Relicing, An Art?...or Just Trashing Your Guitar

[cole]

From searching a lot of forums and seeing many posts I've noticed there is a lot of controversy over relicing ones guitar. I can see the side of not wanting to trash a nice new finish, but I myself am a large advocate for relicing. I've been restoring vintage guitars for many years and this is originally where relicing came into mind. The owners didn't always want the "fresh off the factory line" look so they request it to look 50 years old. Eventually people started wanting new guitars to look 50 years old because of the hefty price tag a original guitar will run and if AND THATS A BIG IF you could get your hands on a original guitar most would be hesitant to take it out of its case let alone play it.

The problem comes in when people take a belt sander to a guitar and call it a SRV replica and put a huge price tag on it, to me that’s bogus. I've been making replica vintage guitars for people for some time now and it is completely an art because I take everything into consideration when aging a guitar. I don’t finish a guitar and than take a screwdriver to it, or sand down the contour and call it arm wear. That’s where relicing the "art" is separated from just trashing your guitar.

I say if your wanting the vintage look and feel go for it, but don’t forget that its not all random dings. Look at some pics of real vintage guitars, replicate what you see and remember anything involving the making of a guitar is an art from the design all the way to the finish.

[Mattia]

It's artful, yes, but it's also artificial. I like old, beaten up guitars. I don't much like new guitars that look like old, beaten up guitars. They haven't earned it. The patina's not real, it doesn't feel 'right'. As a repair technique, it's kosher, since you want to blend in the repair with the rest of the instrument (in guitar repair, anyway; completely opposite ethos in the restoration of real historic instruments, like Strads and the like, where the repair should be visible and obvious), but on a new instrument, no thanks.

[cole]

I hear ya, but look at it this way. What was your first guitar, a Squire or some other imitation guitar. I know for me it wasn't the Strat I wanted, but thats what was affordable. The same goes for a replica of a vintage guitar, its not the original...its a imitation, one we can afford.

[Xanthus]

I've basically got the same feeling towards relic'd guitars as I do towards jeans that come made with rips and patches in them, for the same reason as above: they haven't earned it. If a guitar has been with you long enough to get relic'd on its own, then it's part of you. Every ding, scrape, rash on the guitar has a story behind it. Not so with a new guitar that you took a sandblaster and a cheese grater to. Same thing with ripped up old pants. Each tear and patch has a story to tell. It means much more to the person wearing it than someone who went down to Hollister and grabbed a pair off the rack.

[Mattia]

See, I've never really had that fetishistic love affair with any guitar. Any time I see a guitar I really admire, I shamelessly file away what I like about it for to include it in one of my own future buids. My GAS goes out to tools, wood, hardware, inlay materials, more wood, some tools, and some more wood. Not really instruments I want to replicate.

The closest I'm getting is making a strat, this time the way I wanted it originally; a natural finish Swamp Ash/rosewood board strat. But I ain't relicing it, using an exact Fender headstock copy, or buying a Fender strat (which I can afford). Heck, it's even got some mods from the original (ie, different strap location, ferrules instead of a neck plate, and it won't have 2 tone controls), but the essence is there. Just...modified.

[weaponepsilon]

I have an old Arbor neck through bass that has seen better day. the finish on the body is all knicked and chipped. I looked at it initially and put refinishing down as part of its work to be done. But the more I looked at it, the more I was like, "wow, this adds character." In all the ax mags i've read, most of the nonsales content where a particular artist was shown, they were always holding the most beat up guitar they own. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.

[ToneMonkey]

I see relicing as just another type of finish. Obviously I prefer if a guitar has earn't it. I have a reverse firebird copy that's all bettered and I love it, I was going to refinish it, but I thought that it adds to the life of the guitar.

I can see where the feelings that it's fake come from, but if that was the case, we should be dubious about vaneers too.

[Mattia]

I am dubious about veneers. Never saw the point of .6mm of flame maple on a guitar top. Unless they're sandwiched as accent lines, they don't belong on geetars

Drop top or bust, minimum.

[biliousfrog]

I need to be careful here as I've just made a very "fake" guitar. The difference between mine & a relic'd Strat or Tele is that I made a unique, original guitar & incorporated the wear & tear as part of the design just like a Trussart Steelcaster. I can't help but see relic'd guitars as fake guitars, kinda like a Fiat Punto with bodykit & air intake on the bonnet or a knock-off Rolex. You might do a brilliant job of making a fake relic & you might fool everyone that sees it but you'll always know that you've created a fake & I imagine that when you tell someone that it's not really a 60's strat the most common response will be "why?". I can understand why Fender are using thin finishes on some of their guitars & why others use them also but there's a big difference with wearing through a finish quickly from natural wear & attacking a brand new guitar that hasn't been played.

[Liko]

The aged look (a furniture maker might call it "distressed") does appeal to me, but I agree that a guitar and its player should earn it. Though I like the brand new nitro finish on my new Highway-1, I bought it because not only does it look vintage now (I dropped a vintage white pearl pickguard and black covers/knobs on it; ), it will look more so in 5 years, 10 years, and on and on.

[erikbojerik]

I may be in the minority here, but I can definitely appreciate the work that goes into a good relic job. And what I consider a "good relic job" I basically mean the ability to imitate the checking that you see in vintage instruments finished in thin nitro, and the fading of sunbursts, wearing of metal and plastic parts, etc. That is no small nut to crack (pun intended). I've held and played some really amazing 50s and 60s vintage guitars that sounded great, and that I could only afford if I didn't need to feed a family first. At the same time, I got into building to customize my scale length and string spacing around my own hands & fingers, so if I want an instrument with something close to that vintage vibe, that I can play to the best of my abilities, it'll have to be a relic job.

Example: one of these days, I'll make a Tele. It'll be one-piece swamp ash, transparent butterscotch, bakelite guard, vintage pups, pots & caps....as exact as i can get it to a looking like a 1950 Broadcaster that's been played every day for 57 years. Except for the the 16" radius and the 1-3/4" nut string spacing.

[Guitar WIll]

It's all a matter of opinium. It's like saying a black guitar is better than a red guitar. It doesn't matter and as long as it is done well then it's up to the person who plays/owns it. At the end of the day it really is an artwork in doing it but people who dislike reliced guitars don't buy them.