# Know what's weird to me about some relics (trigger warning: relic content)



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

This will probably be a can of worms, but here goes. 

I'm personally not a huge fan of new guitars being reliced, but I do understand the reasoning and the market for them so if you like them that's fine. But something I find really weird are the aftermarket or boutique builder relics. I'm talking about makers like Nash, Mario Martin, and a few others. Why? Because regardless of the quality of the instrument or the relic job they look silly because none of those guitar makers existed in the 50's or 60's. Fender or Gibson get a pass because they're trying to make it look like a vintage guitar that's been played for 50 years - and there actually ARE Fender and Gibson guitars that have been played for 70 years. So seeing a relic job with anything but Fender on the headstock... it just looks... off. 

Anyway, there's my rant for Monday morning!


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I see what you're saying, and that never even crossed my mind haha.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

The whole relic thing continues to be lost on me. I love the look of old, well loved gear. It tells a story, but new stuff made to look old through a formulaic procedure strikes me as almost the opposite of what its supposed to be. Of course I don't understand ripped jeans either.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

I discovered something about relics...
I'm painting a telecaster body and while sanding near the neck pocket, it chipped. I was going to touch up that spot then I noticed some other paint flaws like bugs and dust. I painted this outside, spray bombs... 
So I made a chip where each dust bit was, and added some wear marks then polished it up. 
Added a few more marks kept polishing in key spots, and done.
Heck of a lot easier than repainting the whole damn thing again. It looks OK, but it's certainly no custom shop fender.


----------



## HighNoon (Nov 29, 2016)

When you go in to buy a new car, do you want it relic'd? I don't think so, parking lot scratches are so passe, and give me some of that extra new car smell to go. When you're buying that suit for that special court date, do you want it relic'd? No, your honor, I didn't sleep last night on a park bench. And when you're looking for a new wife, do you want one that's been relic'd? Maybe you'll get one that's been handled a lot like the ones at the big box store, or a rough used rental at a discount, but we all want the one that's polished and buffed, and fresh off the assembly line.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Guitars are one of the few things where aging adds to the cool factor.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

I am in love with relic guitars for a number of reasons. First I am for everyone having the guitar that makes them happy. I don't want to be grouped with those morons who keep posting. "relics, I just don't get it. Its silly blah blah". To each their own.
Second I'm not a fan of a guitar made to look so bad it would pass for driftwood. I've seen and played many guitars and the actual vintage guitars that are around today for the most part don't look like that. 
My preferred level of relic for a fender is the Journeyman. Although I did own a heavy relic nocaster that was so comfortable, picking it up was like slipping in to a well worn comfortable pair of slippers. 
But the biggest benefit to relic guitars is that I never have to deal with another idiot who expects a shiny brand new absolutely not as much as a fingerprint guitar.
A few years ago I had a Martin D-18GE that I had purchased brand new. I ordered it from MFG in Florida. It was only a few months old when I decided it wasn't for me and wanted to sell to buy the D-18 Authentic 39. 
I had a guy come over that had agreed on a price. When he got there I was subjected to 3 hours of this moron (I know its mostly my fault for being too nice) He spent all kinds of time trying to convince me there was a ding on the top and that I had inaccurately told him it was mint. Before he got there I polished and examined every inch of that guitar. There was no mark. He pointed out a spot and I got out my big lighted magnifying glass and focused on the spot but seeing nothing. Then he changes his tune and says "well you can't really see it but if you run your finger over it you can feel it". Well I'm running my finger over it and I feel nothing. 
So he tries to still get money knocked off. I finally tell him that "maybe this guitar isn't for you". Then he complains that he drove all the way from Scarborough, blah blah blah. In the end he bought it and took it home.
With relic guitars this all goes away. There are more people out there that get relics then there are bozos on the Internet saying "I just don't understand relics". How many relic threads does there have to be before they get it or are they really that dense?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

HighNoon said:


> *When you go in to buy a new car, do you want it relic'd?* I don't think so, parking lot scratches are so passe, and give me some of that extra new car smell to go. When you're buying that suit for that special court date, do you want it relic'd? No, your honor, I didn't sleep last night on a park bench. And when you're looking for a new wife, do you want one that's been relic'd? Maybe you'll get one that's been handled a lot like the ones at the big box store, or a rough used rental at a discount, but we all want the one that's polished and buffed, and fresh off the assembly line.


Theres about the second stupidest thing that people on the Internet keep saying about relics. Is a car a guitar? I don't put guitar strings on my car either. People stress finish jeans, furniture, guitars and a myraid of other things. People don't purposley stress finish cars. No one would buy them. Because no one would buy them manufactures don't relic them. Guitar players buy a ton of relic guitars. Thats why guitar makers relic them. You understand now? Or are you an economics drop out?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Okay Player said:


> The whole relic thing continues to be lost on me. I love the look of old, well loved gear. It tells a story, but new stuff made to look old through a formulaic procedure strikes me as almost the opposite of what its supposed to be. Of course I don't understand ripped jeans either.


