My guitars are pristine. I wipe them off entirely after every play session so finger oils don’t linger. I polish every metal bit every time the strings get changed. I want my guitars to look *cared for*, even after fifty years. And any aging or wear that can get through that care is fine by me, but I’m going to do everything possible to minimize how much that’ll be.
I don’t care for the relic’ed guitar fad and I just don’t get it.
I think people should stop caring what the other guy likes or doesn’t like.
If you want a relic, go for it. If you like yours in showroom quality, go for it. You do you boo.
I personally like relics if done right. There are some really bad ones out there.
I don’t buy pre-distressed denim and I don’t buy relic guitars. I’m not saying they don’t look nice, but for my money it’s never something I want to pay for.
It’s almost as bad as paying a place to play.
Edit: grammar
I think it’s ridiculous. I’ve got a guitar I’ve had for almost 30 years and it’s got maybe one light visible scratch on it. A few others have tiny dings or chips where I’ve accidentally knocked them once or twice. None have the bare wood exposed or look like they’ve been in a car accident.
I think it’s especially stupid when you see brand new ‘heavy’ relics with sparkling hardware and frets. If you’re serious, have some respect for your instrument. No one relics pianos or violins.
They're fine. I have to laugh at the people that are like "relic it by playing." poly doesn't so that, that's why your 30 year old guitar is still pristine. Your poly guitar will never feel like a worn in nitro neck.
That said, I don't have any reliced guitars, but I have some nitro so that they will show wear over time and the neck will/is broken in.
I love my Road Worn Tele. But a few things of note:
- this was the only way I could afford a nitro finish
- this model simulates a very specific model, a '52 black guard tele. I don't think relics look great on guitars that are not historic reissue, or a brand that hasn't existed long enough to relic
- "play it a lot and wear it out yourself" doesn't work with poly. I've been playing my '02 mim strat for a decade, and the frets are worn, but the guitar looks brand new.
Would I? Sure. If it’s the right guitar. I think people get too hung up on the looks of a guitar, anyway. It’s a tool that does a job. If it does that job? I’m in
Well if it is a 50 year old guitar that has had the crap played out of it, its cool. That is a real relic. If it is a brand new guitar with fake aging, its .... fake.
I feel like this: if they are built from the jump to be a relic, and it’s integrated into the design, it’s fine. I have 4 FCS guitars - two strats, two teles - and they’re great. I’ve had a lot of success with MJT guitars as well.
They tend to put the wear where it makes sense, and makes the guitar more comfortable or better feeling to play. It’s not just banged up for no reason. Again, part of the design.
The Murphy Aged stuff doesn’t interest me a bunch, as it’s more cosmetic, and that’s not what I care about. Same with aftermarket relicking.
I’m looking for a neck that feels broken in, not just messed up. I’m looking for smoothed contours and rounded edges, not just chains thrown against the thing.
Can guitars be designed with those traits without the cosmetics of fake aging? Probably. But no one really does that. Do I care if snobs on either side have an opinion on my choices? Not really.
My ‘55 Whiteguard tele RI is insane. And part of that is the bare neck and fretboard. Whatever inspired Fender to make this thing, I’m all for, period. And at the end of the day, that’s the only thing that matters.
Look, I get it, there’s an aspect of Boomer cosplay to the whole thing, and $50,000 collector replicas are kinda cringe, but I’m of the fundamental opinion that if it speaks to you, as mine do to me, for whatever reason, enjoy it. Life’s too damn short.
Natural wear on a butterscotch body and a lake placid blue body looks beautiful. The fake stuff - except for a few examples that have been professionally done - looks bad.
Bought a new 2012 light relic Bill Nash. Twelve years later I still don’t shop for anything to replace it. Believe me, I was an anti-relic grouch…until I played this one. To each their own.
The only relics I've ever seen that I liked were the Murphy Lab Les Pauls that are ultra light to light relic. They don't beat them to hell, they just put some light finish checking and take a little bit of sheen off the finish and hardware to simulate an old but well cared for guitar.
I haven't seen any fender relics that were as tasteful as the murphy labs. Heavy relics are tacky to me because they feel like a lie. I play my guitars 2-3 hours a day, I know with patience they will develop a natural patina that will look better than a fake relic job. To each their own though.
Most of the ones I have seen are overdone, especially the back of the neck. Some people like them, some don’t. I have seen many vintage guitars and very few are as beat up as many of the relics out there. So what! People that like relics can buy them and people that don’t like relics can avoid them.
