# Uh oh, factory relic'd acoustics



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

First I've seen of this. And not some little custom shop or boutique brand, one of the big guns. Well, I guess it had to happen eventually. Not for my, but YMMV.

What do you think? Do you want a brand new high end acoustic that looks like it's been around the block and back?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

There is a long discussion over at UMGF thats been going for a while. Most don't like it. Although there seems to be more love for a small company called "Prewar Guitar Company" thats doing the same thing with there guitars including using Brazilian rosewood. Their aging process seems to be more attractive than what Martin has shown. Martin is doing this to their authentic series, I guess making them more authentic looking. I've already bought the 2 authentics that I want. If this aging process had been around when I bought I may have considered it. I have a feeling though that the additional price for this may have discouraged me.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I guess I get it in the electric world (where I still prefer to do my own relic'ing), but I always thought well-heeled acoustic players would be above the poseur thing. More integrity or something. I'm afraid if Martin is setting the trend, we will see a lot of inexpensive acoustics jumping on it. And, like most things fashionable, as soon as enough companies do it (reaching critical mass), everyone will want pristine guitars again.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

I don't understand the whole reliced thing. To me it would be like buying a brand new car with dents, scratches and rust on it.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

And is it just me or does the guitar in the intro of the first video sound like a cheap plywood guitar?


----------



## jimmy c g (Jan 1, 2008)

I wouldnt pay to have an acoustic look old, I like putting my own wear marks, also wouldnt like torrefication,- builders please dry wood properly and dont scratch my guitar


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2017)

Guncho said:


> To me it would be like buying a brand new car with dents, scratches and rust on it.


Camouflage it for anti-theft?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Guncho said:


> I don't understand the whole reliced thing. To me it would be like buying a brand new car with dents, scratches and rust on it.


How so? Me, when my car gets old and relic looking I replace it with a new one and most likely sell it to the junk yard for parts. I wish it worked like that for guitars. I could pick up a 1939 Martin for $200.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Guncho said:


> And is it just me or does the guitar in the intro of the first video sound like a cheap plywood guitar?


Is it possible its the plywood cabinet of your computer speakers?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

jimmy c g said:


> I wouldnt pay to have an acoustic look old, I like putting my own wear marks, also wouldnt like torrefication,- builders please dry wood properly and dont scratch my guitar


I'm 57. I'd love to have my guitars aged with my own "wear marks". Maybe if I take vitamins I can make it to 95 when my guitars are just coming in to the sweet spot of looking good.
Would love to have the time to wait for 100 year old growth and years for air dried. So torrefication is fine by me.
Heavy relic isn't really a thing I like but I like the idea of a thin finish with a very slight age process, almost to the point of un noticeable. It at least gives the guitar a bit of a head start. I once had a Closet classic Nocaster that had a very thin finish and a very slight wear look. It was supposed to emulate a guitar that had been kept in the closet for 50 years. Something like that in an acoustic would be a more desirable feature for me.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

I got a Hagstrom Viking for $200. Didn't like it. Sold it on eBay. Described ALL the damage ruthlessly. "Chipped and scratched from headstock to tailpin." "Dropped on tailpin and smashed in (see photo)." " huge chrome sticker on headstock says "Slongo's Music Thunder Bay" Etc.,etc.

Got $600 for it from a guy in England about the time the Chinese re-issues came out. To me it is as pathetic as paying for sex.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Let's all trash [fill in the blank] today. 

And today it's [reliced acoustic guitars]


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Robert1950 said:


> Let's all trash [fill in the blank] today.
> 
> And today it's [reliced acoustic guitars]


 Today it is [trashing guys who trash things].


----------



## jimmy c g (Jan 1, 2008)

discuss = trash ? sign of the times I guess...


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Guncho said:


> I don't understand the whole reliced thing. To me it would be like buying a brand new car with dents, scratches and rust on it.


Absolutely!

I saw the Martin video during NAMM week and just thought, "they are just doing what Fender and Gibson have been doing for years". It's just a money making process. And there are fools with money to burn who will buy them.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

guitarman2 said:


> How so? Me, when my car gets old and relic looking I replace it with a new one and most likely sell it to the junk yard for parts. I wish it worked like that for guitars. I could pick up a 1939 Martin for $200.


Like a car if I buy a brand new guitar, I want it to look brand new.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

guitarman2 said:


> Is it possible its the plywood cabinet of your computer speakers?


Does the intro sound good to you?

I'm listening on 5" Mackie studio monitors.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

I don't even understand how people get these wear marks on their guitars. I've been playing the same Yamaha FG441S for close to 15 years regularly and its not missing any of the finish.

I just strummed a bit and watched my pick and it doesn't come in contact with the guitar body at all.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

does anybody really want a guitar that looks like Willie Nelson's?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Guncho said:


> Like a car if I buy a brand new guitar, I want it to look brand new.


Not sure if you were ever a gigging musician. I traveled quite a bit in the 80's and 90's and have come across some vintage or road worn guitars that just had that mojo because of the wear. Yes if you're a "home only", player then likely you're instruments will look brand new for a very long time. I grew up around instruments some of which were well worn (my father played) so I have fond memories of that look. I would have no problem with my guitars having that look. However I'm now a home only musician. I take my D-28 out to a once a week jam. So its likely my guitars won't have that look in my life time.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Guncho said:


> Does the intro sound good to you?
> 
> I'm listening on 5" Mackie studio monitors.


