Adam CR wrote:I don't see how the type of person who'd whine about these guitars is in any way superior to the type of person who'd buy one.

Both consider there to be some sort of voodoo-mojo about guitar-wear. One considers that it can be faked, the other considers that it must not be faked.

Both are CRAP.

The guitars look no worse or better than their un-aged alternatives.

You got everything right.
Except their un-aged alternatives look better.
Crap.

sunset_gun wrote:

...salt (to age machine heads), and coffee (to age plastic parts)

And this affects the feel of the instrument how?

"Thin-skinning" the finish and rolling fretboard edges is NOT the same as relicing. I've taken down the edges of fretboards and sanded bare the back of a few necks for comfort. When done properly, this does not affect the overall look of the instrument at all. It does not make the instrument look beat up or any older than it truly is. Relicing is posturing and posing, plain and simple - for looks only. At the risk of sounding like Rick Reuben...to say people age hardware and scratch up guitar bodies for comfort is a complete lie. It's done for looks and nothing more. At least be honest about that.

Some things I did for comfort and some things I did to make it look old and beat up. There's a feel-good factor on both fronts (for me). And remember, I did it myself for virtually no money to a cheap instrument.

m.koren wrote:

sunset_gun wrote:

...salt (to age machine heads), and coffee (to age plastic parts)

And this affects the feel of the instrument how?

"Thin-skinning" the finish and rolling fretboard edges is NOT the same as relicing. I've taken down the edges of fretboards and sanded bare the back of a few necks for comfort. When done properly, this does not affect the overall look of the instrument at all. It does not make the instrument look beat up or any older than it truly is. Relicing is posturing and posing, plain and simple - for looks only. At the risk of sounding like Rick Reuben...to say people age hardware and scratch up guitar bodies for comfort is a complete lie. It's done for looks and nothing more. At least be honest about that.

Some things I did for comfort and some things I did to make it look old and beat up. There's a feel-good factor on both fronts (for me). And remember, I did it myself for virtually no money to a cheap instrument.

An ex-bass player of mine was broke as a joke when we were bandmates 7-13 years ago. He sanded his Squier P-Bass body down to the plywood and didn't care what people thought, because it sounded amazing that way. Professional married life came along with better equipment to match, but that bass is still his #1.

If I'd sand anywhere, it would be the back of a guitar neck to feel the wood, but that's asking for warpage. As for the relic'd look, I'd rather earn it the honest way instead of buying a way to tell tall tales of fabulated miles logged in a van.

How is this different from the guy who posted on Craigslist selling a cheap amp head with a Marshall logo stuck on it, to create a better "stage presence"?

Deliberately wearing out the surface of an instrument in an effort to make it look old and used and increase its resale value, or to make one look like a more seasoned/dedicated musician while onstage is CRAP, and It stinks just as bad no matter how you stir it.

And I'm not one of these mystics who believes that old guitars possess any kind of "mojo" simply by virtue of their age, either.

Colonel Panic wrote: to make one look like a more seasoned/dedicated musician while onstage is CRAP

How do you know that people are doing it for this reason ?

m.koren wrote:

Colonel Panic wrote: to make one look like a more seasoned/dedicated musician while onstage is CRAP

How do you know that people are doing it for this reason ?

Because this is the topic of the thread. The topic is pre-aged gear. The previous few pages is a discussion of gear that has been aged prematurely.

it's up to the individual if they want a reliced guitar. if it helps their confidence, great.

however, it strikes me as just another manifestation of industry bullshit i.e. vintage = good. therefore if you can't afford - fake it!

suppose what you play might matter to the infantile but the audience is more interested in the sound, surely?

ubercat wrote:The topic is pre-aged gear.

Yep, and not about the people who play these instruments. I'm sure they're a mixed bunch. For example, I'm not what you would call a 'Blues Lawyer'.

I have played some of these relics and, I have to say, they are seriously comfortable guitars. I owned a strat for 7 years. Played the living bejebus out of that thing. It got stolen after a gig one night. I picked up a relic in a shop years later and it felt the exact same as my old one. It was like sensory recall.

The story that I heard about the origins of "relicing" was that Keith Richards was at the Fender factory trying out guitars and complained that they all "felt too new" and could they "beat one up or something". True or not that story is NC.

Would I buy one? Probably not. First, I could buy two or three cool guitars for the price of one of them. Second, I do a well enough job of relicing my guitars by subjecting them to my metal picks, chain-smoking and drunken antics. That said, I could see myself falling for the right one. Stranger things have happened.

For well-off professional musicians I'm sure it's a welcome alternative to bringing outrageously overvalued 'vintage' guitars on the road.

If you have time to kill search 'relic' on youtube and prepare to puke.

So this one time I caught Sugar Ray on the VH1. The singer guy, I don't think his name is actually Sugar Ray, but whatever. I believe Mr. Ray was discussing Def Leppard, in any event the subject had turned to ripped jeans. He was reminiscing about using a razor blade to slice up jeans to get 'that look', and how every once in a while some of his jeans would naturally get a real hole, and how cool that was.

Don't be like Sugar Ray.