# “Fake” aging now offerd on acoustic guitars.



## Daniel Grenier (Jun 24, 2008)

And now, back on the topic of guitars, here is something different about those famous Martin “pre-war” guitars. 

The stressed, aged, old, worn, beat up look so common on electrics (Fender anyone?) is now offered on a line of new acoustics.

These new guitars are not “gimmicks” but, by all accounts, serious instruments made by very knowledgeable builders in North Carolina. They are made exactly like the pre war Martins and made to look one - playing wear and all. And, apparently, they sound and feel just like one.

The “phony” aging might be questionable to many but, according to the builders, it serves a sonic purpose (as well as a visual one, be it “fake”). They offer three levels of aging: from none, to beat up to really beat up (but not quite to Trigger’ s level). A unique approach, I suppose, but certainly not cheap. Around 5,000 to 8 or 9,000 us. I’d copy a pic but they have them locked, looks like.

Anyway interesting new take on the acoustic guitar.

Check them out at pre-warguitars.com


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2018)

Daniel Grenier said:


> 5,000 to 8 or 9,000 us. I’d copy a pic but they have them locked, looks like.


The 'aging' does look fake though. lol.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2018)

Historic Martin Guitar Accidentally Destroyed in Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Hateful Eight’

_Apparently, Kurt Russell didn’t get the memo about the historic Martin guitar that makes an 
appearance in Quentin Tarantino’s latest film, The Hateful Eight. In the scene, the character 
Daisy Domergue, played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, is singing and playing the instrument when 
John Ruth, Russell’s character, decides he’s heard enough. “Music time’s over,” he yells before 
grabbing the guitar from her and smashing it to pieces against a large wooden support

The Martin, a model from the 1870s, was on loan from the company’s museum and, according 
to Mark Ulano, the film’s Academy Award–winning sound mixer, “was priceless.” Six doubles 
were created as stand-ins for the scene. 

“We were supposed to go up to that point, cut and trade guitars and smash the double,” Ulano 
explains to SSNInsider.com. “Well, somehow that didn’t get communicated to Kurt, so when 
you see that happen on the frame, Jennifer’s reaction is genuine.”

“Kurt shattered the antique guitar and everyone was pretty freaked out. Tarantino was in a corner 
of the room with a funny curl on his lips, because he got something out of it with the performance.”_


----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

Wonder if a "fake aging" guitars really sound (though torrefied woods may help if they are made of) and will really age like an actual "pre-war"...


----------



## Daniel Grenier (Jun 24, 2008)

An original pre 1940s Martin in good condition can go for much, much more than these guitars and, it’d be very cool, and enlightening, to try a “real” pre-war and one of these side by side. The reviews of these new ones, though, are very good and regardless of the link they make to old Martins, thesy are apparently very worthy instruments.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Daniel Grenier said:


> An original pre 1940s Martin in good condition can go for much, much more than these guitars and, it’d be very cool, and enlightening, to try a “real” pre-war and one of these side by side. The reviews of these new ones, though, are very good and regardless of the link they make to old Martins, thesy are apparently very worthy instruments.


I go to Folkway music quite a bit up in Kitchener. I've been able to play a few 1930's, 40's and 50's D-28's and D-18's over the past few years. A couple of months ago they got in a 1941 vintage D-28 and I took my D-28 Authentic series 1941 VTS there to do a side by side comparison. The D-28 Authentic is the best that Martin currently sells but the real 1941 kicked its ass. More bass, more depth, more of everything.


----------



## Daniel Grenier (Jun 24, 2008)

guitarman2 said:


> I go to Folkway music quite a bit up in Kitchener. I've been able to play a few 1930's, 40's and 50's D-28's and D-18's over the past few years. A couple of months ago they got in a 1941 vintage D-28 and I took my D-28 Authentic series 1941 VTS there to do a side by side comparison. The D-28 Authentic is the best that Martin currently sells but the real 1941 kicked its ass. More bass, more depth, more of everything.