I don't prefer the tone but tone is subjective. Could be a bad recording, who knows. Someone else might think it sounds great. And incidentally I find that studio monitors are the worse thing to listen to music for good sound. There job is transparency. I'm listening on a 2 channel rega amp worth 2k a high end DAC and a set of nice deep sounding speakers. Probably a tad accentuated in the bass. This is why I try to resist saying someone is a fool or an idiot for liking this or liking that. We're all different. We're all musicians with that creative tendency, yet when someone else likes something different from the masses, such as age process acoustics people say you're a fool if you like it. If we all liked the same thing sure would make it easier on the manufacturers. They could just build that one guitar.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Lincoln said:


> does anybody really want a guitar that looks like Willie Nelson's?


No. Martin, Fender and Gibson only build them so that no one will buy them. I thought you were smart enough to figure that out.


----------



## Guncho (Jun 16, 2015)

guitarman2 said:


> Not sure if you were ever a gigging musician. I traveled quite a bit in the 80's and 90's and have come across some vintage or road worn guitars that just had that mojo because of the wear. Yes if you're a "home only", player then likely you're instruments will look brand new for a very long time. I grew up around instruments some of which were well worn (my father played) so I have fond memories of that look. I would have no problem with my guitars having that look. However I'm now a home only musician. I take my D-28 out to a once a week jam. So its likely my guitars won't have that look in my life time.


I don't think it would matter how much I played my guitars I would never wear through the finish on the top of the guitar as the pick is not coming into contact with the body of the guitar.

When I was a gigging musician my Les Paul had some serious belt buckle rash but I don't remember if I did that or whomever owned it before me.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Guncho said:


> I don't think it would matter how much I played my guitars I would never wear through the finish on the top of the guitar as the pick is not coming into contact with the body of the guitar.
> 
> When I was a gigging musician my Les Paul had some serious belt buckle rash but I don't remember if I did that or whomever owned it before me.


I owned my HD-28V for about 8 years. It started to get serious wear from sweat where my arm rested. I admit I never wiped it much like I do with my current acoustics. Although the top was tinted with aging toner it did darken up quite a bit more which adds to a good look for me. I hang my current D-28 authentic across from a window with sunlight coming through and I've noticed it starting to darken already. I bought it this past august.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Nothing nicer looking than a guitar that looks like it has been sitting under a bed for 50 years, unused.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> Nothing nicer looking than a guitar that looks like it has been sitting under a bed for 50 years, unused.


If I found an original 51 Nocaster that had been sitting under a bed, unused for 50 years that would be the sweetest site I could ever think of. But hey thats just me. Unused 30,s and 4o,s Martins and 50's gibsons qualify to.

The funny thing about these aged, relic'd guitars is that you pay a hefty premium for them to get beat up. Yet an actual vintage guitar in pristine condition fetches the highest dollars.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2017)

Lincoln said:


> does anybody really want a guitar that looks like Willie Nelson's?


Unless they reproduce a 'trigger', who really wants a pre-relic'd acoustic?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

I was hoping the relic fad was fading....

Can't see spending over 2k for a guitar that looks like it's had the shit
kicked out of it


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

jimmy c g said:


> I wouldnt pay to have an acoustic look old, I like putting my own wear marks, also wouldnt like torrefication,- builders please dry wood properly and dont scratch my guitar


I was iffy about torrification until I played a few of them. I don't think there's anything wrong with advancing a natural process, as long as it doesn't have any long-term detrimental affects. Everything I've read and heard until now is that it doesn't. 

To each there own, but if you ever get a chance to play something with a torried top, give 'er a go. You might be pleasantly surprised.



guitarman2 said:


> Heavy relic isn't really a thing I like but I like the idea of a thin finish with a very slight age process, almost to the point of un noticeable. It at least gives the guitar a bit of a head start. I once had a Closet classic Nocaster that had a very thin finish and a very slight wear look. It was supposed to emulate a guitar that had been kept in the closet for 50 years. Something like that in an acoustic would be a more desirable feature for me.


I like that part of it. If they can just put a thinner finish on it and it ages more quickly because of that, I think that's an interesting option. Just leave out the files and rasps and sandpaper, please. JMHO.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

KapnKrunch said:


> To me it is as pathetic as paying for sex.


Easy there, big fella. Don't go takin' money outa my pocket.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

If the Foo shits ...
Wear it.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

knight_yyz said:


> I was hoping the relic fad was fading....


Why is someone making you buy one?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

BMW-KTM said:


> If the Foo shits ...
> Wear it.


I guess you could attach this to every reissue guitar ever released.


----------



## Tone Chaser (Mar 2, 2014)

There are thousands of abused and "relic" acoustics out there already. Most of them are in need of expensive and extensive repair.

I am often surprised when I return to look at them for a second or third time; but I can't, it is gone. (I am talking perceived high end)


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

[throw gas on fire]

What kind of a poseur buys a signature guitar? Be yourself for effsake. Pathetic as paying for sex.

Lol. Just stirring up trouble...


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

Hey Kap'n.
Everyone who has sex pays for it.
One way or another.
Just sayin'.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

BMW-KTM said:


> Hey Kap'n.
> Everyone who has sex pays for it.
> One way or another.
> Just sayin'.


So true. Lol.

Although I have heard it said that with "professionals" you're not paying for the sex: you're paying them to leave.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

guitarman2 said:


> I guess you could attach this to every reissue guitar ever released.