A well loved guitar doesn't tell any story unless it was you that owned it the whole time. If I buy an old guitar I have no idea how those marks got there.
The funny thing, I see the same guys on guitar forums telling us all how we should naturally age our guitars then in another thread talk about how the ding they just put on their shiny new guitar is going to force them in to therapy.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

guitarman2 said:


> A well loved guitar doesn't tell any story unless it was you that owned it the whole time. If I buy an old guitar I have no idea how those marks got there.
> The funny thing, I see the same guys on guitar forums telling us all how we should naturally age our guitars then in another thread talk about how the ding they just put on their shiny new guitar is going to force them in to therapy.


Quoted for emphasis. My tour guitar has dings and wear but I cant give you any specifics. Im the only owner.

It's also one of the best guitars I own.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I get that there are some functional elements of relic'ing that are desirable. I'm not a fan of artificially aging guitars. I think the functional elements can be achieved without the attempt to make it appear old.

I appreciate the aesthetics. I have a couple of old nitro finished guitars and the checking is a thing of beauty, but it happened through natural time and environment. I don't know. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but to me, it does.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

Budda said:


> Guitars are one of the few things where aging adds to the cool factor.


and any comparison to women just doesn't work.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I get that there are some functional elements of relic'ing that are desirable. I'm not a fan of artificially aging guitars. I think the functional elements can be achieved without the attempt to make it appear old.
> 
> I appreciate the aesthetics. I have a couple of old nitro finished guitars and the checking is a thing of beauty, but it happened through natural time and environment. I don't know. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but to me, it does.


Here are some levels of understanding

1. Poly finished guitar - Go through a nuclear war still look new
2. Nitro finished guitar - Someday years from now its going to look cool, providing you gig and its not a wall flower
3. Thin skin nitro - For the impatient that can't wait for that cool look
4. Relic finish. I want to walk out of the store looking cool. (Best option when you're 60)

Its just a finish option. I don't like black guitars but I don't go on the Internet saying "I just don't get black guitars".
But some people gotta make it a personal attack by saying "players who love relic guitars are fakes or wannabe's. Not saying you do Milkman but its one of the tired old comments among others that you see on Internet forums.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Can you physically get that worn in feeling without having a guitar _look_ worn in?

Im doubtful.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Was that an evil glint in KapnKrunch's eye or just a reflection off the gas can that he was throwing on the fire?

"Everyone thinks I am driving an old truck," he said, "But I paid a fortune to have that 2003 GMC SIERRA RE-ISSUE relic'd so it would look like I did a lot of work with it."


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Here are some levels of understanding
> 
> 1. Poly finished guitar - Go through a nuclear war still look new
> 2. Nitro finished guitar - Someday years from now its going to look cool, providing you gig and its not a wall flower
> ...




You're right, and as some here might testify, I've been guilty of that very sentiment.

I'm a late bloomer but I do try to improve continuously.

I have to say that where your logic breaks down for me is Item # 4. It's NOT the best option for me, because that ability to suspend disbelief, ie the ability to deny the reality that it's faked cool, doesn't work for me. It only looks cool if it _is _cool.

I know, shallow. Just being honest.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

The comparison to cars to justify hate for relics is about the silliest argument. 
Many classic car owners go through great lengths and expense to completely restore them to their former glory, making them look as new as they were in the 1950's and 1960's. No one does that with a 50's or 60's guitar unless they're seriously brain damaged and don't mind taking a huge hit on value. Many of the refins on guitars were done prior to the vintage explosion.
Woman are more like cars then guitars in that they'll go to great lengths and expense to restore themselves to their former glory. I prefer my wife to age naturally and gracefully where ever that may take her.


----------



## HighNoon (Nov 29, 2016)

guitarman2 said:


> Theres about the second stupidest thing that people on the Internet keep saying about relics. Is a car a guitar? I don't put guitar strings on my car either. People stress finish jeans, furniture, guitars and a myraid of other things. People don't purposley stress finish cars. No one would buy them. Because no one would buy them manufactures don't relic them. Guitar players buy a ton of relic guitars. Thats why guitar makers relic them. You understand now? Or are you an economics drop out?


Thanks for sharing. It's lazy....play your guitar and put your own burn marks on it. Put your sweat into it. Go on the road.....


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> There are more people out there that get relics then there are bozos on the Internet saying "I just don't understand relics". How many relic threads does there have to be before they get it or are they really that dense?





guitarman2 said:


> Guitar players buy a ton of relic guitars. Thats why guitar makers relic them. You understand now? Or are you an economics drop out?





guitarman2 said:


> But some people gotta make it a personal attack by saying "players who love relic guitars are fakes or wannabe's....its one of the tired old comments among others that you see on Internet forums.


Clearly, somewhere along the way, this all become way too "personal". Besides that though, and more importantly, _none of this_ really has anything to do with the OPs point about non-Fender/Gibson relics...


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

StevieMac said:


> Clearly, somewhere along the way, this all become way too "personal". Besides that though, and more importantly, _none of this_ really has anything to do with the OPs point about non-Fender/Gibson relics...


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

HighNoon said:


> Thanks for sharing. It's lazy....play your guitar and put your own burn marks on it. Put your sweat into it. Go on the road.....


