Relic 'wear'

jd0272

chrisj1602;240419" said:

I recently had an Fender Esquire Relic (which I would have kept if it wasn't the only way for me to get a black LP Custom!) and the relic work was really, really good.  It didn't have anything over the top, just the odd ding and scrape that looked completely natural for a guitar that was supposed to look like it was made in 1959.  The checking looked great too and didn't look razored at all.  It did have neck wear, but not a completely bare back of neck like some, just on the edges of the board where you play the most chords and the usual bare spots on the board.  To me it was very realistic and looked like, and played like a nice worn in guitar.

Mine is the exact same model as the Esquire 59 you had. Looked as pristine when I got it too. Doesn't now. Lovely guitars.

chrisj1602

jd0272 said:

chrisj1602;240419" said:

I recently had an Fender Esquire Relic (which I would have kept if it wasn't the only way for me to get a black LP Custom!) and the relic work was really, really good.  It didn't have anything over the top, just the odd ding and scrape that looked completely natural for a guitar that was supposed to look like it was made in 1959.  The checking looked great too and didn't look razored at all.  It did have neck wear, but not a completely bare back of neck like some, just on the edges of the board where you play the most chords and the usual bare spots on the board.  To me it was very realistic and looked like, and played like a nice worn in guitar.

Mine is the exact same model as the Esquire 59 you had. Looked as pristine when I got it too. Doesn't now. Lovely guitars.

It was a lovely guitar, would have loved to have kept it, but the black Custom itch wouldn't go away!

jd0272

There is that. Mine's a keeper tho.

JohnnyPlectrum

What I really like about relics is that the inevitable gig dings don't affect the resale / trade-in price like they do on the shiny PRS type guitars. You just don't get that usual sinking feeling when you clock the cymbals.

They also feel kind of comfortable straight out of the box.

SNAKEBITE

I can't really add too much to this as it has already been said, all I can do is add my own personal opinion. Which perhaps is not worth the cyberspace it is written in!

I do not really like relics, I would rather relic my own guitar over time.

However............. I would like to have a go at relicing a guitar, just to see if I could do it.

My plan would be to purchase an old Squire Strat from the freeads or Ebay etc. I would then strip it, keep all the original bits but respray the body in a "vintage" Fender colour with rattle cans from Halfords.

Then over a period of time I would study realistic guitar wear and replicate it on the Squire (or failing that give it to the kids, it'll be shagged in next to no time).

Al the metal parts would be aged, not sure how yet but I could experiment. Same with the plastic parts.

What I'd be left with I'd probably keep as a novelty, or bin it if it looked rubbish!

Forge

I don't usually let anyone play my axes following the experience of a Charvel being dropped and massively dinged and my mate saying "it's ok it did not break", but I have no issues doing so with my relics.

ICBM

Phil_aka_Pip said:

I can't see the point in relics. When I first saw the fender ones I assumed they'd got some old hardware rusting in a skip at the back, and figured that if they could invent the "relic", they'd be able to use it instead of recycling the metal.

If I buy a new guitar I expect it to look like one. It will receive enough unintentional dings while I'm using it for its proper purpose without anyone else having to give it a head start.

I hated the idea of Relics at first too. Now, I don't - always. For me it's not about the dings, it's whatever else they do to them to simulate the natural aging - in fact, the ones I like best are the 'very very light relics' which have essentially nothing other than finish checking and slightly tarnished hardware… no multiple dents all clearly done with the same tool, no file marks round the edge, no sanding of the forearm area, no belt buckle rash done with a screwdriver, no orange rust. Maybe just a couple of tiny dents, if they really insist - ie what looks like an old guitar that's been taken very good care of.

The reason is that every one of them I've played has been a really great guitar, better than any non-Relic I've yet come across. Whether it's due to the aging process, or whether they take a lot more care in selecting bodies and necks that really resonate together, I don't know. Whatever it is (in my opinion) produces better results more consistently than buying a 'new new' guitar and just not taking care very good of it. And it won't have worn frets, dirty pots or dings in places you might not really want them (like the back of the neck).

