• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Anti-Relicing thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
To me, a "relic" makes no sense.

The condition of tools, instruments and equipment tells you how well the owner has cared for them. Do you think trombone players, cellists or flute players "relic" their instruments? No way - they take meticulous care of them, and although they will acquire a patina of wear over decades of use, there is no value attached to excess wear on those instruments.

It's inconceivable to me that there would be a market for "reliced" orchestral instruments, because there is no false value attached to that wear. When you sell a used instrument, it is most valuable when it is in as close to original condition as possible. To me, electric guitars and basses are EXACTLY the same.

Violin makers have been producing "relic" instruments for hundreds of years. You'll see them in nearly every quality orchestra hidden amongst the occasional "real" Stradavarius. Same with cellos and basses.


Yes, instruments acquire wear after being used constantly over decades. Personally, if that occurred to my instruments, I'd hae them refinished periodically because I like to keep them in great condition. To me, that shows respect for the instrument and reflects its value for me. I know that others who have used an instrument for many years choose not to have it refinished, and that's clearly their decision to make.

That's your opinion, and it is well stated. It is up to the individual who owns the instrument to decide how that wish to treat it or how they wish it to look.



But making a new instrument look beat-up makes absolutely no sense to me. It's fake, it's phony, and those who think it makes them look cool and experienced are deluding themselves.

Again, your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, just as people who like them are entitled to theirs.


There are plenty of people in the world who beat the hell out of their cars, tools, instruments and other belongings. I disapprove of that habit pattern, I am not one of them, and I don't want the visual evidence provided by my instruments to ever put me in that category.

Fair enough


Therefore, although I see the reasons that someone might leave a well-used instrument in the condition it has earned through years of use, I think the concept of reliced guitars makes no sense at all. A relic needs to be refinished to pristine condition before I'd be interested in it...or it would have to be cheap enough that I could buy it and have it refinished. To me a relic is a used car after a front end collision - damaged goods, and worth much less than one in good shape.


Again, your opinion. Of course refinishing a vintage instrument, regardless of how bad condition the original finish is well automatically cut the instruments value in half. No "ifs, ands or buts" there. It's simply a fact.


:)
 
Here is a question from someone, me, who is unbiased. What about people who inherit an instrument from say their uncle. Bass is all beat up, "reliced", before they get it. Does that make the person getting the bass a fake because they did not put the wear on it themselves. Are they not trying to be cool with a wicked old bass?

If you like it or not, it's become a trend that people find attractive. I mean, does everyone keep thier first bass for it to get all smashed up? No, they don't. Maybe it's a way of paying tribute to the days of old? Who are we to judge people's motives?

IMO, YMMV, Relicing is a way for people to make a statement about their dedication to bass playing. Kind of the way some bands act all street tough like they live in the streets but in reality they live in mansions. I view it in the same way as putting a sticker on you instrument. It's a way of expressing yourself.

For the record, I am not going out to buy or beat up my bass intentionally and with basses no longer using Nitro finish, its going to take a long time for my bass to be a "relic".

I happen to be one those hand me down people. And i have stated my case earlier as have others. A vintage guitar has the sound of worn in wood that can only be had by aging. Relics just look like them on the outside but lack the true guts on the inside.
 
I happen to be one those hand me down people. And i have stated my case earlier as have others. A vintage guitar has the sound of worn in wood that can only be had by aging. Relics just look like them on the outside but lack the true guts on the inside.




I'll quote myself here, since you seem to have missed the post :



I do have some vintage guitars, and the best way to put it is that they feel worn in, and have their own distinct sound. The relics may look like relic's, but they lack that sound that a guitar can only have after years of playing.

Now you know that's not true, you're simply trying to justify your earlier statement. Vintage guitars can sound terrible, just like a new one can. Every instrument is different. I've played relics that smoke 90% of vintage instruments.


They look good on the outside but lack the brains on the inside so to speak

Proof please ?

Typically most "quality" guitar body/neck builders dry their bodies to about 6% or less, pretty much the equivalent of what you'd have with a vintage instrument.

Pickup magnets are easy to age so that they have slightly weakened pull, or you can use a "naturally weaker" magnet.

