Are "Relics" Folk Art?

[kenposurf]

Nash makes excellent guitars and they're still reasonably priced, usually at around $1200-$1500 (is that right, George?). Paul's issue is with Fender's exorbitant pricing of relics, especially the celebrity ones.

The same Andy Summers Tele has been sitting at Manhattan GC for nearly two years, and I have a feeling it'll be there for a very long time at nearly $15,000.

Yep..that's the price range John...the two Nash guitars I have were made several years ago when Bill would do custom orders so I gave him my specs and off we went..My Surfcaster (Strat) is non relic-ed ..unusual for a Nash guitar..
Yes, Jeffrey, Paul and I may be in the same band but if we agreed on everything it would'nt be as much fun

[jps]

[paologregorio]

The whole concept of paying extra (and lots extra, usually), for an artificially-beat-up instrument, is anthithetical to me....

Likewise!!

How about a messed-up drum set (again, not celeb-owned)?

Keith Moon Smothers Brothers TV show replics relic drum set... Unplayable and twice the price.

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.

Ditto that!!! Here here!!!

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.

Again, likewise, ditto that, here here!!! Well said PW!!!

[beatlefreak]

Some people just have more money than sense.

[freshmattyp]

And some people have different opinions about what looks good. It has nothing to do with money or sense. Me, personally, I would not pony up the bucks for a C series reissure. They don't do much for me.

I was the owner of a Cunetto Telecaster, one of the early ones, and it was a superior instrument in every respect. The thing I loved most about that guitar was that it felt broken in from the day I got it. It's one of the ones I regret selling, and I would get another one if the chance presented itself. I have seen some really awful attempts at relicing, and some that are just dead on. I like to think of it as just another finish option, like furniture. YMMV

[BlueAngel]

What I find completely stupid is that if you buy a NEW 'relic' guitar it costs MORE than the same model without the damage... but if you try to sell a used, genuinely-worn example of the same model that left the factory in un-relic'ed pristine condition, it's worth LESS even than it was new.

So fake wear and tear is more valuable than real wear and tear.

Surely if it was the actual wear itself that was desirable, then a used, genuinely worn example should also be worth more... but noooooo, wear is only valuable if it was deliberately added by the maker's custom shop or some other 'artist'.

[paologregorio]

I like my new guitars to look new. Come to think of it, when I buy a used guitar, I like it to look as new as possible as well, however old it is. I don't understand the appeal of relicizing/distressing a brand new guitar to make it look old (faux mojo?)-why not just play it hard, it'll get that way on its own-relicizing a guitar is an extreme form of instant gratification

I actually feel a bit sad about the wear I've put into some of my most played guitars over the years. I'll probably even have them refinished eventually (oh the horror! ) ; When I bought my `62 BMW motorcycle, I made sure it ran, rode it around, and disassembled it and painted it as soon as I had the chance. When I bought my `64 BSA Lightning Rocket motorcycle, I did the same thing. I'll eventually do the same thing to the Triumph I bought. If I were to buy a new, retro styled Triumph, I wouldn't walk around it and chip the paint, put dents in the pipes, crack the headlamp lens, or pour pool acid on the chrome to make it rust, in order to make it look like an old one. similarly, I fail to see the appeal of this process on guitars.

I remember the first Fender Relics I saw on the wall at a local music store ten years or so ago, complete with cigarette burns on the headstock(hey, instant Keith or Ron!); My thoughts were that they were for yuppies with more money than sense who wanted to buy faux mojo, and a temporary , silly gimmick. Much to my surprise, it's become a popular styling exercise (?). To each one's own though; if it makes one happy to have a relic, buy it. The prices some some of these things fetch is a bit obscene IMHO, but if people want to spend their money that way, it's their choice.

My and other opinions aside, whether or not the relicized/distressed finish process for guitars falls under folk art might be best answered by quoting the Encarta Dictionary definition of folk art:

"folk art (noun)
Definition:
naive style of art: paintings and decorative objects made in a naive style"

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/folk%2520art.html

[doctorwho]

... get away from my guitar with that sander

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've said that ...

[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.

To my eye the relic works on a Fender style but not on any other guitar...I dunno maybe I'm a victim of marketing but my Nash relics just look cool that way..if I saw an other brand in that condition I would value it less...maybe like beat up Levis are cool but not a pair of dress slacks?

George, you are NOT a "marketing" victim. You have an affinity for Nash builds and I have nothing negative to say about them, as they are reasonably-priced. Nobody sold you on the concept and your talent laughs in the face of fake mojo marketing hype.

I still stand by my respect for high craft, and I know you respect it, too. I suppose I make the mistake of lumping all relic owners into a group; then again, that's what Fender marketing does, too...

