Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

Jeff_H

Jeff_H

Dean Hardtail Fanologist
Or somewhere in between?

I ask because I have two polar opposite likes. When I buy a guitar, especially an expensive one (lets use $1500 and up as expensive), I normally like it to be as minty as possible. I like to be the one that puts the wear and tear on my guitars. I've bought a couple with a ding or two on the tops, but otherwise excellent (Dean Hardtail's), but I had the dings repaired so they look new.

However, I also have a strong affinity for a heavily relic'd guitar, especially a Les Paul with lots of nitro checking and wear spots in all the right places. However, I haven't found one of these yet where I'm willing to pay the asking price.

What I can't seem to let myself buy is the in between condition guitars. A few bumps and dings or just a few nicks..... players grade basically. To me, these guitars seem just like someone didn't care enough to take care of them. And if its a guitar that sounds so good that only an idiot would get rid of....I wonder if that's the real story. These are usually the better value guitars though.

What condition do you like or not like when buying?
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

I like em shiny and newer. I can see buying a guitar with some history if it plays well, but I just dont get the relic thing. Finish worn off on purpose to me seems "tacky". I can understand wanting an old guitar but spending big bux for a guitar that is fake old? Sorry, I never knock others but for me it just doesnt make sense. I am most likely the minority
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

Depends on the brand, the guitar and the dealer or seller. I try to buy local when possible so I can see and play the guitar. I don't really like guitars that have been reliced just to look worn in.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

Worn, but not relic'd.
I don't want any guitar that has been intentionally relic'd in any way, but I prefer guitars that show visible age and wear so I don't have to worry about scratching them or ruining the resale value if I chip the finish. Some buckle rash, finish checking, and a worn fretboard all make a guitar feel right to me. And if there is a useful mod or two (upgraded pickups or bridge, etc.) then all the better. Brand new (or mint) stuff feels stiff to me.

I do love to look at and touch the mint ones, but I have never bought one of them.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

Regardless of price-point; as long as the neck is stable/straight, frets are level and not worn out, strings are aligned dead centered on the neck, body is solid and not splitting or neck pocket cracked and the bridge is stable...I'm not stressed over new or naturally reliced. I am not a fan of "Pre-Fab Relic" guitars but I do admire a "well loved" guitar or amp that's showing some naturally worn mojo.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

I’m with MnM’s ... a great guitar is a great guitar be it pretty or beat up. I’m open minded on this subject.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

I find relic'd guitars tacky too, and somewhat ridiculous.

With used guitars, I don't really care if it has some worn on it. Actually I prefer to have worn on guitars, rather than them being mint condition,

...as long as they don't look like complete beaters and parts don't fall of.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

My stratocaster had a little relic which i didn't even notice until i'd brought it home

I really don't care, but i'm considering filing away the finish just to take some weight off
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

I make my own guitars......and some get some aging and some are new/as shiny as I can get them. It depends a lot on the pickups I have bought for the build. If they are a little aged then the rest of the guitar has to match.

I have aged up some guitars that had little whoopsies during painting. One goldtop fell off the painting hook and tore some paint off and damaged the binding. It looked pretty rough in that area so I did some fixing but was unable to make it look anywhere near pristine. Hence I had to try and hide it amongst other dings.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

I’ve said this about myself many times on this forum… “I am a sucker for a pretty face when it comes to guitars.“

That being said, I am certainly not afraid of some wear and tear on a guitar either. Most of my guitars, in fact, show you that they’ve been “loved“ in some way or another. Hell, my Westone Spectrum LX (in my avatar) went through a fire over 20 years ago and has been refinished with clear over all it’s scars! The last guitar I purchased was a really beat up Warlock that had obviously not been taken care of for several years. It has tons of deep scratches (right down to the wood) and gouges, but then too I only paid $50 for it. As it turns out, there was a player underneath all the dirt and abuse.

To me the finish is just one of many things to consider in a guitar purchase, but to relic a guitar just to make it look like it’s older than it is?

LAME!! 🤮

Battle scars are badges of honor, but self inflicted wounds are for wannabes. Scars should be earned.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

I m very a--l retentive about my guitars.. I surely dont like reliced guitars. why buy something already made to look abused?
Ive shed tears over putting dings in guitars before.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

I usually like them in new looking condition.
I’m not opposed to relicing but it has to be done right, look natural and be not too overboard.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

BriGuy1968 said:
To me the finish is just one of many things to consider in a guitar purchase, but to relic a guitar just to make it look like it’s older than it is?