 I suppose you could but I think there is still a little bit of a difference between a re-issue and a relic. When you're standing on stage at your local pub with your re-issue and it's still relatively shiny and the only scratches on it are the ones you put there, nobody watching you is going to have that word come to their mind. In the same situation, if you were holding a relic there would be some onlookers going, "Holy shit, I bet that guitar is worth $20K. What year do you think that is?" while other onlookers will be going, "Those wear marks are obviously unnaturally placed and disproportionate. It's just another poseur guitar." With the re-issue you're simply choosing the specifications of old for your new guitar without anyone even knowing what radius, what frets, what pups, what saddles, what tuners, etc. With the relic you're paying extra for pretend wear. It is by nature the very definition of the word poseur.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

BMW-KTM said:


> I suppose you could but I think there is still a little bit of a difference between a re-issue and a relic. When you're standing on stage at your local pub with your re-issue and it's still relatively shiny and the only scratches on it are the ones you put there, nobody watching you is going to have that word come to their mind. In the same situation, if you were holding a relic there would be some onlookers going, "Holy shit, I bet that guitar is worth $20K. What year do you think that is?" while other onlookers will be going, "Those wear marks are obviously unnaturally placed and disproportionate. It's just another poseur guitar." With the re-issue you're simply choosing the specifications of old for your new guitar without anyone even knowing what radius, what frets, what pups, what saddles, what tuners, etc. With the relic you're paying extra for pretend wear. It is by nature the very definition of the word poseur.


lol. You've obviously never gigged. I've gotten the same reaction from the audience playing a $4,000 custom shop guitar through a $5,000 boutique amp as I've had playing a made in mexico guitar through a $300 peavy amp. Only those self conscious and afraid of criticism think that way. Many of the great musicians I know aren't concerned with the pedigree of your gear so much as the skill you execute in handling them.
I know a musician that doesn't take his $25,000 vintage tele to gigs but has no problem taking his heavy relic to a gig.
I've not had the bug to buy a heavy relic but I've played a few. Its not so much the look as it is the feel. Some of them feel like a well worn slipper. 
You go right ahead and analyze the gear of a guitarist while I enjoy the skill. Me thinks the poser is the one in the audience criticizing the gear.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

guitarman2 said:


> lol. You've obviously never gigged. I've gotten the same reaction from the audience playing a $4,000 custom shop guitar through a $5,000 boutique amp as I've had playing a made in mexico guitar through a $300 peavy amp. Only those self conscious and afraid of criticism think that way. Many of the great musicians I know aren't concerned with the pedigree of your gear so much as the skill you execute in handling them.
> I know a musician that doesn't take his $25,000 vintage tele to gigs but has no problem taking his heavy relic to a gig.
> I've not had the bug to buy a heavy relic but I've played a few. Its not so much the look as it is the feel. Some of them feel like a well worn slipper.
> You go right ahead and analyze the gear of a guitarist while I enjoy the skill. Me thinks the poser is the one in the audience criticizing the gear.


I can't see how anything you said here is relevant to what BMW said about the possibly different perceptions between re-issue and relic'd. Just seems like bragging really...


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

KapnKrunch said:


> I can't see how anything you said here is relevant to what BMW said about the possibly different perceptions between re-issue and relic'd. Just seems like bragging really...


As if anything you've posted here so far has been relevant. 
BMW thinks hes awesome and thats super, I'm happy for him.

The whole point has been to shit on what people like because you disagree with it. I've seen what you guys like, it isn't that impressive but I try to keep the judgy to myself.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

vadsy said:


> I try to keep the judgy to myself.


Didn't work. 

Point taken all the same. I'll try too.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Remember this?


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

^^ I think that's the guitar Dweezil showed off at Norm's Rare Guitars that used to be Hendrix's.

Re: relicing an acoustic....I personally don't seek out relic'd guitars, but what about that stunning tele posted by @StevieMac ? It seems that I'd make some exceptions. I certainly don't hold it against people or think less of them. I think it was @mhammer (and this is going waaay back) that wrote something that stuck with me: Unless you buy perfectly blue lame-ass jeans, you buy them "relic'd". So, either you're a fucking dork walking around in perfect Lee Jeans, or you're a hypocrite (that may not be the exact way he put it).

Ultimately (for me), it's about playability. If something allowed me to get better, I wouldn't care if it was relic'd.

Re: the added cost...I had the guys at capsule sand my guitar neck finish off for playability. Brian M did the reverse of what I asked when the guitar was built (he finished the neck and unfinished the fretboard). It took the tech something like 4 hours to get the finish off in a natural way. Imagine the time it takes for a whole guitar?

At lastly...the real poseurs in my opinion are the collectors who have all the recommendations concerning gear, own the best of gear, and can't play a lick to save their life. I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a deal just to have the guy refuse to play my gear and make me play it for them (seemingly embarrassed, but talk like a pro).

I don't care if you if you're learning and can't play much, but I struggle to understand what it is you're doing with that guitar that makes you feel that you understand the instrument well enough to talk about them like you're Ry Cooter (tehe).

You'll see it in youtube videos all the time: guy talks highly of an amp or guitar, but obviously has no idea of its capabilities, because his hands simply won't take him there.

These guys are the REAL POSEURS. So, it'd be cool to hear everyone who bashes relic'd guitars to play us all a few licks on your perfect little instruments....


