Distressed / Relic'd Acoustic Guitars

[ras1500]

If any of my guitars looked "relic'd" I would probably strip it down and refinish it.

[menhir]

Originally Posted by woodbox

I simply do not get it.
I really don't.

You said what I was going to say before had chance to say I said it.

[Mr. Paul]

If someone likes a guitar and would like to buy it I see no reason why not. These guitars are made for those that like them, not for those that don't. The same can be said for (insert your favorite guitar make and model here).

That being said, if an acoustic is to be reliced I'd much rather it be done the way Pre-War Guitars does it ... they're "fake" but don't look like it. Martin's attempts, on the other hand ...

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by Steadfastly

To me, it's fraud. It may not be illegal but I would feel like a fraud if I bought or relic'd one.

How would you feel about playing a well-worn guitar you had bought used from the original owner?

For context, I don't care one way or the other about relics.

My favorite incident about these was seeing an ad in the classifieds describing a factory relic guitar as "mint condition" with no dings.

[grasser]

I'd rather relic a guitar myself through years of play. But what I find odder than relicing is the obsession with mint instruments. Most of my acoustic playing has been in a bluegrass context, where people buy a nice guitar and play it for several years, often outdoors and in rougher conditions. The wear indicates that it was a guitar worth playing. I'm more into structural issues than getting a catalog of all the dings and scratches.

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

My favorite incident about these was seeing an ad in the classifieds describing a factory relic guitar as "mint condition" with no dings.

Stranger still is the one listing I saw recently where a potential buyer was asking the seller if there was any wear beyond the factory relic finish, as if an extra ding mattered.

Originally Posted by devellis

Question is, do they play them because they've been distressed or despite the fact that they've been distressed? Could be some of both, I suppose. I think Pre War guitars and distressed Master Model Gibson mandolins are really great modern instruments. But I don't think it's the finish wear per se that makes them great (although I know that some would argue that it is). I've played a non-distressed Master Model and that, too, was a really great modern mandolin despite being all shiny and new, and not having been treated with the "authentic scent" of a vintage Loar. As I recall, the DMM got more than just the finish abrasion, so if it outperformed the standard MM, there are multiple possible reasons why that would be so. I'd also add that the DMM and the Pre War guitars seem to be the creme de la creme of the distressed instruments, both in terms of their quality as fine instruments and the realism of their induced wear.

In answer to your opening question, I think it is some of both. The condition alleviates any concern over additional wear and it makes the instrument look and feel more like their originals. I know one Loar player was very happy to take his $15k DMM on the road while leaving his $250k Loar at home. The price of Loars is down a bit now, but still 10 times the price of a DMM. Some of the current Pre*War players also own vintage Martins, so I assume the same applies to them.

Originally Posted by devellis

I have nothing against these instruments and certainly nothing against the list of outstanding players who've used them. I'm really not looking to acquire another guitar but if I were, a small-body Pre War would probably be under consideration. I like what Wes Lambe does with wood and glue.

Their lowest level of distress is pretty mild. You know the work that Wes and Ben do with quality and tone. I think you might be able to talk yourself into a Level 1.

Originally Posted by devellis

It does strike me as odd, though, that someone would pay a premium for a vintage instrument that looks much newer than it is and also pay a premium for a new instrument that looks much older than it is. Sort of a regression to the mean thing, I guess. But I'm fine with people getting whatever they like. I've certainly made my share of weird and irrational instrument choices over the years (three mandolin banjos come to mind) and wouldn't criticize anyone else lest that bounce back on me.

It does seem odd on the surface, but creating the relic look takes time. If it takes more time than creating a "perfect" finish, then the manufacturer has to charge for that. If the market is not willing to pay more, then the manufacturer will never do it.

Vintage instruments are different in that they already exist. No extra time goes into the worn look. However, the very clean examples are more rare and some buyers will dig deeper to get those. Personally, I have no interest in owning the very clean examples, but it is because so much of the value is in that high condition. The first scratch on a near-mint vintage instrument costs thousands of dollars. The next scratch on one of mine is of no financial consequence. I don't aim to damage them further, but I also don't have to worry about the random minor nick. On the other hand, I don't want vintage guitars that have been butchered, but even in some of those cases I'm interested if the tone and price are right.

[Christian Reno]

This topic does get touchy, but it is because it gets off track. The original question was not if it’s good or bad, right or wrong, etc., it was “Why not relic more acoustic guitars?”

When demand makes it profitable, it happens.

[Montesdad]

Huss and Dalton came out with some 'stage worn' guitars and displayed them at the 2010 NAMM show - - - I've never seen one in person.

[L20A]

Perhaps we should take advantage of this on our used guitar sales.


I have a distressed Yamaha L-20A that I am looking at selling.
It isn't factory distressed but rather distressed from years of play.

This isn't the fake distressed look.
It's the real deal.

I'm not going to ask more for the guitar because of it's look as that would not be fair to the prospective new owner.
I will only ask the same price that I would ask for it the guitar was in mint condition.
No need to be greedy.

[rokdog49]

Relic'd guitars, distressed furniture, pre-faded jeans, tattoos, body piercings, purple hair, funny socks, dreadlocks, black wheels on cars, etc., etc.,

It's America gol' darn it

[backdoc]

I generally don't like pre-relic'ed guitars, but the new Eastman varnish series guitars look exceptional and the feel and sound are reportedly very, very nice.

[llew]

Since Wes and Ben have been mentioned above I'll add my most recent PWGC acquisition story. I asked Wes if he had a 000/OM that was unspoken for in the build process and he responded that he had a guy back out of a 000-28 Level 1 distress. I purchased it. Somehow during shipping (cause my other PWGC guitars are spot on) a fret or two must have come lose and caused some buzzing that was annoying. Wes had me ship it back and after assessing the issue he responded in this way: It's a minor issue. We could probably run it down with some glue and a fret dressing but the right thing to do is re-fret it. So they are in the process of re-fretting my new 000-28. Talk about great customer service. I can't say enough good about Wes & Ben and Pre*War Guitars.

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by swarfrat

while I'm generally repulsed by the idea of people buying them, as Wade mentions, the companies selling them are just trying to meet customer demand.

However, there is one area where i feel its legitimate. Dan Erlewine recently had a column on a repair made to a 53 tele that someone had destroyed for some sort of tremolo bridge. While I'm not comfortable with the idea that someone might pass it off as original instead of professionally restored, id also be heart broken if he just released it into the wild with a shiny new finish.

http://www.stewmac.com/How-To/Trade_...elecaster.html

Oh wow! I applaud Dan Erlewine's craftsmanship, but - its just a Tele - get another body blank.

Then I saw him banging stones and scratching it with a Stanley knife.
I have a chest cold at present and that gave me a coughing fit.
Thanks for the good laugh.

[stephenT]

Original 1953 tele bodies are hard to come by and expensive when they do come up. I get what you're saying but we're talking restoration, not building a "partscaster".

There is no such thing as "its just a (1953) Tele". Try to buy one, it'll become obvious.

Feel better there Silly Moustache!

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Oh wow! I applaud Dan Erlewine's craftsmanship, but - its just a Tele - get another body blank.

Then I saw him banging stones and scratching it with a Stanley knife.
I have a chest cold at present and that gave me a coughing fit.
Thanks for the good laugh.

[rwmct]

I am one of those who pretty much despise the very concept, and feel that somehow the fact that such things exist says something very troubling about our culture.

Other than that, I don't care . . .