A bass ends up looking like a "relic" when it's been played so many times that the fretboard has become discolored from decades of pressing the strings against it, the finish has become distressed from years of bumps, drops and arm friction and the chrome has dulled with age. The look is pretty badass, I will admit that, but doesn't taking a shortcut to make a new bass look this way preclude you from aging with the instrument as you would otherwise? Isn't the impatience of taking a belt sander to your bass an admission of your intention not to use the bass long enough to allow it to age on its own? How will a bass that was made to look 35 when it was brand new look years from now? Like the Dead Sea Scrolls with a set of flats on it? Will it be able to last that long?
I am not saying I think that people who 'relic' their instruments are wrong, I am just trying to see if there is general agreement with my point of view, and if not to learn other ones. I see a new bass as a bit of a blank canvas, and look forward to seeing where it is five, ten, or twenty years from now. Though based on what six years of 'natural' aging did to my bass, I think I may have been better off adding a little intentional wear and tear to the thing before I sold it so it didn't look just... "used."
I am not saying I think that people who 'relic' their instruments are wrong, I am just trying to see if there is general agreement with my point of view, and if not to learn other ones. I see a new bass as a bit of a blank canvas, and look forward to seeing where it is five, ten, or twenty years from now. Though based on what six years of 'natural' aging did to my bass, I think I may have been better off adding a little intentional wear and tear to the thing before I sold it so it didn't look just... "used."


