Does This Appearance Matter

[DenverSteve]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

I've seen some pretty good looking relic'ed guitars. That one just looks ugly. ..

Originally Posted by zmf

Gotta say the appearance would stop me from buying that guitar..... but I could never have created that pattern of wear even if I tried. )

Originally Posted by RP

I'd be interested if it had a storied past to go with it, but a factory distressed new guitar seems like posing....

Originally Posted by Acousticado

To each their own, but the relicing thing doesn’t appeal to me at all. .

These say it for me.

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by mtdmind

I wouldn't pay 5 grand for something that beat up. Lots of very nice new guitars for that price.

But...it IS a new guitar...or it can be a new guitar from them and look just like that.

And believe me...and I am no "vintage tone or bust" fan by any means...when I tell you that if you do really like and desire the vintage Martin or Gibson tone...from the 30's/40's era guitars...then you would absolutely love the Pre War guitars, and you would indeed be willing to pay 5K, or even 8K for some of the brazilian models. Ben and Wes have definitely figured out how to voice their guitars and get really really close, and consistently close, to that heralded vintage tone.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[songman2]

What bothers me about relics, apart from the fact that it simply looks ugly, is the fact that it is fake, pure and simple.

[Paddy1951]

Personally, I think the notion of distressing a new guitar to make it look like it has been played for 50 years is goofy.

Yeah, Fender does it, ie. a Stevie Ray Vaughn model Strat, etc.

But paying serious money for a guitar that is 'artificially' aged is silly.

If you were looking for a vintage guitar, you would seek out the best example you could find at a given price- not the most beat up one.

That said, to each their own.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by Paddy1951

Personally, I think the notion of distressing a new guitar to make it look like it has been played for 50 years is goofy.

Yeah, Fender does it, ie. a Stevie Ray Vaughn model Strat, etc.

But paying serious money for a guitar that is 'artificially' aged is silly.

If you were looking for a vintage guitar, you would seek out the best example you could find at a given price- not the most beat up one.

That said, to each their own.

Why? If one is only after the look and not some abstract notion of it being "old". David Gilmour has got three copies of his black strat that he sold recently, so relic fans are in good company.

[Paddy1951]

Originally Posted by stringjunky

Why? If one is only after the look and not some abstract notion of it being "old". David Gilmour has got three copies of his black strat that he sold recently, so relic fans are in good company.

Like I said, to each, their own.

[llew]

No one thing is for everybody. There will be people who like or dislike a guitar build for whatever reason. That's pretty much why we're all here...to discuss our likes and dislikes. I have no reason to try to sway your options in this regard. I'll be the first to say how I like something. That doesn't mean anyone here has to agree with me. I like the fact that we can "agree to disagree". That's what a forum is supposed to be about...

[Goodallboy]

Yet again, just how many guitar players buy an instrument based on looks and not tone, is revealed in one of these type of questions. I too have done that in the past and it ended in disappointment.

When a guitar played buys an acoustic instrument with their eyes before playing it and using their ears, that guitar hasn't been properly evaluated, it's been unjustly judged.

Don't read this as an endorsement for the guitar in question.

Since I haven't played it, I know nothing about it. Until then, I'll keep an open mind.

[BrunoBlack]

Originally Posted by Goodallboy

Yet again, just how many guitar players buy an instrument based on looks and not tone, is revealed in one of these type of questions. I too have done that in the past and it ended in disappointment.

But it’s not and either/or proposition is it? There seems to be no shortage of great sounding guitars. So a player can satisfy both the look and sound they are after.

[RustyAxe]

On a 75 year old guitar, no ... on one that was finished yesterday, yes.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by Paddy1951

Like I said, to each, their own.

Yes, we are only discussing. I'll elaborate a bit of my thinking. If one buys a guitar, and on the way it it gets banged, knocked etc. that's your history but when somebody buys that guitar off you, it's not history they are buying, it's marks and damage... they are buying a 'look'. The means by which those marks were made, whether intentional or accidental, has no practical bearing, and notions of 'authenticity' reside solely in the head. To some, that authenticity matters and some it doesn't. I can sit on either side of the fence and disparage both ideas equally but all it does is make people unhappy.

[gfspencer]

I prefer to "relic" my own guitars or buy one that is 67 years old and aged the hard way. If someone wants to buy that guitar it is fine with me. It just isn't something that I would buy.

[dhodgeh]

Factory relics are just not my thing.

When I buy 'new' guitar, I want it to look new.

Given my state of clumsiness, the relicing will come, I assure you.

D

[Glennwillow]

I played a friend's Pre-War guitar, similar to a D-18, and I thought it was quite good. The D-18 sound is not my favorite -- I am more of a spruce/rosewood person -- but there was no question that this was an impressive sounding guitar. His guitar had the least amount of "relicking," so it didn't look ridiculous.

I have been thinking overnight about this thread and why I react so negatively to the picture of the guitar in the OP's post #1 in this thread. As some here have commented, the guitar does look like it's been abused. The only guitars that I have seen that have looked that bad were abused or simply not taken care of.

And I think that's the crux of my reaction. I am not fastidious but I do take care of my equipment. I don't abuse it. I have videos of Stevie Ray Vaughan playing that beat up Stratocaster of his, and every time I see it, I think, well, he was a heck of a guitar player but he sure didn't take care of his guitar. I have the same reaction to Willie Nelson's guitar.

I wouldn't own a distressed guitar like that shown in the OP's #1 post because it doesn't represent how I take care of my equipment. It would be an embarrassment, an advertisement to the world that I abuse or at a minimum, don't take care of my guitars.

I have heard a lot of players refer to guitars as "just tools," as if people aren't supposed to get disturbed over putting a ding in their guitar. But, I take care of my tools. They are expensive, I need them, and I value the work I put in during my life to be able to afford to buy them. I don't get all depressed over putting a ding in a guitar, but it hurts just the same.

The visceral negativity I feel in looking at a photo of a beat up guitar like that shown in the OP's#1 post would really keep me from ever owning something like this. I can understand someone buying a Pre-War guitar, but I can't understand buying into that level of wear on a brand new guitar. The suggestion in owning a heavily warn, distressed guitar like that level 2.5 Pre-War Guitar that is, in fact, brand new is that you have already paid your dues as a musician, that you are somehow a player like Stevie Ray Vaughan or Willie Nelson, or that you are a privileged person who has managed to get your hands on this guitar that has been played by someone notable who has paid his dues. To me, either suggestion is really quite disingenuous, a charade.

But, guitar manufacturers are selling these highly warn, distressed guitars at a premium, so somebody is buying into this. Somebody thinks this Pre-Worn idea is cool.

To each his own of course...

- Glenn

[Goat Mick]

These threads always bring a lot of strong emotions. I'm certainly not opposed to playing a guitar that has seen it's better days as evidenced by my pride and joy, Dad's old J-45.

But also buying a new guitar that shows some wear doesn't bother me at all. However when I posted the NGD for my Ibanez AVC6DTS I did have to dodge some tar and feathers. Honestly I am 100% convinced that the finish on the Ibanez contributes to the great tone it has.