Reliced/Road Worn - What say you?

Personally, I don´t get it
I'm with you.

It seems to be a way of looking like you have paid your dues, without all that inconvenient work stuff. Like buying painter pants that have been "pre-splattered for that authentic look" :roll:

I would definitely buy a used instrument that shows it's age, but not specifically because it looks like it''s been through a war.
I doubt I'd buy something that was made to look like it's something that it's not. I certainly wouldn't pay extra for the privilege.

i think that's the crux of the issue for me. That icky fake feeling of trying hard to be something it's not.

I don't get it. I like my guitars too look nice. I gig with them, so of course they are going to get worn, but I try to minimize the wear so they last as long as possible and still look good. I wear a mechanic's belt (no buckle) or move the buckle to the left side, I have leather buttons on the jacket I wear on stage, I wax my guitars monthly when changing the strings, and I transport them to the gig in an ATA approved flight case.

To me buying a "road worn" (or should I say factory worn) guitar would be like buying a new car with a dented fender, torn seats, and a worn out headliner.

But to each his/her own. I don't get the skull & crossbones, too pointy, Dean headstock, and no headstock thing either. On the other hand I love those ugly 60s guitars (Italia, Japanese, etc.) with too many switches, metalflake finishes, and MOT pickguards.

But back on topic. If my guitar ever gets worn, it will be worn by me, as slowly as possible.

But some people must like the pre-worn guitars, or else the big companies wouldn't sell them.

Notes ♫

But some people must like the pre-worn guitars, or else the big companies wouldn't sell them.

Notes ♫
I suppose.
Some companies get huge money for selling "distressed" jeans too.
Still doesn't make sense to me...

It's aesthetics but I don't like the forced "worn" look if it wears out from personal use that's OK but buying a "fake" one and paying a premium I don't like it.

I'll personally pay less and beat on the guitar with a bike chain myself if that's the look I'm going for. Either that or just play it till it looks like I've played it.

I do own some pre-worn gutiars. They're called 'vintage' guitars, they aren't new, and that's a good thing!

I've worked through the finish and into the wood on my Birdsong bass, in front of the rear pickup where I anchor my thumb.

You can see similar (but more extreme) wear in the Fender Jaco models, where they accurately re-created Jaco's bass including the thumb groove (more of a chunk!):

While I sorta like the idea that I've got a Jaco groove on my bass, I'm currently in the process of refinishing it and making it pretty again. Mines not so bad that some sandpaper and elbow grease can't make it shiny new again. :note1:

I would not buy a pre-relic instrument, unless I couldn't get its other features elsewhere. The thought of playing a Jaco reissue bass is just silly to me. Now, if it were actually Jaco's ... :wink:

I like heavily worn instruments. But only if I've heavily worn them myself (earned those grooves) or if it is a vintage 62 strat or somesuch that I've been gifted. I wish the latter would happen.

But paying a premium for wear is sucky. It's the guitar equivalent of buying a fake YSL handbag in my opinion. People who want a vintage looking instrument but can't afford one. There's a romance to genuinely worn instruments because there's a story behind them. With relic reissues, the story is one of guitar company marketing and consumer gullibility. Not the best story, then. :roll:

vintage gear can be great.

pre-worn new gear is for posers.

I was at the NAMM show when Fender unveiled their road worn line. When they did, I busted out laughing. My immediate thought was: you expect people to PAY for you beating up their brand new guitars?

As I recall, all the models they showed were north of $2000, and I remember a couple that topped $2500. I remember seeing at least five different models.

Their website now shows just three models, and they all list for $1200. In the same space of time (I think that show was 6-7 years ago) they've raised the prices on most of their guitars. Since they've cut both the price and the size of the road worn line in half, I think the rest of the world has agreed with me - only this line looks like it's not moving.

I don't have a problem with wear on an instrument. A lot of my gear has honest wear. Some of the dings even have interesting stories behind them. But I don't find anything charming about some guy in a factory taking chains and a sander to a perfectly good instrument.

vintage gear can be great.

pre-worn new gear is for posers.

Couldn't put it better than that, so I'm not going to try! There's nothing quite like taking a brand-new guitar home with you - imagine taking a "new" instrument out of its case, showing it to the Mrs. "What d'you think of this?" "Huh, couldn't you have at least got a new one for that price?"

I've seen these pre-worn guitars before - Fender (or possibly, Squier) do an Andy Summers tele, a Joe Strummer tele and a J5 tele. Pointless, IMO. What's wrong with a few honest bumps and scrapes?

What next - the Rory Gallagher distressed Strat? The Rossi Telecaster?

Bah, humbug!

:D :D :D

Vic

<snippage>

I don't have a problem with wear on an instrument. A lot of my gear has honest wear. Some of the dings even have interesting stories behind them. But I don't find anything charming about some guy in a factory taking chains and a sander to a perfectly good instrument.

heh! if some guy actually did this, it would be considered custom work, and the price would be north of $3000. relicing is good, honest, automated machine wear.

I used to coddle my instruments unreasonably, but no longer. I look a chip or abrasion and recall: "yeah! Axl caused that -- when I whacked him to stop that incessant, high-pitched droning."

I agree with the comments about them being poser guitars. Honest wear's OK. I try to take good care of mine, but they'll pick up some "character" inevitably.

And if you want it worn, there's nothing wrong with used gear.

Most of my equipment was bought used- if you check it out carefully, you can get instruments that are 100% as good (in terms of music/playability) as new, for a lot less $$. Cool.

If I get a good price due to nicks in the finish, great. I try not to look at them while I'm playing, anyway. Who cares about the finish?

But paying extra for those dings...to each his or her own. But to me, it's silly.

I don't coddle my instruments. I take them all over the world; travel causes wear, and I travel a lot.

Practice also causes wear, and when I can, I like to practice an awful lot.

If anybody here is dying for a worn instrument, but doesn't want to pay extra- just buy the shiny brand new unworn model. Ship it to me, and I'll ship it to you next year, maybe the year after, with lots of honest, earned playing scars on it!

Anybody?

Ande

Thank you for your opinions - all of you! I agree with what you´re all saying - that "honest" wear and tear might look cool, but the very thought of some Fender-factory-guy beating up the instrument before it is shipped out is ridiculous!

Although, it would be interesting to hear from someone who actually likes the reliced series and can defend the purpose (there must be someone out there?!) I read somewhere that the specs (I think it must have been the pick-up:s) on these models were original "vintage" gear, and that - in combination with the pre-worn "feel" - made these instruments insanely comfortable and good-sounding. Don´t know if that´s true though...

Maybe the fact that everyone seem to agree that a "true" worn look to the guitar can look cool, in combination with the reliced-hype, might cause some people not to look after their instruments as well as they could/should? Just to get that used look sooner than they would have otherwise...