Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Some (most) of those relic finishes in the link look TERRIBLE. Like someone attacked a perfectly fine bass with a small pick axe all around the body. A relic instrument is not so evenly "chipped"... they are worn.

I understand the draw of old looking instruments... it makes it look like the instrument has way more "gigging musicians cred". To look that beat up it must have been played a lot and been through a lot. The stories behind an instument's dings and dents is what gives it "mojo"... not the dings themselves.

Buy a new bass and play it... give it some real mojo yourself I say.

Another gimmick... very common in amps.

Ever notice that guitar amps are always flashier looking than comparative bass amps? Different colored tweed/tolex, grill covers... vintage reissues. Guitar heads are even worse with all their chrome, metal-ish names, and fancy logos.

Bass amps tend to be black with a metal grill... nothing fancy, just robust. The most flash in a bass amp I have seen is Hartkey's aluminum drivers, markbase's yellow, and ashdown's blue drivers.

Ilan, you just talked me out of the vintage market with one brilliant comment, the goo factor.

Yikes! I'm out!

"A converter comb, if it is what I think it is, seems to me to be an incredibly practical feature, and therefore, the opposite of a gimmick. It's like calling a Hipshot drop-tuner a gimmick. "

Not having played a comb equipped 12 string, I can see how it can be percieved as a gimmicky feature.

Didn't fender experiment with injecting dyes into trees and then making instruments out of them in the 80's? No wonder my history of the Fender Bass book makes like the 80's never happened.

Oh yeah, the Wildwood Coronados. They were ugly with a capital UG.

Well it just goes to show, I LOVED most of the basses in Ilan's link (where was that from I wonder?). Sure they're maybe not the real thing, but I just think they look cool. And it would take years and years of playing to get a new instrument looking like that. But I repeat, I don't really like how new instruments look, particularly Fenders (although it does depend on the instrument; a Pedulla MVP for instance is beautiful when pristine IMHO). And I'm afraid that the look of a bass is what inspires me to pick it up more than anything else; in fact that's the main reason I love Ricks. That they play and sound great is a big bonus, but if I thought they looked bad I wouldn't play them if they were the best basses in the world...just call me shallow I guess!

I was under the impression that a gimmick was a feature or quality of a product that looks cool/gets people to notice but is, in actuality, pretty much useless.

That statement about sums up the converter combs for me and many others too. Notice how they always pop up on ebay with the combs missing? Well, there's good reasons for that - they knocked your guitar hopelessly out of tune, and who would want to get a 6 string sound but still have to deal with all 12 strings?

The duct tape finish guitars I've seen in Musician's Friend (ESP?) are a horrible gimmick.

Any B.C. Rich body shape.

But the worst gimmick of all must be 'relic' guitars. Horrible ****, that. Possibly the worst of the lot being the SRV strat. *blech*

If it makes you happy.............. go for it.

The duct tape guitar was an Ibanez, the Noodles signtaure (Guitarist from The Offspring).

A guy walked into a bar to play bass with my friend's blues band. He was carrying a fender bass. It was in about a "9" condition, looking very good. I could tell that bass had something, some cool or mojo. So I asked him what year. It was a '62. I don't think dents and dings give a guitar mojo. Sometimes a guitar gives off mojo!

Those dents and dings are badges of honor (sometimes!) -but I agree with Jerry, mojo is something different.

Old Jazzmasters with the finish worn to bits can be things of beauty. Old Rics with their maple hearts turned golden exhibit splendor.

New guitars made to look old are as absurd as the purposely-shredded, damaged, and otherwise compromised blue jeans of the 80s. And they share the same future: a silly footnote in the tome of popular culture. In my patrician opinion .

I'm with you on that, Noel!

Not to mention the fact that the artificially aged guitars look artificially aged. Too many holes & dents & no smooth transitions due to wear.
It looks more like abuse & neglect (which it is) than age.
And besides, why pay more for someone else to do it. If that's what you want, then buy the guitar & do it yourself!
Or better yet, just play the heck out of it.

I like Jerry's story. I always personally get off more on a guitar that has been kept well and has aged gracefully with natural signs of aging, an old guitar that you can tell is an old guitar only when you look at and see all the subtle marks of time - marks honestly earned on an instrument that has been obviously cared for and respected.

Deliberate "aging" is just shallow and pretentious, IMHO.