Vintage pickups were not wound as "exact science", so they vary greatly, just like a typical scatterwound pickup will today.

Nitrocellulose lacquer ? Easy to apply. Funny thing that most people don't realize about their vintage Fenders is that from about 63 on they had a polyester based coating (Fullerplast) applied over the wood to help make finishing easier. This pretty much invalidates a lot of the arguments about "vintage guitars wood "breathes" because of nitro lacquer", however, as I mentioned you can easily just shoot nitro on the wood.

Fender typically used the least expensive parts they could in manufacture, I.E. thinnest and cheapest available metal to make a bridge, simple threaded rods for the saddle, etc. This is simple to replicate.

Bone nut ? OK. Easy enough.

So what does that leave ? Pots, capacitor, wire - all easily copied, including the taper on the pots if you so desire.
 
I happen to be one those hand me down people. And i have stated my case earlier as have others. A vintage guitar has the sound of worn in wood that can only be had by aging. Relics just look like them on the outside but lack the true guts on the inside.
There is very little evidence that a vintage guitar sounds different from a new guitar simply because its been around longer. The aging of the pickups will obviously change the sound, but merely "old wood" doesn't necessarily sound different than an identical piece of new wood. Of course, "vintage" guitar prices often fool people into thinking there is a difference because you gotta be paying for something, right? ;)
 
There is very little evidence that a vintage guitar sounds different from a new guitar simply because its been around longer. The aging of the pickups will obviously change the sound, but merely "old wood" doesn't necessarily sound different than an identical piece of new wood. Of course, "vintage" guitar prices often fool people into thinking there is a difference because you gotta be paying for something, right? ;)


Really? Id look into that. wood changes over time. and that does affect tone.
 
Really? Id look into that. wood changes over time. and that does affect tone.
As I said, there is very little evidence. Do you have some?

Edit: Lets play a game. Let's assume you are right that wood tone changes with age. Here are a few things to think about?

1. Is it the fact that the wood is simply older that makes the tone change?
- If so, then what would sound better, a 60's bass made from wood cut in the 1950's or a 00's bass made from wood cut in the 1900's? The newer bass has older wood in it.

2. Is it the fact that the wood is part of an instrument that is played that changes the tone?
- If so, then what would sound better, a 60's instrument that was barely every played and when it was it got beaten up and looks "vintage" or a 00's instrument that has spent years being toured but "babied" and has many more playing hours on it than the 60's bass?

3. Why would the change in tone necessarily be more desirable? TOne changing isn't necessarily a good thing. If I crank the treble on my MTD all the way up, the tone changes, but not to a way I like. Therefore why would the change in tone in wood necessarily improve the sound of my instrument?
 
An easy way to get a natural relic is to shell out for a nitro finished bass and never keep it in the hard case.

I have a 4 year old bass that looks 30-40 years old because it is nitro, got thrown around a lot, and played every day. This results is some dings, chips, belt wear, and arm wear.

That said...she is now kept in a hard case or on a stand.
 
...I think something that today's instruments offer is a level of consistency in quality and fit that is higher than their older counterparts. I mean, take a poll on neck joints from Fenders during that time period.

+1

Amen

For me, it's about the look, the feel, and the tone. If I can get that from a reliced fiesta red, tort guard, rosewood board, 1.62" at the nut P bass strung with TI flats...you'd better believe I'll get it.

I hope you are describing the next Road Worn model :hyper: -- but let me make that 1.75 at the nut! :hyper:


Say this really fast:


Rosewood Road Worn P-basses!
Rosewood Road Worn P-basses!
Rosewood Road Worn P-basses!

:D :D :D
 
I've been trying to think of other items that people relic, and unless it's done for reasons of fooling experts, I can only think of clothes.
Now wearing a pair of reliced jeans IS faking it - it's saying I wear jeans so much that they've just faded like this, and got holes in the knee. Especially if it's some guy who normally wears suits and ties - he's trying to put across an image that's false; it's not much better than those stick-on moustaches and sideburns that straights could buy in the hippy days for the weekend, so that girls might think they were cool, and didn't work in an office.
If you purposely damage an instrument you might be doing it to try and increase the dickhead vintage value, or you might be like the guy who normally wears suits - "Hey, I play my bass so much, it's worn like this man"
Of course, if you inherit a genuine worn-in bass, or buy one, you've bought a BASS - not a look or an image. It just happens to look like that. Of course if you buy it BECAUSE it looks like that, you're a faker, unless you just like smashed up stuff, and also own a damaged car, a camera with scratches all over it, and a girlfriend with a broken nose.
(Oh my God - I said "own a girlfriend" - now I'm reallyf*ck*d!
 
