Heavy relicing - I just don't get it

Voxman

Bigsby said:

bgmartinsbridge said:

Why would someone do that? 

Ok, as you're asking - one reason is it's cool to own an instrument that you bought brand new and have then played for decades, perhaps gigging, modifying, etc., until you end up with an instrument that has an appearance that records the time you've spent with it. Every sign of wear, scratch, dent, chip, scrape, right down to the worn finish from polishing it is a record of your life with that instrument.

Not everyone is going to care about such a thing, but I don't find it difficult to answer your question. So I'm looking forward to hearing what the appeal is in the more OTT relic jobs - those ones that look as if the guitar has been treated like **** for decades. Where is the appeal in that look? I've heard people explain that it's an 'art form' and therefore doesn't have to look 'real' - and I get that - but I've never heard anyone explain why they find that look appealing in the first place.

And that's exactly where I'm coming from @Bigsby. ;;; There has to be a reason that some folk are really into heavy relicing.  Nothing wrong with it whatsover, but I'm just curious as to the appeal.  And if the relicing is secondary and like @AllthegearNoidea the primary driver is that it's a great sounding and playing guitar, I completely get that.  But so far no one has given me a straight answer - I don't care if it's because you might like people to think you have an old vintage guitar, or that you're a more regular gigger than you might be in reality - or that it makes you feel more 'valid' as a player, - I'm honestly not sitting in judgement, I'm just genuinely curious and after some honest responses, because (and let's be realist here) heavy relic lovers are a more specialised part of the market - but no less valid than any other part of the market of course.

But there must be a reason heavy relic lovers are willing to drop £4k plus on a new guitar that looks battered and bruised and it can't just be the defensive answers given so far - I just don't buy it.  So c'mon guys - share and open your hearts, cos this is like pulling teeth.    

Voxman

ICBM said:

JezWynd said:

Trying to think of another item that is deliberately damaged prior to selling as ‘new’. Can’t think of one.

Ripped jeans.

Good one - and I don't get those either?! 

AllthegearNoidea

Voxman said:

Bigsby said:

bgmartinsbridge said:

Why would someone do that? 

Ok, as you're asking - one reason is it's cool to own an instrument that you bought brand new and have then played for decades, perhaps gigging, modifying, etc., until you end up with an instrument that has an appearance that records the time you've spent with it. Every sign of wear, scratch, dent, chip, scrape, right down to the worn finish from polishing it is a record of your life with that instrument.

Not everyone is going to care about such a thing, but I don't find it difficult to answer your question. So I'm looking forward to hearing what the appeal is in the more OTT relic jobs - those ones that look as if the guitar has been treated like **** for decades. Where is the appeal in that look? I've heard people explain that it's an 'art form' and therefore doesn't have to look 'real' - and I get that - but I've never heard anyone explain why they find that look appealing in the first place.

And that's exactly where I'm coming from @Bigsby. ;;; There has to be a reason that some folk are really into heavy relicing.  Nothing wrong with it whatsover, but I'm just curious as to the appeal.  And if the relicing is secondary and like @AllthegearNoidea the primary driver is that it's a great sounding and playing guitar, I completely get that.  But so far no one has given me a straight answer - I don't care if it's because you might like people to think you have an old vintage guitar, or that you're a more regular gigger than you might be in reality - or that it makes you feel more 'valid' as a player, - I'm honestly not sitting in judgement, I'm just genuinely curious and after some honest responses, because (and let's be realist here) heavy relic lovers are a more specialised part of the market - but no less valid than any other part of the market of course.

But there must be a reason heavy relic lovers are willing to drop £4k plus on a new guitar that looks battered and bruised and it can't just be the defensive answers given so far - I just don't buy it.  So c'mon guys - share and open your hearts, cos this is like pulling teeth.    

Because that person as an individual likes it. Nothing more or less and who gives a toss

markblack

It's the OTT- ness of some heavy relicing I really like  my HR 52' CS Tele is my favourite guitar to play. The neck feels great. 




Shell pink over sunburst - I don't see it as faking age - more just a custom finish - slight relicing I see more as fake and I don't get that, but that's just my personal opinion. 

(the other advantage is if you ding it you can't tell )

I also have a '53 ES-125 and it's pretty reliced (genuinely) again lovely to play. relicing for me is as much a feel thing as a look.

Voxman

bgmartinsbridge said:

I guess I'm making the point that different people like different things.

NOS - I want an immaculate guitar with a neck that I can wear in myself, and like the new car smell.

Light relic - I want a just played in look, and may want a bit of wear on the back of the neck too. 

Heavy relic - can look like a work of art, heavily played feel on the neck like picking up an old guitar.

Now that's the first interesting response, thanks @bgmartinsbridge .  And is that the appeal?  Do heavy relic lovers genuinely see these guitars as works of art? 

But heavily played feel on the neck?  Hmm.  I fully understand playing comfort.  But c'mon - isn't that deflecting the original question a bit?  First, you could buy a new guitar with a non-gloss smooth neck that feels the same, or you could just have the neck re-finished. But that still doesn't explain (other than the work of art suggestion, which I can't believe is the majority view) why you'd still want the rest of the guitar to have a 'battered, beaten up' look.   

