These dicks never stop the insanity.....

[Chad]

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

I hear you too, but....

Now dings have assumptions and rules? Seriously?

[SausageofPower]

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?

I think we're on the same page, but reading it differently. One example personally I can think of is my Model 4. I was changing the pickups and the soldering iron accidentally hit the finish near the control cavity and left a burn mark. That was my first job soldering electronics inside a guitar, so to me that's a memory. I was pissed at first because the guitar was in great shape, but now I look at it and just laugh. It was a dumb mistake and I'll never forget that (assuming I don't get clocked in the head with an anvil). On the other hand, say I become famous (again, humor me ) and someone makes a replica of that guitar...what does it mean to them? "Oh, that's a burn mark like the one on Corey's Model 4." No association, no memory, just "It's there on mine because it's there on his."

I'm not saying every mark on my guitars has a story, but it's just seems goofy to me. When I buy a used guitar, I look for one that's closest to mint as I can get personally. I'd rather make my own history with the guitar. Yeah, there's usually little things that people do, but those depreciate the cost accordingly. I wouldn't pay new guitar prices (or premiums) for a guitar that's purposefully damaged/worn/whatever term you want to use. That's just me though. It's a silly trend to me that's only really seemed to gain momentum in the past 10 years or so (unless I wasn't paying attention).

[leftykingv2]

I think we're on the same page, but reading it differently. One example personally I can think of is my Model 4. I was changing the pickups and the soldering iron accidentally hit the finish near the control cavity and left a burn mark. That was my first job soldering electronics inside a guitar, so to me that's a memory. I was pissed at first because the guitar was in great shape, but now I look at it and just laugh. It was a dumb mistake and I'll never forget that (assuming I don't get clocked in the head with an anvil). On the other hand, say I become famous (again, humor me ) and someone makes a replica of that guitar...what does it mean to them? "Oh, that's a burn mark like the one on Corey's Model 4." No association, no memory, just "It's there on mine because it's there on his."

I'm not saying every mark on my guitars has a story, but it's just seems goofy to me. When I buy a used guitar, I look for one that's closest to mint as I can get personally. I'd rather make my own history with the guitar. Yeah, there's usually little things that people do, but those depreciate the cost accordingly. I wouldn't pay new guitar prices (or premiums) for a guitar that's purposefully damaged/worn/whatever term you want to use. That's just me though. It's a silly trend to me that's only really seemed to gain momentum in the past 10 years or so (unless I wasn't paying attention).

+1. I said the same exact thing about paying new price for a beat up instrument. I just don't get it bro. If and when I buy used I look for the guitar at the best price in the best condition.

[Chad]

I think we're on the same page, but reading it differently. One example personally I can think of is my Model 4. I was changing the pickups and the soldering iron accidentally hit the finish near the control cavity and left a burn mark. That was my first job soldering electronics inside a guitar, so to me that's a memory. I was pissed at first because the guitar was in great shape, but now I look at it and just laugh. It was a dumb mistake and I'll never forget that (assuming I don't get clocked in the head with an anvil). On the other hand, say I become famous (again, humor me ) and someone makes a replica of that guitar...what does it mean to them? "Oh, that's a burn mark like the one on Corey's Model 4." No association, no memory, just "It's there on mine because it's there on his."

I'm not saying every mark on my guitars has a story, but it's just seems goofy to me. When I buy a used guitar, I look for one that's closest to mint as I can get personally. I'd rather make my own history with the guitar. Yeah, there's usually little things that people do, but those depreciate the cost accordingly. I wouldn't pay new guitar prices (or premiums) for a guitar that's purposefully damaged/worn/whatever term you want to use. That's just me though. It's a silly trend to me that's only really seemed to gain momentum in the past 10 years or so (unless I wasn't paying attention).

First factory relic I remember was by Fender around 1995. In the now defunct Guitar Shop magazine, they had a shootout of 5 or 6 guitars and a Fender Strat relic was one of them. I'd say it really caught traction by the late 90s. Seems to be falling off a bit in popularity overall as of late.

