Fender custom shop heavy relic 68 strat.

ICBM

One of them is on the Sonic Blue Strat, which isn't a Relic but does appear to have a sizeable ding in it! Not sure why there's one on the Tele though.

jedhemsley

I don't think I'd drop over 2.5k on a custom shop relic to be honest. If you change your mind at a later date, (which is likely) you can never un-relic it, whereas a standard custom shop guitar will age by itself. Its a lot to gamble with. On top of that, tbh it looks like a pretty poor job. I have no idea on what planet whoever did it justified all the wear around the jack socket and up the rhs of the guitar, unless they intended to plug the jack in with a belt sander. It just doesn't look that convincing. Plus for that money you'd probably be able to pick up an actual vintage fender which has been chucked around as much as this one pertains to have been.

These are my collective $0.02

ICBM

jedhemsley said:

I don't think I'd drop over 2.5k on a custom shop relic to be honest. If you change your mind at a later date, (which is likely) you can never un-relic it, whereas a standard custom shop guitar will age by itself. Its a lot to gamble with. On top of that, tbh it looks like a pretty poor job. I have no idea on what planet whoever did it justified all the wear around the jack socket and up the rhs of the guitar, unless they intended to plug the jack in with a belt sander. It just doesn't look that convincing. Plus for that money you'd probably be able to pick up an actual vintage fender which has been chucked around as much as this one pertains to have been.

I agree that it doesn't look that convincing (I said that originally!) but these days you won't get a real vintage Fender, even of that age and condition, for that sort of money. Maybe not *that* much more, but even if you do, at that "low" price it will also very likely have issues like worn frets and dodgy electrics - which if you have fixed, will "devalue" the guitar as well as costing you to have done. (Stupid but true.) At least with a Relic you get something which is fully playable and reliable from the off, and will hold its value pretty well.

Even more inexplicable is that if you buy a non-Relic CS guitar, and then naturally age it yourself, it will be worth *less* than it would be in mint condition… even though the wear is honest. So fake wear is more desirable than real! Again I'm not trying to say this is in any way sane, but it is true. Plus I have never played a non-Relic CS guitar which sounds as good as any Relic I've played. I don't know whether it's because the woods are selected better for the Relics, or whether something in the fake-aging process also improves the sound - if I had to guess I would honestly say the latter.

I'm genuinely in two minds - I find the concept maddening (at least the deliberate damage, I quite like the idea of a guitar that is simply aged without adding the fake battle scars, which I don't think improve anything), but I have to admit that the results seem to justify it.

menamestom

I think the association with the difference in sound from headstocks probably comes from the amps more than the headstocks. I would say the Marshall stacks contributed more to the sound than the size of the headstock! It probably makes a bit of difference, but not a lot. And Tele's have tiny headstocks but can sound huge!

jedhemsley

ICBM said:

jedhemsley said:

I don't think I'd drop over 2.5k on a custom shop relic to be honest. If you change your mind at a later date, (which is likely) you can never un-relic it, whereas a standard custom shop guitar will age by itself. Its a lot to gamble with. On top of that, tbh it looks like a pretty poor job. I have no idea on what planet whoever did it justified all the wear around the jack socket and up the rhs of the guitar, unless they intended to plug the jack in with a belt sander. It just doesn't look that convincing. Plus for that money you'd probably be able to pick up an actual vintage fender which has been chucked around as much as this one pertains to have been.

I agree that it doesn't look that convincing (I said that originally!) but these days you won't get a real vintage Fender, even of that age and condition, for that sort of money. Maybe not *that* much more, but even if you do, at that "low" price it will also very likely have issues like worn frets and dodgy electrics - which if you have fixed, will "devalue" the guitar as well as costing you to have done. (Stupid but true.) At least with a Relic you get something which is fully playable and reliable from the off, and will hold its value pretty well.

Even more inexplicable is that if you buy a non-Relic CS guitar, and then naturally age it yourself, it will be worth *less* than it would be in mint condition… even though the wear is honest. So fake wear is more desirable than real! Again I'm not trying to say this is in any way sane, but it is true. Plus I have never played a non-Relic CS guitar which sounds as good as any Relic I've played. I don't know whether it's because the woods are selected better for the Relics, or whether something in the fake-aging process also improves the sound - if I had to guess I would honestly say the latter.

I'm genuinely in two minds - I find the concept maddening (at least the deliberate damage, I quite like the idea of a guitar that is simply aged without adding the fake battle scars, which I don't think improve anything), but I have to admit that the results seem to justify it.

I understand what you're saying man. When i said 'for that money' I wasn't 100% sure on prices, although I assumed that as OP's guitar was a big headstock it was designed after a CBS type, which are generally cheaper and more readily available than their pre CBS counterparts. However, I'm by no means an expert in the vintage Fender market having never had the money to fund it. 

For me I guess thats one of the things with heavy relics - personally I think its nonsensical to have a guitar which is as battered as that, but yet has perfect frets and electronics, when would that ever happen, unless it had been heavily serviced, which would, as you said, reduce it's value...

I'm not sure whether I subscribe to the idea of the ageing process affecting the tone of the instrument. Sure, if you're comparing a nitro finish which they likely have on the relic to a likely poly finish on the standard custom shop guitars, I guess that could make a discernible difference. I just recently finished a nitro refin on my long standing partscaster (also involved a new body...) and i'll be damned if i can hear a difference in how it sounded through an amp comparing before and after, even with a completely new body. At the end of the day what you hear through the amp is just a current induced by the string vibrating within a magnetic field, I think it's very debatable whether that is affected at all by the presence of a few, or in this case a lot of, dings in the paint. 

