Is relic'ing a fad, or is it here to stay? (Spoiler: not a fad, yes here to stay, but come chat)

Elliot

Gandalf the Vintage Yellow
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
939
It just seems like there are thousands of relic'd guitars being pumped out, especially one brand in particular. It seems like it's just kind of exploded in the past few years. I've seen videos of people relic'ing PRSi even... :confused:

Some of you guys may be in to that sort of thing... not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
Fender started relicing guitars in 1995 or thereabouts. That's a very long-lived "fad." I'd call it a full-fledged Thing. Not my thing, but a thing nonetheless.

Come to think of it, some of those earliest reliced guitars will be genuine vintage pieces in just a few more years. Think about that for a few minutes...
 
I think guitars that have been honestly road worn are awesome. Every scratch, chunk, ding, etc has a story no matter how small.

The factory done "relics" on the other hand are bull$#!+. People buy them though. For some reason.
 
I think there will continue to be a market for them. I don't understand why people buy pre ripped jeans, but everybody is doing it, and the manufacturer makes more money on them so they aren't going to stop.
 
Fender started relicing guitars in 1995 or thereabouts. That's a very long-lived "fad." I'd call it a full-fledged Thing. Not my thing, but a thing nonetheless.

I remember when they were announced (working at a Fender dealer at the time), and I laughed to myself, thinking they'd tank so hard. Boy was I wrong. :(

My mind is blown by the volume they've moved since.
 
I beg to make a distinction between relic guitars and actually worn guitars. The art of making a guitar into a relic is a deliberate aging process which, although I do not appreciate, I recognize as a separate activity from just hacking at it or just using it for a long time.
 
There are actual companies out there you can send your sparkley new guitar to for aging. It's nuts.
 
I beg to make a distinction between relic guitars and actually worn guitars. The art of making a guitar into a relic is a deliberate aging process which, although I do not appreciate, I recognize as a separate activity from just hacking at it or just using it for a long time.

I need clarification. You make the distinction between relicing and playing guitars by saying relicing is not the same as hacking on a guitar OR the same as playing it for a long time. Is it then somewhere in between? Does the deliberate aging process improve the sound like natural wear does?
 
The first I recall is SRV and Fender making a very limited run (around 100) of very accurate relics of his #1, to include the coveted neck dimensions. A couple years later (maybe 91) Gibson had a very similar relic'd limited run of 56 and 59 Les Pauls. It faded after that for a short while then Fender with nuts with it around 97 thereabout.
 
I think most of the relic-altered guitars these days look like crap. I saw the Brad Paisley relic'd Telecaster, and there was something about it in my head that just looked wrong. They all look exactly the same. It's a "clean" relic. Same for that Flea bass. I just can't wrap my head around why.

The only relic job I've ever seen that was not offensive to me was on a Jaco Pastorius relic bass. Even then, I think the wear and tear of a guitar should tell the player's story. And yet I want my PRS to stay perfect forever.

Willie Nelson's guitar "Trigger" comes to mind. It's worn as hell, probably the most worn active guitar of our day, and I do not envy the luthier who has to keep that thing on life support. It's worn out, yet plays in a way that Willie likes. It tells his story, since 1969. If Trigger out-lives Willie, then it will probably have a value higher than I can imagine. But would I go out and buy a guitar that is made in a way where it is worn out like that on purpose?

No.
 
I got into an actual argument with one of the guys at a "vintage" store here once about this... maybe 10 years ago now.... probably more. They had a relatively new Strat in stock that was actually a nice sounding and playing guitar. Unfortunately someone had done a home-relic'ing job on it with a sander and some kind of chemical. This shop wanted a ridiculous amount of money for that guitar in my estimation. I mean, it was essentially ruined cosmetically, right? I made them some kind of offer - it was low based on my feelings about the condition. They got offended and snippy and told me I was "out of touch with the market", I got snippy back because that's what I did back then and told them they were full of, well you know..... it turned into a whole thing and I never went back. Haha - long story short, they were right and I was wrong. Now when I talk to the guys who work at the dealers that I like, they all kind of say the same thing: "yeah we know, but the relic'd guitars make up the majority of the units we sell". So there you go. Not really my thing although I've owned one of two of them, but still massively popular nonetheless.
 
Imagine a brand new car that's a copy of a '67 Buick Electra 225; dented, rusty, maybe has a couple of hubcaps missing, worn tires (some are whitewall tires, some aren't, and one's a snow tire), springs that don't work, a cracked windshield, primer over body filler in spots, needs a new muffler, has one headlight that works, a cracked taillight, a rear window where the glass is missing so it's a piece of Visqueen duck taped on, and a ripped up interior with a warped dashboard and a missing radio with the hookup wires dangling out.

And it comes with a $50,000 price tag and is something of a status symbol.

Car companies would clean up.

Well, I guess it'd go with my new $2,000 '76 reissue relic'd leisure suit that has coffee stains, dirt, some missing buttons, and bell bottom pants that are too short. ;)

Humans are posers. It's part of the DNA.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top