Trying to Explain Relicing

Voxman

Bridgehouse said:

I dunno, my wife got it straight away when I used the words "shabby chic"...

Yup, my wife would immediately get that comparison too! 

Fretwired

I remember in the late 1960s buying Levis jeans and then trying to make them look worn ... some people do the same with wooden furniture ... make it look well used.

ftumch

Its this

http://i.imgur.com/1WEJmi6.jpg

Vs this

http://i.imgur.com/LoXAW08.jpg

You either get it or you dont. Or rather you either like it or your wrong.
Your cliff or your keith
Your non fat soya latte or your moonshine
Your 3po or your r2

scrumhalf

Easy to explain.

"Some people will buy anything. Some people will buy anything that looks like something valuable but isn't itself."

jeztone2

Yeah it's like distressed denim. My wife gets it. She's quite funny with the guitar gear. We saw a documentary on Elbow touring one Xmas on Sky & she said "why does their guitarist need all that gear, it's all strings & keyboard sounds?"

ICBM

Danny1969 said:

I got no problem with it except they always go overboard ... guitars gig'ed for 30 odd years don't suffer half the damage the relic'ers inflict on a guitar.
It's the falseness that bothers me as it stands out a mile ... you would have to be a real guitar hating sadist to do that to a guitar in everyday use

You'd have to hit it randomly but perfectly evenly all over with exactly the same object too. You'd think that after a while it would make sense to keep the object well away from your guitar…

The other real oddity is that fake wear is worth more than genuine wear. A reissue guitar that was bought in normal new condition, gigged heavily and generally beaten-up by actual use is worth about half what a 'relic' is worth, even secondhand - yet the wear is genuine. WTF?

This seems to apply to jeans as well… no-one wants a genuinely worn-out pair with holes in the knee, but they'll pay extra for a new pair with deliberately-made holes.

The world is strange place.

fields5069

Surely it's the same as reproduction furniture, whether antiqued or "closet classic".

streethawk

Danny1969 said:

I got no problem with it except they always go overboard ... guitars gig'ed for 30 odd years don't suffer half the damage the relic'ers inflict on a guitar.
It's the falseness that bothers me as it stands out a mile ... you would have to be a real guitar hating sadist to do that to a guitar in everyday use

There's all types of relicing, starting with the closet classic vibe all the way up to the Rory Gallagher look.

If Fender had started in the 70's - with their more durable finishes, and Gibson only used chrome parts - which don't patina much, the relic scene would be a lot more subdued. 

I do wonder whether the whole shabby chic, ripped jeans and relic guitars thing is in part a reaction to the technological age. Not all that different to Hip Hop artists sampling jazz records or female recording artists still trying to sound like Billie Holiday. 

FenderBender

Bridgehouse said:

I dunno, my wife got it straight away when I used the words "shabby chic"...

Ha, now that is brilliant. Reminds me of a quote my wife told me that Steven Tyler apparently made:
"You'd be surprised how expensive it costs to look this cheap"

Bridgehouse

FenderBender said:

Bridgehouse said:

I dunno, my wife got it straight away when I used the words "shabby chic"...

Ha, now that is brilliant. Reminds me of a quote my wife told me that Steven Tyler apparently made:
"You'd be surprised how expensive it costs to look this cheap"

That's the one. I'm amazed how much furniture costs that has been 'reclaimed'

ICBM

FenderBender said:

Bridgehouse said:

I dunno, my wife got it straight away when I used the words "shabby chic"...

Ha, now that is brilliant. Reminds me of a quote my wife told me that Steven Tyler apparently made:
"You'd be surprised how expensive it costs to look this cheap"

It wasn't Steven Tyler… or not unless he was quoting Dolly Parton .

Dominic

I'm the only bloody relic in my house

Van_Hayden

Late 90s Irish Bar..... that usually sums it up. 

Sassafras

The looks I get all seem to say "You stupid clumsy ham-fisted bastard, can't you even look after your own property better than that? You're a moron, get out of my sight and never darken my doorstep again".

Skipped

I don't think you can explain it (to your workmates).
I can't even explain people who like relics but are skeptical about old guitars.

A relic is an attempt to recreate a feeling.  Unless you have, at some point, picked up a vintage guitar that was worn smooth in every possible way, and liked it a lot, I can't see how a relic would have any point for you.
A good relic is a pretend vintage guitar.
That cannot be an insult on my part as I completely get it,  and I am tempted by at least half of the Fender relics that are shown on this forum.

Nick

"Old guitars are really popular"

"These are made to feel and look like old guitars"

cbakay

There's been so much SRV concert DVDs on my TV when friends have been around that my relic strat looks right to them. 

Personally, I see perfection in imperfection, i.e. a good relic (natural or factory relic). Likewise perfection in perfection, i.e. a nice shiny NOS...but never in between.

paul_c2

Am I muddled - isn't relicing an attempt to recreate an exact point in time, of an exact guitar played by some or other famous person.......so the scratches are from his particular brand of buckle which holds his trousers up; the marks are in a scientifically reproduced to within 0.1mm position, etc etc. Meaning that, if you subsequently scratch a relic'd guitar, it is no longer "authentic" and loses a ton of value upon receiving its first post-production blemish?

tone1

I still can't explain this.....
http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag391/tonysmyth1/Mobile Uploads/75217226-142E-4B70-88F2-C851FDC200E2_zpspbbqsyit.jpg

WezV

paul_c2 said:

Am I muddled - isn't relicing an attempt to recreate an exact point in time, of an exact guitar played by some or other famous person.......so the scratches are from his particular brand of buckle which holds his trousers up; the marks are in a scientifically reproduced to within 0.1mm position, etc etc. Meaning that, if you subsequently scratch a relic'd guitar, it is no longer "authentic" and loses a ton of value upon receiving its first post-production blemish?

That's a sub category of relic.  

You can make a guitar look old without copying specific wear and it still counts as a relic 

you can age age a new guitar design so it looks authenticity 50's and it's still a relic finish even though it never existed originally.