For relic fans

would really appeal to me more if he made the guitars and sold them as is... whats the point of beating em up...its so unnatural. The guitars look very well made... they would sell without having to hide behind the relic status.
 
reliced??

Thing is guys, the guitars they are trying to copy are looking tat way cos they are played a lot eg Rory Gallagher , SRV etc and it's the sound that the original artist is mostly interested rather than whether the guitar is beaten up over years of use . These new /relic guitars are made for looks. Whats the point. Only for posers !!
 
.

Agree with Canon. It's ultimately marketing and branding. Same goes for sig series. Just because you get a SRV/Malmsteen/Clapton etc doesn't mean you're gonna end up playing like them. Vintage gear as well... there's vintage crap and vintage gems. All up to the individual.

But sure feels damn shiok to own your dream machine man. 8)
 
The vintage market is something I've never bought into firstly because old isn't always good, secondly because I can't afford it, and thirdly because I'm anal and I want my stuff to be in good condition, not beaten up with 30 years of use (or even new like these guitars, made to look beaten up) and had some other guy's sweat and tears soaked into the fingerboard, especially bearing in mind that many guys don't wash their hands after they visit the toilet.

However, I have played some vintage gear - guitars and amps. While I think much of the vintage market is hype and the instruments are nothing special except they are old, there are gems, as one of you mentioned which age has really done some damn fine things to in terms of maturing sound. This is often true for guitars, which are made of wood. As wood ages , it dries out, and when wood dries out it tends to (but not always) vibrate better, sing better in terms of its harmonic richness and sustain better; especially (but again, not always) if that guitar is played alot, since the constant vibration of all the parts together somehow 'cements' the sound of the whole instrument to make it better. At least, this is what the Internet says - I can't say I've scientifically studied that myself.

I had the pleasure of playing through a vintage Marshall head (1967 I think) once and the tone was so creamy I think at least, that I could tell the diff between it and a flagship modern Marshall amp.

Well, I'm hoping my brand new Martin is going to age gracefully over the next 30 years and sound even better than it does now.
 
no need lah...get it brand new... and play it as much as you want. those Relic marks are not WEAR marks..those are marks of ABUSE. like dropping your guitar... leaving it out in the rain... no ash tray so use guitar body. I think its perfectly possible to play a guitar for ten - twenty years and still keep it in good condition.

ive seen people buy american strats mint... and literally chip the paint off...put out ciggarettes on its finish and knock the arm rest area against rough walls to get the reliced look. i totally feel like kicking them in the face. funny why nobody buys a PRS and drag it across the street.

Why nobody FAMOUS playing super beat up prs means its not cool to play super beat up prs issit?.

BB king can play 5 notes on any guitar , thru any amp and you'd still know its him. another interesting thing is that Black guitarists seem to have very nice and pristine instruments... in their pictures.. whilst white guitarists often got the relic look.
 
hey ,... sicne this is about poser vintage ...

i got a telebass copy . real vintage . looks new cos camera din manage to capture the pictures of the abuse form the previous owner

about 30 + years old

DSC00019.jpg
 
ChanMin said:
Why nobody FAMOUS playing super beat up prs means its not cool to play super beat up prs issit?.

For one PRS uses the modern polyurethane finish just like new fenders. Those are very hard to relic due to the hardener in the paint. Nitrocellulose however, is softer and you can get that relic-ed look from a nitro finish guitar from years of playing and gigging. Not as worn as those in the website but relic-ed enough. Some of the custom shop fender relics are tastefully done. Some people like the feel of a worn in neck and since its available why not.
 
ok..as a guitar player.. i understand the worn in guitar neck thingy... maybe if you played your faithfull strat for 30 yrs..and it finally dies..or is too much of a gem to be gigged...you keep it in a glass case and buy a relic model..that possibly feels/plays the same.

but why pay more.. and have the guy "damage" your guitar??? why not stop at the worn in neck?. why must pay him to ding and scratch the guitar finish...etc... besides the aged plastic parts , electronics?? , neck feel... everything else like not worth paying money for leh...
 
.

I guess there'll always people who'll pay top dollar for a seemingly beat-up instrument.

Personally, I like the vintage look.....
 
