CONCLUSION
The often-divisive issue of relicing always makes for a lively debate – we extend the discussion to Guitarist readers to see what gives…
Ever since Relic guitars made their debut, we’ve received a steady stream of letters about them at Guitarist: some rants, others more akin to love letters. Whatever else aged guitars might be, you’re not indifferent to them. We certainly still get our share of mail from those who will never be reconciled to the idea. Lately, though, it feels like there’s been a bit of a shift as more players get to grips with the idea that the visual look of aged guitars is only part of the subtle charms of what they offer. Indeed, looks may ultimately be less significant than the general feel and played-in vibe of nicely aged guitars, which invites you to pick them up and play them rather than reverently gaze at them in their cases.
By way of a quick temperaturetake, we contacted a few readers to see where they were at with the whole relicing thing, 25 years on from its mainstream debut. The results of that informal poll, while hardly scientific, were still revealing.
Reader Mike Goode got to the heart of the matter when he commented, “I’ve always liked guitars that have a bit of character about them. Pristine finishes are a turn-off for me, especially anything high-gloss or with a bit of bling. That said, I do find the whole relicing thing a bit strange. I much prefer a guitar to have genuine wear and tear. As you play it, you sense its history and it speaks to you, allowing you to open a dialogue with it. Is that daft? For me, when you play a brand-new guitar, it just doesn’t have the same vibe. It seems soulless.
“I guess the big question is whether I’d consider buying a ‘new’ reliced guitar,” he continued. “Once upon a time I would have laughed at the notion of someone doing a ‘Lovejoy’ on a new guitar. And there’s a big part of me that still thinks it’s cheating. However, I’m currently on the lookout for an early 60s Strat. Sadly, there’s no way I could justify paying for an original, so I’ve recently been in touch with Welsh luthier Jeff Beer to make me something. And do you know what, I’m not averse to Jeff giving it some character – some light scratches, dings and so on. Have I just contradicted myself?!”
Reader David Leask concurs that attitudes, including his own, are shifting with regards to relics. He adds, however, that the devil is in the detail – and can make or break an aged instrument’s desirability: “There’s something about a reliced guitar that just adds a cool vibe,” David argued. “But it has to be done just right and give an ‘authentic’ look, like Eastman does, for example. A few years ago, an old beaten-up guitar would have been advertised as ‘needs a refinish’, but these days with vintage guitars selling for
a premium, guitarists who don’t have deep pockets can get the ‘mojo’ of the vintage look on a more reasonable budget. In my opinion, relicing suits some guitars more than others – a PRS would just look wrong, where Teles, Strats, Les Pauls and 335s are fair game. It’s part of the scene now. Love it or hate it, we guitarists are spoiled for choice.”
Fellow reader Barry Waples, took a more sceptical line that some readers might relate to: “I fail to see the point of relicing a new guitar of standard specification, whether that be by giving it a severe thrashing with a belt-buckle or towing behind a fast-moving vehicle (road worn!). The exception might be replicas of significant unobtainable instruments,” he reflected. Certainly the latter is well represented in Fender and Gibson’s Custom Shops, with Gibson’s Collector’s Choice series going so far as to closely replicate particularly nice original ’Bursts and the like or guitars that have been played by notable musicians. We’ll leave it to subscriber Nigel
Whiting, however, to offer the last word from the gallery: “Okay, I’ll admit it. I was once a rabid antirelicer. After all, why would you pay a fortune for a guitar that looks like it’s been run over by a truck? However, as I’ve got older – and become more reliced myself – I’ve started to appreciate the look of a well-used cherished instrument. For me, the finish of choice would be NOS (New Old Stock), a slight flat sheen on both the finish and metal parts. I still wince at a Heavy Relic style of finish, but does it really matter? Becoming one with the instrument and getting out there and delivering a good gig is after all what it’s all about.”
We’d certainly agree with Nigel’s sentiment. For what it’s worth, the majority of Guitarist staffers’ personal tastes lie with the lighter grades of ageing, such as Fender’s Journeyman or Gibson’s VOS treatments. These somehow do the job of making the guitar feel at home in your arms without shouting ‘relic’ as the heavier types of ageing do. But you won’t find many who totally dismiss Heavy Relics, either, because sometimes, on the right guitar, it just works. Music making is basically an emotional and creative process, so if that bit of ageing makes you enjoy playing the guitar more, we can’t see the harm in it. And, actually, that phenomenon may be why skilfully aged guitars from makers that are barely 20 years old still feel cool and relevant.
Makers don’t always get it right, to be sure. Gripes that may be justified are by-the-numbers ageing where two guitars off the same line look to be aged in almost identical ways. It’s acceptable perhaps in the more affordable grades of aged finish, where you can hardly expect hand-crafted uniqueness, less so in guitars costing upwards of £3k. Also, over-the-top or crude attempts to simulate forearm or pick wear can sometimes raise a grimace, looking more like a slip with an angle grinder than gentle natural wear. That said, when we played the gorgeous ’59 Strat that once belonged to the late Jeff Pumfrett of World Guitars, we all remarked on how strangely artificial its genuine forearm wear looked. So sometimes vintage truth is even stranger than relic fiction.
“Why would you pay a fortune for a guitar that looks like it’s been run over by a truck?”