I'm 60. The roads over for me. 
There's a pandemic. The roads over (for now) for you to. I don't put burn marks in my guitar but I do walk a little carelessly through my house with my 10k Martin strapped on hitting the odd door frame. I'm not one of those that worry about keeping my guitars mark free and shiny as the day I bought them forever.
It helps that both my Martin Authentic series guitars have a very thin finish. both my Teles, one a Journeyman relic and the other a little bit heavier both have thin finishes. Other than being careless around the house from time to time all I can do is maybe sweat on them. However I am a very, very dry individual so the down side is my sweat will likely not wear even the thin finish. I wipe my guitars down every 6 to 8 months. The upside is a set of regular uncoated strings last me 6 to 8 weeks with daily playing.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

StevieMac said:


> Clearly, somewhere along the way, this all become way too "personal". Besides that though, and more importantly, _none of this_ really has anything to do with the OPs point about non-Fender/Gibson relics...



Those boutique guitars are copies of Tele's, strats, les pauls, etc. Those relic boutique guitars are copies of old teles, strats, les pauls. Not sure why thats hard to understand. But the biggest point is, people are buying them by the truck loads. So because a few people think its silly they should stop? Good thing these people don't run the economy. Wait maybe the do!


----------



## Hammertone (Feb 3, 2006)

HighNoon said:


> When you go in to buy a new car, do you want it relic'd? I don't think so, parking lot scratches are so passe, and give me some of that extra new car smell to go. When you're buying that suit for that special court date, do you want it relic'd? No, your honor, I didn't sleep last night on a park bench. And when you're looking for a new wife, do you want one that's been relic'd? Maybe you'll get one that's been handled a lot like the ones at the big box store, or a rough used rental at a discount, but we all want the one that's polished and buffed, and fresh off the assembly line.





guitarman2 said:


> Theres about the second stupidest thing that people on the Internet keep saying about relics. Is a car a guitar? I don't put guitar strings on my car either. People stress finish jeans, furniture, guitars and a myraid of other things. People don't purposley stress finish cars. No one would buy them. Because no one would buy them manufactures don't relic them.


Speak for yourselves. Here's my preferred whip:


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

guitarman2 said:


> People don't purposley stress finish cars. No one would buy them.





Hammertone said:


> Speak for yourself. Here's my preferred ride:
> View attachment 335450


Yup. Was about to chime in.

<_Rat Rods and vintage trucks have entered the chat_>

Just google “vintage car fauxtina”...


----------



## Grab n Go (May 1, 2013)

Sometimes you have favourite guitars that acquire dings. It adds character.

Sometimes you encounter guitars that are just dirty and beat to hell. Makes you want to take a shower, or get a tetanus shot, after handling them. I've never met a relic that made me want to do that. But if I did, I'd say someone went a little too far.

There used to be this weird, beat up Ibanez in a local music store. It sat there for years on consignment. Rusty strings and everything, but it played well. Made in Japan and you could tell it was really nice once. Eventually the price went down to something silly, like $200. One day it sold and I learned afterwards that it was an old Scott Henderson model. Pretty cool guitar that just needed a makeover.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Hammertone said:


> Speak for yourself. Here's my preferred ride:
> View attachment 335450



Love it.


----------



## Hammertone (Feb 3, 2006)

I find the comparison to clothes is most useful when it comes to guitar decor. It's just fashion. Different strokes for different folks. Once one moves past the functional requirements on an instrument, anything goes. _De gustibus non disputandum est_. Jeans? Dark blue, faded, acid-washed, ripped, never washed, straight-cut, boot-cut, bell-bottom, rolled, embroidered, slim-fit, relaxed fit, high-rise, low-rise, zippered, buttoned, modern, vintage, post-modern, heavily invested, meaningless, ironic, _etceteras_. I'm personally into the ironic phase of my guitar lifestyle.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

a few years aback, we were doing a commercial build for a high end dining room furniture store. When the stock started to roll in, the owner showed off his "distressed" dining room sets. They looked like they had been beat with a length of chain. He said was all the rage these days.
Would you spend $5K on a dining room set that looks like it had been used as a bench to rebuild car engines? I don't get it.

IMO, this whole relic thing started with the old player grade guitars. The ones that sounded special, and got played........a lot. Not the closet queens.
Working musicians would seek out these experienced guitars because they were the ones that Fender/Gibson/etc got right on the money and they sounded/played extra special. The duds were still shiny and new looking. It took off from there.

Is there really much difference between building relics and building guitars that say a famous brand name on the headstock but really aren't? They're both fakes.


----------



## nbs2005 (Mar 21, 2018)

Hammertone said:


> I find the comparison to clothes is most useful when it comes to guitar decor. It's just fashion. Different strokes for different folks. Once one moves past the functional requirements on an instrument, anything goes. _De gustibus non disputandum est_. Jeans? Dark blue, faded, acid-washed, ripped, never washed, straight-cut, boot-cut, bell-bottom, rolled, embroidered, slim-fit, relaxed fit, high-rise, low-rise, zippered, buttoned, modern, vintage, post-modern, heavily invested, meaningless, ironic, _etceteras_. I'm personally into the ironic phase of my guitar lifestyle.


Ironic phase; I'm going to steal that......


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

To the OP's point, I think certain builders (novo comes to mind) saw relic for what it is - a finish option - and chose to apply it to their work.


