These dicks never stop the insanity.....

[leftykingv2]

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

+1

[leftykingv2]

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.

+1

[leftykingv2]

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.

True and very well said bro!

[Chad]

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.

Right on. I try to avoid speaking in absolutes and that's why I sad "CHANCES ARE it's a turd". That's not saying every spotless vintage instrument is a turd.

[Chad]

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

Again, what are we talking about? I thought the conversation was the merits of relic finishes. Not the entire used guitar market.

Anyway, to answer your questions, here are my subjective answers:

No, I wouldn't pay more for a black one with road wear over a new one.
No, I wouldn't pay full price for a new, damaged one.
Yes, I would pay more for a replica Hammett vs a mint condition new Rhoads if I wanted a Hammett replica. But I'm honestly not enough of a fanboy to buy either one.

[Chad]

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.

I'd be curious to know how many of the buyers of these mega-expensive relic replicas are playing them regularly. I'd guess very few. They are basically functional art for fans of the guitar/player.

[leftykingv2]

I'd be curious to know how many of the buyers of these mega-expensive relic replicas are playing them regularly. I'd guess very few. They are basically functional art for fans of the guitar/player.

+1 more than likely but.... I think buying a guitar to decorate a wall with is retarded. Especially if said guitar is 10K. If I spent that kind of money on a guitar you better believe I'd be playing the shit out of it otherwise it's just a waste of cash and a guitar in my opinion.

[ulijdavid]

I think buying a guitar to decorate a wall with is retarded. Especially if said guitar is 10K.

I agree. The same thing with artwork. Why would someone waste any money on a picture that does nothing? 100K for a picture? I don't think so. 80K for a sportscar that can do 160MPH even though the speed limit is 70 - idiots. A car is for transporting someone from point A to point B. 5K for a dining room table that most people use once a year - screw it, pile up milk crates. Expensive furniture is a waste of money. Just troll the yard sales on Saturday. Why does anyone need a 5000 square foot house - pompous a**holes.

The point is......if someone wants to pay for something regardless of price, they earned the money and right to spend it as they want. Might not make sense to me, but someone must like them because they continue making and selling them.

Sorry for always taking the other side, but Gibson does make nice guitars and their pricing is no different than any other manufacturer - Taylor, Fender, PRS, etc.
I don't know what the vendetta against Gibson only is, but these posts are getting tedious - to me anyway.

[Brandenburg]

+1 more than likely but.... I think buying a guitar to decorate a wall with is retarded. Especially if said guitar is 10K. If I spent that kind of money on a guitar you better believe I'd be playing the shit out of it otherwise it's just a waste of cash and a guitar in my opinion.

+1 guitars are meant to be played..

seriously.. if i dropped 8+k on a guitar.. it would be in a climate controlled display case..and it would be a waste of money imo

[leftykingv2]

I agree. The same thing with artwork. Why would someone waste any money on a picture that does nothing? 100K for a picture? I don't think so. 80K for a sportscar that can do 160MPH even though the speed limit is 70 - idiots. A car is for transporting someone from point A to point B. 5K for a dining room table that most people use once a year - screw it, pile up milk crates. Expensive furniture is a waste of money. Just troll the yard sales on Saturday. Why does anyone need a 5000 square foot house - pompous a**holes.

The point is......if someone wants to pay for something regardless of price, they earned the money and right to spend it as they want. Might not make sense to me, but someone must like them because they continue making and selling them.

Sorry for always taking the other side, but Gibson does make nice guitars and their pricing is no different than any other manufacturer - Taylor, Fender, PRS, etc.
I don't know what the vendetta against Gibson only is, but these posts are getting tedious - to me anyway.

It's way different. In the fact that it's astronomically higher priced than most other companies. Like I said every time I get a new music gear magazine and it's usually once a month Gibson is at it again. In the span of 5 months we've got the 12K Slash model then the 12K Joe Walsh model now the 11K Allman model. I don't see any other company asking for 10K or more for beat up guitars at the rate Gibson does. Sure Fender had a few models like these relics..The Jaco Pastorius the Yngwie model but this was done over the span of 7 to ten years. Once in a while is okay but when you start doing it at the rate Gibson has lately it gets pretty old pretty quick. The next time I see Fender or any other company trying to sell a beat up guitar for 10K or more I'll be all over them too. Just to let you know it's not all about Gibson. Also if the thread or posts I put up are tedious why are you still commenting and reading the thread? Feel free to leave the thread anytime you want. You can also stay as well. It makes no difference to me either way. Thanks for the opinion. I appreciate it.

