I'd expect better from a Fender custom shop relic

RandallFlagg

Mine is pretty good, It's the Journeyman finish, which is lighter than Relic but more that Closet Classic. The thing I do like about the heavier relics is the finish worn off the back of the neck.

Funkfingers

The guitar illustrated in the OP looks like a Fender Custom Shop Closet Classic that the original purchaser decided was not showing enough *wear*. 

The forearm area abrasion pattern could be a combined effort by Smith, Warner and Bancroft. A complete balls up.

GoldenEraGuitars

RandallFlagg said:
 The thing I do like about the heavier relics is the finish worn off the back of the neck.

This is something I do on all of my necks.

Strat54

Looks like everyone has a bad relic day. In fairness to the big F I don't any difference between the OP's example and this from our fellow member.....(you might need FB to view)

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/32073189_959099470920189_784550947132014592_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=4cbca00fef1d3200c2b8183454a4abaa&oe=5BBC935B

Deadman

I could honestly do a better job (and have). Don't like it at all.

Jim54

That Tele body looks diseased.

ICBM

Jim54 said:

That Tele body looks diseased.

It looks like it has a bad case of woodworm, and also possibly wet rot.

It absolutely baffles me that someone would spend that much time and effort to make something look like that, or that anyone else would buy it.

WezV

axisus said:

I like aged guitars if they are done well, but this looks pretty naff to me from the Fender Custom shop. Yours for £2899.

tbf i think this is more a case of the colour choices not doing it any favours.   I think it actually makes the wear look a lot worse... the forearm contour looks like its just been rough sanded and that's it, but i bet it would look more authentic in black with the undercoat peeking through.    It might actually look much better in different lighting, just looks a bit flat as it is

The worst bit for me is the bit above the plate, because the plate looks in comparatively good condition

ICBM said:

Jim54 said:

That Tele body looks diseased.

It looks like it has a bad case of woodworm, and also possibly wet rot.

It absolutely baffles me that someone would spend that much time and effort to make something look like that, or that anyone else would buy it.

as was said in the post, that was done by a member here who we all know is capable of much more subtle relicing work - the heavy relic thing is the hardest to get right and that one would clearly be a bit far for most tastes... but someone would love it 

 

GoldenEraGuitars

I wasn’t going to comment. But I shall. What’s the worst that can happen. 

Yip, I did the diseased woodworm rotted body. Considering part of what I do is “age” stuff for a living, I’ll take your beautifully poetic comments as compliments.

So, why? Well a large part of what I do is experimenting with various techniques, posting the results on social media and waiting for feedback. How are we supposed to learn if we don’t test new methods? The image in question is also heavily filtered from Instagram so the contrast is a lot more severe than in real life.

Anyway, it’s just a body. But my issue is the fact that @Strat54 went through my images and used one against me instead of posting one that he could  have said “now this is how it’s done”. 

I have to be honest.. this is why forums (inc this one) are lucky that businesses post their updates here. An image could have been lifted from some random google search but no, it was one of mine. 

On that note....

ICBM

lonestar said:

Yip, I did the diseased woodworm rotted body. Considering part of what I do is “age” stuff for a living, I’ll take your beautifully poetic comments as compliments.

So, why? Well a large part of what I do is experimenting with various techniques, posting the results on social media and waiting for feedback. How are we supposed to learn if we don’t test new methods?

In that case I will provide some more feedback .

It's not the *severity* of the damage that's the problem, it's the pattern of it - that evenly-random distribution of almost identically-sized, identically-deep nicks - the typical "shotgun" or in this case "woodworm" effect which just screams fake from miles away. No naturally-worn guitar ever looks like that. (Unless it really has got woodworm!)

The other problem is that where the 'wear' has gone right through to the wood, the width of the 'contour lines' through the various layers of paint is nearly the same all the way round, which also doesn't happen with real wear. On a genuine worn guitar, not all the patches would be through to the wood to the same depth, or evenly over their area.

If you can make the wear and damage a lot less regular, it will look a lot more realistic - even the Fender one that started this is much more so. This is meant as constructive criticism! I don't mind the concept of relic'ed guitars, but the vast majority get the rest a bad name by being overdone and just look ridiculous. Less is more, even with the 'heavy' ones.

WezV

ICBM said:

lonestar said:

Yip, I did the diseased woodworm rotted body. Considering part of what I do is “age” stuff for a living, I’ll take your beautifully poetic comments as compliments.

So, why? Well a large part of what I do is experimenting with various techniques, posting the results on social media and waiting for feedback. How are we supposed to learn if we don’t test new methods?

In that case I will provide some more feedback .

It's not the *severity* of the damage that's the problem, it's the pattern of it - that evenly-random distribution of almost identically-sized, identically-deep nicks - the typical "shotgun" or in this case "woodworm" effect which just screams fake from miles away. No naturally-worn guitar ever looks like that. (Unless it really has got woodworm!)

The other problem is that where the 'wear' has gone right through to the wood, the width of the 'contour lines' through the various layers of paint is nearly the same all the way round, which also doesn't happen with real wear. On a genuine worn guitar, not all the patches would be through to the wood to the same depth, or evenly over their area.

If you can make the wear and damage a lot less regular, it will look a lot more realistic - even the Fender one that started this is much more so. This is meant as constructive criticism! I don't mind the concept of relic'ed guitars, but the vast majority get the rest a bad name by being overdone and just look ridiculous. Less is more, even with the 'heavy' ones.

Where are the examples of your relic work to share with the group?

Scott has shown us pretty much all of his all the way through his journey so far.  Fair enough to criticise, but you must have seen enough of his work to know that tge points you have made do not need to be directed his way.

GoldenEraGuitars

I reiterate my point... it was an experimental piece used more so for technique than accuracy. 

This is a part of the aged thing that many miss the point of. Sometimes, a guitar can look more heavily aged but still look cool (I know, that’s subjective) and not look realistic. For example, Dale Wilson at fender. His work is awesome, imo, but doesn’t necessarily look like a real aged guitar. 

Not everyone is sitting with a book of vintage guitars in front of them copying every single little detail out. 

Anyway, like it or not I have no problem with that. It’s not my favourite (although removing more nitro would turn it into a Gilmour tribute tele). My issue is the manner in which it was used.

Poor form at its best.  

IvisonGuitars

WezV said:

ICBM said:

lonestar said:

Yip, I did the diseased woodworm rotted body. Considering part of what I do is “age” stuff for a living, I’ll take your beautifully poetic comments as compliments.

So, why? Well a large part of what I do is experimenting with various techniques, posting the results on social media and waiting for feedback. How are we supposed to learn if we don’t test new methods?

In that case I will provide some more feedback .

It's not the *severity* of the damage that's the problem, it's the pattern of it - that evenly-random distribution of almost identically-sized, identically-deep nicks - the typical "shotgun" or in this case "woodworm" effect which just screams fake from miles away. No naturally-worn guitar ever looks like that. (Unless it really has got woodworm!)

The other problem is that where the 'wear' has gone right through to the wood, the width of the 'contour lines' through the various layers of paint is nearly the same all the way round, which also doesn't happen with real wear. On a genuine worn guitar, not all the patches would be through to the wood to the same depth, or evenly over their area.

If you can make the wear and damage a lot less regular, it will look a lot more realistic - even the Fender one that started this is much more so. This is meant as constructive criticism! I don't mind the concept of relic'ed guitars, but the vast majority get the rest a bad name by being overdone and just look ridiculous. Less is more, even with the 'heavy' ones.

Where are the examples of your relic work to share with the group?

Scott has shown us pretty much all of his all the way through his journey so far.  Fair enough to criticise, but you must have seen enough of his work to know that tge points you have made do not need to be directed his way.

+ 1.

ICBM

WezV said:

Where are the examples of your relic work to share with the group?

I thought better of you than that. You know I don't do relic work, or any finish work.