Are @Bigsby and I really the only ones struggling with this - or are others looking in, thinking the same things, but feel uncomfortable to chime in, in case they get lambasted?  C'mon guys and gals - I really do think this is actually a really interesting & valid topic, even more so now because of the reluctance shown to truly answer the question, other than for folks to say they don't need to justify themselves or turn it around to ask why some of us prefer cleaner guitars (which we've answered).  

So if you love heavily relic'd guitars and can explain why you'd drop £4k plus on one, open your hearts and share why.  And it's gotta be more than its a good guitar to play - because equivalent pristine new or VOS/light relics will be equally as good. 

  

thegummy

Voxman said:

Just seemed a reasonable topic & question guys.  I wasn't asking folk to 'justify' their choice, & I'm most definitely not criticising it, just curious as to what it is about heavy relicing that 'does it for them' so to speak.  

Not sure it's really possible for anyone to explain why they like the look of something.

The only thing I'd wonder (as someone not into relics at all) is it purely that they think the scratches, scuffs, dents etc. look nice and it's nothing more than me thinking blue looks nice - or is there anything else to it?

Are there some who want to fool the audience in to thinking they have an older guitar or have played a lot of gigs?

Are some people in it for the tone? I'm sure I've heard some kind of claim that the paint being scratched away affects the tone - maybe some relic fans are in it for that reason?

Just guesses really, if I had to guess the most likely answer it would be just that some people think it looks good the way I think my guitars look good (which isn't explainable IMO).

Philly_Q

Voxman said:

But heavily played feel on the neck?  Hmm.  I fully understand playing comfort.  But c'mon - isn't that deflecting the original question a bit?  First, you could buy a new guitar with a non-gloss smooth neck that feels the same, or you could just have the neck re-finished. But that still doesn't explain (other than the work of art suggestion, which I can't believe is the majority view) why you'd still want the rest of the guitar to have a 'battered, beaten up' look.   
 

OK, ignore the playing comfort argument, or the fact that it removes the anxiety of putting that first scratch or ding on a previously pristine guitar.

Some of us just like the look.  Just as some people like a flawless glossy finish, or a quilt maple top, or a Minarik covered in bits of pearloid and gold hardware.

Why does it need any more justification than that?

Voxman

thegummy said:

Voxman said:

Just seemed a reasonable topic & question guys.  I wasn't asking folk to 'justify' their choice, & I'm most definitely not criticising it, just curious as to what it is about heavy relicing that 'does it for them' so to speak.  

Not sure it's really possible for anyone to explain why they like the look of something.

The only thing I'd wonder (as someone not into relics at all) is it purely that they think the scratches, scuffs, dents etc. look nice and it's nothing more than me thinking blue looks nice - or is there anything else to it?

Are there some who want to fool the audience in to thinking they have an older guitar or have played a lot of gigs?

Are some people in it for the tone? I'm sure I've heard some kind of claim that the paint being scratched away affects the tone - maybe some relic fans are in it for that reason?

Just guesses really, if I had to guess the most likely answer it would be just that some people think it looks good the way I think my guitars look good (which isn't explainable IMO).

markblack said:

It's the OTT- ness of some heavy relicing I really like  my HR 52' CS Tele is my favourite guitar to play. The neck feels great. 

Shell pink over sunburst - I don't see it as faking age - more just a custom finish - slight relicing I see more as fake and I don't get that, but that's just my personal opinion. 

(the other advantage is if you ding it you can't tell )

I also have a '53 ES-125 and it's pretty reliced (genuinely) again lovely to play. relicing for me is as much a feel thing as a look.

Philly_Q said:

Voxman said:

But heavily played feel on the neck?  Hmm.  I fully understand playing comfort.  But c'mon - isn't that deflecting the original question a bit?  First, you could buy a new guitar with a non-gloss smooth neck that feels the same, or you could just have the neck re-finished. But that still doesn't explain (other than the work of art suggestion, which I can't believe is the majority view) why you'd still want the rest of the guitar to have a 'battered, beaten up' look.   
 

OK, ignore the playing comfort argument, or the fact that it removes the anxiety of putting that first scratch or ding on a previously pristine guitar.

Some of us just like the look.  Just as some people like a flawless glossy finish, or a quilt maple top, or a Minarik covered in bits of pearloid and gold hardware.

Why does it need any more justification than that?

 OK guys, I appreciate the responses - maybe it is just that simple & that some folk like the battered, weather-beaten look and genuinely don't know why, any more than why someone loves candy apple red, and someone else hates it.  Maybe its purely aesthetic and that our brains are just wired differently. I still think there's possibly a bit more to it than that, but there you go - my brain isn't wired that way, so hence why I 'don't get it'.   

m_c

I suspect my Tele body just about falls into the heavy relic category, as it's a bit more than lightly reliced.