BlueAngel is making some very valid and well-put points.

[collin]

See, that to me looks/feels infinitely cooler than the same guitar in Mint condition. I like a naturally worn vintage guitar because it has character or personality. As Samuel L. Jackson once said, "Personality goes a long way"

I have seen very very few relics that realistically created the illusion of a worn vintage guitar, except from about ten feet away. I have a relic '59 Les Paul that does the job nicely, but the relic jobs coming out of the Fender custom shop are rubbish. I actually went in there, talking to the guy responsible for relicing the SRV tribute Strats (I was working for a company that made the Flight Cases for the Custom shop), and it was pretty cool to see, but not worth the insane money. The same goes for their "standard" relics, where it's such a production line, every guitar the same shape scratch in the same spot etc.....thereby defeating the idea of character.

People my age can barely touch real vintage guitars, especially Strats LP and some Rics....I'm never gonna own a real '59 Les Paul, so I'm more than happy to accept what is (to me) the next best thing- a guitar that feels old, looks old, and sounds right, plus doesn't look like the other 100,000 identical LP's out there.
As stated before though- this should not cost more money than a perfectly fine guitar.

[jazzsmith]

As the story goes, Keith Richard was worried about taking his beloved, but getting worn out, vintage guitars on the road. So he went to the Fender Custom Shop and asked them to do exact replicas for touring. Thus, the Relic was born. It is ironic that dead mint vintage guitars go for bigger bucks than road warriors, yet one has to pay a premium to have a new guitar beat up for you. Of course, I avoid those dead mint vintage pieces because they often are just that - dead! There generally is a reason that a 45 year old guitar looks like new - it sounded like **** so somebody stuck it in the closet. There are exceptions. I have a great sounding/playing '62 Gretsch Country Club that looks mint. I know it was played because the frets are worn. My guess is, it was owned by a jazz player who probably played it on his lap while wearing a tuxedo, wiped it off carefully after the gig, and tucked it safely away until next time.

Of course, the real benefit of owning a Relic is that you don't have to worry about dinging it up. I briefly had a Strat Relic (black, gold hardware, maple neck - try finding that in a genuine vintage). I enjoyed it until I found something I wanted more (yes,.... a genuine vintage. This time a '68 Tele). I traded it in at the store where I bought it and the owner looked it over to see if it was in the same condition as when I bought it. He got a quizzical look on his face, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "How would I know?".

[jazzsmith]

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? Has anyone done this?

Paul was correct to point out that folk art is by definition naive and often crude, but then there is also Shaker furniture which generally gets grouped in and it is elegant and refined. I was thinking about the faux antique stools and end tables that my mother made in the '50's.

Hey Paul, do you still have your BMW? My first bike was a '65 R50. The engine was so smooth you could kick start it with your hand!

[deaconblues]

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? Has anyone done this?

I have seen it. Someone reliced their 325v59 to look just like Lennon's, including the crack on the PG and the rust on the middle pickup. Looked pretty cool - everyone else in the world keeps 325s as pristine as possible.

I'm on the fence about relics...on the one hand, I'll never own the '57 Strat at my local Guitar Center, and it would be cool to have something with that visual mojo. But on the other, I once had a conversation with an employee at the same store that went something like this:

Me: "So, uhh, why do you keep these relics behind glass? Worried they're going to get even more dents and scratches than they already have?"

GC: *Long pause* "Well, they're worth alot of money, dude."

[paologregorio]

Hey Paul, do you still have your BMW? My first bike was a '65 R50. The engine was so smooth you could kick start it with your hand!

Cool! Yes, I still have my BMW, and my BSA, and the Tirumph (in pieces at the moment). It would be equally or even more difficult for me to sell a motorcycle that it would one of my guitars.

[antipodean]

What I find completely stupid is that if you buy a NEW 'relic' guitar it costs MORE than the same model without the damage... but if you try to sell a used, genuinely-worn example of the same model that left the factory in un-relic'ed pristine condition, it's worth LESS even than it was new.

So fake wear and tear is more valuable than real wear and tear.

Surely if it was the actual wear itself that was desirable, then a used, genuinely worn example should also be worth more... but noooooo, wear is only valuable if it was deliberately added by the maker's custom shop or some other 'artist'.

It's even more ironic when you consider that a "mint" condition authentic vintage instrument (not a reissue) is worth way more than a battered one, assuming away quality control issues (yes, some '59 LPs may actually suck and have been built that way!) and celebrity association. So less "real" wear is better on a real vintage instrument, but more "fake" wear is better on a reissue..... I can understand that there is a certain amount of appeal in a worn instrument, and that real vintage instruments are out of reach for most of us, but the premium for distressed finishes is over the top.