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

^^^ THIS!! Damn collectors driving up the price of gear and reducing supply for those of us that actually play. And the nerve to have an opinion about something that you can't acutally use. Fuck you. 

Mine are used and abused daily(just like my wife). Kidding, wife hasnt been used in a while. 

I think I still have some sand from the shores of lake erie in my acoustic from the 90's.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Personally, I see a big difference between a reissue and relic. 

A reissue is about the specs, trying to recreate a specific guitar by duplicating it, sometimes down to the nth degree. Mostly all to do with playability and sound, although image has to be a part of it, too.

A relic is making something _look_ like it's old and/or abused and has nothing to do with playability or sound, it's all about image. I've never noticed new relics playing any better than any new guitar I've played in myself over 6 months. Relic'ing seems much more artificial to me than reissuing a guitar based on specs. 

But to each there own. Play what you like and like what you play.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

High/Deaf said:


> Personally, I see a big difference between a reissue and relic.
> 
> A reissue is about the specs, trying to recreate a specific guitar by duplicating it, sometimes down to the nth degree. Mostly all to do with playability and sound, although image has to be a part of it, too.
> 
> ...



I agree for the most part, but without doubt, removing the finish from a guitar neck is very important to me. That's why I stuck with ernie ball's for so long and that's why they have notoriously comfortable necks. All the body relicing doesn't help me with my playing, but the neck sanding...for sure.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

adcandour said:


> I agree for the most part, but without doubt, removing the finish from a guitar neck is very important to me. That's why I stuck with ernie ball's for so long and that's why they have notoriously comfortable necks. All the body relicing doesn't help me with my playing, but the neck sanding...for sure.


I wouldn't consider taking the finish of the back of a neck as relic'ing. That's just making it more playable. 

I would consider adding chips to the headstock or sanding grooves into the fretboard as relic'ing. I don't see how either of those improve the sound or playability of the guitar.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> Personally, I see a big difference between a reissue and relic.
> 
> A reissue is about the specs, trying to recreate a specific guitar by duplicating it, sometimes down to the nth degree. Mostly all to do with playability and sound, although image has to be a part of it, too.
> 
> ...


All I can say is when I was in the market for my last Nocaster I came across a relic nocaster that just felt amazing. It looked old and beat up and felt it as well. Felt like a pair of old comfortable slippers and sounded great. I let my bias against relics stand in the way and opted for a nocaster that looked new and didn't feel as good. A month after I had it I put a big ugly ding in the front of it. If I'd have gotten the relic it wouldn't have been so bad. When I sold it I didn't consider the ding and priced it as I would a mint condition. Luckily the guy that came and bought it never said a word about the ding. It was the size of a quarter so there was no missing it.
It would be a lot tougher of a sale for me to jump on a relic acoustic but I certainly wouldn't criticize someone for liking it. Theres many guitars I wouldn't buy. I'm glad there are options for all kinds of peoples tastes.


----------



## Kenute (Dec 31, 2016)

Moosehead said:


> ^^^ THIS!! Damn collectors driving up the price of gear and reducing supply for those of us that actually play. And the nerve to have an opinion about something that you can't acutally use. Fuck you.
> 
> Mine are used and abused daily(just like my wife). Kidding, wife hasnt been used in a while.
> 
> I think I still have some sand from the shores of lake erie in my acoustic from the 90's.


How about the wife ? All the sand out?


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

guitarman2 said:


> You've obviously never gigged.


Yah.
Sure.
Ah-huh.
A noob with no experience.
That's me alright.


You know what?
I'm not the one saying scratches and dings and manually oxidized parts make a guitar play differently.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

vadsy said:


> BMW thinks hes awesome and thats super, I'm happy for him.


You won't bait me into a personal pissing match with your _awesome_ comment about what I think of myself.
If that's what you're attempting you'll be waiting a long time.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

BMW-KTM said:


> Yah.
> You know what?
> I'm not the one saying scratches and dings and manually oxidized parts make a guitar play differently.


And if you had any reading comprehension skills you'd know I didn't say that either.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2017)




----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

BMW-KTM said:


> You won't bait me into a personal pissing match with your _awesome_ comment about what I think of myself.
> If that's what you're attempting you'll be waiting a long time.


Yah.
Sure.
Ah-huh.
If I remember the grade 4 playground rules of engagement correctly, by replying to my post you've already taken the bait and lost the match. Better luck next time. Don't try so hard to be awesome, it should come naturally or you're just another poseur.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

guitarman2 you talked about how the relic felt and sounded so good.
My apologies if that didn't mean it played well because of the fact that it felt old and worn in.
It seemed to me that was what you were implying and I don't think it was too much of a stretch to read that into your words.
That's one of the troubles with the written word.
Without tone of voice and visual cues like body language, misinterpretations occur.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

BMW-KTM said:


> guitarman2 you talked about how the relic felt and sounded so good.
> My apologies if that didn't mean it played well because of the fact that it felt old and worn in.
> It seemed to me that was what you were implying and I don't think it was too much of a stretch to read that into your words.
> That's one of the troubles with the written word.
> Without tone of voice and visual cues like body language, misinterpretations occur.


