How NOT to relic a guitar
- Thread starter AlexR
- Start date
youngthrasher9
New member
Re: How NOT to relic a guitar
That guy REALLY jacked up those guitars! He ruined a perfectly good strat!
That guy REALLY jacked up those guitars! He ruined a perfectly good strat!
J
Jessie's ghost
Guest
F
Funkfingers
Guest
Re: How NOT to relic a guitar
So, either the lister cannot spell or he is preparing the ground for being able to claim that he has been misunderstood or misrepresented if/when it comes to a refund claim from the (inevitably) disappointed buyer.
So, either the lister cannot spell or he is preparing the ground for being able to claim that he has been misunderstood or misrepresented if/when it comes to a refund claim from the (inevitably) disappointed buyer.
J
Jessie's ghost
Guest
Re: How NOT to relic a guitar
Yeah. As soon as we're all getting paid what Mexican workers are making, I guess we'll fix that.
Yeah. As soon as we're all getting paid what Mexican workers are making, I guess we'll fix that.
jalguitarman
Junior Member
Re: How NOT to relic a guitar
Is Doo Doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is Doo Doo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Petrovsk Mizinski
New member
Re: How NOT to relic a guitar
The thread title seems to imply there is a correct way to relic a guitar. There isn't, it ALWAYS looks terrible
The thread title seems to imply there is a correct way to relic a guitar. There isn't, it ALWAYS looks terrible
pzaxtl
Gibletsologist
Re: How NOT to relic a guitar
Haha Dude, that 's a little harsh lol. Sure, he messed up a perfectly good guitar, but I don't think it's deserving of damnation. :lmao:
Haha Dude, that 's a little harsh lol. Sure, he messed up a perfectly good guitar, but I don't think it's deserving of damnation. :lmao:
J
Jessie's ghost
Guest
Re: How NOT to relic a guitar
I'm not a fan of it, but it's probably easy to say it looks terrible when you already know it's a relic job. I'm sure it's possible to do it well enough that it would least look very convincing in photos. I suspect it would be at least as difficult to get all the actual construction and hardware details correct so that all you sharp-eyed experts wouldn't immediately call it out as a recent build instead of a vintage piece, but at that point it would be more a matter of faking a vintage piece.
Which brings us to the question of the overall appeal of relic-looking guitars. Do people want the superficial appearance of an old, beat-up instrument that they maybe got at a pawnshop? Do they want it to look like they've owned and played the guitar enough to make it look like that? I don't know.
I think it's cool when someone keeps the same guitar for years and years, and plays it so much that it looks like it's been rattling around in the back of Lucid's pickup truck for at least a few of them.
It's also cool, in a different way, when someone happens to have a really old guitar that looks it, but they play it, and they're good. Maybe it's older than the player is, and somebody else did the relic work. Now, we talk a lot about mojo here in guitar world. I believe in mojo, but I think it's something that an individual instrument has. You can't check a box on a custom-order form, or scroll down in the Buy options on a website, to get mojo that's been built-in at the factory. It's not a finish option; they can't spray it on like sunburst. When a guitar picks up mojo -- real mojo -- it stays with it forever. (Yes, this is superstitious nonsense that has nothing to do with fact or science. Guitars are musical instruments. Music is art. Art is inherently not always scientific or sensible. Sue me; I've got like $300.)
I'm not a fan of it, but it's probably easy to say it looks terrible when you already know it's a relic job. I'm sure it's possible to do it well enough that it would least look very convincing in photos. I suspect it would be at least as difficult to get all the actual construction and hardware details correct so that all you sharp-eyed experts wouldn't immediately call it out as a recent build instead of a vintage piece, but at that point it would be more a matter of faking a vintage piece.
Which brings us to the question of the overall appeal of relic-looking guitars. Do people want the superficial appearance of an old, beat-up instrument that they maybe got at a pawnshop? Do they want it to look like they've owned and played the guitar enough to make it look like that? I don't know.
I think it's cool when someone keeps the same guitar for years and years, and plays it so much that it looks like it's been rattling around in the back of Lucid's pickup truck for at least a few of them.
It's also cool, in a different way, when someone happens to have a really old guitar that looks it, but they play it, and they're good. Maybe it's older than the player is, and somebody else did the relic work. Now, we talk a lot about mojo here in guitar world. I believe in mojo, but I think it's something that an individual instrument has. You can't check a box on a custom-order form, or scroll down in the Buy options on a website, to get mojo that's been built-in at the factory. It's not a finish option; they can't spray it on like sunburst. When a guitar picks up mojo -- real mojo -- it stays with it forever. (Yes, this is superstitious nonsense that has nothing to do with fact or science. Guitars are musical instruments. Music is art. Art is inherently not always scientific or sensible. Sue me; I've got like $300.)
richard parker
Active member
Re: How NOT to relic a guitar
This man is a genius. I'm sending him my 63 SG Junior. It's already fairly well reliced so I'm guessing he'll send me back a box of sawdust.
This man is a genius. I'm sending him my 63 SG Junior. It's already fairly well reliced so I'm guessing he'll send me back a box of sawdust.