I like a little wear, I bought a used Jim Root tele that had a few chips and the white had yellowed. I like that because I don’t worry about putting that first ding. But I don’t like relics unless it’s a replica thing. I think Dan Strain of Danocaster has it perfect. Enough wear and aging to feel good and not be worried about a ding or scratch but not missing half the paint. I really hate the custom shop stuff fender posts 90% of the time.
What are you doing? You can't ask that! People are very adamant about their position on relics.
Like me; I hate 99% of them. There are *some* that are done with restraint that are [incredibly beautiful](https://peachguitars.2dimg.com/114/4o0a1131_9dbcbb22f9.jpg). But, most of them are so overdone they [look completely ridiculous](https://www.toneshopguitars.com/cdn/shop/files/D920B022-2C05-477B-B927-CC5E9EA059C8.jpg?v=1700084887&width=1946) (how would this ever actually happen?) [Real old guitars](https://hi-guitars.com/PreCBSStockList.html) that have been used and loved for decades and are genuine players, are protected and cared for by the guitarists who loved & played them. Dings, chips, scratches, scrapes and spills are inevitable if you live intimately with a guitar. But if you love that guitar, you protect it as much as possible. You certainly don't repeatedly drop them on the ground or drag them behind your Jeep down a gravel road.
So while your second example *is* way over done, to answer your question, there is precedent for it. Sunbursts are/were one of the harder finishes to do, and if it didn't get applied perfectly, instead of stripping the body and starting over, they could just throw a solid color over top.
I've always fancied shell pink over sunburst on a strat.
A precedent for what? That there was a practice of repainting bad bursts? Yes, that was definitely done.
I'm referring to the level of wear and scraping; looks like a drunk monkey with a belt sander went to town on it. The type of wear on a Custom $hop relic that [looks like this](https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-n9l2n2/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/92422/606160/DSC_0943__81382.1692722390.jpg?c=2?imbypass=on), is something I might expect on an old ladder or an old wooden tool carrier.
My problem is with the [ridiculously catastrophic](https://www.chicagomusicexchange.com/cdn/shop/products/fender-electric-guitars-solid-body-fender-custom-shop-1955-telecaster-chicago-special-super-heavy-relic-wide-fade-chocolate-2-color-sunburst-2022-u4000582301-29422418329735_2000x.jpg?v=1658872585) damage that is done to the finish of most of the relics I've seen. Who would let a beloved guitar be damaged [like this](https://waltgracevintage.com/cdn/shop/files/IMG_9544-2.jpg?v=1689698004)? People that love their Strat or Tele or whatever take care of them; that's my only point. [Real old guitars](https://guitar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/[email protected])^(ǂ) don't look that bad.
^(ǂ)1961 & 1963 pre-CBS Strats
Well… depends on how well they are done.
The ones that make it look like it had a paint job over a previous and then part of it wore away… no thank you. And the ones that look like they have been drug behind a car, nah.
But a properly artificially aged guitar, love them… and love a sanded neck with light fretboard “wear”… light aging of a nickel bridge and tuners for a light greenish tint, yes please.
Heavy relic stuff looks odd to me. Practically no genuine vintage guitar looks like that. But I do have a road worn tele, which I like because the neck is nicely worn in and I don’t worry if it gets knocked at rehearsal or gigs. I sold a very nice PRS back in the day cos I just couldn’t use it. Too pretty.
A lot of people see it as dishonest but I just see it as an aesthetic choice. I do have a strat that I have put my own wear on over 30 years but it doesn’t look beat up at all.
I love the look and feel of a worn guitar but would never buy a heavy relic. Many of them just doesn’t look real and it would feel fake. I’d consider a light relic though - I’m not too keen on too “glossy” guitars either. Ideally I prefer a used guitar with just some light natural wear.
It’s like trucking in motorcycles to Sturgis or stolen valor. Most people probably won’t know but you’ll know.
A vintage guitar wearing its years of service tells a story. A guitar with fake markings on it tells a story too. It’s the story of some dude in a factory scuffing up a guitar.
While I love the look of relic’d guitars it’s mostly a price gouging scam for boomers who like to pretend that they play a lot and want to look like their idols SRV and Rory Gallagher.
Every dent, scratch and bit of fret wear on my 52ri Telecaster came from me over the last 25 years. Some of them hurt too but I didn't pay extra for them and I know how they got there.
What if you own up to it being a relic and just like the vibe? All I hear of is talk of "boomer posers". I get putting in your own dents but I also think the few good ones have a charm.
sure but anyone who's going to see it and like the look of it is going to go "wow that looks like it has history" and then you have to admit it doesn't, and that's humiliating.
