Rant No. 1

[MDV]

Or VOS

[noodleplugerine]

The funny thing about the Kirk Hammet sig is its identical in everyway to a typical MII except for inlays. For some reason they decide its worth charging an extra grand for it - No idea why. Perhaps different workshop?

[indysmith]

I like relic'd guitars, because they look cool and also because I hate when you get a new guitar and you're scared of getting that first dent in it.
I agree that the relic jobs cost a lot more than they should, and that they are often very poor and fake looking, but when it comes to vintage-style guitars, I prefer the relic look all the way!

Saying that I don't think I'd ever buy one, mainly because I don't want to pay extra, but also because I'd prefer to remember the stories behind each nick and ding, and I'd like to know that where the paint's worn is from my own playing.

[dave_mc]

I know one guy that has a relic. Its a strat. Its actually a nice guitar, woods and construction wise (I havent amped it up). Hes the guitarist in my mums band. Super-nice bloke, and not a regressive player at all (he mixes van-halen like flourishes and tapping into blues playing and actually makes it sound good!!!), plays through a JMP1 a lot of the time, and was looking at engl rack units (!!!!), but he definately has an attraction to older guitars, and he likes his relic.

I dont think theres anything wrong with it, per se, its supplying something some people want. But the demand is certainly out there. I dont think theres anyone sitting around going "Well that strats pretty cool, but I dont want it if it doesnt look like kieth richards threw up on it!", its one part of some poeples buying proclivities.

i guess on the one hand it makes non-relics cheaper (well, they'd be cheaper anyway as they take less work), which is cool. Much like the way I always complain that a lot of people can't see past buying a Fender or a Gibson- but on the other hand, this makes Fenders and Gibsons more expensive, and the ones I want to buy cheaper, which is always nice.

Though on the other hand it's kind of annoying how, if you did want a custom-shop strat, it's almost difficult to find one which HASN'T been reliced...

:lol:

[dave_mc]

The funny thing about the Kirk Hammet sig is its identical in everyway to a typical MII except for inlays. For some reason they decide its worth charging an extra grand for it - No idea why. Perhaps different workshop?

the hammster needs his cut?



No idea to be honest, I've never tried it, but at the end of the day a signature guitar is going to at least be a bit more expensive as a royalty has to be paid to the endorsee...

[Stevepage]

the only thing I like about the Relic's is their necks. I like how you can feel the grain of the wood. But that can be done with some sanding and oil. As for dings etc in the body, never bothered me because I've bought alot of used guitars, but I wouldn't like a brand new guitar to look like it's been dragged along concrete. I don't think companies should charge silly amounts of money to beat the shite out of it for you.

[WezV]

i'm not agaist it completely... when done well like philkings bravewood i absolutely love it

i havnt done any true relics myself because (again, blame phils bravewood for this) i dont think i could do it as well as some of the pro relicers... but i did enjoy doing my veteran guitar - more 'battle worn'  than authentic ageing to steal the BKP terminology

[Ratrod]

I like the look of relics. But they are too expensive and they can't beat the 'real deal'.

Real relics have real stories to tell.

[badgermark]

i'm not agaist it completely... when done well like philkings bravewood i absolutely love it

i havnt done any true relics myself because (again, blame phils bravewood for this) i dont think i could do it as well as some of the pro relicers... but i did enjoy doing my veteran guitar - more 'battle worn'  than authentic ageing to steal the BKP terminology

that looked amazing though, really suited the subdued nature of the guitar. Artificial relicing is a bit silly though, my guitars are a little beat up, but that's due to carelessness and not got any wood showing. Pah, i dislike a LOT of guitars, i knows what i like and it wont change if you scr@pe one up.

[MrBump]

I know one guy that has a relic. Its a strat. Its actually a nice guitar, woods and construction wise (I havent amped it up). Hes the guitarist in my mums band. Super-nice bloke, and not a regressive player at all (he mixes van-halen like flourishes and tapping into blues playing and actually makes it sound good!!!), plays through a JMP1 a lot of the time, and was looking at engl rack units (!!!!), but he definately has an attraction to older guitars, and he likes his relic.

