'll put marks on it by playing the thing over time, thank you very much. There's a word for artificially distressed guitars - artificially distressed anything come to think of it - and that's FAKE. I don't care if it was built by custom shop master craftsmen (and is it my imagination or are Fender the worst ofFenders here), it's not real wear and tear. The vintage guitars we love (& they copy) look the way they do because of the ravages of time & playing - it's called character, and true character is not created in a day. Would you buy a 4x4 with pre-scratched body and spray-on mud? Didn't think so, so why a guitar. You'll only look like a seasoned player with your well-worn guitar until the first note gets played. I think the last relic straw for me came when I heard about a guy in Johannesburg who was relic'ing instruments & cases, including new budget guitars, with marks & flight stickers to make them look well-travelled and gigged. Give me a break. Even makers like Vintage and Tokai are offering relic finishes, for pete's sake. My guitar - though well cherished - has some marks on it because it gets played & gigged all the time. My jeans have faded from riding motorcycles, not because Levi's pre-distressed them. Now I'm starting to hear of "experts" who can't tell the age & provenance of some guitars because they've been aged so well! Perhaps I've had enough of being bullshitted, but there's something about relics that sticks in my throat. As the saying goes, "A fool and his money are my best friends". What do you think out there? [/quote'] I agree, why the need for fake relic finishes? Only perhaps to inflate the ego that YOU put all that wear into the guitar through constant playing and gigging when you obviously didnt. I say get out playing more and stop worrying about looking 'cool' with your fake worn guitar. Are we to expect relic'd amps with torn vinyl or tweed. missing/mismatched knobs or pedals dropped, scratched and stomped on before you buy them?? The only way to real Mojo is through years of loving use!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibis Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Are we to expect relic'd amps with torn vinyl or tweed. missing/mismatched knobs or pedals dropped' date=' scratched and stomped on before you buy them??[/quote'] Erm... well, sorry to have to break it to you but, yes we are! It costs the equivalent of an extra $160 / £80 for someone to trash your amp for you. My Bassman is getting along just fine on its own accord, by being dragged in and out of the van each weekend, thank you very much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGrd Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I totally agree. But what's even worse: The relics (as far as I know) don't have real scratches but painted scratches. So it's not only a fake but a faked fake! What a nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaresz Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 In my thinking it seems odd to pay extra money to have someone damage your new property for you. To me relic'd is used, therefore should be less money to purchase than new. I understand why someone might like the look of it better, but not to the extend that they would pay extra for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibsonWarrior Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Erm... well' date=' sorry to have to break it to you but, yes we are! [img']http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg186/ibisguitar/LaunchBarScreenSnapz001-1.jpg[/img] It costs the equivalent of an extra $160 / £80 for someone to trash your amp for you. My Bassman is getting along just fine on its own accord, by being dragged in and out of the van each weekend, thank you very much! No fear, i guessed that would be the case somewhere!!! Hows your Bassman sounds btw? Ive always wanted the head & cab version...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L5Larry Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I agree with "11". During the heyday of SRV, my wife (at the time), asked me why my old Strat (1960) didn't look as cool and beat up as Stevie's. I told her if I ever abused a guitar to the point it looked like that, I should be shot. Although I do take pride in my guitars showing real playing wear and battle scars (grooved frets, worn fingerboards, faded finishes, beat up cases, worn finish on hardware, etc), They came by that naturally. I would never buy them new looking that way. Play them long and hard enough, and you can't avoid the "relic" look. Plus, you'll have a lot of fun getting them there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I agree as well. I saw a bunch last year at the custom show and it looked like gibson gave their employees a Brillo-pad and said go for it. I like clean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKlunchbox Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 As a visual artist I'm going to go ahead a throw my 2 cents in. I'm not defending relic'ing by any means but I can see the merit behind it. The word art as well as artificial are all just synonyms and derivatives of artifice. So really if you look at each guitar as a work of art more than a musical instrument then they're actually pretty cool. The entire point of art if you look back to the beginning was to imitate nature and natural things. A guitar that has worn naturally is something that I think we can all agree is a beautiful thing and worthy of