Here are snippets from the December 2004 Guitarist article, titled, Distress Signals, Pg 76. The article looks at distressing guitars in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

..............

"For Gibson adherents, their axes are treasured heirlooms. They are obsessively cleaned and polished to within an inch of their lives, pampered like renaissance princes or actor's ego. Any sign of serious use beyond a little discreet wearing away at the finish is a tragedy, almost beyond words.

The ideal impression that Gibson owners would like to create is that the axe, when not actually being played, is kept in a airtight case and lovingly mantained by an ace team of techs and roadies who steam in like ER after every session.

The ideal state of a Strat or Tele by contrast is that the owner used it to batter his way out of a bar fight in Arizona sometime around 1959. The guitar was then steeped in a tank of bikers' urine for a year and sun-dried in the desert around Death Valley.

For a Fender player, every cig-burn on the headstock, chip in the finish or rusted bridge saddle is a badge of honour. A pristine, showroom, fresh Fender guitar looks as "intrinsically" wrong as a filthy, grimy, bashed-up Gibson.

But let us remember that the wonderfulness of old Fenders is due to honest wear rather than random damage. The reissue's are a joy to play but what made the old ones such a spectacular delight was the way 5 decades of serious playing had left a superbly comfortable and inviting expanse of almost-bare wood which, as far as I know, no artificial Custom Shop distressing is able to mimic."
 
ChanMin said:
but why pay more.. and have the guy "damage" your guitar??? why not stop at the worn in neck?. why must pay him to ding and scratch the guitar finish...etc... besides the aged plastic parts , electronics?? , neck feel... everything else like not worth paying money for leh...

You see, all these are merely opinions, YMMV type assertions. Someone might view a 3k USD Tom Anderson as a strat copy and not worth it. Simply put, it's down to what you like. Take the example of furniture - some furniture is deliberately aged to look old. Maybe you can understand better in the furniture context. I am however, not a relic fan.
 
JMguitars said:
Here are snippets from the December 2004 Guitarist article, titled, Distress Signals, Pg 76. The article looks at distressing guitars in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

..............

"For Gibson adherents, their axes are treasured heirlooms. They are obsessively cleaned and polished to within an inch of their lives, pampered like renaissance princes or actor's ego. Any sign of serious use beyond a little discreet wearing away at the finish is a tragedy, almost beyond words.

The ideal impression that Gibson owners would like to create is that the axe, when not actually being played, is kept in a airtight case and lovingly mantained by an ace team of techs and roadies who steam in like ER after every session.

The ideal state of a Strat or Tele by contrast is that the owner used it to batter his way out of a bar fight in Arizona sometime around 1959. The guitar was then steeped in a tank of bikers' urine for a year and sun-dried in the desert around Death Valley.

For a Fender player, every cig-burn on the headstock, chip in the finish or rusted bridge saddle is a badge of honour. A pristine, showroom, fresh Fender guitar looks as "intrinsically" wrong as a filthy, grimy, bashed-up Gibson.

But let us remember that the wonderfulness of old Fenders is due to honest wear rather than random damage. The reissue's are a joy to play but what made the old ones such a spectacular delight was the way 5 decades of serious playing had left a superbly comfortable and inviting expanse of almost-bare wood which, as far as I know, no artificial Custom Shop distressing is able to mimic."


ahh this makes sense. Honest wear rather then random damage.
 
JMguitars said:
Here are snippets from the December 2004 Guitarist article, titled, Distress Signals, Pg 76. The article looks at distressing guitars in a tongue-in-cheek manner.

Ah, a fellow "Guitarist" reader (best mag on the planet IMHO). That column by Charles Shaar Murray is consistently funny and insightful. Still, his humorous look at the two types of owner camp, didn't ring with me. I'm a Fender and (former) Gibson owner and when *any* of my guitars get little knocks or dings it's a tragedy of gigantic proportions... :(
 
i like vintage looking stuff but not one that looks like its been found in the sewer where rats bit the wood for food and having mushrooms growing on it. Thats exaggerating but then, yea dun like the beatened up look. However, each person have their own opinion. so....up to personal preference. we cannot go like "ur taste sucks and his is gd".
 

Latest posts

Back
Top