----------



## polyslax (May 15, 2020)

That's why I never use an overdrive pedal, a distortion or, god forbid, a fuzz. The sound should age naturally. It takes decades, but it will degrade over time until it just sounds naturally beautiful.

I actually like a lot of things that have had their ageing hurried along, been deliberately wrecked or busted up or just have a more impressionistic look about them. Art, sound, guitars, furniture, leather jackets etc. I don't really care what others think, just like I don't mind if you love your stuff pristine or naturally, personally aged.

ps I don't even own a relic guitar, but maybe one day.


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

The key to a good relic job is knowing when to stop.


----------



## HighNoon (Nov 29, 2016)

guitarman2 said:


> I'm 60. The roads over for me.
> There's a pandemic. The roads over (for now) for you to. I don't put burn marks in my guitar but I do walk a little carelessly through my house with my 10k Martin strapped on hitting the odd door frame. I'm not one of those that worry about keeping my guitars mark free and shiny as the day I bought them forever.
> It helps that both my Martin Authentic series guitars have a very thin finish. both my Teles, one a Journeyman relic and the other a little bit heavier both have thin finishes. Other than being careless around the house from time to time all I can do is maybe sweat on them. However I am a very, very dry individual so the down side is my sweat will likely not wear even the thin finish. I wipe my guitars down every 6 to 8 months. The upside is a set of regular uncoated strings last me 6 to 8 weeks with daily playing.


I hear you. When the Derek and the Dominos album came out, I looked in awe at the Strat on the back cover, and the burn marks on the fret board. I had a similar maple Strat at the time, a '58, and after a few years I was able to wear off some of the neck varnish.....but nothing like Clapton. The number of hours, the dedication, the sweat to get it to look like that. Just blew me away and still does to this day.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

That is an interesting angle that I hadn't thought of with relics and boutique builders.
They're not for me, but there's definitely a market for them.

Fun fact, Fano charges more for their non-relic "clear" finish as they have to be more careful with it.

Speaking of vehicles, these guys seem to be making a good living off of relics... ICON4x4 • DERELICT

I always wondered, can you sell a used relic guitar as "mint"?


----------



## HighNoon (Nov 29, 2016)

GuitarT said:


> The key to a good relic job is knowing when to stop.


That axe got tired of playing 'The Mastodon Shuffle'.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

I don’t really care about relics one way or the other but I’d rather have a nice new guitar that just came from the factory right to me. What do you say if have you have a relic’d guitar and someone asks how old it is because they think you bought it new in 1950.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

sulphur said:


> I always wondered, can you sell a used relic guitar as "mint"?


It always makes me smile when I see someone on a guitar forum selling a relic guitar described as mint.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Wardo said:


> I don’t really care about relics one way or the other but I’d rather have a nice new guitar that just came from the factory right to me. What do you say if have you have a relic’d guitar and someone asks how old it is because they think you bought it new in 1950.



Year and a half ago when I was gigging every weekend with my heavy relic custom shop nocaster I constantly got asked the year of my guitar. I loved the looks I got when I told them it was a 2007. I'd just say "yeah I'm hard on my shit". I tried explaining the truth a few times but that always seemed to be complicated and they'd never understand. I'm talking to half drunk audience not musicians.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think you folks are missing the most important aspect of relic'd guitars: resale value The received wisdom about new cars is that they depreciate 20% or something, the moment you drive them off the lot.; simply because they're not shiny showroom state anymore. A little dust here and tire wear there, and they're not "new" anymore. If one buys a relic'd instrument and adds 2 years of belt-buckle rash and chips to the body edges, would anyone notice or care, assuming they knew it was "relic'd" to start with?


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

guitarman2 said:


> I'm talking to half drunk audience ...


Is there any other kind ... lol


----------



## MetalTele79 (Jul 20, 2020)

I don't own any but I have nothing against relics. As for cars... There are many people who want their car to look like a rust bucket on purpose as well. It's not unique to guitars.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I think you folks are missing the most important aspect of relic'd guitars: resale value The received wisdom about new cars is that they depreciate 20% or something, the moment you drive them off the lot.; simply because they're not shiny showroom state anymore. A little dust here and tire wear there, and they're not "new" anymore. If one buys a relic'd instrument and adds 2 years of belt-buckle rash and chips to the body edges, would anyone notice or care, assuming they knew it was "relic'd" to start with?



Yes I did bring up this benefit in my story about not ever having to deal with those musicians that expect a shiny mint guitar for lowball used prices.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

MetalTele79 said:


> I don't own any but I have nothing against relics. As for cars... There are many people who want their car to look like a rust bucket on purpose as well. It's not unique to guitars.



Yes and sometimes even girls do it to themselves on purpose.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

The relic thing must be a godsend for manufacturers. It's so hard to manufacture perfect guitars in a factory setting. Now at the end of the line, the guitars get inspected, and any with some sort of defect is sent to the hammer room to be relic'd. I am sure they also inspect guitars before they are painted and any with knots or whatever defects are painted black.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

guitarman2 said:


> A well loved guitar doesn't tell any story unless it was you that owned it the whole time. If I buy an old guitar I have no idea how those marks got there.