[vector]

Lefty, look bro, no offense but ulijdavid has a point. I'm not trying to infringe on anyone's right to make known their opinions but I gotta agree that your objection with Gibson's pricing and offerings are well documented, to the point of overkill. True, we can choose not to read your posts but when they become so pervasive, it becomes almost unavoidable and annoying. I can't speak for ulijdavid but I find myself, despite the tedium, commenting because frankly, I'm hoping to bring about some understanding. I'm not trying to be a dick but as a bit of friendly advice, I might suggest remembering two things: there's gonna be a lot of differing views on here and anyone that beats a dead horse is likely gonna get called on it eventually. Just my opinion.

[leftykingv2]

Lefty, look bro, no offense but ulijdavid has a point. I'm not trying to infringe on anyone's right to make known their opinions but I gotta agree that your objection with Gibson's pricing and offerings are well documented, to the point of overkill. True, we can choose not to read your posts but when they become so pervasive, it becomes almost unavoidable and annoying. I can't speak for ulijdavid but I find myself, despite the tedium, commenting because frankly, I'm hoping to bring about some understanding. I'm not trying to be a dick but as a bit of friendly advice, I might suggest remembering two things: there's gonna be a lot of differing views on here and anyone that beats a dead horse is likely gonna get called on it eventually. Just my opinion.

I honestly don't feel like I got called on anything. He stated his opinion and I stated mine. Just in case you guys are wondering A lot of other people share my opinion on relics and over kill prices. This threads up to 102 posts. Does this mean every time I see any company or Gibson price gouging I shouldn't say anything?

[Chad]

As just one example, Fender did the Eric Clapton brownie Strat tribute guitars earlier this year for $15K.

On relics: ya know, when it comes right down to it "relic-ing" is merely a finish option. To simply call these guitars "beat up" is not doing them justice. Love them or hate them, to make an accurate replica down to every scratch and nick takes a lot of talent and time. That's a big part of the reason these guitars are so expensive.

Last I checked, nobody is holding a gun to people's heads forcing them to buy relic'd guitars. Variety is the spice of life and thankfully there are many options out there in the guitar market. If you only want flawlessly finished guitars, then knock yourself out. There's a ton of selection out there. Other people clearly want these guitars, and are willing to pay the price, or they wouldn't keep making them.

[leftykingv2]

As just one example, Fender did the Eric Clapton brownie Strat tribute guitars earlier this year for $15K.

On relics: ya know, when it comes right down to it "relic-ing" is merely a finish option. To simply call these guitars "beat up" is not doing them justice. Love them or hate them, to make an accurate replica down to every scratch and nick takes a lot of talent and time. That's a big part of the reason these guitars are so expensive.

Last I checked, nobody is holding a gun to people's heads forcing them to buy relic'd guitars. Variety is the spice of life and thankfully there are many options out there in the guitar market. If you only want flawlessly finished guitars, then knock yourself out. There's a ton of selection out there. Other people clearly want these guitars, and are willing to pay the price, or they wouldn't keep making them.

+1

[roodyrocker]

Well they're calling them "Concordes."

From the pix anyone can see its not the same thing as a Jackson Concorde regardless of what GJ2 calls it. Also, when it comes to paying big $ on guitars I'll spend it on a Rhoads Relic before I do on a GJ2 "Concorde". Nothing against GJ2 but from a money standoint it makes more sense in the long run to put the money into a Jackson Rhoads Relic than a GJ2. Lets face it, this is the model that launched Jackson and highly associated with an iconic artist, Randy Rhoads. The model that makes the most sense to get is the Jackson version not Fernandes, Peavey, ESP, GJ2, and whoever else comes up with a slight twist on the Rhoads body style over the years.