Really? Id look into that. wood changes over time. and that does affect tone.


Keep in mind that these all involve violins, where quality of wood is incredibly important -


https://www.fiddleforum.com/fiddleforum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=10550.0

Title: Re: Tone wood age at time of construction vs. total age of instrument
Post by: neil on July 14, 2005, 05:33:58 PM
I was originally taught that the older the wood the better, when I worked with Roger Hargrave in Germany we fairly regularly used wood well over a Hundred years old that he had bought from the Hills.
Having built over seventy instruments in the time I worked with Roger with a variety of wood from the very old hill wood, through to wood which was cut just a few years earlier I have completely revised my opinions concerning the best type of wood to use. I far prefer using relatively fresh wood, not only does it work/cut far cleaner but the resulting instruments sound is indistinguishable from those built with old wood and you are not paying the misguided premium for old wood.


Title: Re: Tone wood age at time of construction vs. total age of instrument
Post by: neil on July 14, 2005, 10:21:40 AM
I know this may go against a lot of traditional thinking but I’ve never understood the theory that old wood sounds better.
Certainly from my own experience from having used both fresh wood and also extremely old tone wood, I find that as long as the wood’s moisture content is stable and the tensions that are inevitably found in large lumps of wood have been released, the actual age of the wood is completely irrelevant and plays no part at all in the sound quality (or quantity for that matter) in the instrument built from that wood.


From -

Invalid Link Removed


How do violins change with playing and environmental changes over time?​

Do playing, ageing and/or environmental changes affect violins?

Whether it is a product of the passage of time, the exposure to the atmosphere and its variations, or the amount of playing, many violinists believe that oldies are goodies, and spurn inexperienced instruments.

When Michael Lea, curator of music at the Powerhouse Museum, wanted to buy for the museum's collection an instrument by renowned maker Harry Vatiliotis, and when simultaneously Sydney musician Romano Crivici commissioned an instrument from the same maker, an opportunity arose to examine these questions. Harry has a reputation for making fine instruments, and for making them reproducibly.

This project began in 2001, when he made two very similar instruments from wooden plates, seasoned for 80 years, that had originally been intended to make a cello. Thus the bellies came from adjacent areas of the same slab of spruce, and both backs came from the same sample of maple. During and after construction, they were subjected to acoustical tests by Ra Inta, PhD student in the Acoustics Lab at UNSW and, when finished, to playing and listening tests. Since then, one has been maintained in controlled, museum conditions. It is only occasionally played. Meanwhile, the other belongs to Romano and is his usual instrument for performance and practice.

We can imagine several ways in which age and playing might affect violins. * Evolution of adjustable components. Players change various components and properties, such as the size and style of bridge, the type of string and the position and other properties of the sound-post. In each case, the player is likely to reverse the change unless it is perceived to improve the instrument. Thus a played violin might gradually 'evolve' towards a preferred region in its possible parameter space.

There may also be another 'selection pressure': instruments that are unsatisfactory and that cannot be thus improved will usually have a lower market value and be played by less experienced players. Instruments that acquire a better reputation and market value will in general be sought and played by more experienced players. These improvements will occur independently of any change in the intrinsic mechanical properties of the instrument. * Age-related mechanical changes. The intrinsic mechanical properties could change with age or with exposure to different environments and their daily and seasonal variations.

For example, woods used in string instruments often have a high ratio of elastic modulus to density, and drying of wood over time would lower the density. However, there is no simple reason to expect that age-related changes in general would necessarily improve an instrument. * Playing-related mechanical changes. Components of a violin undergo considerable low-amplitude, mechanical vibration during playing. In principle, one could imagine that this might alter the intrinsic mechanical properties.