Different strokes for different strokes. I don't have to know the story to know there is one. Maybe it's a cool story, maybe it's not. Eye of the beholder and all that jazz



guitarman2 said:


> The funny thing, I see the same guys on guitar forums telling us all how we should naturally age our guitars then in another thread talk about how the ding they just put on their shiny new guitar is going to force them in to therapy.


If you're suggesting I'm either one of those, you're off the mark. I think you might be taking my comment a little more seriously than you should. I'm a big fan of people owning whatever they want. I have a black guitar, I don't care if other people don't like black guitars, to be honest I'm not even sure if I like black guitars. My not getting a trend isn't intended as a value judgment.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

If you scratched a relic'd guitar in a store, would you be forced to buy it?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

butterknucket said:


> If you scratched a relic'd guitar in a store, would you be forced to buy it?


I'd want to be paid for making it a more expensive guitar.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Yes and sometimes even girls do it to themselves on purpose.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

a lot of old car owners invest quite a bit in rat rods


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Okay Player said:


> I have a black guitar, I don't care if other people don't like black guitars, to be honest I'm not even sure if I like black guitars. My not getting a trend isn't intended as a value judgment.


I can’t stand black guitars. Wanna go duke it out in a separate thread? 😡


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

2manyGuitars said:


> I can’t stand black guitars. Wanna go duke it out in a separate thread? 😡


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Okay Player said:


>


----------



## evenon (Nov 13, 2006)

I never owned a relic until the last 6 months, have a couple of Friedmans, my favourite guitars I have owned.

Both are heavy relic'd. Things I like about it

No finish on the back of the neck, feels and plays great
I can bump them into things, doesn't matter
Had one face plant on the stage at a gig a few weeks ago ( we can play in Alberta), didn't break the headstock, so it didn't matter
= I like relics.


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

I dislike how a lot of them look like a crackhead took an orbital sander to them.Unnatural wear.🤪


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

I’ve only owned one relic’d guitar in my life. I didn’t seek it out. It came to me as a trade.
I don’t know that the relic’ing had anything to do with it, but that guitar was effing amazing!!!

Fender called it a “heavy relic” but it seemed pretty tasteful to me. Not over-the-top at all.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

Grainslayer said:


> I dislike how a lot of them look like a crackhead took an orbital sander to them.Unnatural wear.🤪


I will agree with this. Badly done they look awful. Well done and they're beautiful to look at and hold. 
And I am talking about guitars...


----------



## doblander (Dec 8, 2019)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> This will probably be a can of worms, but here goes.
> 
> I'm personally not a huge fan of new guitars being reliced, but I do understand the reasoning and the market for them so if you like them that's fine. But something I find really weird are the aftermarket or boutique builder relics. I'm talking about makers like Nash, Mario Martin, and a few others. Why? Because regardless of the quality of the instrument or the relic job they look silly because none of those guitar makers existed in the 50's or 60's. Fender or Gibson get a pass because they're trying to make it look like a vintage guitar that's been played for 50 years - and there actually ARE Fender and Gibson guitars that have been played for 70 years. So seeing a relic job with anything but Fender on the headstock... it just looks... off.
> 
> Anyway, there's my rant for Monday morning!


I disagree STRONGLY with the concept of relic'd guitars. They're unsightly damaged instruments that want refinishing. I went to a local guitar builder's shop where I asked him for advice in repairing a dent in one of mine. He said he doesn't give advice like that and besides (he said) damage like that "adds character". Wrong answer! I want my guitars to be absolutely without character then. Not junky. By the way, I don't blame him for not telling me how to fix dents, he's thinking I'll blame him when I ruin the whole instrument. I wouldn't, I'm not a creep.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Setting aside any unrelated crusades or arguments from others in this thread, I think the OP raises an interesting question regarding the response people may have to non-Fender/non-Gibson relic guitars. I'm in the same camp as the OP in that, an F* or G* relic (or replica) at least has the _potential _to leave me wondering whether those guitars have stories to tell. Well executed CS relics and high end replicas are a good example of this. Anything else though, _especially_ if it has something else going on at the headstock, is an immediate "tell" and leaves nothing to the imagination. I think that may have been part of the OP's point but regardless, that is the conclusion this thread has led me to so...thanks to @Powdered Toast Man for posing the question in the first place.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

2manyGuitars said:


> I’ve only owned one relic’d guitar in my life. I didn’t seek it out. It came to me as a trade.
> I don’t know that the relic’ing had anything to do with it, but that guitar was effing amazing!!!
> 
> Fender called it a “heavy relic” but it seemed pretty tasteful to me. Not over-the-top at all.
> ...


I reiterate my earlier point: you can't tell which of the chips and scratches were "original" and which were added. Consequently, none of the additional chips and scratches - within reason, of course - alter the value of the instrument.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> A well loved guitar doesn't tell any story unless it was you that owned it the whole time. If I buy an old guitar I have no idea how those marks got there.


That's one way to look at it.

Another would be that it does indeed tell a very real story, just not all about you. If the dings and battle scars are real then you can either try to imagine the history or investigate if that pleases you.

The point is, shit happened to that guitar and it wasn't in a workshop with somebody trying to fake age it.

It is what it is.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> That's one way to look at it.
> 
> Another would be that it does indeed tell a very real story, just not all about you. If the dings and battle scars are real then you can either try to imagine the history or investigate if that pleases you.
> 
> ...



