software

How do you guys feel about artifically aging guitars. I see a lot of vintage or Murphy aged Les Pauls that sure do look pretty. I'm not talking about aging like having finish removed in spots or gouging....like an SRV strat, just light to medium finish checking and having a nice patina to the hardware and finish.

i kinda like the look of beat up guitars, however im one with a light touch / pick and am very careful around my babies!! so getting an quot; aged look by playing it quot; isnt something that ever happens for me..

i think its kinda lame when people give the impression the guitar was relic'd by years of play or its just been around so long when they dont really play that much ( if that makes sense )

but if they just wana have that quot; beat up quot; look thats pretty cool =) i kinda want a relic'd guitar but im not sure what style yet :-\**EDIT**

id probably make a relic'd LP..but it would have to have a bolt-on neck ( i hate that set neck crap )

I think its kind of wierd to artificially aged guitars, especially a brand new one.

Cant stand it personally!!! It should age on its own!

i think you should just play it. or buy one that has been played. thing is, withing 2 seconds after one starts playing, most of us can tell if it was relic'd the hard way or the easy way.
it seems like the biggest gimmick in guitar buying. Billy drops a body on the floor on the way back from the spray booth and they charge $1000 more. Guitarists fall for it.


Originally Posted by theodieCant stand it personally!!! It should age on its own!

Thats my thoughts, i love beat up looking guitars, but its gotta be done from time not a factory.

relicing ur gtr is cool


Originally Posted by theodieCant stand it personally!!! It should age on its own!

I agree. A nicely aged instrument is a cool thing, but I find the artificial aging to cheapen the effect somehow. I like the idea of a guitar aging along with its player. For a guitar to be quot;bornquot; that way just seems wrong to me. I can't really explain it better than that unfortunately.

i dont really see how you could like it done one way but not the other, sure its lame or stupid if someone trys to pass an artificially aged guitar off as a authentically aged one or trys to put more value on it cause its aged...

but if you like a relic'd guitar i dont see why it should matter how it got done, just that it did...

with ususaly less than 100 years of life i dont really think everybody has time to age their guitars the quot; real quot; way or w/e. if you want a relic'd guitar, go for it, and enjoy what your playing on

IMO, guitars have a certain 'karma' or life of their own. I really appreciate the old working warriors (guitars) out there, and they earned their battle scars. TO me that stuff adds class and character. I'm just glad they can't speak english or I'd be in trouble!! lol

I think it's strange that some folks have such seemingly strong opinions about reliced guitars, in that it should or shouldn't be done or offered. As long as fender isn't making relics exclusively, why would anyone care? How different is it from a moto/pearl/red,white and blue pickguard on a deep blue/2-tone/metallic burst whatever body? I personally don't like flamey maple transparent finishes, but I don't care if someone else thinks its the bees-knees. I love the look of a beat up strat or tele. If I'm spending that amount of money on a custom shop guitar and I like the look of a beat up fender and they offer this as an option, why would I buy something that I don't think looks as cool? Plus I never have to worry about protecting it at all costs and I can just play the thing.


Originally Posted by marvarIMO, guitars have a certain 'karma' or life of their own. I really appreciate the old working warriors (guitars) out there, and they earned their battle scars. TO me that stuff adds class and character. I'm just glad they can't speak english or I'd be in trouble!! lol

i very much agree with all of this... there is obviously something a quot; time worn quot; guitar has that a quick relic doesnt.

but i very much like it when a guitar looks like a miracle is keeping it together ( much less making noise )

It's really hard to relic a poly finished guitar.....the hard finish tends to crack and web rather than giving an authentic quot;old guitarquot; look.

yeah, that's true. My strat has a few chips here and there and it looks pretty nice though. The chips are from playing, and getting bumped into.

for me, i don't care what kind of guitar someone buys. however, when someone who obviously doesn't devote their life to the instrument wants the 'fast track' to having an instrument that looks like they spent the last 20 years practicing and gigging, it kind of takes away from the dedicated ones that do/did that. i still can't believe that having rusted metal parts, or tuners that are worn is a *good* thing.
the idea of a 'relic' would be absurd to a vintage car person. it is, however, perfectly acceptable for people who collect flowerpots.

I just like the thought of having checking on the lacquer and a little patina on the hardwear and such. I would not like rusted hardware. The Les Paul I have already has a couple of dings on it.....I'd just like it to have some finish checking...that's all. I haven't decided if I'm having this done or not, just considering it.

If someone buys a vintage all original 1962 strat that has all the age and wear of a 43 year old guitar, should the buyer be ashamed to play the guitar because he/she didn't devote their life to putting the dings in it themselves? Should they have the guitar stripped and refitted with new hardware so they'll be starting from scratch (pun intended). Me playing a guitar that was bought new, used, shiney, reliced, fricasseed or deep fried can in no way take anything away from what another person does/did with their devoted instrument.


Originally Posted by Mincerfor me, i don't care what kind of guitar someone buys. however, when someone who obviously doesn't devote their life to the instrument wants the 'fast track' to having an instrument that looks like they spent the last 20 years practicing and gigging, it kind of takes away from the dedicated ones that do/did that. i still can't believe that having rusted metal parts, or tuners that are worn is a *good* thing.
the idea of a 'relic' would be absurd to a vintage car person. it is, however, perfectly acceptable for people who collect flowerpots.see your point, and i agree about the people who want to give the image that they've been playing forever amp; a year...

however not everyone with a relic'd guitar is trying to impose that on their audience,

I rarely take my guitars out of the house, so the chances of me getting finish checking due to temp changes, ect are pretty remote. I like the look of a relic, but will probably just never have the chance to expose it to the elements necessary to truely relic it.

Jeff H, Most guitars made today are fitted with hardware and finishes that are different than and much more durable than those of yesteryear. I believe guitars of today will take a very long time, if ever, to age to the look some of us like. I'm in the same camp as you when it comes to a light reliced look. Finish checking and patina on the hardware seems about right to me. I'm not big on the gaudy forearm rash and unrealistic fretboard wear. I wouldn't expect much aging to occur on a new guitar. So if a light relic appeals to you and you find somehting that fits the bill than by all means go for it. Remember its your money so get what you like not what someone else thinks is right or wrong.