Rant No. 1

[MrBump]

Relic'd Guitars - why?!?!?

Am I the only person that doesn't get the concept???  My main guitar, a Charvel ST Custom that's nearly 20 years old, and was purchased new, has hardly a scratch on it!!!.  And that's exactly how I want to keep it.  Why do people spend good money turning perfectly good guitars into some sort of unholy facsimile of what they think a "cool" guitar must look like???

Rant over.

Mark.

[38thBeatle]

I think you have a sound point. I have an old Strat that has been gigged constantly and it shows the wear but I certainly wouldn't want to buy someone else's battle worn guitar. I know where mine has been. I suppose that anyone wanting a guitar to look as if it is old might be thinking that they don't want someone else's grime on it and so they go for the "pre worn but new"  route. Personally I too can't see the point though I wouldn't mind a brand new slightly worn type guitar that feels played in.That is legitimate in my book but marks and scratches for the sake of it, not for me.   

[sgmypod]

Yeah don't want a dented(relic) guitar...if it's scratched dented then is from me

[noodleplugerine]

I would never buy a guitar which has been mashed up - I hate making marks on my guitars - Why would I pay EXTRA to get an effect I abhore?

[MDV]

Wanting £££££££ + Old guys with ££££££ Trying to get the good old days of guitar back = reliced guitars.

[AndyR]

It's not something I feel strong enough about to rant over, but I'm with you all the way.

I do like bashed up old guitars, but brand new guitars that look like that seem very odd to me.

When Fender brought out the Rory Gallagher strat, I drooled over the idea, but when I finally saw one, it looked nothing like it close up!! I understand they're a very nice guitar, but... what??? The only one I've seen that I liked the look of was the Joe Strummer signature series tele.

I can understand people "aging" their own guitars, but the general move towards pre-relic'd models/ranges - especially the ones I've seen close up - I just do not get it... when you look close, they seem to be aged in such a clinical pristine sort of way, they just don't look "old"!!

[AndyR]

Wanting £££££££ + Old guys with ££££££ Trying to get the good old days of guitar back = reliced guitars.

Yeah that's the only thing I can think of that is driving it - but how many people are actually buying these things? Is there really that much of a market for it?

[dave_mc]

i've never much seen the point either.

mr 38th has a point about older guitars feeling more played-in... but certainly relicing just so it looks like a relic is daft if you ask me.

[sgmypod]

Yeah remember seeing a Kirk hammett signature..esp relic....was well over a grand and looked like someone had taken a bike chain to it..ahhh what is the point in that

[MDV]

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.

[MDV]

Yeah remember seeing a Kirk hammett signature..esp relic....was well over a grand and looked like someone had taken a bike chain to it..ahhh what is the point in that

I believe the gutiar in question was actually well over 4 grand, identical, bar dents and stickers, to hammets normal sig, which at 2.5 grand is well over 1.5 grand overpriced.

[_tom_]

I like a bit of natural aging/wearing like my Pearl has but I hate it when its totally over the top and obviously fake. I'm probably getting an aged nickel cover for the bridge pickup in that guitar as well, I think it'll fit in better :)

I've never really liked plasticcy shiny looking guitars though, cant stand some of the PRS that look like they've never been played!

[MDV]

I think that if you want a relic, play the shite out of you guitar day in, day out. Have little regard for any harm it may come to (short of structural damage) and dont oil any metal components so corrosion is allowed.

Thats how the guitars that relics are supposed to immitate were originally 'reliced'. SRV, rory and co played the $%&# out of them all the $%&#ing time.

That way you earn a real relic.

[Bird]

Ok well I must admit that I like relic-ed strats. One of the most appealing things about them for me is the way they play. Everyone of the strats I've played plays great, like it's been broken in, like an old baseball mit. Very comfortable. New guitars are most often coated with polyurethane and not nitrocellulose so that stuff isn't going to wear out like guitars from back in the day. A guitar if properly cared for will last for about 300 years, so you'll probably wear out long before it does. And many guitarist just don't have the time to gig and play enough to get that worn out beat to hell look. Not enough time in the day. And probably the most valid point is that, speaking of stratocasters only, they're copies of 50's and 60's strats. Something very few of us will ever be able to afford, play, or own. With prices coming in at about $50 to $60 000 it's not very likely. So owning a strat relic is about as close as most will be able to get to those great vintage instruments.   8)

[MDV]

Or you could get a re-issue.