Are "Relics" Folk Art?

[jazzsmith]

The premium for "relic-ing" is for the very simple reason that it takes time and........yes, skill, to do it and do it well. Someone like John Cruz may take as much time to do the finish as he did to build the entire guitar. And time equals money. The argument may be that it is a waste of time AND money, but as someone said, he will never have a '58 LP Standard and if he buys a re-issue he wants it to be different than thousands of other re-issues out there. It all boils down to individual styles, tastes, and desires. Different strokes, etc.

I do agree that the $11.5K Andy Summers Tele at GC is an absurdity, but they also have a relic'd While Falcon for $10K that is just enormously cool. It fooled me until I realized that it was too cheap to be genuine. Somebody is going to look amazing onstage with that guitar.

[beatlefreak]

Oh, wow! $1,500 less - A bargain at !0k! This is ridiculous.

Oh, I just wanted to add, when I started this thread I wanted to also hear people's opinions on "Lennon-ized" Ric 325's. I think its neat that people research the screws, angle of the Bigsby, etc. I think its also neat that there are people out there making reproduction Burns knobs and the rest. Now, what if you wanted your Lennonized 325 not to look like it did when John bought it at that music store in Hamburg? What if you wanted it to look like it did after the grueling 12 hour a day shows and the fights and the beer and the drugs that it's, never too careful with his gear, owner indulged in? Would it then be acceptable to get out the sander?

Sure it would -if that's what I wanted. But I sure as hell wouldn't pay $10,000 (or anywhere close to it) for one.

[jazzsmith]

$1500 less than what? Do you think that you can get an original vintage single cut-away Gretsch White Falcon for anything approaching $10K? I doubt that you could find a single-cut 6120 for that. And who said it was a bargain? It was an American made custom shop guitar. The bright shiny one right next to it was about the same price.

Actually, I have been shopping the 'net for a Bill Nash. Now that's a bargain AND a relic.

[jazzsmith]

Excuse me beatlefreak, I do see what you meant. $1500 less than the Andy Summers. My mistake. Sorry.......

[paologregorio]

All that extra cash spent on a relic will buy lots of booze in a club and over time enable one to reach the state of putting all the dings, dents, scratches, and burn marks in the guitar oneself while stumbling about stages performing live in a near drunken stupor.

[jazzsmith]

Paul - that's the most intelligent thing anyone (especially me) has said in this whole discussion.

Bravo!

[kenposurf]

$1500 less than what? Do you think that you can get an original vintage single cut-away Gretsch White Falcon for anything approaching $10K? I doubt that you could find a single-cut 6120 for that. And who said it was a bargain? It was an American made custom shop guitar. The bright shiny one right next to it was about the same price.

Actually, I have been shopping the 'net for a Bill Nash. Now that's a bargain AND a relic.

I believe John Frusciante paid around 30k for his WF several years ago.
I've owned eight Nash guitars Jeffrey if you need an opinion

[rickenbrother]

All that extra cash spent on a relic will buy lots of booze in a club and over time enable one to reach the state of putting all the dings, dents, scratches, and burn marks in the guitar oneself while stumbling about stages performing live in a near drunken stupor.

[Ric O'Sound]

I don't know if guitars that are made to look distressed are "folk art", but I believe there is an art to achieving the the right "relic" look. A lot of times I can tell whether a guitar has spent years being played in smoke filled bars or whether it's been artificially aged. I've only seen very few examples where the relic-job was really convincing. A lot of attempts at relic-ing are way overdone...the simulation of worn areas on the body just looks like someone took a belt-sander to the paint in a lot of cases. Fingerboard wear (especially on maple) is also diffcult to get looking right. Guitars turn out looking abused rather than having vibe.

If you look at enough relic-ed guitars, you start to notice a sort of pattern...the same techniques employed over and over that yield similar visual results. In reality (as you all know), no two guitars age the same way, even if they're the same model. There are so many variables. There's more of a "randomness" to their look than that of the off-the-shelf relics.

There aren't many people out there that can pull off a convincing relic-job. I admire those that can. There is definitely an art to it. A noted relic-er (is that a word?) once explained: "Understatement is the key. If you step back, look at the guitar and say 'I think it could use maybe a couple more paint chips here and another ding there'...that's the point where you have to just stop and call it finished. You need to exercise restraint. Otherwise things start looking fake".

[drumbob]

The whole concept of paying extra (and lots extra, usually), for an artificially-beat-up instrument, is anthithetical to me. I have always seen it as a cynical marketing effort to pump up profits. Would you pay extra for a dented, trashed trumpet (NOT owned by a celebrity)? How about a messed-up drum set (again, not celeb-owned)? How about a car? A house? We spend lots of disposable income to bring these items back to life.

I don't understand the popularity of this on guitars. The whole "mojo" thing is simply a sales ploy. And, like the lowest-common-denominator marketing that works on a majority of pop-culture iconography, guitars have fallen victim.

Celebrity "replicas" are the worst tip of this iceberg, too. I do wonder if any of these $15K Jeff Beck beaters will ever change hands at investment prices, once the novelty has worn off.

I'll spend my cash on craftsmanship, thanks. Craftsmen are a dying breed--people who will drag a guitar through mud, pee on the chromey bits, and beat the paint with chains, can be found on any corner. Fake mojo=real caca.

It's all about the comfortable way they feel, Paul. You obviously don't get it, but that's OK. Play what you want.

[beatlefreak]

It's all about the comfortable way they feel, Paul. You obviously don't get it, but that's OK. Play what you want.