There is usually a strong correlation between the age of an instrument and the total amount of playing it has had. Again, there is again no simple reason to suggest that these changes will improve the instrument. (One might however argue that mechanisms that produce mechanical loss could be affected by sufficiently vigorous excitation.)

It is difficult to study the effects of ageing and playing on violins. Time is notoriously difficult to control as a variable, particularly in the decreasing direction. The museum offers advantages for such a study: a high quality instrument is maintained under controlled conditions. And museums are good at maintaining material and documents for long periods. Hence this study.

So, how have the Powerhouse Twins diverged over time? Three tests have now been conducted. The instruments were compared when new, after 3 years (in 2004) and then four days later, after the regularly played instrument, and not the other, had been adjusted during a session involving the owner and the maker. During this session, new strings and bridge were fitted, and minor adjustments were made to the soundpost.

The first good news for the study came at the first set of trials. The panels of experienced violinists who performed the playing and listening tests on the new instruments gave results that showed no statistically significant differences. Harry really can make two very similar instruments! Another interesting result is that, in both of the further two tests, the panels of experienced violinists, who played the instruments blindfolded, or who listened to them, also gave results that were not significantly different. The playing and listening panels were players who had not previously played or heard these instruments.

What of someone who is very familiar with one of the violins? (Strangers may not be able to identify identical twins, but their parents often can.) In a separate, blindfold, playing trial conducted after the last comparison experiment, Romano Crivici, the owner of the played violin, was asked to play a scale and a short piece on the instruments as they were presented to him in random order, and to identify each instrument by saying "mine" or "museum's". He was correct in 20 out of 24 trials, which is significant at the 99% level. It is not known to what extent he may have used tactile cues. (The varnish of the regularly played instrument shows signs of wear.) The expert panel give the two instruments statistically similar ratings and even Romano cannot distinguish them with certainty. Three years of playing (and three years of exposure to constant vs varying environmental conditions) is not enough, it seems, to make a substantial difference. Three years is not considered a long time for an instrument of which there are examples still being played after hundreds of years. The investigators hope that this study will continue, with this pair of instruments, for a time comparable with the age of these older violins. More detail is available on the scientific report to be published by Acoustics Australia in the April 2005 edition.

Contacts regarding this project:

Ra Inta, PhD student who worked on this project. 61-2-6268 8637 or 61-2-62464392
Michael Lea, curator of music at the Powerhouse Museum. 61-2-92170572
Romano Crivici, violinist, and owner of one of the 'Powerhouse Twins' 61-2-95593161. Sydney is UT + 10 hours



From -

Invalid Link Removed

Wood: Just the Right Piece

The wood I use comes from only a few small areas of the world, has been carefully chosen and cut, and then sorted an culled, sorted and culled, until what I begin to make a violin with is literally a one-in-a-million piece of wood.

Wood Loft There is much myth and lore about the secrets of the wood used in the great old Italian instruments. There are the “ponding” myths: that is, soaking the wood in various substances such as sheep dung, urine, or saltwater. There is the story that that great Venetian instruments were carved from the oars of the Venetian galleys. There is harvesting lore, saying that the woodcutter walked through the forest hitting the trees with his axe, cutting down the ones that rang the most musically. When these explanations of the greatness of those old makers fail us, and don’t hold up to scrutiny, we resort to throwing up our hands and saying, “the wood was just different back then.”

Over the last half-century, all of these stories and ideas have been researched, experimented with, and scientifically analyzed. They have been found to have no substance by the majority of the world’s makers, researchers, and violin experts. In fact, through the fairly recent science of dendrochronology (a study of tree rings), it has been discovered that many of the greatest old Italian instruments were made with very freshly cut wood — the same year as they were made — and manifestly not treated in any way.

What these great makers had were not secrets or tricks, but a deep knowledge of wood, a generation-after-generation empirical experience of wood in all its subtlety and variation, and an ability to see with all their senses and pick just the right piece for the task at hand.