I bet that was a really good day for you. I'd love to do that, some day. I have a Martin (12 string) but it's something like 8 or 10 years old now and I love the thing but getting my hands on a 1941 D28 would be something else. Mind you, your D28 Authentic is definitely nothing to sneeze at either. I'd love one of those too.

How much was that "real" 1941? $50k? 75? Maybe more?


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2018)

Daniel Grenier said:


> How much was that "real" 1941? $50k? 75? Maybe more?


If it's the same guitar that he's talking about, $65K (USD)
1941 Martin D28 Acoustic Guitar | Folkway Music, Vintage and New Guitars, Guelph and Waterloo, Ontario Canada


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

laristotle said:


> If it's the same guitar that he's talking about, $65K (USD)
> 1941 Martin D28 Acoustic Guitar | Folkway Music, Vintage and New Guitars, Guelph and Waterloo, Ontario Canada


Yes that is the one. I have a video of it somewhere. When I was doing the comparison Mark set up the recording gear. When I get home I'll try and find it and post it. I only have the video of me playing the real 41 at the recording session. Although Mark did record me playing my authentic for comparison he never sent it to me.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Found it. You can see mine hanging there in front of me.


----------



## Daniel Grenier (Jun 24, 2008)

guitarman2 said:


> Found it. You can see mine hanging there in front of me.


What a thrill...awesome guitar, for sure! This thing looks new. At 65k us, there’s no doubt it’s original so I would guess it’s not seen much playing at all. But can you, in all honesty, say that this $65k us guitar is better than your new version? “Better” to be worth shelling out an extra $55, 60k us ? Is the voice that much better? Is the intonation that different? Is it _really_ worth that kind of money?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Daniel Grenier said:


> What a thrill...awesome guitar, for sure! This thing looks new. At 65k us, there’s no doubt it’s original so I would guess it’s not seen much playing at all. But can you, in all honesty, say that this $65k us guitar is better than your new version? “Better” to be worth shelling out an extra $55, 60k us ? Is the voice that much better? Is the intonation that different? Is it _really_ worth that kind of money?


Its a collectors grade guitar so thats going to be a great portion of what you're paying for. So being that I'm not a collector, no it wouldn't be worth it to me. If I was rich I would buy it.
If I had it to play side by side with mine its noticeably better than mine when it comes to more bass, nice thick trebles and all the other goodness one looks for in a good guitar. Its got a 75 year head start on mine so maybe mine will sound as good in 75 years. When I compared in the recordings It was difficult to detect much difference but while playing I could tell. I do love the tone of mine and its the best I could ever get from Martin for a D-28. Before I made the comparison I was hoping it would be comparable but being honest it wasn't. Maybe someone else couldn't hear the difference, maybe I am just more sensitive to it or maybe imagined it was much better because its supposed to be. The biggest difference was how much more bass there was and how much fuller it sounded.
The biggest structural difference between the 2 is of course, mine has madi back and sides and the real 41 has Brazilian. As much as Marin determined that Madi was the closest replacement many think they are quite different.


----------



## Frenchy99 (Oct 15, 2016)

Daniel Grenier said:


> But can you, in all honesty, say that this $65k us guitar is better than your new version? “Better” to be worth shelling out an extra $55, 60k us ? Is the voice that much better? Is the intonation that different? Is it _really_ worth that kind of money?


No!
No!
and No !

But if I was a successful artist with millions coming in... The answer would be Yes, Yes and Yes... !!!


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

The other difference I forgot to mention was the neck. The neck on the real 41 was fairly consistent up the neck as far as dimensions. Its fairly chunky but not overly. My 41 authentic starts out slightly on the thin side and tapering very chunky up to the 12th fret. the 37 authentic is even more extreme. It starts out good and chunky and gets monstrous up the neck. This taper turns a lot of people off of the 37A. The 41A isn't as extreme.


