What's Your Opinion on Relic-ing Guitars?

CantankerousCarl

Occasionally Onery Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
2,009
Personally, I just don't get it.

Admittedly, I am uber careful with my stuff, but things happen.

But I just don't understand why someone would take something inherently beautiful, and destroy it in that manner. There is no discipline or story behind the destruction that makes it interesting.

Plus, most of the ones I have seen just look like someone took a screwdriver to them. Which they probably did.
 
not into relicing guitars at all. I don't mind if my guitars get dents or scratches, it's scars from being used, so no problems with those. but paying somebody to look bitten is not my cup of tea
 
I'm with ya, bro. To intentionally deface an instrument to get some kind of fake provenance is a concept that is foreign to me. I understand sanding a neck to make it smooth and fast. I understand removing sharp edges on a nut or relieving a bur or other sharp edge.

I just don't get defacing an instrument to make it Look old. And you hit the reason on the head - where is the authenticity? Where is the true story?

YMMV.
Not for the other use.
 
To each his own on one hand. On the other hand... Maybe 10 years ago, I went to see a friend's band and the guitarist had this old strat that belonged to his dad and was a well played vintage model from the 60s. We talked about it and had a great conversation, he was all excited to be playing something like that. Now, if I see a band with a guitar like that, I assume it's a relic. No great conversations, no excitement. They've cheapened the naturally made ones by creating artificial reproductions.

After 6+ years my black Custom 22 has developed a nice played-in patina, and I am enjoying the process of making a relic of the guitar as it gets used. Fingers crossed relic PRSi don't become too common before mine gets there naturally.
 
I think it's fine if is an after-market job, but when I see manufacturers doing it......Lame.
 
I'm generally against it especially with PRS. Having a nice shiny new guitar is kind of the point. I also don't care for the VOS style finishes either. It's not even really relic-Ed just looks unfinished or like someone wiped if down with some steel wool.
 
It's a gimmick to sell guitars. Nothing more. Anyone who would pay for an intentionally worn guitar, well, bless their heart as my Gma puts it. IMHO.
 
FYI found this, not sure if it's ever been posted before, but honestly I could not finish the video...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hate the whole idea of trying to FAKE the look of a guitar that's had years of play.

I can understand guitar companies making them to a point as there's clearly a market for it, but I don't understand why people would want a new guitar that has deliberately been messed with to make it look old and beat up - and pay a premium for it!
 
not my thing but if you like them go for it--cant see spending premium money for a beat up guitar--I like mine pristine!!!
 
I hate it...

331987989.jpg


331987996.jpg


331987995.jpg


324515349.jpg


339572745.jpg


339572748.jpg


339572744.jpg


324513456.jpg


324513427.jpg


324513463.jpg


Oh, wait... No I don't...


Jamie
 
Jamie with the exception of the lester are they all danocasters?

Badass!!! btw....you alll ignored my pie recipe!!!

Only the first one, the "Keef" Tele (with the neck bucker) is a Danocaster. The rest (Strats included) are Cunetto Fenders...

And the Lester is a Tom Murphy relic. It was the very first '56 he'd done and only the 4th gold-top...


Jamie
 
Last edited:
Somebody please remind me about the whole recipe concept so I feel less stupid please.
 
Back
Top