One factor in the equation is the building techniques used during the glory years of Fender & Gibson. The nitro they used back then wore a lot quicker. It's harder to naturally relic poly finishes and modern nitro. Anyway, unless a 50s/60s guitar was literally left in the case all the time, there was almost always some wear. Even for guitars that were taken care of. If a guitar from that era still looks new, chances are it is a turd. So if go by the "by a guitar in the best condition" method for a guitar from that era, then you'll probably get a turd. Anyway, back on topic: with the increase in vintage instrument prices in the 90s/00s, the average person couldn't afford a vintage guitar. That's where relics came in. They looked like authentic guitars of yesteryear, but could be had for less money. THAT is why the relic craze took off IMO. This replica ordeal is similar, but the labor required to perfectly recreate a particular guitar increases the price significantly. But if people want those, so be it. People obviously do or they wouldn't keep making them for various popular players/guitars.

[Nightbat]

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?

If I buy a new Rhoads for +/- €3K

...do you think I would pay that same amount for a used one with damage?

[Chad]

If I buy a new Rhoads for +/- €3K

...do you think I would pay that same amount for a used one with damage?

I don't know, would you? For me personally, it would depend on the particular guitar. Kirk Hammett's 80s Rhoads is a pretty cool guitar with a ton of history....I'd definitely pay more for that than a new Rhoads.

What exactly is the conversation here? Are we talking about the merits of relic finishes? Or the used guitar market?

[leftykingv2]

If I buy a new Rhoads for +/- €3K

...do you think I would pay that same amount for a used one with damage?

LMMFAO!!!! I know I wouldn't!

[leftykingv2]

First factory relic I remember was by Fender around 1995. In the now defunct Guitar Shop magazine, they had a shootout of 5 or 6 guitars and a Fender Strat relic was one of them. I'd say it really caught traction by the late 90s. Seems to be falling off a bit in popularity overall as of late.

One factor in the equation is the building techniques used during the glory years of Fender & Gibson. The nitro they used back then wore a lot quicker. It's harder to naturally relic poly finishes and modern nitro. Anyway, unless a 50s/60s guitar was literally left in the case all the time, there was almost always some wear. Even for guitars that were taken care of. If a guitar from that era still looks new, chances are it is a turd. So if go by the "by a guitar in the best condition" method for a guitar from that era, then you'll probably get a turd. Anyway, back on topic: with the increase in vintage instrument prices in the 90s/00s, the average person couldn't afford a vintage guitar. That's where relics came in. They looked like authentic guitars of yesteryear, but could be had for less money. THAT is why the relic craze took off IMO. This replica ordeal is similar, but the labor required to perfectly recreate a particular guitar increases the price significantly. But if people want those, so be it. People obviously do or they wouldn't keep making them for various popular players/guitars.

What you said about a vintage instrument that are spotless being turds is true but not in every case. I bought my original 1976 Standard Les Paul in 2002 and it's a fucking beast. Great tone, great playing, awesome sustain just a true piece of Gibson greatness from a by gone era. That being said the guy I bought it from treated it like it was his child and it's still in very minty shape.

[Nightbat]

I don't know, would you? For me personally, it would depend on the particular guitar. Kirk Hammett's 80s Rhoads is a pretty cool guitar with a ton of history....I'd definitely pay more for that than a new Rhoads.

What exactly is the conversation here? Are we talking about the merits of relic finishes? Or the used guitar market?

So you would buy THAT exact Rhoads for more than a new one

but for a basic black one with roadwear you wouldn't even fork over the full price
Hell, you wouldn't even pay full price for a NEW damaged one

Now, would you pay more for a replica Relic'd black Rhoads with Hammet's signature on it?
remember it doesn't have "a ton of history", it's just a black RR1T with EMG's and wear

[leftykingv2]

I wouldn't give Kirk Hammett a piece of used toilet paper for one of his guitars. Nothing bad or personal against ESP. I'd just be afraid to catch his suckdom and affinity for over using the shit out of Pentatonic E minor and the Wah pedal. He's like Zakk is with squealing except with a wah.

[roodyrocker]

I was talking about a GJ2. Grover is building them again.

Those do not look the same. That is my point, if you want a Jackson Rhoads Concorde you will be paying the high prices on one from the series I mentioned. GJ2's are nicely built but sorry, they are not Concordes.

[walshula]

Still my ultimate question is... If I was to buy a relic and then in some happenstance I create my own ding or dent on it accidentally, what does it ultimately do to the value or the authenticity of the relic. If I was to buy a Duane Allman relic and played it to the point I made more wear on it, is now not the same as Duane's? That is why I see it pointless to purchase a artist relic. I don't mind wear and tear, bumps and bruises but to pay a premium for them and then not really be able to enjoy it because of fear of altering the relic-ness ( I know that is not a word) of the guitar is foolish. If I loved an artist and wanted a wall hanger than maybe but that would be the only way I would consider a purchase of relic'd guitar. I find it even more amusing that some people will buy a road worn fender when the finish on them is already cheap enough that a few months of playing will do it's own relicing.

