FS Fender Jason Smith Masterbuild Shell Pink '56 Strat and Fender Custom Shop 1954 Telecaster SOLD

adampeter

First Up,
Dead mint (well as mint as a relic can be  )
7lb 4oz
Soft v '56 neck, 
£5000

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0dcsilc0dwgun8m/AAAgdVQqv_xZ8j24XxCGvArEa?dl=0


Fender Custom Shop 1954 Telecaster Blonde Relic 2018, Handwound PUPs, lovely neck, see shop traveller for all info
£2750 SOLD
By way of update/disclaimer.
THIS GUITAR IS NOT MINT-DEFINITELY HAS SOME SIGNS OF PLAYWEAR-AS DETAILED BELOW
The guitar is described as relic on the COA/Traveller, i would suggest it is at the heavier end of that spectrum.
It seems this guitars previous owner plus admin on the site have be concerned that the amount of "FACTORY DAMAGE" this guitar displays now may differ from the amount of "FACTORY DAMAGE" it left the factory with.
The pictures listed are a mixture of both those i managed to save from the original Fretboard advert i purchased the guitar from which was circa 2 years ago, and those i have taken myself plus a recent video detailing it as closely as possible.
As i do not have pictures of it as it left the makers workbench when brand new i cannot confirm if all marks are factory and which are player wear and tear.
 After studying both earlier and later pictures there are some marks on the back upper bout that are more recent wear and tear/damage/relic (delete as you see fit), 
I have highlighted these on a picture which is within the dropbox link.
I have also uploaded additional pictures of all areas of relic on the guitar.
This guitar will only be sold collected.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/m7xc718z0bibnc3/AACnxWQVDGeTZh7HVSXrpMsra?dl=0







Mint 2020 PRS McCarty 594 Hollowbody II in McCarty Sunburst, light as a feather, less than 7lb, surprised its not a 10 top, not a mark or blemish, as new
£3000   SOLD


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3rampn4kwmwl28e/AAB2XHPqipOWqZqLvqvdRKsfa?dl=0

Trelf1980

God that's gorgeous 

adampeter

Another guitar added

adampeter

Bosh

adampeter

Bosh with another guitar added

adampeter

ttt

fretfinder

Lovely looking CS 54 Tele. What’s the condition like, any wear and tear that isn’t part of the Custom Shop relicing?

adampeter

fretfinder said:

Lovely looking CS 54 Tele. What’s the condition like, any wear and tear that isn’t part of the Custom Shop relicing?

Hasn't been gigged, and hasn't been abused, but pretty heavy relic so wear and tear is hard to call mate, check the pics

chris78

Could you add some photos of the sides of the guitar? They don’t seem to be in the pics

adampeter

chris78 said:

Could you add some photos of the sides of the guitar? They don’t seem to be in the pics

yeah i will update the link when i get a chance

chris78

Thanks
Tag me in when you do. It’s a really nice spec but any buyer is going to want to check all the condition from all angles on an expensive guitar as I’m sure you’d understand. Saves hassle for everyone if the condition is fully understood.

digitalscream

adampeter said:

It seems this guitars previous owner plus admin on the site may be concerned that the amount of "relic" this guitar displays now may differ from the amount of "relic" it left the factory with.
The pictures listed are a mixture of both those from the original Fretboard advert i purchased the guitar from which was circa 2 years ago, and those i have taken myself plus a recent video detailing it as closely as possible.
As i do not have pictures of it as it left the makers workbench i cannot confirm if all marks are factory and which are player wear and tear.

This is patently not true. The photos you've published show the back of the guitar both with and without the damage.

And...you told me you didn't have the original advert's photos to compare, yet they are right there in your Dropbox link.

adampeter

digitalscream said:

adampeter said:

It seems this guitars previous owner plus admin on the site may be concerned that the amount of "relic" this guitar displays now may differ from the amount of "relic" it left the factory with.
The pictures listed are a mixture of both those from the original Fretboard advert i purchased the guitar from which was circa 2 years ago, and those i have taken myself plus a recent video detailing it as closely as possible.
As i do not have pictures of it as it left the makers workbench i cannot confirm if all marks are factory and which are player wear and tear.

This is patently not true. The photos you've published show the back of the guitar both with and without the damage.

What's not true Lee?, i haven't got pictures of it as it left the makers bench, only what the previous owner has given me.
and i said i didn't have access to the original listing pictures as its been deleted, 

digitalscream

adampeter said:

digitalscream said:

adampeter said:

It seems this guitars previous owner plus admin on the site may be concerned that the amount of "relic" this guitar displays now may differ from the amount of "relic" it left the factory with.
The pictures listed are a mixture of both those from the original Fretboard advert i purchased the guitar from which was circa 2 years ago, and those i have taken myself plus a recent video detailing it as closely as possible.
As i do not have pictures of it as it left the makers workbench i cannot confirm if all marks are factory and which are player wear and tear.

This is patently not true. The photos you've published show the back of the guitar both with and without the damage.

What's not true Lee?, i haven't got pictures of it as it left the makers bench, only what the previous owner has given me.