Nunogilberto

Not a fan of relic'd guitars to be honest. Wear and tear over the years is fine; faded finishes, buckle rash and a few dinks here and there etc. Artificial wear though? Not for me.

thermionic

ICBM said:

The reason is that every one of them I've played has been a really great guitar, better than any non-Relic I've yet come across. Whether it's due to the aging process, or whether they take a lot more care in selecting bodies and necks that really resonate together, I don't know. 

Surely the aging process is purely cosmetic? Higher-quality woods, thinner finishes and being assembled by a top-class guy must be why they play and sound good.

ICBM

I don't know. I wonder if it's possible that something they do to create the ageing - probably hot/cold temperature cycles - improves the resonance? I'm not suggesting tarnished metalwork sounds better though .

If not and it's purely down to better parts selection, it still makes the Relics worth having.

GuyBoden

Applying "Relic wear" is a quick way to devalue a good guitar.

ThePrettyDamned

I saw a relic bassman amp once from fender custom shop, which had a circle coffee stain on it.

That would devalue the shit out of a regular tweed bassman!

Of course, relic guitars can still look great, but I'd rather have a new, thin finish one to turn into a relic myself. Although that will devalue every step of the way, where a spec relic guitar won't.

*mindfuck*

GuyBoden

This adding "relic" to guitars just makes me laugh so much.
)

fretfinder

GuyBoden said:

Applying "Relic wear" is a quick way to devalue a good guitar.

So is leaving your guitar in the garden with the daffodils...

ICBM

ThePrettyDamned said:

Of course, relic guitars can still look great, but I'd rather have a new, thin finish one to turn into a relic myself. Although that will devalue every step of the way, where a spec relic guitar won't.

*mindfuck*

This is the thing that still gets me. Relics cost more to begin with, and lose value less second hand, than "new new" guitars which get damaged in use. ie fake wear is more valuable/desirable than real wear…

I still have a problem with that, and it's partly why I don't like the faking of damage, rather than simply ageing. As well as because it's rarely at all convincing. I don't agree with the "it's just a finish option, it's not meant to look real" idea either - it *is* meant to look real, it's just that in almost all cases it doesn't. Even the idiots who take blowtorches and belt sanders to them still claim that they look like old guitars.

paulk

georgenadaintl said:

How about this one?

https://reverb.com/item/137640-1993-fender-american-telecaster-fire-relic-all-original-parts-one-of-a-kind

Sweet, suffering mother of the tiny baby Jesus! What a fucking mess.

stickyfiddle

I agree entirely with @ICBM. Not a fan of "fucked looking" ones but a good light relic where the neck feels like it's been played every day for 40 years and been re-fretted yesterday. Those ones are amazing.

My Cabronita is one, done very well IMO by @WezV. ;

Satiny oiled back of the neck:

Carefully rolled fretboard edges:

There's a bit of finish checking (completely real - this was sprayed in January last year!) and the only real "relicing" is subtle, in places where it would actually happen over the life of a working guitar, like the edges by the binding and behind the bridge. 

Unfortunately, this stuff is all out the window with the recent trend for "Heavy Relics", which presumably came about because Fender had run out of people who want to buy the nice tasteful light relics.

frankus

I found no small amount of schadenfreude when one of this forums loudest opponents to relic (pops up every relic discussion to say "I don't like relics" and fs off again) ... was whining like a girl with a grazed knee when he dinged one of his glass-figurine guitars.

that's schadenfreude... not glee btw

GuyBoden

paulk said:

georgenadaintl said:

How about this one?

https://reverb.com/item/137640-1993-fender-american-telecaster-fire-relic-all-original-parts-one-of-a-kind

Sweet, suffering mother of the tiny baby Jesus! What a fucking mess.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

GuyBoden