I always used to wonder the same about relicing, and why anybody would buy something battered to f**k. It was only when I was contemplating building a Tele, and I happened to see the SCRelics butterscotch body that Axecaster had for sale, something in my brain said, that looks nice. And it was in my possession very quickly after that!
It however has had no relicing applied to any of the other bits, and I've got no plans to. The pickguard will eventually discolour a bit and gain some scratch marks, I doubt the neck will change that much given it's a roasted maple, and the hardware will gradually get a bit dull/dirty, but I will occasionally clean it as I don't like manky hardware.

As everything, it's all personal taste.
I've never got the whole paisley thing, yet lots of people go nuts for it.

thegummy

Here's a weird one - I like the look of the Flea Jazz bass and if it was genuinely a vintage second hand bass I'd buy it but because I know it's been "relicced" it just puts me off completely.

fretfinder

Voxman said: But this just looks like the 'seven shades kicked out of it':

https://www.makenmusic.com/products/fender-custom-shop-1959-stratocaster-heavy-relic-masterbuilt-john-cruz

Well it’s sold, so somebody liked it! 

Voxman

thegummy said:

Here's a weird one - I like the look of the Flea Jazz bass and if it was genuinely a vintage second hand bass I'd buy it but because I know it's been "relicced" it just puts me off completely.

That's interesting, because I'd have thought if you liked how it looks you'd want it.  But I can understand if your brain is flashing an amber alert and  telling you its not an 'honest' guitar (if you know what I mean) and psychologically rejecting it.  I'm kind of in the middle here - for example, I've always had this 'thing' about a rosewood board Strat in lake placid blue that had yellowed and turned teal/turquoise, with an aged white scratch-plate/plastic parts.  If I had the money and there was a lightly relic'd Custom shop Strat that fit the bill, I'd want one and wouldn't be put off - but a heavily relic'd one would be a no-no, regardless of how nice a guitar it was.

Voxman

fretfinder said:

Voxman said: But this just looks like the 'seven shades kicked out of it':

https://www.makenmusic.com/products/fender-custom-shop-1959-stratocaster-heavy-relic-masterbuilt-john-cruz

Well it’s sold, so somebody liked it! 

Of course, as I said, it wouldn't have been made if there wasn't a market for it.  

ICBM

I draw the line at any faked wear and tear. I like artificial aging, but not damage - basically like an old guitar which has been perfectly preserved in new condition other than the effects of natural finish checking, hardware dulling etc. The dings and wear will happen anyway with use.

In the same sort of way, I like faded and stonewashed jeans but I would never buy ripped ones or with ‘worn’ patches.

Just personal taste, anyone else can buy what they want.

I do admit I find ‘heavy relics’ that look obviously fake pretty stupid though. It’s usually not hard to tell, and I find the idea that it’s a ‘finish choice’, rather than a poor attempt at making something look old, a bit laughable.

Bridgehouse

I tried to get my missus to explain to me why she liked my relic look. 

Turns out it’s because other women are less likely to want to pick me up and play with me.

thegummy

ICBM said:

I draw the line at any faked wear and tear. I like artificial aging, but not damage - basically like an old guitar which has been perfectly preserved in new condition other than the effects of natural finish checking, hardware dulling etc. The dings and wear will happen anyway with use.

In the same sort of way, I like faded and stonewashed jeans but I would never buy ripped ones or with ‘worn’ patches.

Just personal taste, anyone else can buy what they want.

I do admit I find ‘heavy relics’ that look obviously fake pretty stupid though. It’s usually not hard to tell, and I find the idea that it’s a ‘finish choice’, rather than a poor attempt at making something look old, a bit laughable.

With the Flea Jazz I mentioned - I absolutely love the aged shell pink. I don't like a brand new shell pink finish at all, the shade of pink doesn't do it for me but the way it's dulled on the Flea is so nice looking. I'd much prefer they hadn't sanded any of it off though.

My 14 year old niece was wearing the jeans equivalent of a Rory Gallagher Strat today lol

Voxman

Bridgehouse said:

I tried to get my missus to explain to me why she liked my relic look. 

Turns out it’s because other women are less likely to want to pick me up and play with me.

Brilliant!  I think that one wins todays relic prize! - have a LOL! 

kaypeejay

Isn’t it just marketing? Some people hanker after the look of an older used guitar but don’t want the risk if there being anything wrong with it, so the market is there and guitar makers want to fill that gap. 

If if no one bought them, they wouldn’t exist. How they came into being is another question altogether. 

WezV

It's just an aesthetic choice.   Old guitars look cool.  Relics that get close to that aesthetic look cool.  Relics that look totally fake don't look cool.

I do think we are at a point where many styles of relic wear are based on other relics, not actual old guitars.  I prefer to go back to the real stuff for my reference points, or abandon them completely when I just want to have some fun with a finish.

hyperben

Twinfan said:

I have a heavy relic Tele and I think it looks and feels superb.

It's as simple as that.

This.

Also I will add that I feel no guilt whatsoever in gigging my relic Nocaster. It’s the best feeling ever because it doesn’t matter if it gets dinged! The guitar simply can’t lose value through receiving more damage. This makes me more care free when playing it out and about so I enjoy it far more.

Isn’t it great though that we all like different things. It’s ok not to like relic’d guitars.