ok if you need to be spoon fed, no problem
I didn't imply anything. What I basically said was that I passed on a great sounding, and great feeling guitar because of the relic job. As a guitar player my main interest should be how good it sounds and how good it feels above whether its relic'd or not. Especially in my case. You see I play my guitars, I don't baby them. Posers are the ones that baby the guitars and put priority on making sure the guitar looks mint 10 years after they bought it. 
For me, I'm no longer worried what condition a guitar is in as long as I connect with it musically. I'm not going to search out artificially aged guitars but if I find one that feels and sounds right I'm no longer going to automatically going to dismiss it either.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

The poseur is the faker .... _by definition._
There is nothing fake about keeping a guitar in pristine condition.
You may wish to call it anally obsessive or a number of other dismissive terms but poseur cannot be one of them because the word simply does not apply.
I require no spoon feeding. 
You however may possibly require some refreshers in the English language.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

BMW-KTM said:


> The poseur is the faker .... _by definition._
> There is nothing fake about keeping a guitar in pristine condition.
> You may wish to call it anally obsessive or a number of other dismissive terms but poseur cannot be one of them because the word simply does not apply.
> I require no spoon feeding.
> You however may possibly require some refreshers in the English language.


In my opinion someone who buys a guitar for the primary purpose of keeping it mint instead of using it primarily what it was built for,to play, is a poser. I'm quite fine with you holding on to your interpretation and I feel I have a right to my opinion. I've spent 90% of the last 44 years playing guitars, not babying them.
I'd feel quite legitimate whether I played a relic or non relic guitar. I hold no contempt for either as they are both guitars. We all know where your priorites lay. 
Now I'm done with this pointless argument.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

To be fair, I know guys who have a great collection and _can _play. @Alex is a great example.

Nevertheless, we all have our own ideas, perspectives and definitions, as we've all stated them. Now, let's all just chill out and have a quick post-lunch circle jerk while we lust over our favourite guitars (whether it's an aged beauty, _or_ a shiny new solid body).


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I believe there's room in the world for whatever approach to guitar finishes one desires. Given a choice, and all other things being equal, I'd not likely choose a reliced version of any instrument, preferring instead to make my own accidental marks, war wounds if you like, on my instruments. The next player might prefer a different visual representation, and that's okay with me. I don't choose pre-torn jeans either, but they sure look nice on some other peoples' bodies.

Lots of relicing doesn't match the owner's technique, I've noticed. I mean, when the Strat looks like SRV's sunburst but the owner plays like Buddy Holly or Mark Knopfler, I can only assume the owner isn't trying to pass it off as his own wear and tear. Maybe the player finds it inspiring.

When it comes to acoustics, there are lots of iconic beat up instruments, various Loar signed Gibsons in the hands of folks like Chris Thile and the ilk, Willie Nelson's Martin, Glen Hansard's Takamine, Ken Whiteley's resonator, Pete Seeger's banjo...but perhaps not on the level of the electric guitar world. Again, if you like that sort of thing, go for it, but I tend to prefer a cleaner (and less suspiciously abused) appearance. With acoustics, I'm concerned with loose braces, worn pin holes and bridge plates, neck joint security...all things that can be fixed, but things I'd rather not deal with. 

I think the jury is out on how well this purely marketing ploy will work.


----------



## BMW-KTM (Apr 7, 2015)

For the record, I have to admit that _some_ relics look almost authentic.
Almost.
They are the exception though, in my opinion.
Most look rather contrived and it relegates them to the category of silly in my mind.
I do not own a relic for the sole reason I take care of my guitars as well as I can, in part because I was taught to respect the value of a dollar.
Any damage that comes to them is by honest means.
You will have to believe me when I say I buy my guitars to be played, not displayed.
It's one of the many reasons I do not own any vintage guitars.
That said, I keep up with the maintenance and cleaning of my house, vehicles, guitars and amps and virtually all of my personal belongings.
That doesn't mean the front of my car has no rock chips.
I do slow down on a gravel road, though.
I see no point in encouraging the chips to accumulate.
It doesn't mean that when years of sunshine makes the shingles on my roof curl up that I leave them that way in pride and flip the bird to my disapproving neighbours with their flat shingles.
It only means I would never in a hundred years take several sizes of hammer and chisel and a litre of acid to purposely decorate my vehicle with fake wear in an attempt to make the "mileage" look authentic.
That is utter lunacy to me.

I recognize your 44 years of experience and respect it.
I myself have 49 years of guitar experience under my belt.
I also deserve respect.


----------



## kitkatjoe (Jan 16, 2017)

Making your big dollar guitar look like a relic explains it all. I thought these guys must be out of there minds to mess with the factory finish on their guitars but now it makes sense. To relic the guitar that's brilliant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It is possible to relic a solid-body and install the sort of electronics that provide it with a vintage sound, such that the user can feel like they have been hauling around, and relying on the guitar in question for decades. And there is something to picking up one's old standby, or the feeling of doing so.

When it comes to acoustic instruments, however, where one depends so much on the manner in which the wood has been broken in, I'm not so sure that the scuffs and scratches that would come from a lifetime of playing. are accompanied by the tonal qualities of what would have happened to the wood over that same hypothetical period.