Old shoes are comfortable - But I'd rather break them in myself rather than have someone else do it.

[jingle_jangle]

The whole concept of paying extra (and lots extra, usually), for an artificially-beat-up instrument, is anthithetical to me. I have always seen it as a cynical marketing effort to pump up profits. Would you pay extra for a dented, trashed trumpet (NOT owned by a celebrity)? How about a messed-up drum set (again, not celeb-owned)? How about a car? A house? We spend lots of disposable income to bring these items back to life.

I don't understand the popularity of this on guitars. The whole "mojo" thing is simply a sales ploy. And, like the lowest-common-denominator marketing that works on a majority of pop-culture iconography, guitars have fallen victim.

Celebrity "replicas" are the worst tip of this iceberg, too. I do wonder if any of these $15K Jeff Beck beaters will ever change hands at investment prices, once the novelty has worn off.

I'll spend my cash on craftsmanship, thanks. Craftsmen are a dying breed--people who will drag a guitar through mud, pee on the chromey bits, and beat the paint with chains, can be found on any corner. Fake mojo=real caca.

It's all about the comfortable way they feel, Paul. You obviously don't get it, but that's OK. Play what you want.

Funny, Bob, that you would say this...I've done a lot of playing, a lot of thinking, and a lot of posting on this topic. My expressions on this topic have been clear. I own a good number of original instruments that I would never try to make perfect or "modernize", going back to a wonderful 1935 KayKraft Venetian acoustic. But to make a new instrument look old, and charge extra for the treatment, is sheer profit-chasing on the part of the manufacturers.

However, I feel less cynical about this than I do about celebrity replicas like the Jeff Beck Esquire and its ilk, with their inflated prices (far beyond intrinsic value) intended to empty the pockets of moneyed starfarkers.

Personally, I think the issue of "comfort" with a relic is an illusion, and highly subjective as such. If the guitar is new, looks old, hasn't been "played (broken) in", how can it objectively be more "comfortable" than a new, non-relicked instrument?

I would hope for some real discussion on this from a usually-thoughtful and well-spoken guy like you; instead I get the impossible-to-reason-with "you don't get it" that one person gives another when patience with the other's obtuseness runs out. Except I haven't been obtuse...

[jingle_jangle]

The whole concept of paying extra (and lots extra, usually), for an artificially-beat-up instrument, is anthithetical to me. I have always seen it as a cynical marketing effort to pump up profits. Would you pay extra for a dented, trashed trumpet (NOT owned by a celebrity)? How about a messed-up drum set (again, not celeb-owned)? How about a car? A house? We spend lots of disposable income to bring these items back to life.

I don't understand the popularity of this on guitars. The whole "mojo" thing is simply a sales ploy. And, like the lowest-common-denominator marketing that works on a majority of pop-culture iconography, guitars have fallen victim.

Celebrity "replicas" are the worst tip of this iceberg, too. I do wonder if any of these $15K Jeff Beck beaters will ever change hands at investment prices, once the novelty has worn off.

I'll spend my cash on craftsmanship, thanks. Craftsmen are a dying breed--people who will drag a guitar through mud, pee on the chromey bits, and beat the paint with chains, can be found on any corner. Fake mojo=real caca.

It's all about the comfortable way they feel, Paul. You obviously don't get it, but that's OK. Play what you want.

Funny, Bob, that you would say this...I've done a lot of playing, a lot of thinking, and a lot of posting on this topic. My expressions on this topic have been clear. I own a good number of original instruments that I would never try to make perfect or "modernize", going back to a wonderful 1935 KayKraft Venetian acoustic. But to make a new instrument look old, and charge extra for the treatment, is sheer profit-chasing on the part of the manufacturers.

However, I feel less cynical about this than I do about celebrity replicas like the Jeff Beck Esquire and its ilk, with their inflated prices (far beyond intrinsic value) intended to empty the pockets of moneyed starfarkers.

Personally, I think the issue of "comfort" with a relic is an illusion, and highly subjective as such. If the guitar is new, looks old, hasn't been "played (broken) in", how can it objectively be more "comfortable" than a new, non-relicked instrument? That feeling (and accompanying conviction that they "feel more comfortable" is a psychological conceit, IMO.

I would hope for some real discussion on this from a usually-thoughtful and well-spoken guy like you; instead I get the impossible-to-reason-with "you don't get it" that one person gives another when patience with the other's obtuseness runs out. Except I haven't been obtuse...

[kiramdear]

I agree that relicking is a selling strategy. By no means would I call it folk art because it's not being done spontaneously by the folks. It's just about having a novel look for one's ax, one of many looks to choose from these days. Call it stage dressing, costuming accessory or movie prop, whatever, it's all show biz to me and that's fine. None of them really feel authentically worn when you play them or really bear close visual scrutiny but from the audience they could look exactly right for a particular group's style.
My feeling is this: I wouldn't pay remarkably more for a relicked finish, but if it was just another option and it appealed to me for whatever need, I wouldn't pass it up. Here's an example: "Joe Strummer sixties' RI Combat Rock Telecaster". Pretty heavy-handed relicking, eh? But, comparably priced with other MIM re-issues (around $700), I wouldn't feel foolish playing it if the rest of my gear was ugly too. It's all just stage candy to me. BTW I played one of these and found it to have the best neck of any Fender in the shop. It wouldn't be my heart's fulfillment to own it but I wouldn't kick it out of bed either.