How I'd probably look at it.
The relic can be a work of art. Some are not good, some I wonder how they ever got it to look so real. 
Natural ageing can be the same. Some I admire the roads this guitar must have seen. Some I wonder what this putz was doing to this guitar, I wouldn't want mine to look like that.
That is what it is.
In any event, I have come to hate how a brand new shiny guitar feels when I know I can buy a relic that feels worn in. I put more priority on how a guitar feels and sounds, not so much how it looks. But if the relic looks realistic and is well done thats a plus. Again the heavy relic isn't my tastes although I do admit on the heavy relics the necks feel the best.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> How I'd probably look at it.
> The relic can be a work of art. Some are not good, some I wonder how they ever got it to look so real.
> Natural ageing can be the same. Some I admire the roads this guitar must have seen. Some I wonder what this putz was doing to this guitar, I wouldn't want mine to look like that.
> That is what it is.
> In any event, I have come to hate how a brand new shiny guitar feels when I know I can buy a relic that feels worn in. I put more priority on how a guitar feels and sounds, not so much how it looks. But if the relic looks realistic and is well done thats a plus. Again the heavy relic isn't my tastes although I do admit on the heavy relics the necks feel the best.


Ok, enjoy. I don't own any relics and likely won't. I just can't get past the fake thing.

I'm not criticizing anyone who can.

Lots of guitars out there for everyone. Any dings or wear on my guitars happened accidentally and I'm ok with that.

I also enjoy a well worn in guitar, but I see no appeal in extending that to purely aesthetic elements. A crackled nitro finish doesn't make it play any better.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> A crackled nitro finish doesn't make it play any better.



Nor does a blond, red, sunburst, or real worn finish yet when those options are available to us we gravitate to our preferences.


----------



## SteveS (Apr 25, 2006)

I think it's just personal choice, nothing else. For me anyway.
I just bought a 62 Reissue CS relic'd Strat.
I currently have 10 guitars all of them in very good to excellent condition. I look after my guitars but they all get played.
To me it's no different than wanting a yellow, or a black guitar. I just wanted one that looked different. I got it. 

I would never try to say that it was me that put all the marks and stuff on it because I didn't. I looked at a bunch and there were tons that I didn't like, but I liked this one so in my mind that's all that matters.
Also it's a 62 reissue and I was born in 1962 so there's that important fact! 
A bonus is that it sounds great, and plays great. I love the worn in feeling.

My 2 cents!


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Geez, thread is not even a day old and there's already 4 pages.

If you like them, you like them. 
It's a look, just like shiney new is a look. 

I really like an aged finish- not overly worn- but just "broken in" kind of thing. A few nicks here and there, a bit of arm wear, rounded fret edges and finish knocked back a bit. It makes for a good look and a very comfortable play. 

I've had a couple of brand new shiney guitars and I constantly worried about putting a mark on the finish. 

It does look out of place if the wear is heavy, and the headstock is pointy.


----------



## Sketchy Jeff (Jan 12, 2019)

HighNoon said:


> buy a new car, do you want it relic'd? I don't think so


rat rods are a thing

people pay a lot of money to have them custom built

j


----------



## Kerry Brown (Mar 31, 2014)

I don’t think I’d ever buy an artificially reliced guitar. At the same time I like the look of naturally aged guitars.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Some even do a rust wrap to protect their finishes and dissuade people from messing with it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> Nor does a blond, red, sunburst, or real worn finish yet when those options are available to us we gravitate to our preferences.


True, but none of those "finish options" are attempts to deceive.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> True, but none of those "finish options" are attempts to deceive.


so you do judge?
You just presume that the motive to create a relic guitar is soley to deceive? Wow


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> so you do judge?
> You just presume that the motive to create a relic guitar is soley to deceive? Wow


Who's judging?

When you relic a guitar, you're trying to create an illusion.

I'm not making any judgement about that reality.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Im gonna do some cooking with all this salt, who wants fries?


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Milkman said:


> When you relic a guitar, you're trying to create an illusion.


I understand that you don't like relics, and that's fine, but this is a very cynical way to look at what _clearly_ appeals to many others.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

zztomato said:


> I understand that you don't like relics, and that's fine, but this is a very cynical way to look at what _clearly_ appeals to many others.


I'm aware that others enjoy relics. I live and breathe.

I'm explaining why I don't. I don't recall looking down on anyone or anyone's choices.

There's nothing cynical about truthfully expressing one's opinion.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

At the end of the day, the only real difference between a natural and processed relic is how fast the wear happened. Either way, you're ending at "the guitar shows signs of wear."


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Milkman said:


> I'm aware that others enjoy relics. I live and breathe.
> 
> I'm explaining why I don't. I don't recall looking down on anyone or anyone's choices.
> 
> There's nothing cynical about truthfully expressing one's opinion.


It only takes one post to express an opinion. 

I actually chose the wrong quote after reading a few replies on the topic. This is the one I meant to quote;


Milkman said:


> True, but none of those "finish options" are attempts to deceive.


I know when I'm giving a guitar an aged look, I'm certainly not trying to deceive anyone.


