Last edited by JMintzer; 04-30-2013 at 10:15 PM.
Somebody please remind me about the whole recipe concept so I feel less stupid please.
1990 CE24 MT | 1991 CU24 | 1991 CE24 | 1992 CE24 MT
1993 STD 24 | 1997 CE24 3pc MT | 2011 SE Akesson
2011 CU24 GC Throwback | 2012 Signature Limited | 2013 408 Brazilian
2013 Paul's Guitar | 2013 S2 Mira | 2013 Hollowbody II
It's not for me, but I don't really care why somebody else wants to buy a guitar. If a relic makes you happy, then I say go for it.
I don't care for it. Legitimate playing wear, that's one thing, but artificially aging a guitar so you can present the illusion that you've been playing it for years, that's shuckin' and jivin'. I suspect that some of the guys who have relic'ed new guitars haven't been playing very long--they just want to look as if they have. Would you buy a new car with dents and rust spots? Didn't think so...
I like them when they relic all on their own...
"I'm a sinner and I hope I never change"
I know there have been a number of DGT Goldtops that were reliced by the factory, but I'm curious to know if either the Private Stock Team or the PTC get many requests for reliced guitars, and whether or not they're willing to do them.
Last edited by Goldtop; 05-01-2013 at 03:41 AM.
'And the answer is... none. None more Gold.'
Not into it at all. If I am spending my hard earned I want something new and shiny, if I put a ding in it it's down to me using it, although I would be kicking myself. To me personally I find that the relicing thing is almost a lie, saying that either you or your instrument are seasoned road warriors that they in reality might not be. It's the same with artist relics, they are not the instruments actually used to make those classic tracks we all love, just copies without the years of mojo! Nice to hang on the wall and tell people how much you paid for it I guess, but better than a new pristine instrument? No offence intended, each to their own, just my 2c.
Waiting for it...
I'm all for wear and tear you put on the guitar (every mark is a story), but when it's done intentionally it's not my cup o tea. I even have slight issues buying a guitar with previous wear (hence my reluctance on that '88 CU24).
Most of the relic jobs I've seen simply don't look real. It's as though there are a bunch of standards that relic-ers have that they've agreed must happen, that you actually don't see on guitars that have aged naturally.
For example, most older Strats don't have the forearm paint wear that you see on nearly every relic. Most nitro finishes don't crack from top to bottom the way that you see them on some guitars. Many relic jobs are particularly laughable, as though the person doing it never saw a real older guitar, only other fakes.
If someone really wants an old-looking guitar, it's no worse than wanting an "antiqued" piece of furniture. Doesn't bother me.
But at least do a decent job with it!
It honestly looks ridiculous on a PRS. But that's just my opinion.
The interesting thing about life is that it is utterly preposterous.
-- LSchefman, 1749
My primary objection to 'relic-ing' is ONLY with the idea of what happens when the guitar is transferred or sold to another. If the seller is honest about the history of the 'wear', no problem; if the seller represents the guitar otherwise - big problem.
But hey - if you spend hundreds (thousands) of dollars for something and then want to make it 'yours' in whatever way pleases you, have at it.
(starting to get hungry for pie.... )
Check it out: Phillybri used to have a band: Resonance
But he's soooo over them now!
I prefer natural wear and tear over instant-ageing. hacking up a perfectly new guitar to make it look chopped won't make it look aged, more like it's abused or used as a hockey stick! i find scratching off the paint with a blade or similar tools to be pure torment to my eyes, and possibly my ears if it screeches in pain! that said, as for sanding the neck to make it faster, i find it acceptable and i do sand my guitar's neck. it made me realise how much potential that guitar has. for parts ageing like dipping white pickup covers into coffee to make it look ivory/cream, kiwi polish on satin maple neck, all that things i find them to be my personal threshold of guitar ageing and anything further than that is OTT. though i wouldn't try it myself. never.
Relics....luv 'em personally.
Its an aesthetic,to me,nothing more...I have several and they make me smile.I have several non reliced guitars that make me smile also.
I'm not attempting to fool anyone or have anyone make assumptions about my guitars because they are ...my guitars....for me
To me the relic option is right up there with gloss or satin...opaque or transparent..red or blue.....I will assume no one will assume my Goldtop DGT came from a gold tree
Its a finish option or choice...if realism was the only goal there certainly wouldn't be any of the beautifully colored PRS guitars that we all love....as Guthrie Govan puts it they would all be "tree color"
The relic'ing discussion always seems to be such a polarizing one and I don't really get it....there guitars....luv 'em all
Arm Wear on a '57 Strat Body:
Top to bottom checking:
Vintage Strat w/Arm Wear and Cross Checking:
Agreed!If someone really wants an old-looking guitar, it's no worse than wanting an "antiqued" piece of furniture. Doesn't bother me.
But at least do a decent job with it!
I've only seen one or two, and they were decent, but it does look out of place, since it's so uncommon...It honestly looks ridiculous on a PRS. But that's just my opinion.
Last edited by JMintzer; 05-01-2013 at 08:22 PM.