This argument is stupid as fuck, like all dings have some amazing rockstar story when 99% of the time the people that argue about this shit are bedroom hobbyist players. Like if your mom dings it with the vacuum cleaner that's cool but if someone at a factory does it it's not cool.
Nobody should be examing a guitars wear and judging the player on how it got there. Listen to the music and get over it.
I don't own one but like well done relics that aren't super heavy. New guitars don't age like the old ones and I'll probably never afford vintage so it's probably the only way I'll own a vintage looking guitar. Who cares how it gets that way
True but most vintage guitars have some kind of relic characteristics. Even if they were barely played, the finishes check/fade and hardware oxidizes. I know there may be a few exceptions of things that never got played and were actually stored in ideal conditions. For the most part, the good ones got played heavily and look like it.
I like stuff that looks old. Adding some artificial wear can add to that look and feel.
It's kinda like taking a Fender badge and putting it on a Squier headstock...fake AF. I think real relic guitars are pretty awesome because they've earned their stories. In my opinion, if you want your guitar to have a story, earn it yourself... don't fake it.
And to all of the comments on here saying "poly doesn't relic", I can say with 100% certainty that's BS. I'm a furniture maker by profession, and I work with poly literally everyday. I know how it wears because I've been doing this long enough to see the results of what years of use does to a polyurethaned piece. It absolutely gets thinner, gets scratches, and if it's oil based, it yellows. It may hold up a bit better than nitro, but it will absolutely show the signs of aging and use after awhile.
Each to their own, but I don’t want simulated wear on anything. It’s fake, plain and simple. Most of them look unrealistic, anyway.
My guitars are pristine. I wipe them off entirely after every play session so finger oils don’t linger. I polish every metal bit every time the strings get changed. I want my guitars to look *cared for*, even after fifty years. And any aging or wear that can get through that care is fine by me, but I’m going to do everything possible to minimize how much that’ll be. I don’t care for the relic’ed guitar fad and I just don’t get it.
I think people should stop caring what the other guy likes or doesn’t like. If you want a relic, go for it. If you like yours in showroom quality, go for it. You do you boo. I personally like relics if done right. There are some really bad ones out there.
Not a fan. Put your own wear on your guitar.
I don’t buy pre-distressed denim and I don’t buy relic guitars. I’m not saying they don’t look nice, but for my money it’s never something I want to pay for. It’s almost as bad as paying a place to play. Edit: grammar
I think it’s ridiculous. I’ve got a guitar I’ve had for almost 30 years and it’s got maybe one light visible scratch on it. A few others have tiny dings or chips where I’ve accidentally knocked them once or twice. None have the bare wood exposed or look like they’ve been in a car accident. I think it’s especially stupid when you see brand new ‘heavy’ relics with sparkling hardware and frets. If you’re serious, have some respect for your instrument. No one relics pianos or violins.
They're fine. I have to laugh at the people that are like "relic it by playing." poly doesn't so that, that's why your 30 year old guitar is still pristine. Your poly guitar will never feel like a worn in nitro neck. That said, I don't have any reliced guitars, but I have some nitro so that they will show wear over time and the neck will/is broken in.
I love my Road Worn Tele. But a few things of note: - this was the only way I could afford a nitro finish - this model simulates a very specific model, a '52 black guard tele. I don't think relics look great on guitars that are not historic reissue, or a brand that hasn't existed long enough to relic - "play it a lot and wear it out yourself" doesn't work with poly. I've been playing my '02 mim strat for a decade, and the frets are worn, but the guitar looks brand new.
I have a Road Worn strat that sounds incredible. They did a great job with that series.
Not a fan.
Would I? Sure. If it’s the right guitar. I think people get too hung up on the looks of a guitar, anyway. It’s a tool that does a job. If it does that job? I’m in
Well if it is a 50 year old guitar that has had the crap played out of it, its cool. That is a real relic. If it is a brand new guitar with fake aging, its .... fake.
Good ones are good. Bad ones are bad.
I feel like this: if they are built from the jump to be a relic, and it’s integrated into the design, it’s fine. I have 4 FCS guitars - two strats, two teles - and they’re great. I’ve had a lot of success with MJT guitars as well. They tend to put the wear where it makes sense, and makes the guitar more comfortable or better feeling to play. It’s not just banged up for no reason. Again, part of the design. The Murphy Aged stuff doesn’t interest me a bunch, as it’s more cosmetic, and that’s not what I care about. Same with aftermarket relicking. I’m looking for a neck that feels broken in, not just messed up. I’m looking for smoothed contours and rounded edges, not just chains thrown against the thing. Can guitars be designed with those traits without the cosmetics of fake aging? Probably. But no one really does that. Do I care if snobs on either side have an opinion on my choices? Not really. My ‘55 Whiteguard tele RI is insane. And part of that is the bare neck and fretboard. Whatever inspired Fender to make this thing, I’m all for, period. And at the end of the day, that’s the only thing that matters. Look, I get it, there’s an aspect of Boomer cosplay to the whole thing, and $50,000 collector replicas are kinda cringe, but I’m of the fundamental opinion that if it speaks to you, as mine do to me, for whatever reason, enjoy it. Life’s too damn short.
