Lets talk about guitar wear, and why do we like it so much?

xmrchi

Evenin,

I have had a LOT of guitars in my 35 year old life, it got a bit silly at one point but now its slowing down thank god.

Out of all the guitars I have owned its been the vintage well played worn ones which hung around the longest and the ones I remember fondly.

The newer ones especially the PRS's have always played and sometimes sounded better (2011 studio) but its the older ones that have this extra element I am just hooked on.

I know its better to put the wear on myself and did with a 1999 Takamine (gigged for 10 years and looked like it due to the soft spruce top)

But if I am buying a new guitar; brand new or as new, it will never win over old and well used.

But why is it? I didn't put all the wear on them myself, most of it probably occurred before I was born, its rare to find an older well used guitar without one or two little niggles you have to work around.

I'm not even going to mention Relics as I have a feeling that subject has been done to death!

But This does it for me, does it do it for you? 

http://i60.tinypic.com/zspvzn.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/28akv92.jpg

http://i59.tinypic.com/28o36p.jpg

http://i58.tinypic.com/9a1ytg.jpg

Winny_Pooh

Cheap Chinese guitars ruined shiny finishes. Add in guitar heros from the 70's playing 50's and 60's gear. So many reasons.

Sarge

No, not at all. It bugs the hell out of me and I'm not OCD in the slightest.
When I get a guitar home and it's all hazy or scratched I'll more than likely flatt and cut/polish till its all gone, then I'm pissed off when I put my own inevitable wear onto it, life's a bitch.

bluechargeboy

Did someone say Takamine?





I love the look of it but it doesn't bode well for longevity (this is just under 3 years old).

I wouldn't buy a guitar that had damage to the back of the neck or anything that affected playability. Other than that I don't mind fairly severe cosmetic damage. I don't think I would buy one in this ^^^ state though!

Rox

My favourite guitar already came with some bumps and scratches.  It meant I'm not worried about handling it, playing it, and using it.

A spankingly gorgeous new guitar I'm terrified I'm going to damage...

New shoes syndrome! 

Sassafras

I like old guitars, especially pre-CBS Fenders but if they're badly dinged up then I lose interest. I like guitars in great condition that have been well cared for.

It irritates me to see chips and dents in any sort of guitar.

digitalscream

I just don't like shiny or blingy finishes. That's why all my guitars are the very opposite - matte-finished, or bare wood. I find they wear much more nicely, too - my guitars tend to come in for a lot of knocks and scrapes, so I want something that'll wear them with pride.

xmrchi

@digitalscream Your Jaden Tele is one guitar I would make an exception for!

digitalscream

mrchi said:

@digitalscream Your Jaden Tele is one guitar I would make an exception for!

Ahhh...so many have said that

She's got her fair share of knocks and scrapes (including quite an annoying one at the tip of the headstock), but you can't really tell because it's so well worn by the finish and the top.

jimmyguitar

I know what you mean, I can't stand new (especially poly) finishes as it just feels sticky and plasticky to me. My über worn '75 Les Paul is my fave guitar and the neck is worn down to just the smooth wood. It feels amazing to play and totally unique because of the wear, all naturally achieved over time.

Philly_Q

I'm hesitant to comment here because I'm afraid it's just going to turn into another debate about relics, but....

I'm the sort of person who's very obsessive about new, perfect things.  I don't like to crease the spine or scuff the corners of a book. I don't like a scratched or cracked CD case.  And if I buy a new, shiny, pristine guitar I really, REALLY hate that moment when it gets its first scratch or ding.

When I play an aged, worn guitar (...whether it got that way naturally or artificially... oops, heading towards "R" territory again....) I'm completely freed from that obsessiveness. I'm not afraid to play the thing.  I like the way it looks and perhaps even more so I like the way it feels (unless it has big dents in the back of the neck or shitty knackered frets).

Recently I'm finding myself becoming increasingly "anti" poly-finished guitars.  I don't really believe all that stuff about nitro-finished guitars sounding better, but nitro feels so much better and the way it ages is infinitely more pleasing.

Garthy

I don't like finished necks, otherwise I like everything else mint & lashings of lacquer.

WezV

I much prefer worn to a shiny finish that's always covered in fingerprints.

MattFGBI

Guitars should show wear. I like the story it can tell. They are made to be played so I don't like the idea of keeping them locked away!

As for buying new, I like new and relic as I'll take each guitar on its own merits. Playability and sound are most important for me.

BenSirAmos

If only reliced cars became fashionable. I've put natural wear into many cars in my time.

Teetonetal

None of my guitars show that kind of wear.. my takamine is from 1996 and apart from 1 scratch, a small amount of fretboard wear and a chip on the headstock it looks fairly new. Counted up and it's done 564 gigs in that time, so it's not like it doesn't get used.

I just don't understand how people get so much wear on a guitar!! 

Neil

I like all my personal possessions as pristine as possible.

Sure, all of my guitars have got a few little dinks and dings in them but I wouldn't be interested in buying a relic type instrument at all.

bluechargeboy

 

Teetonetal said:

None of my guitars show that kind of wear.. my takamine is from 1996 and apart from 1 scratch, a small amount of fretboard wear and a chip on the headstock it looks fairly new. Counted up and it's done 564 gigs in that time, so it's not like it doesn't get used.

I just don't understand how people get so much wear on a guitar!! 

Mine up there is 95 gigs in. I play with much vigour, single note lines with plenty of attack. I beat the guitar like it owes me money! I go through three plectrums in an hour set. I could change my technique but the music and the performance are more important than the tools used to create it IMO.

When I'm not playing it I baby my guitar; it gets all the TLC and kept clean. There are no dings on it other than what I have done to the top!

If you choose to define a guitar as a wearing part, then that is what it is. It's a tool, not an heirloom.

 

Roland

Wear and tear happens.  As a player you accept it.  I can't see the point in artificial relicing, it's like buying jeans with slashed knees

samzadgan

I like wear and tear...its a story and a heritage of the guitar...but only if its real wear and tear...i dont like relic'd guitars.

Teetonetal

bluechargeboy said:

 

Teetonetal said:

None of my guitars show that kind of wear.. my takamine is from 1996 and apart from 1 scratch, a small amount of fretboard wear and a chip on the headstock it looks fairly new. Counted up and it's done 564 gigs in that time, so it's not like it doesn't get used.

I just don't understand how people get so much wear on a guitar!! 

Mine up there is 95 gigs in. I play with much vigour, single note lines with plenty of attack. I beat the guitar like it owes me money! I go through three plectrums in an hour set. I could change my technique but the music and the performance are more important than the tools used to create it IMO.

When I'm not playing it I baby my guitar; it gets all the TLC and kept clean. There are no dings on it other than what I have done to the top!

If you choose to define a guitar as a wearing part, then that is what it is. It's a tool, not an heirloom.

 

you break 3 plectrums per hour..? Do you have a video of you playing? I am intrigued. I don't think I've ever broken a plectrum..