Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by psykobilly, Feb 23, 2019.
Wasn’t asking for anybody to “do” anything, was only wondering if anyone else found it as funny as I did.
And we have a winner!!!!
It's always nice to find someone who agrees with you.
However, are you saying that anyone who does not have a problem with relics is a loser?
I think the mint relic would be hard to judge. If there was a chunk taken out of it it's probably likely damage has been done. If the frets are like new i'm guessing it hasn't been played much and could be mint? At the end of the day that's all that matters anyway with a guitar. How does it play, sound and what life can you expect to get out of it without repairs, refret etc. Cosmetics are irrelevant other than to suit personal taste. In the used market people will pay whatever they decide it's worth to them whether it's reliced, old or shiny new. As far as I'm aware they haven't been adding fake wear to frets or internals of pots, pickups and wiring yet.
Relics don't do anything for me, and I certainly wouldn't pay extra for dents, dings, scratches, and finish wear.
If a guitar is a true vintage, with genuine player wear, that's one thing - genuine article.
But a guitar with faked wear... no way for me.
A question for the anti relic guys. You're in the market for a certain used guitar.
You find two guitars for sale, same used market value and future sale value. One is a original old guitar that you are looking for, has wear some guy added playing it for years and the other a new relic version of that old guitar.
What if the relic sounded better, played and felt better, had new unplayed frets, identical looks and cosmetic wear and was of equal value on the used market? Which would you purchase?
I don't see myself in that dilemma, as I prefer to create my own Fenders, from separate components.
But if somehow I were forced to buy one of those... considering all the ways you've described the guitars... the relic would seem a better choice given a prioritization for tone & playability.
I do the same, I wouldn't pay 4k plus for what I can assemble myself for 1k or less but that's because I like doing it myself and i'm broke most of the time with lots of spare time on my hands.
It's obviously ok to not like the look of relics but to say a older guitar someone else wore out is more credible to own than a relic seems odd to me considering the relic could potentially look identical and possibly play and sound better or give options of specs the other can't..
I get a tremendous amount of enjoyment conceiving, specing out, and putting together Fenders, Teles in particular. And the end results are exceptionally enjoyable to play. Certainly a ready-made factory guitar can be wonderful, but for the most part, I find the additional modifications and tweaks that I can make bring a guitar even closer to an ideal, particular with regard for tone, for my preferences.
For me... a budget of around $1000 can yield a Tele that plays as well and sounds every bit as good as the most expensive CS relic out there, so I wouldn't blow extra money on a premium CS guitar.
It is a lot of fun, I don't know of a cheaper, more enjoyable way to end up with a tailor made guitar than assembling them yourself. I imagine building from scratch would be even more enjoyable if you had the time and means to do that. I obsess enough over what parts to buy and applying finish and tweaking them let alone start from scratch with raw materials.
Yep. My Jag will be American Original spec with my tweaks, but half the price and the colour I want!
Dang son. The only thing I am saying is that it is amusing that people feel it necessary to distinguish between factory wear and actual play wear. If you like relics, seems to me it wouldn’t make any difference. I also made a statement that I don’t have an opinion either way. If relics are your thing, get one. If you like brand new shiny polyurethane and chrome, get some. Me personally, I like to cut wood, buy parts, spray thin nitro and play it. My guitars start to look worn soon enough because, well, nitro. Do what makes you happy. It’s all good. But when you sell your relic, just sell it. It don’t make no difference if it is a “mint” relic or not. A ding is a ding is a ding.
dismissing the relic argument for a moment
I have been told by a shop owner who do a massive amount of fender CS relics that they can tell the original relic from the customer relic and place more value on the factory relic and to an extent on who reliced it at fender - masterbuilders team built etc
seems mad to me
I have a few thin skins that the finish just falls off and are significantly different to how I bought them.
I have learned that a journey man relic is my preference, enough to feel worn in but then pretty much stays the same after I've played it for a years
To answer the OP, with the exception of fret wear, I do find it amusing that one would have to distinguish between original relic and natural play wear. It would make zero difference to me as a buyer. Again, I would want to know the condition of the frets.
Now if someone took an already relic'd or road worn guitar and went over the top adding relic from the original, I might have a problem. But that wasn't the question in the OP.
Like Chunkocaster said, it is a finish choice. I happen to like the feel of the relic and road worns. And I think they look really cool.
Gotta say, surely a dinged relic is just matured like a fine wine... or a cheese depending on your views
I honestly have never run into that situation but I would probably buy the old one. I tend to like old things better than new things.
I wouldn't be opposed to buying a relic I really liked but if there was a chance to get what I really wanted that's how I would go.