This is beyond stupid

[Securb]

So when you say you wouldn't play it if it was "hideous," you are making a decision based on aesthetics. As do all of us.

I have an VOS Les Paul that I think is beautiful. Aged hardware and paint, it is the black one. Not truly a relic but the same type of deal.

 

[weepingminotaur]

I have an VOS Les Paul that I think is beautiful. Aged hardware and paint, it is the black one. Not truly a relic but the same type of deal.

Looks nice from the picture. To me, there's a difference between that and something that just looks artificially degraded, but it's a case-by-case thing.

 

[AdrianSD]

I can do a good deal on my ATH-40X naturally reliced headset. Great sound, fantastic mojo, road worn feel, one of a kind. Truly tested and proven.

 

[GuitarStv]

I don't want to cosplay someone who has spent a lot of time playing his favourite guitar - I'd rather actually spend a lot of time playing my favourite guitar. So if you want to sell me a new guitar with damaged finish, it better come with a hefty mark-down in price, not cost me more.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

Feel, ergonomics, and playability are all primary factors for me, but so are aesthetics. If I absolutely hate the look of a guitar, I don't care how great it sounds, I won't buy it. It will not bring me joy to have an ass-ugly guitar on my rack or to play it at home or onstage. Looks aren't the only criteria, of course, but they do play a role, and I would submit that most guitarists have the same underlying aesthetic preference, even if they pretend not to.

Yeah, I did not buy this baby (online) thanks to it's feel ergonomics & playability.

Of course, looks are subjective and I would'nt be caught dead playing that beat up looking Strat up there on stage ...be it 5k or $60 :lmao:

Goes without saying........not a fan of the whole relic'ing fad.

 

[Securb]

I don't want to cosplay someone who has spent a lot of time playing his favourite guitar - I'd rather actually spend a lot of time playing my favourite guitar. So if you want to sell me a new guitar with damaged finish, it better come with a hefty mark-down in price, not cost me more.

If you found a Strat that played great for a great price that was naturally worn over time would you buy it?

 

[PS412]

Not my thing, this relic thing.
I did have an old acoustic years upon years ago, Hondo I think, that had a hole through it from a puck. Basement hockey rocks.

 

[weepingminotaur]

I don't want to cosplay someone who has spent a lot of time playing his favourite guitar - I'd rather actually spend a lot of time playing my favourite guitar. So if you want to sell me a new guitar with damaged finish, it better come with a hefty mark-down in price, not cost me more.

That's more or less my feeling too. Damaged finishes mean less $$, not same or more $$.

 

[GuitarStv]

If you found a Strat that played great for a great price that was naturally worn over time would you buy it?

Sure. Any damaged merchandise like that should be sold at a lower price. Ideally the price would be low enough that I could refinish it properly.

 

[Artie]

When it comes to instruments, I try not to judge. People like what they like. Personally, I have zero interest in reliced guitars. It just seems silly to me. *shrug*

Couldn't have said it better. But especially acoustics.

 

[Wattage]

The Martin is basically a photo-top I think. Looks ok if a little too nice relic is your thing. Plays and sounds fine.

No hate on it, take it for what it is worth to you.

 

[Artie]

Apparently, they're using something called "ArtGuitar Digital Airbrush Technology."

https://www.artguitar.com

Sort of a computer aided paint technique. So that Martin isn't actually "worn" per se, just a "relic" paint job.

Here's another:

https://www.martinguitar.com/guitar...4QdSl7rwWatvbl01Y4PXggAIH6UVLl5LN_oT4oKZzdW_E

 

[GuitarStv]

Sort of a computer aided paint technique. So that Martin isn't actually "worn" per se, just a "relic" paint job.

Just like when you buy a new car and then pay extra so the dealer can paint rust on it so that you look like a more authentic driver?

 

[Artie]

Just like when you buy a new car and then pay extra so the dealer can paint rust on it so that you look like a more authentic driver?

Think . . . "Rat Rod."

 

[Securb]

I am just trying to figure out if people do not like the looks of them or the price of them. Done right you really can not tell the difference between a great relic job and a naturally aged guitar unless you really get in there and look up close. Especially something like Murphy Labs. I am getting the feeling the pricing and the act of artificially aging the guitars are what turns you guys off not the appearance of the guitar itself.

 

[Mincer]

I think they should make it so there is a little slot between the clear top and the photo, and you can switch out any wear pattern you want, as well as a bunch of other 'artistic' tops.

 

[NotDemanic]

I am just trying to figure out if people do not like the looks of them or the price of them. Done right you really can not tell the difference between a great relic job and a naturally aged guitar unless you really get in there and look up close. Especially something like Murphy Labs. I am getting the feeling the pricing and the act of artificially aging the guitars are what turns you guys off not the appearance of the guitar itself.

It's like paying $500 for a pair of jeans with holes in them. I'd rather buy them new and wear the holes in them myself.

 

[Seashore]

I am just trying to figure out if people do not like the looks of them or the price of them. Done right you really can not tell the difference between a great relic job and a naturally aged guitar unless you really get in there and look up close. Especially something like Murphy Labs. I am getting the feeling the pricing and the act of artificially aging the guitars are what turns you guys off not the appearance of the guitar itself.

I don't like the look of this acoustic at any price. I don't mind some wear and tear on a well loved electric, but it doesn't sit right with me on an acoustic. Then separately there's the artificial aging thing, which seems dumb to me, I think you should put the wear and tear on yourself; and then this instrument is apparently not even artificially aged? It's just a photo? Which seems even dumber. I imagine that I would hate it up close.

But, I think it makes a lot of sense as a stage instrument for a performer or band who has a "roadworn" aesthetic as part of their stage show. I suppose it would be nice to have the look without the problems of a guitar that's actually been beat to crap. And if somebody really does enjoy the look of this on its own terms, and they don't care that it's just a photo, more power to them. I doubt anyone would be buying something like this to try and look like a more serious player... as soon as you start playing, people will be able to tell whether or not you suck regardless of what your guitar looks like.

 

[Seashore]

Just like when you buy a new car and then pay extra so the dealer can paint rust on it so that you look like a more authentic driver?

This guitar needs bullet hole stickers.

 

[GuitarDoc]

I thought about this too. It HAS to be purely an aesthetic choice. Surely no one is buying them to try and fool other people into thinking they did the wear and tear themselves. I have a hard time accepting that. It’s just too…sad lol.

Yeah, surely they aren't!! No rich noobe would ever want to look like he's been playing for decades!

The problem is, at some point the pedal has to hit the metal and your secret will be in plain sight (or rather hearing). It's especially obvious when your picking hand doesn't even come into contact with the reliced areas.