That said, luthiers and developers are exploring what it is that happens to wood over time, or ways of pre-treating wood, that would more closely mimic a well-used acoustic instrument. Are they successful? I don't know. I certainly don't go around trying out high-priced acoustics in showrooms, so I have no basis for judgment. And I'd be a fool to ignore the role that design plays, over and above the wood choice and history of use. But I can't kick the feeling that the matching of appearance and tone in electrics is likely to be closer than the match between appearance and tone in acoustics; particularly as the availability of woods changes.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

mhammer said:


> When it comes to acoustic instruments, however, where one depends so much on the manner in which the wood has been broken in, I'm not so sure that the scuffs and scratches that would come from a lifetime of playing. are accompanied by the tonal qualities of what would have happened to the wood over that same hypothetical period.
> 
> That said, luthiers and developers are exploring what it is that happens to wood over time, or ways of pre-treating wood, that would more closely mimic a well-used acoustic instrument. Are they successful? I don't know. I certainly don't go around trying out high-priced acoustics in showrooms, so I have no basis for judgment. And I'd be a fool to ignore the role that design plays, over and above the wood choice and history of use. But I can't kick the feeling that the matching of appearance and tone in electrics is likely to be closer than the match between appearance and tone in acoustics; particularly as the availability of woods changes.


I have been trying out high-end acoustics in showrooms for the last year now. And I was surprised at what I started hearing. 

In acoustic guitars, you get what you get when you buy it. There is no easy pickup swap or hardware upgrade you can do which will improve the sound of the guitar. Playing time is one thing that is credited with improving an acoustic guitar's tone and I believe that is true. Not easy and no immediate payback.

I've played guitars made out of old sinker woods (top and/or sides/back), ancient mahogany, torrified woods and I know there is absolutely something to that. The weight of the guitars is another indication. The best sounding guitars I've played have been extremely light - a combination of light well-dried woods and light construction to make the best of the woods. 

Playability is separate to this. I usually find any new guitar needs a bit of real-world playing to smooth out the rough edges or tight feeling. I don't know of any shortcut to that. Maybe there is something to relic'ing in that regard, but I've never noticed in the electric relics I've played.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Now if this "friendly" discussion were to carry over to include other stringed acoustic instruments......say maybe violins. There are violins out there hundreds of years old, not just 50 or 60 years old that have been played just as much as a guitar would be. Yet, you never see anyone rockin a violin with holes worn in it, or even the finish worn off. You get the "old wood" is the best sound theory guys talking about how their violin built by the masters in the 1600's is the best thing going of course. Yet in actual studies I've seen, the best violin players were unable to tell the difference in sound between the old instruments and modern copies.

I've worn the frets off an acoustic, (two sets of frets actually) and never worn any finish off the body. Sure it had lots of nicks & battle scars, but the finish held up. It all comes down to whatever you perceive as being "cool". And most often, (except in the case of playing soccer with a guitar body), "cool" doesn't come cheap. IMHO


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> I've played guitars made out of old sinker woods (top and/or sides/back), ancient mahogany, torrified woods and I know there is absolutely something to that. The weight of the guitars is another indication. The best sounding guitars I've played have been extremely light - a combination of light well-dried woods and light construction to make the best of the woods.


Over 40 years of playing has led me to the Martin Authentic line which is extremely lightly built guitars. Built with non adjustable truss rods, hot hide glue and other building techniques of the golden era. It really did make a difference and stands head and shoulders above the other high end modern built acousitcs I've owned.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> I have been trying out high-end acoustics in showrooms for the last year now. And I was surprised at what I started hearing.
> 
> In acoustic guitars, you get what you get when you buy it. There is no easy pickup swap or hardware upgrade you can do which will improve the sound of the guitar. Playing time is one thing that is credited with improving an acoustic guitar's tone and I believe that is true. Not easy and no immediate payback.
> 
> ...


So, forty odd years ago, back in Montreal, I knew a guy who was an up and coming classical guitarist (and is now an administrator at a psychiatric hospital) that went off to Europe to study under one of the masters in either Spain or France. After he had come back, he told me of an experiment that someone had done. A luthier of classical guitars had set up an apparatus with a bunch of guitars in a circle. An artificial "hand" in the middle rotated and strummed the guitars in the circle. The intent was to simulate years of being "broken in" by repeatedly strumming the instruments for several solid days. As he told it, the experiment was an abject failure. The guitars sounded cold and unplayable, rather than broken in and human.

It's an apocryphal story, and between his telling of it, and my 40+ year recollection of it, who knows how accurate the information is. But I think the core message is a valid one: if there was a way to accomplish in a brief concentrated period what decades of loving attentive playing did to wood, we'd have likely found it by now, because _everybody_ wants it. It's like the northwest passage to China, back in the 1800s - everyone is looking for it

When I had my memorable lunch with George Gruhn, in 2009, his business card has a list of Martin serial numbers, year by year, since from 1899 to 2004. All their guitars are numbered sequentially, so one can assess output by serial number. 1974 ends with #353387, and 2004 ends with #1042558 (I carry the card in my wallet). In other words, their production output for the 30 year period between 1975 and 2004 was almost _three times_ what their total output had been for their first 75 years. In conversation, Gruhn was not complimentary about what had happened to their production quality in recent years.