I dont think theres anything wrong with it, per se, its supplying something some people want. But the demand is certainly out there. I dont think theres anyone sitting around going "Well that strats pretty cool, but I dont want it if it doesnt look like kieth richards threw up on it!", its one part of some poeples buying proclivities.

i guess on the one hand it makes non-relics cheaper (well, they'd be cheaper anyway as they take less work), which is cool. Much like the way I always complain that a lot of people can't see past buying a Fender or a Gibson- but on the other hand, this makes Fenders and Gibsons more expensive, and the ones I want to buy cheaper, which is always nice.

Though on the other hand it's kind of annoying how, if you did want a custom-shop strat, it's almost difficult to find one which HASN'T been reliced...

:lol:

Damn, Dave - how many hands have you got?!?!

[PhilKing]

I have old guitars that are a bit beaten up because I could get them at a good price, and old guitars that have natural lacquer cracks.  Once the lacquer strats to go on an old strat it is easy to get small chips in it, however some relics are really over the top.  My Bravewood is not very chipped, but is cracked and the neck has the same feel as my real 60's Fenders.  John is making me a copy of my 57, so that I can actually take it out with me!  The older guitars are becoming a bit too expensive to take out.  The copy will not be 100% the same, this will be 2 tone sunburst, rather than the white that the 57 is, and the neck will be a bit wider (I think the 57 was unlucky in some refrets and lost a bit of width!!!). 

The relics I don't get are ones like the Nash where they just dull the finish and sand the edge where a forearm wrapped in sandpaper would rest.  I am not a big fan of very shiny finishes though, especialy the poly finishes which are like a plastic coating on the guitar!

[dave_mc]

^ agreed about the poly finishes, they (generally) feel plasticky to me too.

Damn, Dave - how many hands have you got?!?!

3, apparently... :lol:

[Philly Q]

I don't own any relic guitars, but they do appeal to me. 

Not because I think an old guitar necessarily looks, or is any cooler than, a shiny new one, but because I'm one of those people who goes absolutely mental when I put the tiniest scratch or dent on my nice pristine guitars (I did just that today, in fact).  I would really like the freedom of having a guitar I could just bash about without worrying about damaging it.

I have to say most relic guitars look very fake, though, including a lot of Fenders and those Nash guitars.  But I would love to own a Bravewood.

[MDV]

I don't own any relic guitars, but they do appeal to me. 

Not because I think an old guitar necessarily looks, or is any cooler than, a shiny new one, but because I'm one of those people who goes absolutely mental when I put the tiniest scratch or dent on my nice pristine guitars (I did just that today, in fact).  I would really like the freedom of having a guitar I could just bash about without worrying about damaging it.

I have to say most relic guitars look very fake, though, including a lot of Fenders and those Nash guitars.  But I would love to own a Bravewood.

I find age gives that freedom. I'm similar, in that I hate it if my guitars are even extremely trivially damaged. I remember the first time I knocked 2 or 3 square mm off my jackson (then my main guitar, now my number 3), I was pretty bloody annoyed. Now it has quite a few minor dings, and I like it more for it. Its like its got some experience. It speaks of the history of the guitar. Its about 9 years old now - another 18 and it may well look half reliced, and I'm sort of looking forward to it. But theres no way in hell I'd get one NEW like that. It totally defeats the object!

[Philly Q]

Yeah, point taken, Mark, but I don't gig so many of my guitars are still in pristine condition after 10 years or more!

My old Hamer is a wreck, but mostly from DIY projects rather than playing - and its finish reacted with the case lining, which really messed it up.  Apart from that, a couple of my nitro-finished guitars have acquired a bit of a patina.  But everything else is annoyingly mint.  :? :lol: