Hows about these then..... New Gibson Standard Paint Over

jeztone2

I have just bought a 34 year old Yamaha SG1000 with a tiny scratch on the top. Plus 2 larger dings on the lower rear. There's buckle rash all over the back.

Given that the guitars had at least two fret dresses. I'd say that was realistic to assume the guitars been gigged constantly. Yet it still has less wear on it than the most basic 'relic' guitar. 

Thats my problem with it really. It just looks contrived to me. If you use them, they bang up anyway. 

rlw

I have never understood the relic thing and would be no more likely to buy one of these Gibsons than I would a custom shop Fender.

I like my guitars, clean, undinged, undented, covered in paint and, when appropriate, shiney too.

streethawk

jeztone2 said:

I have just bought a 34 year old Yamaha SG1000 with a tiny scratch on the top. Plus 2 larger dings on the lower rear. There's buckle rash all over the back.

Given that the guitars had at least two fret dresses. I'd say that was realistic to assume the guitars been gigged constantly. Yet it still has less wear on it than the most basic 'relic' guitar. 

Thats my problem with it really. It just looks contrived to me. If you use them, they bang up anyway. 

Thick poly type finishes protect paint better than old coats of lacquer. Fret dresses can be down to soft metal frets played by heavy handed lummoxes in bedrooms (like myself). 

Yes some relic jobs are overdone, but there's more badly done relics than overdone ones. Loads of vintage guitars show heavy wear. 

Sassafras

The irony is that a guitar with genuine wear loses value whereas an intentionally fucked up finish costs 6000 quid.

ICBM

streethawk said:

Yes some relic jobs are overdone, but there's more badly done relics than overdone ones. Loads of vintage guitars show heavy wear.

Very few genuine vintage guitars are anywhere near as worn as most relics.

... to the point where I now assume that any really heavily worn guitar is probably a fake.

streethawk

ICBM said:

streethawk said:

Yes some relic jobs are overdone, but there's more badly done relics than overdone ones. Loads of vintage guitars show heavy wear.

Very few genuine vintage guitars are anywhere near as worn as most relics.

... to the point where I now assume that any really heavily worn guitar is probably a fake.

An assertion like that requires some working out. Number of golden era fenders and gibsons produced vs number of modern relic jobs on the market - including homemade efforts. Number of surviving untouched examples etc. Might be helpful to include all the 'closet classic' type relic jobs too.

You could just as easily state that when you see a vintage guitar with great paint, you assume it's a refin. Or at least a dealer would. 

This just caught my eye: a '58 strat refin relic job. 
https://guitarvillage.co.uk/products/fender-stratocaster-black-refinished-pre-owned-1958-vg

we're through the looking glass, people.

streethawk

Sassafras said:

The irony is that a guitar with genuine wear loses value whereas an intentionally fucked up finish costs 6000 quid.

Yes like a worn 'thin skin' AVRI strat. Should bloody add value, all things being equal. Doesn't though. 

It's an odd situation.

NelsonP

They haven't painted them over very well now have they!

Chalky

Honestly thought this was a spoof. Oh dear.

Boromedic

Oh mannnnn, I love Gibsons and I get tired of the hate tbh too. However these are indefensible, utter trash and deserve nothing but contempt. 

ennspek

I'd like to think they look better in person. Terrible name though.