----------



## Daniel Grenier (Jun 24, 2008)

Yeah. Definitely a collectors item which will never see the light of a live gig!


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Daniel Grenier said:


> Yeah. Definitely a collectors item which will never see the light of a live gig!


If I had the money to buy this guitar it would see a live gig. I don't buy guitars to collect, I buy them to play. 65k would have to be pocket change to me before I'd buy it though.


----------



## brucew (Dec 30, 2017)

Looked up the site, seem to sound nice, but I never understood people buying ripped or intentionally half worn out jeans either. Get a job, they'll wear out quick enough.

If I can afford to buy it new I'll wear it out myself, thanks, I definitely wouldn't pay extra for it. (Not that they're in my price range anyway...perhaps you have to have more money than you know what to do with to purchase stuff that, "looks" worn out?? I don't know. I've dressed the same all my life. About once every 10 yrs apparently I'm, "in fashion" for 6 mo or so?) When wife jokes about my never changing habiliments I say, "I'm just a victim of fashion".*

*Ya, I know, "habiliments" is a stretch in that sentence but it sounds cool.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

The OP hits the nail on the head when he calls it "fake". IMHO, it is marketing aimed at those who want something they are not able to get themselves or unwilling to be patient enough to develop over years of playing. 

Some of us would never want a beat up looking guitar in any case; whether it got that aged look from being played or whether it is a fake and purchased that way. I like whatever I own to look as nice as possible, so I would be one of them.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

One thing that drives me nuts is players that obsess over how shiny and new they must keep their guitars forever. It drives me nuts that these same players think they're entitled to buy a guitar you have for sale for a fraction of the cost because there is a ding on it.
What I love about my heavy relic masterbuilt nocaster is the worn in feel of it. It feels like a real aged guitar. I can play it at home or at gigs with out fear of the bumps and bruises that happen naturally. Although the amount I play out or at home its unlikely anything will happen. However I don't worry about it.
And for those that say "let it age naturally". Thats a laugh. Gone are the 6 to 7 nights a week road gigs all over the country and wild road parties that used to relic these guitars naturally. Fender sells thin skin nitro guitars and even they are likely never to wear in to an old looking vintage guitar.
Then there are those of us that are already near 60 or more. How much time do you think we have to naturally age a guitar?
Its always the same old stupid comments in these relic'd threads. "I can't understand how anyone can like an artificially aged guitar". People do, get over it. "Just let it age artificially". Life is different now. Most people don't gig like they used to. Thats not likely ever to happen unless you drag it behind your car.
Saying you don't understand how anyone can like a relic'd guitar is like saying you don't understand how anyone can like a pink guitar. Or how anyone can have a different opinion than you. People like what they like. I personally like a relic looking tele. It just looks right to me. At one time I didn't prefer them and never thought I'd buy one. Someone left one at my house for a month and I fell in love with it for more reasons than just the look. I'm still not that fond of a really beat up looking acoustic but I'll bet they feel nice in the hands. Its a finish option. You don't have to get it. Just like you don't have to get a green one if you don't like it.
One of the best features of the relic guitar is the finish worn off the back of the neck. I loved it so much on my Nocaster that I had the finish removed on the back of the neck of my 52 thin skin.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

guitarman2 said:


> One thing that drives me nuts is players that obsess over how shiny and new they must keep their guitars forever. It drives me nuts that these same players think they're entitled to buy a guitar you have for sale for a fraction of a cost because there is a ding on it.
> What I love about my heavy relic masterbuilt nocaster is the worn in feel of it. It feel like a real aged guitar. I can play it at home or at gigs with out fear of the bumps and bruises that happen naturally. Although the amount I play out or at home its unlikely anything will happen. However I don't worry about it.
> And for those that say "let it age naturally". Thats a laugh. Gone are the 6 to 7 night a week road gigs all over the country and wild road parties that used to relic these guitars naturally. Fender sells thin skin nitro guitars and even they are likely never to wear in to an old looking vintage guitar.
> Then there are those of us that are already near 60 or more. How much time do you think we have to naturally age a guitar?
> ...


