These dicks never stop the insanity.....

[leftykingv2]

Agreed....may not be obvious to those making the comments but "throw it down the stairs" or "drag it behind a car" comes off as "bitching & moaning" to those that do "get" relics & the time & work that goes into making one!!



Also....that "new" Zakk model is a Moderne....designed in the late 1950s along w/the V & Explorer....not really "new" @ all!!

It is new in a way....It's a brand new kind of ugly. "Throw it down the stairs drag it behind a car" comes off to me as people describing what a relic looks like in their opinion. How is that bitching or moaning?

[Matt_B]

Basically what people are saying is:
1) If you don't put the wear on the guitar yourself, by playing it on stage for decades you are an charlatan and thus unworthy of owning said guitar.
2) Anyone that would spend that much money a guitar with lots of simulated wear is an fool.
3) Gibson is stupid and/or evil for asking that much money for a guitar that beat up.
4) The dealer is stupid and/or even for trying to sell said guitar.

If I missed any salient points please be sure to let me know.

[leftykingv2]

Basically what people are saying is:
1) If you don't put the wear on the guitar yourself, by playing it on stage for decades you are an charlatan and thus unworthy of owning said guitar.
2) Anyone that would spend that much money a guitar with lots of simulated wear is an fool.
3) Gibson is stupid and/or evil for asking that much money for a guitar that beat up.
4) The dealer is stupid and/or even for trying to sell said guitar.

If I missed any salient points please be sure to let me know.

Thank you for that editorial comment.

[Chad]

Oh no. This has turned into a relic thread. There are only about a million of those on the internet.

Logical question: what do anti-relic people think of buying a used guitar that has battle scars? Those weren't achieved through your own playing, so they aren't "honest". How is that any different than buying a new relic that has accurate, but fake wear patterns?

[Chad]

Just for amusement, every relic thread I've ever read usually always mentions...

--making relics by dragging guitars behind vehicles
--belt sanders
--"honest" playing wear

If this thread hasn't already mentioned those things....it likely will....if this is a true relic thread.

[leftykingv2]

Oh no. This has turned into a relic thread. There are only about a million of those on the internet.

Logical question: what do anti-relic people think of buying a used guitar that has battle scars? Those weren't achieved through your own playing, so they aren't "honest". How is that any different than buying a new relic that has accurate, but fake wear patterns?

The difference is about 9K most times

[leftykingv2]

Just for amusement, every relic thread I've ever read usually always mentions...

--making relics by dragging guitars behind vehicles
--belt sanders
--"honest" playing wear

If this thread hasn't already mentioned those things....it likely will....if this is a true relic thread.

They've all been mentioned.

[BLOOD SPLATTER]

Just for amusement, every relic thread I've ever read usually always mentions...

--making relics by dragging guitars behind vehicles
--belt sanders
--"honest" playing wear

If this thread hasn't already mentioned those things....it likely will....if this is a true relic thread.

Yup....& ALL of them proved (as this thread has) that some folks "get" relics & some do not!!


Has there ever been a "man shiny guitars are so fake because they appear like they've never been played" thread??

[leftykingv2]

Yup....& ALL of them proved (as this thread has) that some folks "get" relics & some do not!!


Has there ever been a "man shiny guitars are so fake because they appear like they've never been played" thread??

You got me there man!!! That was good my friend!!!

[SausageofPower]

Oh no. This has turned into a relic thread. There are only about a million of those on the internet.

Logical question: what do anti-relic people think of buying a used guitar that has battle scars? Those weren't achieved through your own playing, so they aren't "honest". How is that any different than buying a new relic that has accurate, but fake wear patterns?

LOL, people love to bitch dude. We're all assholes.

As for your question...I'll put it this way. If George Lynch offered me his M1 Tiger that he's played for 30 years with all the dings and finish checking and so on, I'd take it in a second. It has history and it's iconic. If, on the other hand, ESP made a fully accurate replica and sold it for however much (let's assume I could afford either for humor's sake ) I'd ignore it. It just seems silly to me.

"Hey, why is the finish on that guitar all cracked?"
"George didn't have a proper case and while traveling the finish did that. He used this guitar to record some of my favorite guitar parts of all time."

vs.

"Hey, why is the finish on that guitar all cracked?"
"Because ESP took a new guitar and simulated what happened with the original, which cracked because George didn't have a proper case and while traveling the finish did that. So I paid twice as much. ...I can play Smoke on the Water on it."

Do I begrudge people who buy those models? Nah. I just find it goofy. For the price they go for, you could typically get at least 2 top of the line new guitars of the same model. Not to mention, in quite a few cases that I've had issues with (Eddie's Frankenstrat Art Series reproduction comes to mind immediately), you're paying a ton of cash for a reproduction of a guitar that was cheap as hell originally. Lots of hotshot guitarists put their guitars together because they were broke, from B parts at that. So people pay $25k for a replica of a (originally) $180 guitar. I...just don't get it. ;p

[Chad]

^I hear ya, but I just don't get the logic.

For iconic guitars, like the George Lynch example, perhaps the battle scars on that guitar and their origin can be traced to show their "authentic-ness".

But what about your average used guitar with battle scars? How do you know if those were acquired over many years or intentionally put on by the prior owner...or a combo of both? There is no way to know. So there is no way to prove if they are "honest" or not. So how is that any different than buying a relic?

[ginsambo]

FMIC are considering launching an up to date reliced Chris Holmes Piss Yellow Star.

If it goes down successfully, they are planning on bringing out the Bud Star reliced Lita Ford style as a stage 2.

For added authenticity and value they are adding Chris's DNA to each and every guitar by paying him to piss on them before they hit the stores.

$7,000 for some damp firewood. Seems like a bargain to me. I've already reserved mine.

[Brandenburg]

^I hear ya, but I just don't get the logic.

For iconic guitars, like the George Lynch example, perhaps the battle scars on that guitar and their origin can be traced to show their "authentic-ness".

But what about your average used guitar with battle scars? How do you know if those were acquired over many years or intentionally put on by the prior owner...or a combo of both? There is no way to know. So there is no way to prove if they are "honest" or not. So how is that any different than buying a relic?

i hear what your saying BUT it is assumed that a musician isnt going to "intentionally" fuck up and devalue his/her instrument...

[Chad]

So in other words: a guitar is what it is. Most of the time every ding, wear pattern, etc. can't be authenticated with 100% certainty. And what exactly is "authentic" and "honest" playing wear after all?

Take three examples:

1. At a gig, a player bumps into a cymbal and puts a gash/ding into their guitar.
2. A player intentionally bumps their guitar into a cymbal, which puts a gash/ding into the guitar. Their exact location at the time of the ding is unknown. Does it matter?
3. As part of their job, a player in a factory intentionally bumps a guitar into a cymbal, which puts a ding/gash into the guitar.

The outcome of all 3 is a guitar with a ding/gash from a cymbal. I reckon number 3 is the least honest, but does it really matter? Do people really care?

[ginsambo]

Maybe they make relics, other than Strats and vintage Gibsons, which IMO look kind of cool, like patinated antique furniture, for OCD people. You know the kind of people who smash £3000 guitars up in an uncontrollable rage if they so much as get a tiny dint on them. No that probably wouldn't work either as those kinds of people would probably count and mentally document every little dint when they take charge of it and they still smash it to pieces if they added another one. I don't get who they appeal to personally. Where the market is at?