You can confirm if all marks are factory, since you've published photos both with and without the damage. How did that damage appear on the guitar, if all of those photos were taken since it left the factory?

adampeter

digitalscream said:

adampeter said:

digitalscream said:

adampeter said:

It seems this guitars previous owner plus admin on the site may be concerned that the amount of "relic" this guitar displays now may differ from the amount of "relic" it left the factory with.
The pictures listed are a mixture of both those from the original Fretboard advert i purchased the guitar from which was circa 2 years ago, and those i have taken myself plus a recent video detailing it as closely as possible.
As i do not have pictures of it as it left the makers workbench i cannot confirm if all marks are factory and which are player wear and tear.

This is patently not true. The photos you've published show the back of the guitar both with and without the damage.

What's not true Lee?, i haven't got pictures of it as it left the makers bench, only what the previous owner has given me.

You can confirm if all marks are factory, since you've published photos both with and without the damage. How did that damage appear on the guitar, if all of those photos were taken since it left the factory?

How? i haven't owed it from new, it was 2 years old when i got it, only the maker can claim that, i can only highlight what has changed in those pictures i have, cant you be reasonable, jez

digitalscream

adampeter said:

digitalscream said:

adampeter said:

digitalscream said:

adampeter said:

It seems this guitars previous owner plus admin on the site may be concerned that the amount of "relic" this guitar displays now may differ from the amount of "relic" it left the factory with.
The pictures listed are a mixture of both those from the original Fretboard advert i purchased the guitar from which was circa 2 years ago, and those i have taken myself plus a recent video detailing it as closely as possible.
As i do not have pictures of it as it left the makers workbench i cannot confirm if all marks are factory and which are player wear and tear.

This is patently not true. The photos you've published show the back of the guitar both with and without the damage.

What's not true Lee?, i haven't got pictures of it as it left the makers bench, only what the previous owner has given me.

You can confirm if all marks are factory, since you've published photos both with and without the damage. How did that damage appear on the guitar, if all of those photos were taken since it left the factory?

How? i haven't owed it from new, it was 2 years old when i got it, only the maker can claim that, i can only highlight what has changed in those pictures i have, cant you be reasonable, jez

I was talking specifically about the damage that was in dispute. Nobody was concerned about the amount of "relic". That part isn't "relic", the guitar is damaged.

adampeter

digitalscream said:

adampeter said:

digitalscream said:

adampeter said:

digitalscream said:

adampeter said:

It seems this guitars previous owner plus admin on the site may be concerned that the amount of "relic" this guitar displays now may differ from the amount of "relic" it left the factory with.
The pictures listed are a mixture of both those from the original Fretboard advert i purchased the guitar from which was circa 2 years ago, and those i have taken myself plus a recent video detailing it as closely as possible.
As i do not have pictures of it as it left the makers workbench i cannot confirm if all marks are factory and which are player wear and tear.

This is patently not true. The photos you've published show the back of the guitar both with and without the damage.

What's not true Lee?, i haven't got pictures of it as it left the makers bench, only what the previous owner has given me.

You can confirm if all marks are factory, since you've published photos both with and without the damage. How did that damage appear on the guitar, if all of those photos were taken since it left the factory?

How? i haven't owed it from new, it was 2 years old when i got it, only the maker can claim that, i can only highlight what has changed in those pictures i have, cant you be reasonable, jez

I was talking specifically about the damage that was in dispute. Nobody was concerned about the amount of "relic". That part isn't "relic", the guitar is damaged.

What is untrue about what I have said?I have specifically drawn attention to, highlighted, photographed, videoed, FFS
Shall I employ a film crew and commission a documentary on the teles life and times?
be a great Netflix night in
I assume anyone following this thread will get the idea this isn’t a mint tele, but just in case

the telecaster is NOT mint

JGC

It's NOT mint, it's a heavy relic, so if it's gained some extra scars I can't see the issue personally ..... it's lovely and I'd certainly be interested if I didn't already have my Tele base coverered...best of luck with the sale

chris78

@JGC ;
Really interesting one. The custom shop have bashed up a guitar that they made which makes it more valuable than a nos guitar, certainly in their pricing. 

The guitar *appears* to have acquired additional damage from when it left the custom shop factory with its factory dings. 

Does that make it worth less? More? The same? Is artificial wear more valuable than real wear?

I think the issue though was a feeling that the additional damage was originally being concealed which means a buyer couldn’t make an informed decision. Anyone now buying though will have the opportunity to view the guitar and make their own decision about whether or to buy it, having been made aware of the additional damage since it was new.

JGC

@chris78 ;; I find the whole relic business an interesting one. Like you say a factory relic guitar comes at a premium and the shops happily stock them because they appeal to customers, in general, and yet if you took a s/h strat in with some natural wear and tear / dings they would offer you less for it .... bit of a stupid conundrum if you ask me.

In the case of that guitar it's so heavily reliced that some extra wear and tear doesn't really mean anything ( to me at least ), but I see your point, although if no one had access to before and after pictures would anyone be the wiser ?

lovestrat74

Is "damage" the correct term to use on a relic guitar? Just looks like more paint wear to me. Maybe a closer/better pic would allow potential buyers to come to their own conclusions .. 

EDIT:- Bloody lovely guitar btw