Poll, Would you buy a relic, or distressed looking new guitar

Would you buy a relic, or distressed looking new guitar

  • Total voters
    133
nicolasrivera said:
I don't like to buy them relic because i like to do my own relics.

I have done Strats, Teles and Les Paul's but perhaps this is the one i'm most proud of, unfortunately had to let her go duo to financial issues back in 2012 and i was most surprised to see her on the Arlington guitar show, it later sold around that asking price, amazingly i bought her like new for $3,150 in 2011, spend a year ageing it, sold it for almost 5K and its value went up to almost 9K in less then a year after that.

Many people just don't understand what a relic is all about, but those that do will pay well for a good relic job, i don't do this commercially at all, just to my guitars and not all of them just the ones i feel needs that look and feel of well played old instruments.

Here she is when new, 2001 Les Paul 1958 Reissue R8:



And here she is aged:
















And here she is in the Arlington Guitar Show:

Click to expand...
I mean this in the nicest way possible.....Part of me says. "Wow! Great job. Looks really authentically beat up and aged" and part of me says "Are you F-ing insane!?? That LP cost you $3k and the first thing you do is hack at the back with the claws of a hammer, sand it down with a cheese grater, pour maple syrup all over it and dip it in acid!???" Hahaha. It does look frickin' cool though. I just thing you must have gigantic buffalo balls to try that? LOL. Crazy that someone would pay $9k for a 2001 R8, relic'd or not. Did the seller lie and say it was a "1938" like in the photo? LOL
 
I have a feeling that a large market for relic'd guitars are businesses and people who do not actually play guitar, but display them on walls...this I can understand. After all, they are beautiful works of art by themselves,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Relics are just a very clever invention of accountants to rob idiots and wannabes that want to look like they're the hardest working player on the planet, of their hard earned cash.
Quality control?
No longer needed.
Chrome peeling of a bridge?
Slap it on a relic and charge double.
Dropped a guitar or damaged it during the production.
Never mind. At some more dings and charge double.
All IMHO and YMMV of course.
I want my guitars in premium condition for as long as possible.
And if it gets damaged it'll be by me and I won't care.
But nobody may even look at my guitars in a funny way or I get very upset :devilish:
Oh, and I don't even care for real 50 year old relics with hardly any paint left on them.
 
IF it was a high-end guitar, it would likely be done well. I'd have to see and play it of course.
 
I think you should buy whatever you want. If its a good instrument, its a good instrument regardless if its a relic or not. I have new shiny guitars, but I also have Road Worn Strat that's one of my faves. Also, my Gibson 62 Reissue SG has light aging, more of a closet classic than a full on relic.
 
Speaking of Relic... my first X-wife... yea... uhm turned my favorite pair of jeans I'd naturally relic'd, into a pair of jorts!!!! WT'ef! That was back in the 'early 80's before it was fashionable, you had to earn it... I did say X-wife. :mad:
 
Yeah I'm not ever going to go and search out a relic'd guitar, but if a guitar is a nice player and the price is right I'm going to buy it.

An old aged and battered guitar is more symbolic of a guitar that's seen a hard life and was played to death because it had some amazing tone that whoever owned it couldn't get enough of. I always thought that the closet classic mint vintage guitars were more likely to just be dead, soulless dogs and that was why they were never played. I mean QC back then was all over the place and guitars all have their own voice.

Those scratches and dings and paint falling off and crap like that were battle scars of an old warrior.

But my analogy to the artificial relic thing is it's like someone taking a pencil and jabbing it into their leg, putting on an old rack of ribbons and medals and saying that they were shot in 'Nam. Without the story you're just dressing up for Halloween.
 
To me, if I buy something new, I expect it to be pristine and I will be the one to break in the guitar due to experiences, adventures, & mishaps along the way.

If I am buying a used guitar, then I am expecting some wear & tear as well as some aging on it as a player.

To buy a reissue that has the crap beat out of and pay more for the damage is just ridiculous marketing hype.

In the 80's and early 90's, if a new guitar was dinged or scratched, you could get it at a discount price. The same held true for a less than vintage guitar that was worn, it was a concept called depreciation.

Now those flaws would be an occasion to jack up the price.