My Esquire came to me with no finish on the back of the neck. Its glorious. 

My other guitars get a frequent scotch pad rub down


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cboutilier said:


> My Esquire came to me with no finish on the back of the neck. Its glorious.
> 
> My other guitars get a frequent scotch pad rub down


I agree with that. However, that is not relicing; that is making the guitar play better. Who wants a sticky neck anyway?


----------



## Daniel Grenier (Jun 24, 2008)

guitarman2 said:


> I go to Folkway music quite a bit up in Kitchener. I've been able to play a few 1930's, 40's and 50's D-28's and D-18's over the past few years......


I just noticed on the Folkways music website that they actually carry the guitars from Pre-war Guitars. Next time you go, and if it’s possible for you to play one or two, it’d be interesting to hear your take on them.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Daniel Grenier said:


> I just noticed on the Folkways music website that they actually carry the guitars from Pre-war Guitars. Next time you go, and if it’s possible for you to play one or two, it’d be interesting to hear your take on them.


Yes I've been meaning to get there to try some out since they got them in. Many guys on the Martin guitar forum rave about them. Supposedly much closer to the Prewar sound then the Authentic series Martins.


----------



## Golden Era (Aug 18, 2014)

I own a Pre-War model D - I can tell you this is currently as close as you are going to get to a '30s
Martin D-18 in tone and feel at this kind of price point...

As far as relic'ing, well to each his own, but I do feel that the thin/worn finish has a fair bit to do
with the "dry", "vintagey(?)" tone I get out this guitar.


----------



## Jayg28 (Oct 12, 2017)

That's a beautiful "Golden Era" axe right there. After playing and owning new, relic'd and (restored) vintage guitars, I've been impressed by what I've seen with Pre-War guitars. My stance is that I like the look, feel and sound of vintage acoustics, but the many repairs and restorations can weigh heavy on one's guitar psyche. Pre-war looks to be distressing their guitars to emulate a high degree of authenticity - nothing hoaky - so if you're buying a vintage inspired instrument that is structurally sound, then more power to you! Enjoy your model D, Golden Era!


----------



## Golden Era (Aug 18, 2014)

Hey Jayg28,

Yes, they are pretty impressive for a new guitar!
It's actually a little shocking when you first pick one up - if you've ever played a '37 D-18 or D-28, you'll know
what I mean. The "feel" of the guitar, the way the whole guitar vibrates in your hands, the tactile responsiveness.
Pretty much all there in the Pre-War...


----------



## Daniel Grenier (Jun 24, 2008)

Great feedback from an actual owner. Thank you. And that’s a beautiful guitar you have there!

Sounds like these folks at Pre-war really know what they are doing. They have hit, it seems, on an idea that may well be a big success for them. Is this the start of some bandwagon for builders?


----------



## Golden Era (Aug 18, 2014)

Thanks Daniel.

Yes, this could be the start of a niche "bandwagon" - Pre-War has upped the bar in the vintage inspired tone department.
They are definitely on to something! There are some very big name pickers that have jumped on this "bandwagon" now. 
Glad I got in before that happened - the wait time is over a year now!

There are a few builders (even Martin) doing the relic'ing thing, but I've yet to play a guitar that comes as close to
that dry tone of a '30s Martin as the Pre-War.

Does it sound JUST like a '30s Martin? No, but it's close...sure feels like one!

Bear in mind though, that not everyone lusts for a vintage type of tone - I've seen more than one person turn up
their noses at the tone (and feel) of the real thing! Just not what their ears are tuned to I suppose. And it IS a bit of a different tone...
I have a very special Martin D-18 GE that is a fabulous sounding guitar in it's own right, but it does not have "that" tone in any way.
Still a great tone though...

But that's the great thing about guitars today - there are so many really good ones being made at every price range, a person
can pick and choose the sound they're after!


----------