That is not to suggest that contemporary acoustic guitars are crap. Rather, _great_ acoustic guitars depend very much on the nature of the wood and construction/fine-tuning, and finishing, strategies used in their production. And when one attempts to crank out guitars like sausages, maintaining a consistent source of wood of a given standard, treating, inspecting, and selecting it, on a per-guitar basis, tends to go out the window, and no amount of relic-ing or automated strumming is going to be able to fix or replace that. The custom builders can do it because they get to pick and tailor wood, one at a time, but the big builders may be at a disadvantage. One has the choice between respecting the wood, or ramping up production. You can't really have it both ways.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

mhammer said:


> So, forty odd years ago, back in Montreal, I knew a guy who was an up and coming classical guitarist (and is now an administrator at a psychiatric hospital) that went off to Europe to study under one of the masters in either Spain or France. After he had come back, he told me of an experiment that someone had done. A luthier of classical guitars had set up an apparatus with a bunch of guitars in a circle. An artificial "hand" in the middle rotated and strummed the guitars in the circle. The intent was to simulate years of being "broken in" by repeatedly strumming the instruments for several solid days. As he told it, the experiment was an abject failure. The guitars sounded cold and unplayable, rather than broken in and human.


Proof once again that tone is really in the hands! 

And for some reason, I'm picturing that Ikea chair tester you see when you walk in. It's been trying to weaken that bent wood for a couple decades now. LOL


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

guitarman2 said:


> Over 40 years of playing has led me to the Martin Authentic line which is extremely lightly built guitars. Built with non adjustable truss rods, hot hide glue and other building techniques of the golden era. It really did make a difference and stands head and shoulders above the other high end modern built acousitcs I've owned.


Over 40 years of playing has led me to brands that are not Martin, Gibson, Taylor or any of the other more common high end brands. I'm lucky to have a few shops to test these waters - it is a commitment I wouldn't take without some direct personal experience.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

Remember this?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> Over 40 years of playing has led me to brands that are not Martin, Gibson, Taylor or any of the other more common high end brands. I'm lucky to have a few shops to test these waters - it is a commitment I wouldn't take without some direct personal experience.


Well I've played or owned just about everything so I guess we all have different opinions. I don't care what Collings, Bourgeois or Santa Cruz says if you want that Martin sound you need a Martin. Being Toronto centric as well as some of the travelling I've done I'd say I've had many shops to test the waters.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> Proof once again that tone is really in the hands!


Although this is somewhat true, if it were 100% true we could all play the exact same guitar style and our hands would magically translate our tone. So we know that tone is at least 50% of the guitar.


----------



## Alex (Feb 11, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> First I've seen of this. And not some little custom shop or boutique brand, one of the big guns. Well, I guess it had to happen eventually. Not for my, but YMMV.
> 
> What do you think? Do you want a brand new high end acoustic that looks like it's been around the block and back?


I have mixed feelings about the whole relic thing (and i do own 2 guitars that are relic'ed) - It seemed cool when they first came out but i grew tired of it. A shiny new guitar is a good thing but the broken in feel of a neck is like an old pair of shoes. If the aging is well done, it can be a beautiful thing - Unless the guitar blew me away sonically and feel wise, i don't think i would seek out a relic acoustic.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Alex said:


> I have mixed feelings about the whole relic thing (and i do own 2 guitars that are relic'ed) - It seemed cool when they first came out but i grew tired of it. A shiny new guitar is a good thing but the broken in feel of a neck is like an old pair of shoes. If the aging is well done, it can be a beautiful thing - Unless the guitar blew me away sonically and feel wise, i don't think i would seek out a relic acoustic.


I would not miss out on a guitar because it was worn or relic'd and I liked it and the price was fair. I'd buy it irrelevant of the wear (intentional or not). But I don't see paying an extra grand or more on top of the price of a good guitar to get intentional damage. If it was the perfect playing guitar and it was all that was available, anything's possible. Many of the relic's I've played didn't have much different feel than the unrelic'd ones, but there are many different versions of relic'ing from many different suppliers as well. 

My first acoustic was relic'd, but the old fashioned way - 6 nights a week in some rough, seedy bars in northern SK. That Yamaki after 5 or 6 years of that life looked like it was 50.


----------



## stringer (Jun 17, 2009)

I've said before that I would feel like an imposter of sorts if I played a relic'd electric. That's just me, no judgement on those that enjoy relic'd guitars. If I was a great player I wouldn't give two shits playing a relic'd electric cuz I'd have skillz to back it up. For me there is an expectation of great ability when I see someone playing a guitar that looks like its a hundred years old. As for a high end Martin etc and paying a premium on top of that for an aged look, that's not for me, but to be fair, Martins Taylors etc in any shape are out of my price range. However I just came across an Ibanez acoustic relic thingy and I must say, I really like the way it looks. But these are on the other end of the cost spectrum and I have no idea what an Ibanez acoustic is like to play and hear. I bought a nice new guitar in the late 80's did some damage early. That was a drag. It would be nice to have a guitar that I wouldn't have to worry about so much.

Here's a pic of the Ibanez so yeah, it's real.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

KapnKrunch said:


> Remember this?
> View attachment 60833


That was one of the guitars Hendrix set on fire with lighter fluid


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

stringer said:


> *I've said before that I would feel like an imposter of sorts if I played a relic'd electric. * That's just me, no judgement on those that enjoy relic'd guitars.


I hear you. I would feel the same way.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

stringer said:


> It would be nice to have a guitar that I *wouldn't have to worry about so much.*


I had a Roadworn Strat. Not worrying about bumping, denting and/or scratching it certainly was one nice aspect of having it.
Overall, it played and sounded fine, IMO.