I'm saying this as someone who is pretty OCD about what their guitars are made of, but i still reckon a lot of the differences are either mental or caused by the amp.

ICBM

No, I definitely don't think the dings in the paint have anything to do with it! That's why I don't like the 'heavy Relics' - that's just fake damage for the look. It's more what they do to check the finishes - hot and cold cycles, which they do to the 'light Relics' too. I think that could actually make a difference to the wood as well as the paint.

Aidanspaghetti

If large headstock strats float your boat youll have a field day if you look at the videos here...

http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/3109/joe-holmes-ex-ozzy-new-project#latest

Floyds all over the place and all reliced (but the proper way i bet) but still ooze character...

Hmm hmmm

Thats a fine strat btw . . Pricey though....

matone

SidNewton said:

Best thing about that photo is the 'Please Do Not Touch' labels. Why? In case you put a ding in it? Clowns.

Always makes you laugh doesn`t it !

badlydrawnbanjo

I've had my eye on this for a while now. A *bit* more affordable and a little lighter on the relicing.

http://www.guitars4you.co.uk/fender-custom-shop-60s-relic-strat---3-tone-sunburst+++457

thermionic

I always thought the wide headstocks simply mirrored the fashions of the time (trouser and lapel widths) and I call them "flared".

OilCityPickups

thermionic said:

I always thought the wide headstocks simply mirrored the fashions of the time (trouser and lapel widths) and I call them "flared".

I can can confirm it cos I was there ... 1970 pop festaval on the IOW even the people were flared ... look at the poster

JayGee

ICBM said:

No, I definitely don't think the dings in the paint have anything to do with it! That's why I don't like the 'heavy Relics' - that's just fake damage for the look. It's more what they do to check the finishes - hot and cold cycles, which they do to the 'light Relics' too. I think that could actually make a difference to the wood as well as the paint.

I'm sure that the level of distressing being applied to Fender CS Relics has increased year on year as if there was some kind of arms race going on between builders.

My first exposure to relics was in the mid '90s when what I beleive to be one of the legendary Vince Cunetto built first batch of Nocasters turned up in Peach Guitars and it was a truly wonderful thing in every respect, that was followed by small batches of Strats (including the first "custom colour over sunburst" examples) which were equally tasteful. Since then, and particularly with the coming of the "Heavy Relic" it's all got just a bit silly and even the more lightly distressed examples look a little overdone for my tastes.

What I think I'd really like is a guitar which is somehow effectively "primed" to show wear more rapidly than would otherwise happen so that I can start with a little light checking and dulled metalwork and then develop my own wear patterns and, if it comes to that, dings over a relatively short period before having some kind of "stabilising" treatment applied once I'm happy with it :-)

mellowsun

The CS Strats that I've played have been head and shoulders above the standard strats, although that might have changed recently. I'm not sure paying the extra grand and a half for getting a Masterbuilt is worth it over and above the team built Strats though.

The CS Strat magic is mostly in the neck, the playability, the perfect setup and the pickups. There's a meatiness, zippiness and twang that you don't often get with the cheaper Strats. Even unplugged you can hear and feel the difference.

It seems to be much less true with Teles though. I've played some fantastic Squier Teles.

Branshen

ICBM said:

Branshen said:

An interesting test would be to have a headstock completely separated the body, while still having the strings pulled to the correct tension and compare how that sounds to when it is attached normally. But then, this would take into account the resonance of the neck as well.. Food for thought.

That could easily be done… take any normal Floyd Rose-equipped guitar, tune it to pitch and make sure the nut is locked really well, play it and record it. Then cut the strings behind the nut, saw the headstock off and play and record it again.

Hahaha, this made me laugh. Fretfinder's suggestion nailed it. Chop the headstock in half, now if only we could find someone who wants a 50s/60s conversion..

Bucket

That headstock is magnificent.

Ageing is too heavy though, just looks a bit silly.

crunchman

mellowsun said:

The CS Strats that I've played have been head and shoulders above the standard strats, although that might have changed recently. I'm not sure paying the extra grand and a half for getting a Masterbuilt is worth it over and above the team built Strats though.

The CS Strat magic is mostly in the neck, the playability, the perfect setup and the pickups. There's a meatiness, zippiness and twang that you don't often get with the cheaper Strats. Even unplugged you can hear and feel the difference.

It seems to be much less true with Teles though. I've played some fantastic Squier Teles.

Not all the Strats out of the main factory are equal.

If you are comparing with the normal US Standards they have the modern 2 point bridge.  In my experience, the 6 screw vintage style trem definitely sounds better.  The older US standards / American series also didn't have the pressed steel trem block as I recall, although I think that has been corrected on the more recent ones.

A fairer comparison would be against the AV reissues as these would have the same spec bridge/block etc.

BUT, not all AV reissues are equal.  I have 62 reissue that is stunning but I've never found another one as good.  I used to go into shops to try amps and if there was a 62 reissue on the wall I'd use that to try that amp as it was the same model as mine.  None of the ones I tried were anywhere near as good as mine.

I've had that for 10 years now, and there is some natural wear and tear and a little bit of checking in the finish.  If you looked around you could probably find a 12 to 15 year old 62 reissue (or 57 reissue if you want a maple board) that has a good amount of natural age and wear on it for a lot less than you'd pay for a custom shop guitar.  You might need to try a good few to find one with good wood though.