When my wood dealer pulls up to my studio in his van full of wood, I know I am in for a long day of hard choices, sorting through every piece of wood, looking for that perfect diamond in a field of lesser gems I am looking for lightness with strength, good grain orientation, and character, color, feel, sparkle, and life. Good wood is very expensive; deciding whether to buy a piece or let it go can be agonizing. But eventually I make my wood choices and carry the newly purchased wood up the ladder to my wood loft, leaving it to slowly age and await its day of transformation.

Wood for violin, viola, and cello tops is always spruce, and nearly always two pieces, having a glue joint down the center. The wood comes out of the tree in a split wedge, rather like a piece of firewood.

Spruce wedge This wedge is then cut down the middle, opened up like a book, and glued. The resulting top is therefore “quartered,” meaning the wood grains are perpendicular to the plane of the ribs. This is the strongest and most stable orientation. It is also “book-matched,” meaning it is more or less symmetrical from side to side.

Two-piece top Most back wood is maple, using having “flames” or figure of some kind. This figure is the result of the wavy way the split often grows in maple, with a resulting difference in light refraction, so that the flames flicker and change as you move the wood. Other kinds of wood can be used for the back, such as poplar or willow. These are used more often on violas, cellos, and basses, as these woods usually result in a darker, mellower, “woodier” sound. Also, the wood for the backs can be two-piece quartered, like the top, or one piece of wood, either quartered or cut on the “slab.”

One-piece top A one-piece quartered back has the same vertical grain orientation as a two-piece back, but comes from a large enough tree that one wedge piece will be wide enough for the entire back. A one-piece slab back is “slabbed” through the log, just like most boards that come from the lumberyard. A slab back, all other things equal, tends to produce a deeper, rounder, less “edgy” sound. This again works well for violas and cellos. But many great-sounding violins have also been made from the slab maple. However, slab backs tend to be not as stable as quartered backs, and over time usually exhibit more movement. I have seen 300-year-old slab backs that have a bulge the size and shape of a potato in the sound post area.

Slab back When the time comes to being a new violin, viola, or cello, my first decision is usually my most difficult decision: what wood I will use for the particular instrument. All subsequent actions arise from, and are dependent on, that initial choice. I am usually building an instrument to order for someone. The player and I have already gone through a process of playing and listening to a number of instruments, to determine the tonal and playing characteristics of the violin, viola, or cello I will be making for them. Those tonal and playing characteristics depend to a significant degree on the wood I will use to make the instrument. I will spend many hours sorting through the wood in my loft, examining, testing, judging. I am looking for the best possible combination of maple and spruce that will result in an instrument the player dreams of. Sometimes the choice is apparent from the start: there is both a top and back that say, loud and clear, “I’m the one.” But usually there are a number of pieces that all have the “right stuff,” and choosing between them is very hard. In that case, I take them all down from the loft and set them up around the shop, where I can see and handle them as I go about my work. Eventually, consciously and unconsciously, the choice comes to me. I feel in my gut and think in my head, “Yes, it will be this piece of spruce and that piece of maple.” Then the choice has finally been made. I smile, pick up my plane, and begin.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
I do am splitted I think.

Because, when i buy a new pair of jeans, I found them all ugly because they are too much new. So, When I have new jeans I usually wear them more and do skate, biking and other sports that i can fall on the ground and eat dust.

Why? You will say, because I love old looking jeans, and i'll not pay 50$ more for a Pre-vintaged jeans.

When I'll buy a new bass, I'll do the same thing. I'll play it more. I'll play it outside and carry it without the case when it's raining outside because I am too lazy to go get the case. I'll play it in like there is no tommorow. And when and only when I'll like the finish I have on it. I'll take care of it.

If what I do is not relicing. I wonder what is it.
 
Copying the Stradivarius and other Italian makers (Amati, etc) mostly. Players want the look, feel, and sound of an old violin - including many concert players - so makers have been providing them almost as long as there has been violins.

+1 to you sir.

An obvious question.

Are those guy posers because they have fake old instruments?

My answer hell no, they like the feel of it.
 
Players want the look, feel, and sound of an old violin

So, I guess the same would apply for relic basses.

Especially the "Players want the look and feel" part since, as you say, all basses sound different.

Would sanding or steel wooling the back of a neck of a new bass to remove the shine or maybe even to the bare wood so it feels broken-in be considered relic-ing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.