Rotten Relics

[shadowplay]

This pretty much sums up my feelings. Relicing is no different than some woman called Jemima giving it "OMG shabby chic is...TO DIE FORRRR"

D

[andy_tchp]

haha yeah, don't know why all the ladies love him, he looks like a right dick when playing
maybe thats the price you pay for being able to play aswell as him.

I'm sure I look pretty stupid on stage as well - But yeah, that dude can play!

[MT]

However, I don't want a relic. I don't like anything that pretends to be something it isn't.

Does the same statement apply to refinished vintage guitars? Or how about reissue guitars, Gibson's Historic Series Les Pauls, signature model guitars, AVRI Jazzmasters or Fender NOS models?

Where does the line get drawn when it comes to what's "real" and what's "pretend"? Nobody bags the guy who buys the Nocaster reissue by saying "You're just pretending that you own a perfect condition vintage guitar you poser!" People buy guitars like the Nocasters or Historic Series Les Pauls because they like the guitars on which they're based (and probably because the price of a vintage one is well beyond most of us). It's still buying an instrument that is pretending to be a vintage instrument. It's just pretending to be a vintage instrument in mint condition. Yet I've never seen a forum thread where the person has said "I'll probably never afford a real Nocaster so I've pulled the trigger on a great reissue" and they've been shot down as a poser and accused of trying to con innocent punters into believing that they're playing a vintage instrument.

The "you must earn every scratch" argument pretty much means that the sale of vintage guitars should stop because by buying one you're cashing in on someone else's effort. Again, people who buy vintage guitars aren't tagged as posers. What's the difference between buying and playing a vintage guitar and buying a relic? Either way I didn't put the original wear on the guitar. I can add my own wear by "playing the shit out of it every night" though. The arguments about every scratch must be yours most often just sounds to me like people trying to justify their own ability (and themselves) by putting others down.

I've seen pictures of Bruce Springsteen's playing relic Custom Shop Teles recently. Nobody's shouting "Hey Boss you poser! You didn't put the wear on that guitar!"

(By the way, I'm not aiming these questions at you djetz. You're allowed to like whatever you want mate. I'm just playing devil's advocate in this discussion. )

[jagu-war]

I really do love the relic look on a guitar, but I think it´s kinda crazy to do it on purpose..
if you want your guitar to look like it´s been abused, then just abuse it..be patient, the paint will chip off on it´s own.
if you have scars on your arm for example..you always have some story to tell with every scar.. the scars on your guitar should have stories too.
THAT´s what gives her it´s character.
if people scar themselfs on purpose, don´t you think that´s lame?
that's why I think it's lame to purposly relic your guitar as well.
scars give character..as long as they have a story

[shadowplay]

if people scar themselfs on purpose, don´t you think that´s lame?

are you belittling my inner pain?

D

[slavemaster]

if people scar themselfs on purpose, don´t you think that´s lame?

Lame, no. Incredibly stupid, yes.

[djetz]

(By the way, I'm not aiming these questions at you djetz. You're allowed to like whatever you want mate. I'm just playing devil's advocate in this discussion. )

Oh, no offence taken. I was going to reply in detail, but instead I'll just +1 what Shadowplay said above:

Relicing is no different than some woman called Jemima giving it "OMG shabby chic is...TO DIE FORRRR"

It's a toss. And yes, I'd call Bruce Springsteen a tosser for using a relic.

[bdm]

I personally think it's a really dumb concept, they look cool but it's cheating, if you really want a beat up looking guitar, you should play this shit out of it.

i used to totally agree with you...then i played my nash tele and literally knew i had to have that guitar right then. it looks stupid but i'll be damned if it isn't the most solid and dependable, best playing, best sounding guitar i've ever played.

i have heard a lot of talk about how "it's dumb" and "it looks stupid" and truth be told i still think my nash tele looks pretty silly but it's so ridiculously lightweight and resonant, has such an amazing feeling neck and a great acoustic and electric tone i've gotten over it for the most part. in fact i've played the thing so damned much in the last two years i've actually worn through the fake arm wear! so where does that put me oh holier than thou judgemental internet guitar geeks? i have thought several times about getting it refinished in a nice thin nitro without all the "relic treatment" but truth be told it sounds and feels so damned good i'd be afraid i'd somehow screw that up.

a good guitar is a good guitar, period. doesn't matter what the finish looks like. if it sounds good and plays good that's what matters to me.

[Orang Goreng]

a good guitar is a good guitar, period. doesn't matter what the finish looks like. if it sounds good and plays good that's what matters to me.

What a novel concept, Ben. Are you, like, a musician or something?

[bdm]

Are you, like, a musician or something?

that is debatable.

[panoramic]

i think it's okay to relic that which has been relic'd by someone else if that's your bag, but relic'ing a brand new guitar seems suspect and well, sad to a degree. It's like a cheesesteak sub without cheese.

[ChrisPee]

My two-pence-worth.
It's been said already on here, but there are some people who turn a pile of previously unconected guitar parts, into fantastic and authentic looking "aged guitars", I think these are amazing and the creators are super-talented. But I too don't see the point in taking something that someone took pride in making sure that every part was polished, blemish-free, accurately lined-up and as correct to the plans as the previous one he finished in the factory, to then chip,rub,sand,dent,scratch and bash into something that looks "worn in"?

It's like someone buying a brand new car for twenty grand, driving it around the car park lightly grazing other cars, then lightly slashing the front seats and scratching the paint off in places and rubbing in some salt-water to get the metal nice and browned and crusty, because he/she saw a nice unrestored 60's car on someones drive in the next street and fancied one too. I've got a few 60's cars, some of which I've restored to as-new condition but also have a couple that are in lightly-aged unrestored original condition. I suppose I like the opposite of relicing + authentic ageing on cars and that ethic has become applied to everything else with me.

I know this could get me in serious shit by saying this, but I also think it's possibly an American thing I have never seen anyone play or met anyone over here who owns a modern "relic". Like I said, I've stuck my neck on the line here, but I'm merely stating an observation not having a go at 300 million people

As for those pictures of cars with rusty bonnets, that's just fooking rediculous

[mtotallywired]

What I don't get is why people keep comparing guitars to cars...
I liken my guitar more to what swords were to samurais

[Carbohydrates]

Things guitars have been compared to in this thread:

- Cars
- Furniture
- Women
- Swords
- Cheesesteak Sandwiches

[Secluded]

Cars & Guitars go together like pb&j...and women go with damn near everything! I can maybe buy the sword bit. Not so sure about the cheesesteak, though.