Guitar Gear Forum

I am with you,I have seen a couple cool looking ones but then you look at the price of that custom shop guitar,fook that!
Perfect example is Fender does not make a USA made Floyd Rose Strat unless you buy the relic'd custom shop for $4500+.

I voted no, BUT with some caveats.

I've seen a few really cool and well done relics, they are pretty awesome. However, they aren't awesome enough to 1) pay more for one or 2) beat the fuck out of a new guitar just for that look.

The whole "elic look has also sort of become overdone IMO. Sort of suffering from "relic fatigue."

I will put in all the scratches and dents and get it worn out myself, just by playing.

I have a relived Tele. Bought it more for the feel of the neck and the classic twang vibe it had going on. It was everything I wanted in a tele at a decent price. If i would have found the same feel and tone in a pristine tele i would have taken that route. I dunno, some of the relics are cool and a lot of the modern finishes you can play the snot out of for 40 years and not have that worn in mojo going on. Overall if the guitar speaks to you, it doesn't matter if it's reliced or brand spankin new, buy it and play the hell out of it.

Sub $700 guitar relic, I'll let it slide. They are more worn due to not being a high quality item that gets regular use. More than that, you're paying to have an expensive new guitar look like shit.

The fiddle on my Av was a mild relic. I only relived it more to cover up a REALLY bad refinish. They painted over chips & gouges, and had lts of runs & sags In the paint & clear.

I do think its dumb to do that to a new guitar.

I aged a piece of grill cloth once, so it would match the beat up cab I was using it on. I was only trying to make it look as it were original. ( the original cloth had been ripped out before I owned it)

I once almost bought the custom shop '52 heavy relic Telecaster but then I decided it was too much relic for me. A "normal" relic instead of a heavy one would have been perfect...

Dumbest thing I've ever heard of. It's like buying a car that's been pre-keyed and fake dings everywhere. Just stupid beyond belief IMO.

i used to think relec guitars were super try-hard, now i own an ESP Vintage plus because it was the best sounding strat in the country on that day

It seems like a dumb idea but I tried a buddy's relic telecaster copy and it was one sweet guitar. Just felt nice.

I almost bought the Cobain Jaguar. The distressed paint didn't bother me but I was skeeved by the corroded hardware.

i did repair some of the taky nicks on the front of the body, the relec job esp do is pretty subtle

i voted yes, because i love relics.
i like the aged and beat up look, i had a custom shop zakk wylde les paul that i owned and played for 11 yrs and i didnt baby it, but the guitar never looked anything liek a relic and i played it live and used it at practice, i would have had to have played it for 20 yrs and thousands of shows to get it to the point where it would look like a relic and thats not gonna happen at this point in my life.

i liked rleics so much that i just bought a gibson custom shop joe perry 59 reissue aged by tom murphy, plus i have a few others that are aged and im very happy with them. i also understand that most people hate the relic look and think its stupid and make fun of people who buy them, but i dont care, thats fine.

I like new shiny guitars too, some guitars look awful aged.
I have twice as many new shiny looking guitars than aged.

I have a Gilmour Custom Shop relic, but i'm a Gilmour Fanboy. I don't care what people buy really. You don't have to get it. Other people do.

I don't mind them , if it plays good and sounds good sure. I wouldn't sand one down myself though .

I don't like the idea of relics, but I do like how they look. All other things being equal, I'd probably buy a non-relic'd version before I bought a relic'd, but if the relic'd one was better in any way, I'd buy the relic'd one. The aesthetics of a guitar is not hugely important to me within reason. I highly doubt that I'd play the Synster Gates guitar even if it played better than any other guitar I'd ever played.

I voted no, but I will say I do find it amazing that someone can take a new guitar and make it look 30-40 years old convincingly. Looks pretty cool but I have no desire to own one -- kinda poser'ish.

I've also seen some really bad relic jobs -- lulzy.

Mukuzi wrote:i used to think relec guitars were super try-hard, now i own an ESP Vintage plus because it was the best sounding strat in the country on that day

This came really close to buying one, too. Also, the Fender Mexi Relics felt great. Much better than any other Fenders in that price range.

I like the look of relics, don't like the price.
I tried out a road worn strat and a US standard side by side - I preferred the feel and the tone of the road worn over the US standard, but that price for a MIM is a lot for a guitar that won't hold value like an American made Fender would. Wouldn't mind picking up a used one though.

Buy a new guitar and play the crap out of it. Why buy a beat up guitar for more money?

Micter wrote:Buy a new guitar and play the crap out of it. Why buy a beat up guitar for more money?

Good luck with that. Polyurethane is tough.

Micter wrote:Buy a new guitar and play the crap out of it. Why buy a beat up guitar for more money?

I agree man. I bought my '79 Fender strat in January of '80. It's been thru every shit hole club in the tri-state area and has the battle scars to prove it. I've acquired a number of axes since, but this strat has been with me since the beginning, she has a special place in my heart.

relicing is dumb in my book. the battle scars on your guitar should have a story to go with them. the guitars that they base relics on like say SRV's strat are cool because of all the hard years of being played and the great music it made. faking is just that fake.

Don't really get the point. I don't mind a beat up looking guitar. My no. 1 looks like shit at this point. But I don't understand taking a new guitar and mangling the finish to make it look old and played. Paying someone else to mangle it for you seems even more nutty.

I can understand not liking the feel of the glossy finish on a neck and going at it with some steel wool or whatever. Or rolling off the fretboard edges a bit. Things like that, done for the playability, I can understand. But there's no reason those things can't be done without the guitar still looking brand new. Actually taking bits of finish off the body, "aging" hardware, making the fretboard look like it has decades of filth on it, etc., just to make it look like it's had years of hard use... I don't get the appeal.

Relics are for lawyers