There is a sucker born every minute.
 
dr bonkers said:
To buy a reissue that has the crap beat out of and pay more for the damage is just ridiculous marketing hype.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree. Gibson doesn't charge extra for the relic thing. It happens to be something they do in conjunction with the VOS (vintage original specs) process. This includes period correct stuff like solid vs. chambered body, style of bridge or trem, tuners, pickups, wiring , caps etc. etc.. I believe they charge less for a VOS type finish than a gloss.
 
I've always thought Relic'd guitars were as dumb as... as the 'macho' button on the Viper, that changed the exhaust tone. I am about authenticity, not artifice. Besides, I am notoriously clumsy: I relic my own guitars just fine, thank you!
 
I voted yes because I did last year. But I would normally vote no.

On one hand I agree with those who feel that it's cheesy. On the other hand I agree with those that say it's art (in some cases).

I don't really care for those "gorgeous" guitars with exotic woods and tops. For the money they cost I find myself treating them differently. Every little blemish drops the resale price and up until recently I haven't found the guitar that I knew I'd keep forever.

The Suhr I bought last year was only $200 extra for a nitro finish and light to med aging. They don't go all out and really don't do a great job IMO. But for the $200 I got the nitro finish and some nice checking. The great thing is I can treat her like the dirty ho she is and not try to hide it!

In the end I don't see the difference between a nicely relic'd guitar and a really nice flamed figured top. I've seen insane prices on both and wouldn't/couldn't drop the dough for either.
 
I personally buy guitars to play them, not their resale value. I treat them with care and while they do get worn, I have 20 year old guitars that are played every day that still look almost new.

I would never buy a new "worn" guitar.
 
I voted that I would not buy a "reliced" guitar, but let me qualify that statement by saying that it is utterly INSANE to pay 3 times what a guitar is basically worth new, just because some guy sanded it off a bit and wore the paint out on purpose.

How does making a guitar look artificially old make it worth more? Oh yeah, because of the market, right?
 
some of you guys are being ridiculous...it's a finish option, period. I don't think people that buy relic'd guitars buy them to try and pass them off as guitar they've gigged for the last 30 years...they just like the way it looks. I've seen some really cool looking relic'd guitars, that I'd buy in a heartbeat. Not because i'm a noob or a poser or am trying to trick anyone...but because I dig how it looks. I've played for 25 years, I gig 3-4 nights a week in a very competitive town...I don't need to pretend like I've put miles on a guitar.

Also, with a relic'd guitar, you don't have to worry about it as much in those situations. If you just dropped a few thousand on a nice LP or Deusy, or a custom shop Strat or a Suhr....you're far more likely to baby it and freak over every little dent. What the harm in having a great guitar that you don't have to worry about bumping into every little thing?
 
Tonemeister said:
I mean this in the nicest way possible.....Part of me says. "Wow! Great job. Looks really authentically beat up and aged" and part of me says "Are you F-ing insane!?? That LP cost you $3k and the first thing you do is hack at the back with the claws of a hammer, sand it down with a cheese grater, pour maple syrup all over it and dip it in acid!???" Hahaha. It does look frickin' cool though. I just thing you must have gigantic buffalo balls to try that? LOL. Crazy that someone would pay $9k for a 2001 R8, relic'd or not. Did the seller lie and say it was a "1938" like in the photo? LOL
Click to expand...

I'm with you. If you were to hold up the guitar in both forms and say choose one, I'd be stuck in the middle. This is one of those really rare relic jobs that actually does make me think, even if I know better, that this is a great old guitar with all kinds of mojo. On the other hand, you had to brutalize a beautiful guitar with literally the exact same tone to get the relic.

Now, that I know the price difference is $6K cheaper for the new one, that would make my choice MUCH easier (depending on whose pocket the dough was coming from).
 
It's funny how some items reliced is desirable and others not.

Acceptable relics: guitars, jeans, baseball hats and furniture

Unacceptable relics: automobiles (sans rat rods), homes and wives

The entire relic thing took on a life of its own when yuppie lawyers driving new BMWs would show up at blooz jams with a reliced axe and an non-OEM trophy wife. Which is it dude? You're so mysterious with all your contradictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom