Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Elliot, Sep 11, 2017.
Once is a must-see.
Again I don't condone relic'ing and I'm generally not even attracted to it, except in that one strange case. It doesn't make sense to me either. I don't understand the vast mysteries of Guitar Acquisition Syndrome.
I just made some chili and ribs. No noodles though.
No noodles? Damn you!
But ribs sound rather redeeming.
Ok suppose I earned that one. I guess... due to the "likes". LOL. I pulled that post, but not quick enough! For the record, you (not YOU, of course, just in general) but you scratch one of my PRS guitars ON PURPOSE........ never mind. Remember, I'm old and grumpy.
I only watched a minute or so of this, but it doesn't look like he's plugged in (although they never showed it clearly) on this performance...
Oscar winner for this song. They were played off the stage before Marketa Irglova got to give her speech, and Jon Stewart brought her out after the commercial break to deliver her thank yous.
And he was one of the Commitments.
Yes it is. It's strange how close I came to never seeing it, and it's one of my favorites. I was lucky enough to see the Swell Season live before they broke up. If you haven't seen the documentary about them (Swell Season), it depicts their break-up - fascinating but heartbreaking to watch.
The two new PS DGT 594s with light aging that just hit Wildwood Guitars tell me that relics are doing okay.
Love this guitar, BTW.
I never understand why people buy perfectly good guitars that have been cosmetically ruined. Even my old guitars still are clean and sparkly.
Not saying I get it, either, but here's my theory...
Less than 5 years old, a guitar is just a guitar. No one expects it to be all that cool, and the new ones are always thought to be much improved. Still, if it looks nice, doesn't have too many nicks and dings, bonus.
5-10 years old, the guitar is still just an old guitar, but "maybe they made them better back then." Wear is still a minus for the value.
10-15 years old, the guitar is approaching exaggerated semi-vintage status. Now it's "definitely better than what they're making these days." Wear is OK, if it's not too bad.
15-20 years old, it's "eBay Vintage." That is, it's not really vintage, but the ad will say it is. Here's where some signs of wear are kinda-sorta cool.
20-30 years old, folks are calling theirs Vintage. People think wear is good.
30-35 years, maybe the guitar really is vintage. Here it gets "OMG they aren't making these anything like this Holy Grail object any more," and even rough condition is acceptable, if not status-y.
35+, people want the wear on the guitar, and imagine that it might have been played by [insert name of rock or blues star] and have all that mojo from the dirt under his/her fingernails.
50+ the guitar is absolutely the Holiest of Grails and it's a complete status symbol. The more it looks like Stevie Ray's guitar's wear, the cooler it is. It has mojo. It sweated the world tour -- even if its real history is that an unknown guy played it in his bedroom and in his high school band, nicked it up, put it under his bed where it got kicked around and dusty, then kept it in the basement where it got a little rust and mildew, and eventually his grandkids made him take it to the shop and sell it.
So...players want their brand new guitar to look like these Holiest of Grails models. The thing is, on the gig when another guitar player comes up to them and says, "Is that a '65, man?" the relic'd guitar player feels obligated to explain that, no, it's a relic'd new guitar. Kinda loses its status at that point and becomes...just a guitar. Full circle.
See, I have one of those and it is quite famous in my family. A '62 that was a bit raggedy when I bought it 10-12 years later. Now there isn't an unblemished spot on it that is as big as my baby finger nail. But it is frigging awesome.
The problem is I don't know if I have time to wear another guitar in like that. In part because I have too many guitars to play that much. If I played one guitar for four hours a day 3-6 days a week, all the other guitars would be sad. So I bought a relic that was worn in much the way I would have worn it if I had owned it for 50+ years and the neck in particular feels brilliant. It is worn like an old friend and I almost feel like I should be wearing a ratty old sweater with it.
Yes, I thought relics were a bad idea for a long time, but playing a few good ones won me over. I still have mostly nice guitars that I keep in excellent shape, but I won't turn down a great guitar because it was reliced - as long as it is relaxed the right way for that guitar, meaning aged the way that guitar would have aged.
Love, love, love the relic treatment.
Not to sound crazy, but in the late 80s (much like now) I was totally obsssed with vintage instruments and how they looked with their aging/use. I was 15 in '87 and did everything possible to my Japanese Squier Strat to make it look old. I put on a lefty tremolo, I dinged it up, I used a belt buckle on the back, I burned a cigarette on the headstock, dulled the pickguard with lighter fluid, coffee stained the knobs, I removed the finish over the pickguard to "simulate" wear and tear....Yes, it's okay to call me a "visionary" - I'll accept the title. When the Relic Strats and Teles first came out, I was like "been there, done that, have the guitar to show for it."
I think it's greatest thing since sliced bread......AND, really big AND....like AAAAANNNNNDDDDD - THE GUITAR COMPANIES STILL SELL NON-RELIC VERSION OF THE GUITARS TO KEEP EVERYONE HAPPY!
Amazing times, brothers and sisters....amazing times.
All that said...a DGT with nitro is fun. I OWN this guitar. I love every scrape, scratch, and dent.
Own it brother!
I've got no issue with you doing what you want with your own guitar. Glad it works for you. It's just not for me. I won't mind what scratches come along the journey, but I'm not going to put them there on purpose.
Usually. There are the occasional models that don't have the non-relic version, like the new Brad Paisley Tele.
One of the things I find somewhat amusing about some of the relics is when the companies say, "We did the relic thing because we wanted the guitar to have that broken-in feel even when it was new". If you go back, you'll find times where PRSG has said the same thing about their guitars, specifically about the necks, but w/o the relic treatment.
There's no denying that. Say what you will about guitars from the so-called "golden age" - the "golden age" is now. The stuff that is available to guitarists across the board is so good. I think about the Hondo II LP copy I got in the late 70s - what is available now in that price range blows that guitar away. Add in the technology for recording, practicing, learning...
I don't think relics are a bad idea at all. They're simply not for me.
My guitars will still look new when I'm dead.
My son, who likes relics, will be disappointed.
Considering how soon that will be... No a lot of time for wear...
That said, I have several Cunetto relics and a Danocaster. There is something about them...
My Mary Kay Strat is the closest I've ever come to a real 50's Strat an my Nocaster has blown away several pro players. My Danocaster "Mcawber" tribute still gives me chills...
Too bad I don't do any of them justice...
And remember, they've been around for over 20 years... Pretty long time for a "fad"...