And nor does it matter that I don't. What I do is repair guitars - I have for over thirty years, and I have seen a lot of old guitars. My comments are based on knowing what real, worn guitars look like.

WezV said:

Scott has shown us pretty much all of his all the way through his journey so far.  Fair enough to criticise, but you must have seen enough of his work to know that tge points you have made do not need to be directed his way.

Actually, I haven't. I might have seen one or two, I can't remember.

This was meant as constructive criticism. The points were made about the work, not who did it.

SteveF

lonestar said:

Anyway, it’s just a body. But my issue is the fact that @Strat54 went through my images and used one against me instead of posting one that he could  have said “now this is how it’s done”. 

I read his post as more of a “even someone who ordinarily does amazing work can have a bad day” using that tele as an example. I would agree that the tele is one of (imo obviously) your less realistic relics and not to my taste, although some of your other work is fantastic. 

All a a matter of personal taste of course. I don’t particularly like the really heavy relics. I much prefer the “well used but well looked after” look. 

Anyway, my point is I don’t think that @Strat54 was trying to attack you

Jim54

lonestar said:

I wasn’t going to comment. But I shall. What’s the worst that can happen. 

Yip, I did the diseased woodworm rotted body. Considering part of what I do is “age” stuff for a living, I’ll take your beautifully poetic comments as compliments.

So, why? Well a large part of what I do is experimenting with various techniques, posting the results on social media and waiting for feedback. How are we supposed to learn if we don’t test new methods? The image in question is also heavily filtered from Instagram so the contrast is a lot more severe than in real life.

Anyway, it’s just a body. But my issue is the fact that @Strat54 went through my images and used one against me instead of posting one that he could  have said “now this is how it’s done”. 

I have to be honest.. this is why forums (inc this one) are lucky that businesses post their updates here. An image could have been lifted from some random google search but no, it was one of mine. 

On that note....

If you'd care to, please post some of your other work please Lonestar.  I'm a fan of relicing but it's a very subjective thing even for those quite partial to it. Some are lovely others are meh.  But others will find the meh one lovely.

And on reflection, diseased was not really the correct term.  'Dissolving' fits better.:)

gavin_axecaster

WezV said:

The worst bit for me is the bit above the plate, because the plate looks in comparatively good condition



 

  Serious question. What is the wear above the scratchplate meant to replicate? Due to the placement and localisation of wear all I can think of is using the plate as a pickholder there, but using a 62 style guard means there is a screw right in the centre of that wear, making the reason for that wear (if I am correct) impossible.
(Don't forget I'm an Esquire/LP Jr man, so never strum up there!)

SteveF

In the interests of balance @lonestar I think this is gorgeous. 

https://www.facebook.com/screlics/photos/a.680568328773306.1073741828.677380289092110/972089692954500/?type=3

GoldenEraGuitars

Jim54 said:

lonestar said:

I wasn’t going to comment. But I shall. What’s the worst that can happen. 

Yip, I did the diseased woodworm rotted body. Considering part of what I do is “age” stuff for a living, I’ll take your beautifully poetic comments as compliments.

So, why? Well a large part of what I do is experimenting with various techniques, posting the results on social media and waiting for feedback. How are we supposed to learn if we don’t test new methods? The image in question is also heavily filtered from Instagram so the contrast is a lot more severe than in real life.

Anyway, it’s just a body. But my issue is the fact that @Strat54 went through my images and used one against me instead of posting one that he could  have said “now this is how it’s done”. 

I have to be honest.. this is why forums (inc this one) are lucky that businesses post their updates here. An image could have been lifted from some random google search but no, it was one of mine. 

On that note....

If you'd care to, please post some of your other work please Lonestar.  I'm a fan of relicing but it's a very subjective thing even for those quite partial to it. Some are lovely others are meh.  But others will find the meh one lovely.

And on reflection, diseased was not really the correct term.  'Dissolving' fits better.:)

I have an entire thread in the “made in UK” sub forum. 

GoldenEraGuitars

Again, last time... not all ageing is meant to be realistic.