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

Budda said:


> At the end of the day, the only real difference between a natural and processed relic is how fast the wear happened. Either way, you're ending at "the guitar shows signs of wear."



True dat! I defy anyone to correctly identify which one's "processed" vs which one's "natural". Unless you've received highly specialized training, it's virtually impossible to spot the subtle differences between them...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

zztomato said:


> It only takes one post to express an opinion.
> 
> I actually chose the wrong quote after reading a few replies on the topic. This is the one I meant to quote;
> 
> ...


Would you feel better about "create an illusion"?

And I thought this was a discussion forum where we can, you know, discuss things.

Sorry to press anyone's buttons.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

StevieMac said:


> it's virtually impossible to spot the subtle differences between them...


Well, the second SG was clearly used to fend off a bear attack sometime in it's life.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Would you feel better about "create an illusion"?
> 
> And I thought this was a discussion forum where we can, you know, discuss things.
> 
> Sorry to press anyone's buttons.


Hey man, that's what we are doing. It's just that you made it pretty clear that the whole "relic" thing bothers you- beyond being just an issue of taste. Don't take it so hard. Many people get really bent out of shape over relic'ing guitars. Just go to The Gear Page and do a search for "relics". It's complete madness. If you threw all those people in a room there'd be a brawl. 

I also like big chunky "distressed" furniture- depending, of course, on how well it's done. There's no deception involved -or illusion, for that matter.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

zztomato said:


> I also like big chunky "distressed" furniture- depending, of course, on how well it's done. There's no deception involved -or illusion, for that matter.


Get a cat that hasn't been declawed?


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Hey @StevieMac remember when gibsons lumber got flooded and they sold them as guitars anyways? Would that be a relic?

#2 looks like it just survived a fire so the owner replaced the hardware.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Budda said:


> remember when gibsons lumber got flooded and they sold them as guitars anyways? Would that be a relic?


The 'water logged series'? 😄


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

zztomato said:


> Hey man, that's what we are doing. It's just that you made it pretty clear that the whole "relic" thing bothers you- beyond being just an issue of taste. Don't take it so hard. Many people get really bent out of shape over relic'ing guitars. Just go to The Gear Page and do a search for "relics". It's complete madness. If you threw all those people in a room there'd be a brawl.
> 
> I also like big chunky "distressed" furniture- depending, of course, on how well it's done. There's no deception involved -or illusion, for that matter.


Butt hurt by the word deception? Let it go man.

Spin things how ever you need to in order to get through the day.

A relic is an attempt to create the illusion of age to one extent or another.

There's nothing wrong with that. For me, it's no different than fake bullet holes on the tailgate of your pick up truck or hand cuffs hanging from the rv mirror.

That sort of thing doesn't turn me on. Different strokes.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Butt hurt by the word deception? Let it go man.
> 
> Spin things how ever you need to in order to get through the day.
> 
> ...


Oh ffs.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

the one true relic


----------



## Hammertone (Feb 3, 2006)

zztomato said:


> I really like an aged finish- not overly worn- but just "broken in" kind of thing. A few nicks here and there, a bit of arm wear, rounded fret edges and finish knocked back a bit. It makes for a good look and a very comfortable play....
> It does look out of place if the wear is heavy, and the headstock is pointy.


This one (not mine) is not pointy, but works for me:









I was inspired by it, though. This one has fine lacquer checking and a bit or wear on the edges:


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Hammertone said:


> This one's not pointy, but works for me:
> View attachment 335681


I agee. Pretty cool!


----------



## StevieMac (Mar 4, 2006)

laristotle said:


> Well, the second SG was clearly used to fend off a bear attack sometime in it's life.



That could be but I'm not certain of it. I am aware of the first one being involved in more than one cougar attack however...


----------



## Davestp1 (Apr 25, 2006)

I like shiny guitars. I like relic guitars and I like in between ones. You decide what you like and lay out your cash and it won't bother me one iota.....


----------



## evenon (Nov 13, 2006)

Milkman said:


> True, but none of those "finish options" are attempts to deceive.


Totally understand you don't like relics, that's cool.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

It's not my thing, but if some people like it--that's their thing.

Still, I wonder, if you buy a relic and get a new ding in it, is it more valuable, or less?

(And some relics are well done and look natural, some are not)


----------



## TheGASisReal (Mar 2, 2020)

EVERYONE MUST LIKE THE EXACT SAME THINGS AS ME


----------



## fretzel (Aug 8, 2014)

tomee2 said:


> I will agree with this. Badly done they look awful. Well done and they're beautiful to look at and hold.
> And I am talking about guitars...




I'm glad that you clarified. I thought that you were talking about orbital sanders.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

TheGASisReal said:


> EVERYONE MUST LIKE THE EXACT SAME THINGS AS ME


Okay--give us a list.


----------



## TheGASisReal (Mar 2, 2020)

zontar said:


> Okay--give us a list.


1) arguing about relics

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

Interesting thing is that the opinions either way are strong, and the market provides what people want on all sides!
Fender alone covers all aspects, from "perfect" to heavy road worn. Basically, everyone should be happy.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

tomee2 said:


> Interesting thing is that the opinions either way are strong, and the market provides what people want on all sides!
> Fender alone covers all aspects, from "perfect" to heavy road worn. Basically, everyone should be happy.