[ginsambo]

Provenance is everything. I agree, if it belonged to an artist, then it probably has wear and is it is a collectors piece. If it's got age, it's probably worn and is also a collectors piece. If it's new and reliced to look like the above, well I don't see the value, apart from convincing some fools that they will somehow magically acquire the rock chatter mojo of the artists or artists that use similar old instruments if they purchase the guitar or perhaps a purely aesthetic value. That is all it is about.

On the other hand, I have a mex/Japan Strat hybrid that as redone in 3 tone nitro sunburst with a heavy relic on the body. There is nothing like bare forearm on bare alder, I love it, it plays fast and feels great and has the thinnest of nitro finishes and it kind of matches my 1920's furniture, not least because it has a similar finish (Shellac). It just looks like it belongs. But it was cheap and cheerful and has a beast of an old Jap 60's reissue Strat neck on it.

As for the road worn series, it's a gimmick, I think they are nitro over poly base coat, the nitro finish does wear fast. If you want that look and more authenicity with the finish, you are better off buying some nitro and doing it yourself. I like the look of worn matt nitro, how it absorbs the light and looks classy and vintage. I don't like loads of excessive chips and stratches out of the thing though. If I was to consider a Les Paul like the Duane (Minus the chips and dings for me) in worn nitro I'd get someone to finish it for me as it's a bit more involved. Even a Standard refinished by a third party in such a way won't be devalued in any way, in fact you'd probably be adding value. In fact, if I was going to those lengths, I'd probably get a luthier to make me a Les Paul from stratch.

Paying crazy money for something like the Duane seems just that to me. It certainly won't become a collectors piece, it is an imitation of an imitation. Kind of one of those loses 80% of it's value as soon as you buy it guitars. You are far better off doing a refin in nitro yourself.

Aesthetically, for me, worn nitro belongs on a Les Paul, unless it's a modern Zakk thing or something, the same goes for a strat. It's like a cheap white melamine kitchen compared to oiled walnut or lead painted original 30's, it just doesn't look right.

Also, people give alot of time to bare maple necks in terms of speed granted, but it never seems to occur to them that you get less stick and a faster string changing forearm movement with a bare alder body or even worn nitro..

It is evident that we live in a world where many folks have far more money than sense though and not alot of practical aptitude or time on their hands or satisfaction from being practically minded and it's obvious that the Duane is just meant to be a coffee table adornment dinner party discussion/envypiece which will appeal to those types. Probably the next step up from the Charvel custom shop 1H 160 year old antique pine Strat made from 160 year old tea crates, which, incidentally they don't know how to play either.

It is a guitar that is not marketed toward untermenschen of the like of you or me.

[Nightbat]

Still my ultimate question is... If I was to buy a relic and then in some happenstance I create my own ding or dent on it accidentally, what does it ultimately do to the value or the authenticity of the relic. If I was to buy a Duane Allman relic and played it to the point I made more wear on it, is now not the same as Duane's? That is why I see it pointless to purchase a artist relic. I don't mind wear and tear, bumps and bruises but to pay a premium for them and then not really be able to enjoy it because of fear of altering the relic-ness ( I know that is not a word) of the guitar is foolish. If I loved an artist and wanted a wall hanger than maybe but that would be the only way I would consider a purchase of relic'd guitar. I find it even more amusing that some people will buy a road worn fender when the finish on them is already cheap enough that a few months of playing will do it's own relicing.

This exactly shows what it's about: Fanboyism
It's not an instrument anymore, it's an autographed picture on the wall
If you want a player, it's idiocy not to buy something at 1/3rd of a price (or less) to use for that
and there is absolutely no reason at all to buy a relic'd (non-signature) guitar over the same model in mint condition
(especially when it almost always is more expensive) except show-boating, lying to the audience that YOU played that thing to it's current condition

[leftykingv2]

Those do not look the same. That is my point, if you want a Jackson Rhoads Concorde you will be paying the high prices on one from the series I mentioned. GJ2's are nicely built but sorry, they are not Concordes.

Well they're calling them "Concordes."