----------



## Gimper (Jan 14, 2016)

stringer said:


> I've said before that I would feel like an imposter of sorts if I played a relic'd electric. That's just me, no judgement on those that enjoy relic'd guitars. If I was a great player I wouldn't give two shits playing a relic'd electric cuz I'd have skillz to back it up. For me there is an expectation of great ability when I see someone playing a guitar that looks like its a hundred years old. As for a high end Martin etc and paying a premium on top of that for an aged look, that's not for me, but to be fair, Martins Taylors etc in any shape are out of my price range. However I just came across an Ibanez acoustic relic thingy and I must say, I really like the way it looks. But these are on the other end of the cost spectrum and I have no idea what an Ibanez acoustic is like to play and hear. I bought a nice new guitar in the late 80's did some damage early. That was a drag. It would be nice to have a guitar that I wouldn't have to worry about so much.


I agree with your sentiments, and I kinda like that Ibanez too. 

I am no _Acoustic_ connoisseur, but it looks like that soft and cozy guitar that you strum while sitting on the couch watching your favorite movie... then you end up using the guitar as a pillow because you passed out and drooled on it a little bit... then you don't have the energy or desire to put your guitar in its case before you go up to bed... so the guitar is left on the couch and the cat curls up next to it to stay warm overnight... then Mr. Whiskers uses it as a scratching post in the morning when he wakes up and stretches to start a new day. 

Rinse and repeat. Life is good.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Gimper said:


> I am no _Acoustic_ connoisseur, but it looks like that soft and cozy guitar that you strum while sitting on the couch watching your favorite movie... then you end up using the guitar as a pillow because you passed out and drooled on it a little bit... then you don't have the energy or desire to put your guitar in its case before you go up to bed... so the guitar is left on the couch and the cat curls up next to it to stay warm overnight... then Mr. Whiskers uses it as a scratching post in the morning when he wakes up and stretches to start a new day.
> 
> Rinse and repeat. Life is good.


Yea, but you can do all of that with a non-relic'd guitar as well. Then _you_ would be relic'ing it yourself. And you would have a story for every scratch and bump and whisker burn and pee stain! 

The guitars I have out in the living room at any given time (often 3 or 4 of them) tend to not make it into their cases at the end of the day. They are set down in the nearest stand or chair or wherever when I'm crashing. And no cats at this point in time to worry about knocking them over. Just drunk buddies.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I've been working on a higher end furniture store for the last few months, and as the display dining tables & chairs started to be set up.......I was horrified to see that the majority of the stuff was relic'd  

I asked the store owner about it and was told, "that's what sells". Evidently people want their furniture to look like 50 year old hand-me-downs as well, not just their guitars. I still don't get it.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> Yea, but you can do all of that with a non-relic'd guitar as well. Then _you_ would be relic'ing it yourself. And you would have a story for every scratch and bump and whisker burn and pee stain!


I've played and owned some beat up guitars in my 57 years. I've never once, ever sat there telling stories of bumps and dings on any of my guitars. I also don't worry about what other people buy, be it relic'd or non relic'd. I don't wanna hear stories about all the dings and scratches in someones 1950 D-28. I just wanna play the dam things. And all the time I save on not hearing the "bump and ding" stories and worrying about what relic'd instruments people buy or don't buy, I get a lot of playing time in.
So I have no arguments as to whether people should buy or not buy a relic'd guitar cause I don't give a shit. If someone were to hand me an artificially relic'd guitar and it felt amazing in my hands and sounded like the breath of angels, I'd buy it if I had the money.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

stringer said:


> I've said before that I would feel like an imposter of sorts if I played a relic'd electric.


What makes anyone an imposter is if they think they can spend a lot of money on any guitar and somehow it would make them a better player. A relic'd guitar in the hands of a gifted musician doesn't make that musician an imposter anymore than a non relic'd guitar in the hands of a gifted musician. People need to worry more about making music then what the guitar looks like.
If you think that owning an artificially relic'd guitar would make you an imposter then I guess if you bought a vintage 52 telecaster with all the bumps and dings that someone else put there that would make you an imposter to. If you couldn't play either guitar you would be an imposter in my opinion.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

D-15M StreetMaster | C.F. Martin & Co.


----------



## stringer (Jun 17, 2009)

guitarman2 said:


> What makes anyone an imposter is if they think they can spend a lot of money on any guitar and somehow it would make them a better player. A relic'd guitar in the hands of a gifted musician doesn't make that musician an imposter anymore than a non relic'd guitar in the hands of a gifted musician. People need to worry more about making music then what the guitar looks like.
> If you think that owning an artificially relic'd guitar would make you an imposter then I guess if you bought a vintage 52 telecaster with all the bumps and dings that someone else put there that would make you an imposter to. If you couldn't play either guitar you would be an imposter in my opinion.


Your reply seems almost hostile to me. Perhaps not, the internet isn't the best way to communicate, but if you read my entire post ( perhaps you did ) I addressed the exact thing you are referring to. Perhaps you're not referring to me directly, but that's how it appears to me. My post was about my feelings toward the relics, to each his own. You could also infer from my post that I don't think I am the greatest player ever, far from it, but if I had mad skillz I wouldn't give a crap what I played. I own an old japanese strat that has been genuinely relic'd by yours truly and I'm proud of its battle scars. I also said that I would have no problem owning that Ibanez. I'm still shocked at the premium price attached to these records.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

rollingdam said:


> D-15M StreetMaster | C.F. Martin & Co.


nice, but I'll wait for Willie Nelson's "Trigger" to be re-issued/introduced thanks.


----------

