Is Relic-ing a Relic?

Is Relic-ing a Relic?

  • Faded is a passing fad.

    Votes: 12 26.7%
  • Relic, Faded, Worn guitars are the ultimate in cool.

    Votes: 12 26.7%
  • Yeah...whatever.

    Votes: 21 46.7%

  • Total voters
    45
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

I forced my old MIM strat and ended up scrweing it up. I'll eventually have to get a warmoth body and start over. Try chipping off Fender poly sometime. Once you do, you find out that the ash or alder you see through the burst was a veneer. Oops! It's all over after that. Time for a nice alder blank and start over. :) I did get the finer points of spraying nitro down though.
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

i love the Fender custom shop relic strats and teles. Im not gonna be able to find an original beat up fo that price, i dont see the problem.
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

how' bout we see some examples? Post some pics up here. I like the look of aged guitars, I'm just not sure how I feel about it being artificially done.
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

Xeromus said:
how' bout we see some examples? Post some pics up here. I like the look of aged guitars, I'm just not sure how I feel about it being artificially done.

Here is a pic of Butnut's relic'ed tele:

butnut_3_web.jpg


It's not a particularly good picture, but I think the guitar itself looks very cool.
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

Scott_F said:
I think there's a certain segment of the guitar buying public that wishes they could get a real 56 Strat or a real 59 Les Paul. They want that look, it just rocks their world.

There are companies out there, besides your standard Fender or Gibson guys, that will give that authentic aged look and they're damn good at it. Finish checking on a laquer finish is not easy to simulate. It really does take a certain amount of skill. Aging the metal parts is easy. You just get a beaker of acid and suspend your metal parts over the top of the beaker and let the fumes work over the metal.

Knowing where to nick the finish requires looking at a lot of old guitars, LOTS of them.

I'd rather pass on a properly aged gutiar to my kid or grandkids when I eventually die. If I had a Murphy-aged Historic Les Paul., by the time it got handed down, it'd be a piece of crap, right?

I bought that 98 model LP Goldtop last week. It had a couple of nicks ont he back, but nothing to worry about. It didn't bother me in the slightest. Mabye that's why I haven't bonded with the PRS the way I have with the Les Pauls. No dings in teh PRS! haha! That finish looks indestructable man.

It's not. Try dropping a wah pedal on the top, as my CU22's previous owner did.

I was sceptical of the relic thing until I played a couple.

The relics I've played have been the best sounding and feeling fenders I've played outside of genuine vintage ones, and in all cases are better made than their vintage counterparts. That's good enough for me.

I do admit to a double standard, though. The idea of relicing a PRS doesn't appeal to me.
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

Scott_F said:
Try chipping off Fender poly sometime. Once you do, you find out that the ash or alder you see through the burst was a veneer. Oops!

What, pray tell, was under the veneer? More alder? Or something else?
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

Finish checking on a laquer finish is not easy to simulate.

True. First you have to be out all night, fall off the stage in the middle of set 5, climb back up and persevere until they run you out of there with vacuum cleaners at 3 A.M. and, somehow, make it home, up the steps on 2nd or 3rd attempt, win sweety pie's heart by explaining that it's OK - you ain't f*cked anybody or killed anybody, and maybe you'll make it as far as the sofa, if she'll let you. And then, 2 hours later you need to wake up on your feet, running back out to the car because you forgot to bring your guitar in, and, if you're lucky, it'll be the coldest night of the year, the house is nice and warm, and you're dumb enough to drag it out of the case and park it on the guitar stand and when you finally start wobbling about, mid afternoon, you'll see that the guitar now has finish checking. But all these conditions have to be right. There are no short cuts.
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

darkshadow54321 said:
Here is a pic of Butnut's relic'ed tele:

butnut_3_web.jpg


It's not a particularly good picture, but I think the guitar itself looks very cool.
Thats exactly what I am saying I like the look, My own axe is reliced but thats come abt with age . and I like it that way. I wld not pay for a new "relic " guitar, or perhaps even a used one( depending on how the used axe feels and plays and the relics have not damaged the axe).
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

"Relicing" is like the rice-burner cars you see with all the high-performance sticker logos on it of which none are atcually installed.

When I see an instrument that has the dents and dings on it it's a tell-tale sign that the guitar was owned by someone who played it for a long time. It was a long-time companion that got the scars and marks by earning them night after night, gig after gig, year after year.

To me it is a mis-representation of the instrument. It is dishonest. It is false advertising, misleading and, in alot of cases, fradulent.

It shows what people with too much money and an unwillingness to put in the time to get to the end result will do for it. They crave the status of what someone who has put in the work for something like a well worn instrument says.

Of course, how many of those instruments ever leave the "media room"?
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

I think it's very lame as well. I love an aged, worn in guitar as much as the next guy, but paying to have it done artificially seems forced and pretentious to me. All you have to do to get it looking that way is just play the damn thing for years!
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

I think buying a relic'd guitar is silly, i would rather play my guitars and have them develop their battle scars from me. My Kramer is gradually getting more n more scratched, in years im sure it will look cool and very used.

I guess stats and teles look cool when worn and used looking because theyre work-horses of guitars and theyre not glamourous and pretty like a PRS. A PRS is generally more expensive than a Fender and with nice maple tops, its like a piece of jewellery. Well thats how i see them.
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

I buy high end boutique guitars and at these prices, they better look as great as they sound and play. I do have a friend and former bandmate who swears the relic Fenders sound and play better to him than the non relics. This guy is a longtime Fender player (I am not) and is a serious guitarist with numerous session credits and gigs with name acts. It all comes down to personal taste.
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

St_Genesius said:
Perfectly acceptable, especially considering that that series tends to be a bit less expensive than most of Gibson's others.

Anything that gets Gibson to drop it's prices can't be all bad.

You think they'd sell me an inexpensive unfinished LP Special? I can put the Danish Rubbing Oil on myself. Oh wait, this is Gibson we're talking about, Nevermind.
 
Re: Is Relic-ing a Relic?

exactly, PRS's always seemed like jewelry to me. I'd be too afraid to gig with one because the finish itself is so damn pricey looking.

It's nice to have a good old strat that you've played for a long time and barely has any lacquer left on it, you don't have to worry about little scratches on the 'glossy paint' or anything, but i'd never pay for someone to beat the crap out of a guitar cause i wanna look cool.
 
Back
Top