Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

OMG Duncan - that BG Ric is BEAUTIFUL!!! Even with the mojo... damn I love BG.

Relicked?

jingle_jangle wrote:Relicked?

Give it up, Paul....

I'm personally not a huge fan of the "reliced" look. I fully understand that if you've had an instrument for 20 or 30 years, and every scratch, dent, and missing patch of paint represents a gig, (or a lesson involving cheap guitar stands and alcohol,) the damaged finish has special meaning. However I don't understand the modern trend that instruments with finish damage are somehow more desirable that clean ones.

I think that perhaps it's a generational thing. I spent my formative years as a musician before the whole vintage guitar/collecting thing grew into the monster it has become today. Back in the early 70's, a beat up instrument was just that - one worth less than the same thing with a good finish, or a good refinish. Then, as we boomers aged, guitar collecting grew into a big deal, and rules of thumb like "refinish = 40% drop in value" started to circulate. It was around that time (with no disrespect to those who like a worn look) that a fetishism began that has culminated with guitar manufacturers trying to make new instruments that look thay have been dragged behind a pickup truck, and asking a premium for this feature.

By example, I have seen a new Fender custom shop Telecaster on which a Fender employee had carefully placed a cigarette burn on the "aged amber" laquer of the headstock, presumably to simulate someone sticking a lit cigarette on a string end, then forgetting it. Now, this happens, (or at least it used to before everyone quit smoking,) but if anyone had said to me 30 years ago "I've got this great Tele to sell, and I'm going to charge extra for the increased mojo created when I accidently burned the headstock" or "the laquer on this guitar has crazed really bady, consequently I'll get a premium price" I would have doubted their sanity.

I am glad to note that Rickenbacker have not sucummbed to this sillyness, and the is no "road worn" or "VOS" or "distressed" series of Ricks.

mhalstead wrote:I'm personally not a huge fan of the "reliced" look.

It's bad enough when the lice show up the first time, but the second time, too?

jingle_jangle wrote:It's bad enough when the lice show up the first time, but the second time, too?

Humm... so

RELICKED - to lick something again after it has previously been licked ("I relicked the popsicle")

RELICED - to apply lice after lice have previously been applied, or to discover that lice have returned by a non natural process ( "I carefully reliced the mattress" or "I was dismayed to find that the mattress had been reliced")


So what's the correct term for the application of a process to give a finish the appearance of being a relic? Possibly "I relicked the finish again and again until the paint stated to come off on my tongue" or "I reliced the finish repeatedly until the lice finally started to break down the laquer?"

johnallg wrote:

libratune wrote:Here's a nicely worn-in 4000: http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... hp?id=8478

2-3.jpg

4-5.jpg

You just know that is a killer bass because of all the honest wear on it. She has been PLAYED.

Agree John...That's a bass drippin' with the old Mo-Jo!

wints wrote:

johnallg wrote:

libratune wrote:Here's a nicely worn-in 4000: http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... hp?id=8478

2-3.jpg

4-5.jpg

You just know that is a killer bass because of all the honest wear on it. She has been PLAYED.

Agree John...That's a bass drippin' with the old Mo-Jo!

You just know that bass wouldn't have wear like that unless it was a joy to play.

What it straight up comes down to is if a guitar maker can make a buck, on a feature that they think they can sell to the buying public they will. If you buy a brand spanking new guitar that looks 30 years old, and it is exactly the same as a new similar model and you paid more for it, then I hope it sounds better that a nice shinny new one. If not you have an old looking guitar you paid more for and no stories to tell about it, and you got what you paid for.

doctorwho wrote:On the other hand, although I don't really like the wear on my RM3261 bass, its uniqueness edges it into the 'leave the relic alone' category.

P5040497.JPG

P5040490.JPG

RM3261FG-1.jpg

Barely my dream bass mate..

What year is it?

YZZ wrote:... Barely my dream bass mate..

What year is it?

1967 (GE date code, May 1967).

I think "relic'd" is best.

Relic'd guitars are the equivalent of extremely phony people.

doctorwho wrote:

YZZ wrote:... Barely my dream bass mate..

What year is it?

1967 (GE date code, May 1967).

Amazing.
You must be a happy man Gary!

It's such a lovely bass.
When you sell it you know where to go