imitation. That being said Gibson is a business, and innovation is part of business. Gibson has been progressing in the functional field of guitars forever, but a lot of people forget that there are artists working in these factories alongside the engineers. I'm sure that if you were on a line hand rubbing bursts or painting solid colors you'd get kind of bored. One area of natural progression would be to use these instruments as blank canvases to replicate or reproduce the famed axes in existence. In that sense I really can see where the work that Gibson and Fender do with their relic'ing and VOS treatments is amazing and worth the money as a work of art, not as an instrument. I will say that it is kind of ridiculous though that they would expect people to play these guitars when it seems as though they are being created as show pieces. So personally I think the guitars are awesome works of art, but I'd never buy one simply because like many a working man I can't afford a $6,000 piece of art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This one goes to 11 Posted April 10, 2008 Author Share Posted April 10, 2008 Glad I'm not the only one out there. Here's another thought: If you're a regular player and buy a relic, what's it going to look like in 5-10 years from purchase - and would a shop give you the book value on a trade, or would they complain that it wasn't looked after, or too worn? Now THAT'd be irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 i agree 100% i dont know why people would pay extra (and a lot) for a guitar (or anything) that looks like its gone to hell and back... i also happen to like my guitars clean, no scratches or dings... dont understand how people can threat their guitar in such a way that they would end up missing chunks of the body and most of the paintjob... and "aged" hardware? WTF??? i hate the feel and looks of hardware that looks like they got it since the 1950s and dont know what to do with it now but do know they are better off selling it than throwing it away. even if i was into that stuf and wanted a beat up guitar badly, i would buy a normal one and inflict the wounds myself so it wouldnt feel like someone else abused my guitar for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjc guitar Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 WOW!! that is exactly the way I feel as well!!. It's kind of funny but the other day I was talking with a client about relicing and used the same example of a vehicle! Buy a brand new truck add some rust and dents, cigarette burns on the seats and hide some fast food fries and bags under the seats and call it a "Distressed Edition Vehicle" (DEV)..........anyone want "in" on this with me? Like stated, if I am going to dish out my hard earned money for a brand new Les Paul I want it PERFECT! Shiney! and I will worry about the wear & tear !!! Isn't kind of odd that Gibson or any other company for that reason will "reject" a instrument at final inspection for a paint blem and destroy the guitar, but at the same time charge us more for one that is REALLY "blemished"? People have to realize that when you spend $2000.00 or more for and "aged" guitar you must remember: IT IS STILL A BRAND NEW GUITAR !!!!!! I don't get it....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This one goes to 11 Posted April 10, 2008 Author Share Posted April 10, 2008 OKlunchbox has a fair point about innovation & using instruments as blank canvasses. Personally I'd consider something like a Tyler Schmeer finish a helluva lot more innovative, unique & original as a piece of visual art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
degle28 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 This is sensless destruction of a new instrument IMO. I'll just relic the thing myself over time and not pay for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChanMan Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Relic guitars are not made to play... they are bought to display. That way all the restraunts and tourist traps can display their "authentic" Gibsons on the wall... maybe get Conway Twitty's old bus driver to autograph one... Right? Folks? Anybody? No takers? The fact that P.T. Barnum said "Some one will buy them to play thinking it will make them look cool" (or something like that anyway....) is pure serendipity..... *WARNING** This post contains copious amounts of sarcasm, a substance known to cause cancer in laboratory rats in the state of California. Improper use of sarcasm can and should be viewed as a dangerous action, potentially resulting in unnecesary flames and sudden ***-whoopins. Tags, taxes, title and dealer prep extra. Offer void where prohibited. No purchase necessary to play*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Alright...my turn. I think it's a good idea, but I don't want one personnaly. So, why would anybody buy an aged LP? Well, because they want the look and feel of a 50 year old Les Paul, but don't have $250,000..that's why. I'm buying a 1958 Les Paul Reissue this summer, not the aged 58, but a brand spankin' new looking guitar. The exact same 1958 Les Paul Reissue aged is actually $300 LESS than the non-aged RI...I don't know where you guys are getting your information from...unless Long & McQuade is the only retailer that sells them for less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjc guitar Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Alright...my turn. I think it's a good idea' date=' but I