In many things variety is a good thing.
Guitars & music gear are among those things.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

Economic reason:
-nitro takes a long time to cure perfectly
-relic means that you can make them look imperfect and in some cases very tastefully aged and produce them faster / with less of a robust facility.
-vintage guitars have undergone a lot of different lives and owners and stored in many different places and often times can require additional costs to make them truly sound structurally.. they cost a lot of money and a guitar built to the exacting specs with the appearance of one that era without the burden of maintenance and cost does appeal to a lot of people.

Practical reasons:
-nitro necks can feel a bit sticky, nitro itself on a body can be pretty temperamental.
-a bare neck feels like a warmed up woman.. let’s you grab hold and get going with comfort.
-relic allows us to integrate the comfort or a bare or worn neck and embrace the imperfections of the nitro on the body.

Aesthetic reasons:
-brand new and shiny was great in the golden age of Fender when it was a 17 man operation and they were using one piece bodies and resonant and ageable nitro bodies..
-now brand new and shiny in the mass produced market means 8 pieces of sub par alder glued together and laminated in poly and loaded with cheap plastic wiring and ceramic pots and dorky chunky hardware.. so people might associate a relic’d or vintage appearance with the superior build quality and timeless designs of yesteryear.

My opinion:
Any guitar you love that inspires you is a good guitar. I prefer a larger neck profile. Which means an aftermarket neck builder. I like a one piece swamp ash body with a nitro finish. Which means an aftermarket builder. I like vintage period correct hardware and electronics and wiring, which means doing it myself.

Since I do not have a spray booth, I’m limited to MJT and since I don’t want to wait 5-6 months for a closet clean custom build, I’ll take a showcase that’s lightly relic’d and then finish the neck myself to match that amount of aging and sometimes scuff up the pickguard or hardware to blend it in with the body and neck.

So the relic thing is just an economic, practical and aesthetically convenient solution to not wanting a mass produced fender comprised of subpar components and smothered in plastic.

I find that I am less worried about something with some intentional ware and I think it looks more tactile and outlaw country like an old fucked up carhart jacket that smells like firewood and has survived years of alcoholism and poorly executed home renovations.


----------



## Cjf (Dec 26, 2020)

I wonder you relic a guitar, it's new but looks 30 years old. What will it look like in 30 years lol or will it last that long?


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

Cjf said:


> I wonder you relic a guitar, it's new but looks 30 years old. What will it look like in 30 years lol or will it last that long?


A this rate, I’ll be happy if anything exists in 30 years lol


----------



## TheGASisReal (Mar 2, 2020)

These threads are truly a pandemic of their own 

Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Always12AM said:


> Economic reason:
> -nitro takes a long time to cure perfectly
> -relic means that you can make them look imperfect and in some cases very tastefully aged and produce them faster / with less of a robust facility.
> -vintage guitars have undergone a lot of different lives and owners and stored in many different places and often times can require additional costs to make them truly sound structurally.. they cost a lot of money and a guitar built to the exacting specs with the appearance of one that era without the burden of maintenance and cost does appeal to a lot of people.
> ...


I think there’s also a “psychological reason”.
one way humans differ from animals, is we have a love for stories. It’s why we lust over inanimate objects that have been somewhere, even though it makes them no different in any tangible way, from another similar item...the winning home run ball from a World Series...a prop from the original Star Wars movie, a rock stars guitar or a celebrity‘s house or car etc. These things arent special really, other than they were at a place and time that we all know of but that is their story.
maybe that’s also part of why people get tattoos...it’s usually a part of our personal story, that we want to make public.

an aged guitar just seems to have a story to tell, even if it doesn’t, beyond the manufacturing floor. Or maybe it conveys the sense to others that we may have a story to tell, musically. To me, it’s like a guitar covered in “tattoos” of where it’s been “allegedly “.


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

Diablo said:


> I think there’s also a “psychological reason”.
> one way humans differ from animals, is we have a love for stories. It’s why we lust over inanimate objects that have been somewhere, even though it makes them no different in any tangible way, from another similar item...the winning home run ball from a World Series...a prop from the original Star Wars movie, a rock stars guitar or a celebrity‘s house or car etc. These things arent special really, other than they were at a place and time that we all know of.
> maybe that’s also part of why people get tattoos...it’s usually a part of our personal story, that we want to make public.
> 
> an aged guitar just seems to have a story to tell, even if it doesn’t, beyond the manufacturing floor. Or maybe it conveys the sense to others that we may have a story to tell, musically.


It’s funny you should point that out,
One of the ways that scientists can trace our evolution as human beings is by carbon dating tools and weapons and carvings and cave drawings.

The theory behind it is that prior to our brains evolving, we would wait until we saw a threat to look for a weapon or shelter.

Finding anything that has been customized or decorated or sharpened for an express purpose or seeing cave drawings of dangerous animals or people provide us with proof and a relative time scale that at some point - hominids began to understand time and tell stories in order to practice or prepare for future hunts or wars or plans.

I agree completely that there is likely a connection between this instinct to tell stories or develop a connection with an object or tool.

Telling a story or recoding proof of our existence is definitely in our blood as humans.


----------

