I thought I was anti-relic until I traded my Ric for a '62 reissue P with a relic job by Phil Jones, master luthier of the Gibson custom shop from the mid 80s through the 90s. It looks sweet and the neck is an absolute dream to play!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Anti-Relicing thread
- Thread starter emor
- Start date
- Status
So guys, in all seriousness, let me ask you this -
Is someone buying a relic really any different than them buying a vintage bass that is scarred up ? (other than saving lots of $$$). I mean, it seems like the main "criteria" for most anti-relic people is that they didn't put the "scars" on themselves, they bought the instrument "already beat up".
Is the guy who buys a bass like this looked on as "ok"-
------ but the guy who buys one like this is thought of as a "cheater ? -
I mean, either way the guy didn't put the time in to put those marks on the bass by playing it himself. Either way it was someone else's hard work that made the bass look that way.
I'm seriously curious as to your thoughts.
Is someone buying a relic really any different than them buying a vintage bass that is scarred up ? (other than saving lots of $$$). I mean, it seems like the main "criteria" for most anti-relic people is that they didn't put the "scars" on themselves, they bought the instrument "already beat up".
Is the guy who buys a bass like this looked on as "ok"-
------ but the guy who buys one like this is thought of as a "cheater ? -
I mean, either way the guy didn't put the time in to put those marks on the bass by playing it himself. Either way it was someone else's hard work that made the bass look that way.
I'm seriously curious as to your thoughts.
I think it's a matter of taste, but to my taste? I've owned a few beautiful firearms with gorgeous figured wood stocks. I had many fond memories with some, and the sight of the guns reminded me of those hunts. At no point did I want a scratch or blemish on one of those beautiful guns to signify a memory. I refinished some because of it. Don't know; different culture, but seems similar to me.
Meh its just a type of finish. Its no different for buying a 60's surf colour guitar for a 60's surf bad or a pointy guitar for a metal band. Hell, people wear tuxedos on wedding gigs, is that faking it because you don't wear them in real life. I am not a huge fan of relicing basses myself, but I have yet to hear an intelligent argument from the anti-relic crowd against it unless someone is trying to pass off a relic'd bass as a fake vintage insutrment for profit.
PS.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Is that "faking it" too?
PS.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Is that "faking it" too?
So guys, in all seriousness, let me ask you this -
Is someone buying a relic really any different than them buying a vintage bass that is scarred up ? (other than saving lots of $$$). I mean, it seems like the main "criteria" for most anti-relic people is that they didn't put the "scars" on themselves, they bought the instrument "already beat up".
Is the guy who buys a bass like this looked on as "ok"-
------ but the guy who buys one like this is thought of as a "cheater ? -
I mean, either way the guy didn't put the time in to put those marks on the bass by playing it himself. Either way it was someone else's hard work that made the bass look that way.
I'm seriously curious as to your thoughts.
It depends on why they're buying it. If they're buying it because they love the sound of an old Fender, and are indifferent to the finish, then whatever it's up to them. If they're buying it so they can look cool and act like they did that themselves, then that's lame. In my opinion. I would rather have a vintage P in perfect condition than one that's been beat up.
Then that begs the question, what if the guy buys a "relic" because it happens to be the BEST sounding instrument available ?
I've played lots of relics that were FAR better sounding than the vast majority of their "vintage" counterparts.
I'm not convinced you get the point some are making here( or you may just be ignoring it?).
As to the ritter... what should be fake about that apart from it reminding some of carl thompsons work with an 2interesting" finnish and likelly a huge price tag.
A pointy/surfy/whatever guitar is in no way similar to a relic'd guitar. Relic'ing is more than a look, it's a way to try and fake something that only years of playing can bring. And as for the Ritter, I have no idea what kind of point or comparison you are trying to make. How does that strange, but completely original finish apply to a thread about the validity of taking a belt-sander to an instrument for the sake of looking cool?
Is anyone FORCED against their will to buy or play a CAR bass?? A 3 Tone T Burst?? Relicing is a finish, nothing more. I think 3T T burst and tort pickguards are ug........er.................. "not attractive"but I don't start a campaign against them.
You obviously don't feel that strongly about 3T burst. And the OP DOES feel strongly ebough about beating up basses for looks to start a DICUSSION about it. I'm sure the "campaign" is a joke. Noone is storming the Fender factory. It's just annoying enough to some of us to want to talk about it. Cheers.
And the relic thing is dumb IMO. I don't hate it so much for the damage to besses. It's just plain FAKE, pure and simple. A real vintage bass that has stood up to years of being played is a gem. To me, a relic bass is costume jewelry. It's made to LOOK as though you are wearing a 45 karat emerald, when it's really a hunk of glass.
No. The owner decides on whether or not they think it gives the bass mojo. Your or my opinion is irrelevant. Its just another finish option.
Nope, its just another finish option. Some my say why put a solid finish on a perfectly nice piece of wood that a natural finish or oil finish would better suit.
Nope.
I agree.
You're making assumptions about relicing. To me. Its jsut a look. Sounds like you have a problem and not the people who *might* be buying reliced instruments because of why you *assume* they are buying them. That's kinda backwards IMO.
As for the Ritter, its intentionally finished to look like it has an "aged plaster" finish that would only occur from years of natural wear on a plaster finish. Its just as artificially reliced as any other guitar thats finish has been artificialy aged.
Well, I'd be OK with that. But, why does it need to be a relic and not just a vintage-styled bass? What's the point of going to/paying for all that effort if you're indifferent to the look?
Why get a vintage styled bass at all, isn't that just copying the look of an outdated body deisng? There are plenty of modern body designs available.
So by automatically dissing people because they have "relics", you're automatically assuming that you know their reasoning for buying them, since buying one for its' sound would be "ok" according to you.
Why ? You're aware that all basses sound different, some better than others. Perhaps the relic sounds better than any of the others.
If you're asking why "any" bass would be made as a relic, well that's easy - supply and demand. If there wasn't a huge market for relic instruments, people wouldn't make them.
Are you aware that violin makers have been producing "relic" instruments for hundreds of years ?
Again, if it is the best sounding instrument, the way it looks shouldn't matter. That's your own words.
What he said ....
For the people who think a thread like this should be banned: ...... isn't discussing things & giving opinions the whole point of a forum like this?
People are going to disagree ... I think beating up new bass is demented but I would never try to get the subject banned.
Buy & play what feels good & sounds good. Some relics will have that mojo that typical new off-the-rack instruments will have.
I bought mine new in 2002. I just play it, and baby it after every session. It'll get there, and it still looks good.
Whatever.
I bought mine new in 2002. I just play it, and baby it after every session. It'll get there, and it still looks good.
Whatever.
So again, since it is the "sound" of the instrument that matters to you, then by dissing relic owners (and their guitars) you are "assuming" that they all bought their instruments based solely on the instruments finish. In fact, many relic owners actually prefer the way their basses "feel" and "sound" as compared to their counterparts.
I've played a lot of horrible playing and sounding "exc condition" vintage instruments, and a lot of amazing sounding and feeling relics (and vice versa). The fact is that a great instrument is a great instrument, regardless of how it is painted.
Hey, I'm "anti-closed-minded-traditionalists". Maybe I should start a thread and complain about them.
Ah heck, I'll just leave this here:
THIS THREAD HAS BOTH
Ah heck, I'll just leave this here:
THIS THREAD HAS BOTH
- Status