don't want one personnaly. So, why would anybody buy an aged LP? Well, because they want the look and feel of a 50 year old Les Paul, but don't have $250,000..that's why. I'm buying a 1958 Les Paul Reissue this summer, not the aged 58, but a brand spankin' new looking guitar. The exact same 1958 Les Paul Reissue aged is actually $300 [u']LESS[/u] than the non-aged RI...I don't know where you guys are getting your information from...unless Long & McQuade is the only retailer that sells them for less. I quess my info is from looking at "Tom Murphy" aged guitars. I understand the "want" of the relic'ed stuff and agree with you, but to me I would want an original '59 or so for the TONE. I don't think you can get that 50 year old tone and wood from Mr. Murphy. But at the same time if someone wants just the looks and feel, by all means buy one! -Rj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I like my guitars to look not brand new but they get wear on them in time and I'm not about to pay extra for someone to beat up a guitar for me. I guess some folks want them to look worn in immediately or buy them to look "legit" or something. Whatever floats your boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Martin Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Relic guitars are not made to play... they are bought to display. That way all the restraunts and tourist traps can display their "authentic" Gibsons on the wall... maybe get Conway Twitty's old bus driver to autograph one... Right? Folks? Anybody? No takers? Yeah, I agree with you. They're meant to sit in Hard Rock cafes, or TGI Fridays or Ruby Tuesdays or whatever trendy "bunch of random-*** **** hanging on the wall" resteraunt is in your town. The thing about an instrument that has battle scars is that it immediately has CHARACTER. It's been around the block and instantly stands out more than one straight off the assembly line. It's an unintentional form of customization without really customizing. Some people love their instruments looking minty and brand new. I am not like that, and got over it when my guitars got their first ding. That's why I prefer to buy used instruments. Of course I would not intentionally harm a Gibson (I'm pretty sure in some states they could lock you up for that), and I would not intentionally pay for it, but I will not shun the natural battle scars my axes acquire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibson CS Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 i like to reliic my guitars buy slamming them into my amp, then by spinning them around my head, and finally throwing the guitar to the crowd but, then i have to start all over on a new guitar actually im just kidding ................ or i might be the gutarst in a who tribute band NAH, im just kidding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChanMan Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I would not intentionally pay for it' date=' but I will not shun the natural battle scars my axes acquire.[/quote'] Exactly my feelings. Every nick, ding and scratch on my strat is a story... but that is not a "feature" I look for when shopping for guitars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibis Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 No fear' date=' i guessed that would be the case somewhere!!! Hows your Bassman sounds btw? Ive always wanted the head & cab version......[/quote'] Sounds really punchy with the NOS JAN Phillips 6L6WGB tubes in it. Loud as hell, and light enough to carry despite being a 4 x 10" combo. Takes a tubescreamer type OD pedal really well. No need for an effects loop, just put it all in through the front end. That's it in a nutshell. PM me if you would like more info. As far as relicing goes, how about this idea for a new money-spinning line of guitars? 1. Buy a stock guitar 2. Give it to a 'tame' famous guitarist to take on tour / beat the crap out of / generally abuse / disrespect 3. Sell it as 'Authentically relic'd by xxxxxxx' for loads of money (enough to pay xxxxxxx a fee and make yourself a handsome profit) None of this 'artistic' relicing malarky, just good oldfashioned dents, scrapes and dings. With the right marketing budget I can see this being a winner. Plus it will provide endless new guitars and a new income stream to artists in the era of file-sharing revenue drought! I sure as hell wouldn't buy one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveinspain Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 I always thought the same thing.... My new guitars I want new, shiny, perfedt in every way... If I want an old look I'll buy something old from a guitar shop or Ebay... I got my SG on Ebay for a good price and I couldn't be happier. It's got its share of dings but its real. I just bought a ES 339... I will inspect it with a magnifying glass when I get it to make sure its perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
led floyd9 Posted April 10, 2008 Share Posted April 10, 2008 Relic finishes are just stupid. Its like halfway between a faded model and a new one, and then just sanding certain spots of the finish off with a dremel. Regular models are nice because they are shiny and beautiful. Faded models can actually be very beautiful, too, but they are just smoother and most people like them because of their fast necks. While fadeds most times aren't as good looking as their hi-gloss counterparts, at least they cost LESS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.