Would you buy relic or non relic

Lewy

Whitecat said:

Lewy said:

I'm not sure accusations of lacking legitimacy or authenticity hold a lot of water in the relic/non-relic debate. If you've got a pristine looking guitar with a standard poly finish then that's just as fake as a relic finish....it's faking being an expertly applied lacquer finish on an immaculately sanded and prepared piece of wood, when it is in fact a layer of plastic over an often not very well sanded at all bit of wood. A relic is deceptive when it purports to have seen more action than it has, a "pristine" poly finished US Standard or whatever is deceptive when it purports to have been finished with more care and expertise than it was. There's no moral high ground there as I see it.

Personally my choice of whether to go relic or not would depend on the guitar....Fender - light relic all the way, Gibson...no. Any acoustic never, never, never. Purely emotional responses, no particular logic being applied.

Not to mention the fact that this is "showbiz" and if you gig, well, your instrument is as much a part of your look as your ripped jeans... or not, as the case may be, so feel free to choose appropriately. Image is important.

Agree 100% I don't know anyone who makes a living at music who takes a principled stand on this stuff.....they just go with whatever fits.

hairboy

I don't get the new aged look thing, neither.  Remember seeing a Custom shop Jeff Beck Strat years ago for some crazy price, and I just didn't get it.  If it was Jeff's personal guitar I was getting, with the history behind it, hell yeah, but if it's a copy, not for me thanks. I'd feel silly, like wearing these jeans or something

Ravenous

Like lamb dressed as mutton.

WezV

A slight diversion in topic...

Its a question for those of you that say "I would never have a relic".  What would you do if you broke a headstock or needed to change a few parts on an already worn guitars?   Would you go for a pristine repair and new shiny parts, or wear that matches the rest of the finish?

I must admit I used to be firmly in the first camp -   I still prefer full vintage refinishes to be largely un-worn and honest, but the market seems to prefer appropriately aged for its vintage.

I started doing a bit of relic work because I was being asked  to match new parts with old guitars.

It has led to me doing full relic builds more recently. 

Sassafras

Can't say I'm ever shocked or horrified if I ding my guitars but I object to someone else doing it.

AlexC

I don't get the whole relic thing. Especially 'heavy relic'. I'm sure some of them are great guitars to play, but it's visually pretentious (in the real sense of the word - something pretending to be something it isn't).  Either you have a vintage, road worn guitar or you don't. Either you've gigged for years with a machine, or you haven't. Rory Gallagher's Strat looked like that because of the life it had., not because he took it into a custom shop and someone artistically stripped the varnish.  You can get vintage styled guitars that are a dream to play without pretending they didn't just come out of a shop.

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

What annoys me more than any 'relicing' is when you have a pristine, beautifully finished guitar and you managed to put one or two solitary dings in the paintwork, especially on the front! Whenever I see that I can't help but focus on the fly in the ointment, even of nobody else would even notice! 

Weirdly, I think I'd rather get a bit more tasteful relicing done on a guitar rather than leave it with one or two glaring imperfections! Obviously ideally I'd keep a nice guitar flawless from the off! 

I can see the arguments for and against, and at the end of the day it's down to the owner what they do to their own pride and joy!

fields5069

Fuengi said:

However, I'm not a fan of artificially inducing age to any wood for aesthetic reasons. 

I'm interested in this viewpoint. Does this apply to "traditional" furniture? There are furniture producers who introduce artificial wear, but the vast majority of old-fashioned furniture produced nowadays looks nothing like the new condition of the furniture it's inspired by. It's given an all-over brown tint which a lot of furniture just wouldn't have had. You would have been able to see the often vivid colours of the wood - reds, greens etc, particularly in marquetry. So most furniture is what could be described as "NOS".

The point being that I have gone off true relics, but quite like the Gibson NOS stuff.

Ravenous

WezV said:

A slight diversion in topic...

Its a question for those of you that say "I would never have a relic".  What would you do if you broke a headstock or needed to change a few parts on an already worn guitars?   Would you go for a pristine repair and new shiny parts, or wear that matches the rest of the finish?

Good question. (And I'm one of the non-relicers.)

In my case, for parts like replacement tuners or bridge, ideally I'd buy a new part if available. I know I broke something and don't see the need to hide it. (Different if trying to sell it, but that's not your point I think.)

For a broken headstock or other major wood repair, I would live with it if the repair was a bit gnarly and obviously visible. In this case it's an "honest battle scar" (as the saying goes).

Blueingreen

I must admit I find the concept naff, but it wouldn't necessarily stop me from owning a relic if it was subtle enough and the guitar was good enough otherwise.

Philly_Q

The debate has been done to death but I would buy a relic because I like 'em.  It's just a finish.

Funkfingers

Q: Would you buy relic or non relic?

A: Yes. Both. 

photek

The slight issue with honest wear and battle scars is if like me you look after your gear then it won't age anything like those back in the day without intentional intervention. I have an 82 strat (thin poly finish) that I have gigged hard for well over 25 years and apart from 2 refrets it could pass as a couple of years old.

My other strat is completely aged (tastefully, not belt sanded) with nitro finish, back of the neck stripped etc and it feels and sounds so much more natural to play and is lovely to look at so I gravitate towards that one over the shiny 'old' one.

My 2006 R8 even though I have added all the Aged Faber hardware and pup covers looks brand new if I clean it haha.

Gagaryn

Two words I hate to hear together are "Heavy Relic". I can live with things being made to look lightly aged and if modding an old guitar or one that has already been reliced or aged you really need to age the part to make it blend in otherwise things look daft.

I own a CS Relic and it is a good guitar but I would have much preferred if the CS had had a lighter touch aesthetically and had been more sympathetic to function. The bridge was reliced to such an extent that screws seized, saddles were so rough they caused tuning issues and the vibrato adjustment screw and spring also had problems with excess rust - and had to be replaced. - this is a Jazzmaster BTW.

Neil

The aesthetics of a guitar are important to me, the right colour etc, and I also like to keep all my stuff pristine which is why I could never buy a relic.

stratman3142

goldtop said:

The best thing about having a relic is that when you put another ding into your guitar, you don't get depressed about it

Yes I can see that, but I prefer my guitars to look new when I get them. They soon end up with my own dings, knocks and scrapes.

I put a ding in my Les Paul the first week I got it, when it collided with the head stock of a bass player's Jazz Bass during rehearsal.

I worry about dings in my Les Paul and PRS. Whereas it doesn't really bother me with my Strats and Telecaster, which are the guitars I play the most.

Have we talked about this before? I've got a feeling of deja vu but I'm getting old and forgetful.

steer

Its a question for those of you that say "I would never have a relic".  What would you do if you broke a headstock or needed to change a few parts on an already worn guitars?   Would you go for a pristine repair and new shiny parts, or wear that matches the rest of the finish?

I would simply try to get a second hand neck off a guitar of the same type and age. If that were not possible, then a new one, but I would not get the blowtorch and chisel out  on the new neck. 

For changing parts, then new bits. They dont tend to look silly in my limited experience of replacing parts on a strat. 

axisus

57Deluxe said:

you can gig a relic with no fear of it getting a ding!

But worry if you get a dong ....

ennspek

I would buy whatever felt better in my hands.

Bridgehouse

ennspek said:

I would buy whatever felt better in my hands.

Guffaw