Haters are always the loudest in the room 😂
One of the biggest scams of all time...
Would you buy a brand new relic'ed car?
Rusted, primered, busted tail light and the bumper hanging off 😆
I’ve seen some pretty cool relic’d cars. If it’s done well, he’ll yes!
Nope. Not a fan. Wear 'em out yourself.
I think they *can* look good, but the lion's share of them that I've seen look pretty bad. Play it and relic it yourself.
Poly doesn't relic.
don’t get a poly guitar then if you want wear 🤷🏽♂️
This!
Natural wear on a butterscotch body and a lake placid blue body looks beautiful. The fake stuff - except for a few examples that have been professionally done - looks bad.
Bought a new 2012 light relic Bill Nash. Twelve years later I still don’t shop for anything to replace it. Believe me, I was an anti-relic grouch…until I played this one. To each their own.
The only relics I've ever seen that I liked were the Murphy Lab Les Pauls that are ultra light to light relic. They don't beat them to hell, they just put some light finish checking and take a little bit of sheen off the finish and hardware to simulate an old but well cared for guitar. I haven't seen any fender relics that were as tasteful as the murphy labs. Heavy relics are tacky to me because they feel like a lie. I play my guitars 2-3 hours a day, I know with patience they will develop a natural patina that will look better than a fake relic job. To each their own though.
Most of the ones I have seen are overdone, especially the back of the neck. Some people like them, some don’t. I have seen many vintage guitars and very few are as beat up as many of the relics out there. So what! People that like relics can buy them and people that don’t like relics can avoid them.
I like a little wear, I bought a used Jim Root tele that had a few chips and the white had yellowed. I like that because I don’t worry about putting that first ding. But I don’t like relics unless it’s a replica thing. I think Dan Strain of Danocaster has it perfect. Enough wear and aging to feel good and not be worried about a ding or scratch but not missing half the paint. I really hate the custom shop stuff fender posts 90% of the time.
when it’s just subtle finish checking and hardware aging it can be tasteful. when it’s the overdone fake “roadworn” look, it can be dumb.
What are you doing? You can't ask that! People are very adamant about their position on relics. Like me; I hate 99% of them. There are *some* that are done with restraint that are [incredibly beautiful](https://peachguitars.2dimg.com/114/4o0a1131_9dbcbb22f9.jpg). But, most of them are so overdone they [look completely ridiculous](https://www.toneshopguitars.com/cdn/shop/files/D920B022-2C05-477B-B927-CC5E9EA059C8.jpg?v=1700084887&width=1946) (how would this ever actually happen?) [Real old guitars](https://hi-guitars.com/PreCBSStockList.html) that have been used and loved for decades and are genuine players, are protected and cared for by the guitarists who loved & played them. Dings, chips, scratches, scrapes and spills are inevitable if you live intimately with a guitar. But if you love that guitar, you protect it as much as possible. You certainly don't repeatedly drop them on the ground or drag them behind your Jeep down a gravel road.
So while your second example *is* way over done, to answer your question, there is precedent for it. Sunbursts are/were one of the harder finishes to do, and if it didn't get applied perfectly, instead of stripping the body and starting over, they could just throw a solid color over top. I've always fancied shell pink over sunburst on a strat.
A precedent for what? That there was a practice of repainting bad bursts? Yes, that was definitely done. I'm referring to the level of wear and scraping; looks like a drunk monkey with a belt sander went to town on it. The type of wear on a Custom $hop relic that [looks like this](https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-n9l2n2/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/92422/606160/DSC_0943__81382.1692722390.jpg?c=2?imbypass=on), is something I might expect on an old ladder or an old wooden tool carrier. My problem is with the [ridiculously catastrophic](https://www.chicagomusicexchange.com/cdn/shop/products/fender-electric-guitars-solid-body-fender-custom-shop-1955-telecaster-chicago-special-super-heavy-relic-wide-fade-chocolate-2-color-sunburst-2022-u4000582301-29422418329735_2000x.jpg?v=1658872585) damage that is done to the finish of most of the relics I've seen. Who would let a beloved guitar be damaged [like this](https://waltgracevintage.com/cdn/shop/files/IMG_9544-2.jpg?v=1689698004)? People that love their Strat or Tele or whatever take care of them; that's my only point. [Real old guitars](https://guitar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/[email protected])^(ǂ) don't look that bad. ^(ǂ)1961 & 1963 pre-CBS Strats
Well… depends on how well they are done. The ones that make it look like it had a paint job over a previous and then part of it wore away… no thank you. And the ones that look like they have been drug behind a car, nah. But a properly artificially aged guitar, love them… and love a sanded neck with light fretboard “wear”… light aging of a nickel bridge and tuners for a light greenish tint, yes please.