LAME!! ��

Battle scars are badges of honor, but self inflicted wounds are for wannabes. Scars should be earned.
Click to expand...

How about if there was another reason other than trying to pretend.......for example - that you like the look (a finish option). Not all relic lovers are about posturing or pretense.....and not all relics look like they've passed through the fires of Hades either.
I mean the current colours of Les Pauls like teaburst, dirty lemon etc are all about copping the look of an old faded guitar. Applying your logic anyone who doesn't buy a full red cherryburst and wait for it to fade naturally is a wannabe. But in reality they are merely finish options
And another layer - do all the marks in a guitar have to be put in by you??? I mean strictly speaking if you buy a secondhand guitar and play it then given its new to you, you have not earned any of the scars that your new guitar possesses. Does that make you a wannabe.
And is there a graduated scale of 'scar earning'. What if the 'scar earning' was all done by clumsy laying of the guitar on furniture at home??? Not much of a 'battle' really.

I have a guitar which has never been out of the house, and barely been played......yet it has checked extensively. How does that rate on the 'wannabe' scale......its 'earned' nothing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

I don't like to see any damage to the headstock or too much fret wear. There is a difference between "relic" which might involve some dings, wear, or fading, and a guitar someone has just beat the crap out of.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

AlexR said:
How about if there was another reason other than trying to pretend.......for example - that you like the look (a finish option). Not all relic lovers are about posturing or pretense.....and not all relics look like they've passed through the fires of Hades either.
I mean the current colours of Les Pauls like teaburst, dirty lemon etc are all about copping the look of an old faded guitar. Applying your logic anyone who doesn't buy a full red cherryburst and wait for it to fade naturally is a wannabe. But in reality they are merely finish options
Click to expand...

Applying my logic? Not sure how you got that idea, but a finish color is a finish color, whether cloudy or clear. There’s a huge difference between a relic and a finish that’s designed to emulate a fade, aged yellow, etc. A relic involves the purposeful distressing of the finish and/or substrate in order to simulate age/damage. A finish color is, as you described, merely a finish option.

AlexR said:
And another layer - do all the marks in a guitar have to be put in by you??? I mean strictly speaking if you buy a secondhand guitar and play it then given its new to you, you have not earned any of the scars that your new guitar possesses. Does that make you a wannabe.
Click to expand...

The guitar’s marks and imperfections belong to the guitar, whether they occurred during the time you owned it or not.

My reference to “wannabes” was actually a bit of a euphemism directed at guitars, not owners. That being said, I would absolutely consider the owner who decides to do the relic a wannabe. Why else would someone want faked damage/wear?

AlexR said:
And is there a graduated scale of 'scar earning'. What if the 'scar earning' was all done by clumsy laying of the guitar on furniture at home??? Not much of a 'battle' really.
Click to expand...

I never suggested a graduated scale of scarring... that idea came out of YOUR head. Clumsiness, accidents, abuse, neglect, acts of God, aging, drunkenness, idiocy, naivety... they all count.

AlexR said:
I have a guitar which has never been out of the house, and barely been played......yet it has checked extensively. How does that rate on the 'wannabe' scale......its 'earned' nothing.
Click to expand...

I would say it earned it no matter how it became checked ASSUMING that neither you nor someone else PURPOSEFULLY did something to it to CAUSE it to check. I guess the whole thing comes down to the wear and tear needing to be unplanned damage... NOT something done by design.

Unless of course your plan was to play it and use it, embracing the natural wear process and its timing without plans to hurry it along.


Anything else that you feel like nit-picking over?
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

Well, I guess the nit picking is really yours.....I just do the devils advocate post to highlight where your view comes from.

Its funny that people who like relics don't find the need to demean those who don't.......the same cannot be said of the other way around.
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

I don't know, to me it's just fake wear, and a way for guitar makers to upcharge on guitar defects that they'd normally have to discount. Ones that used to fail quality control can now be sent to the relic department and given a workout. I'd be too embarrassed to have a relic'd guitar:
- "Hey man, cool vintage guitar! 1950's?"
- "Well actually it's new. I had to pay extra for someone to beat the crap out of it, so I could stand on stage & pretend it's vintage. Makes me look pretty cool though."
- "Oh. It does? Maybe I can get a baseball bat and relic your car too. How much should I charge you for that?"
- "Hold on a minute. Come back here!"
 
Re: Buying Guitars - Mint Or Relic'd Condition?

Buy them shiny and see where the years take them. I've never sold a guitar so I have some that are less shiny than they were once.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top