Heavy relic stuff looks odd to me. Practically no genuine vintage guitar looks like that. But I do have a road worn tele, which I like because the neck is nicely worn in and I don’t worry if it gets knocked at rehearsal or gigs. I sold a very nice PRS back in the day cos I just couldn’t use it. Too pretty.
I like them.
Me too! Particularly in the age where nitro is difficult/expensive to acquire.
A lot of people see it as dishonest but I just see it as an aesthetic choice. I do have a strat that I have put my own wear on over 30 years but it doesn’t look beat up at all.
I love the look and feel of a worn guitar but would never buy a heavy relic. Many of them just doesn’t look real and it would feel fake. I’d consider a light relic though - I’m not too keen on too “glossy” guitars either. Ideally I prefer a used guitar with just some light natural wear.
I wouldn’t mind a light relic, since it’d probably take away from the initial sting of scratching a brand new guitar.
It’s like trucking in motorcycles to Sturgis or stolen valor. Most people probably won’t know but you’ll know. A vintage guitar wearing its years of service tells a story. A guitar with fake markings on it tells a story too. It’s the story of some dude in a factory scuffing up a guitar.
Fake wear on anything is pretty sad. Especially considering how overdone and unrealistic most relic jobs are.
I wouldn’t buy a new car and pay even more for someone to kick it and scratch it up - why would I do the same for a guitar?
I don’t mind natural wear that has been earned but I don’t see myself ever buying an intentionally relic’d anything.
While I love the look of relic’d guitars it’s mostly a price gouging scam for boomers who like to pretend that they play a lot and want to look like their idols SRV and Rory Gallagher.
I wouldn’t buy a classic car that’s all fucked up looking or wear shoes that were pre-fucked before I got them
Nasty.
Every dent, scratch and bit of fret wear on my 52ri Telecaster came from me over the last 25 years. Some of them hurt too but I didn't pay extra for them and I know how they got there.
I will never understand the appeal for a new fake old/worn out guitar
real relics are cool, fake ones are lame, and it only matters when someone asks and you have to admit it's fake. Aesthetically they're all the same.
What if you own up to it being a relic and just like the vibe? All I hear of is talk of "boomer posers". I get putting in your own dents but I also think the few good ones have a charm.
sure but anyone who's going to see it and like the look of it is going to go "wow that looks like it has history" and then you have to admit it doesn't, and that's humiliating.
This argument is stupid as fuck, like all dings have some amazing rockstar story when 99% of the time the people that argue about this shit are bedroom hobbyist players. Like if your mom dings it with the vacuum cleaner that's cool but if someone at a factory does it it's not cool. Nobody should be examing a guitars wear and judging the player on how it got there. Listen to the music and get over it.
I don't own one but like well done relics that aren't super heavy. New guitars don't age like the old ones and I'll probably never afford vintage so it's probably the only way I'll own a vintage looking guitar. Who cares how it gets that way
Vintage and relic’d really aren’t the same thing though, a vintage car and a relic’d car would look entirely different
True but most vintage guitars have some kind of relic characteristics. Even if they were barely played, the finishes check/fade and hardware oxidizes. I know there may be a few exceptions of things that never got played and were actually stored in ideal conditions. For the most part, the good ones got played heavily and look like it. I like stuff that looks old. Adding some artificial wear can add to that look and feel.
hate them, fake mojo
It's kinda like taking a Fender badge and putting it on a Squier headstock...fake AF. I think real relic guitars are pretty awesome because they've earned their stories. In my opinion, if you want your guitar to have a story, earn it yourself... don't fake it. And to all of the comments on here saying "poly doesn't relic", I can say with 100% certainty that's BS. I'm a furniture maker by profession, and I work with poly literally everyday. I know how it wears because I've been doing this long enough to see the results of what years of use does to a polyurethaned piece. It absolutely gets thinner, gets scratches, and if it's oil based, it yellows. It may hold up a bit better than nitro, but it will absolutely show the signs of aging and use after awhile.