To be worn or not to be worn

[TTA]

Your statement made me laugh… So a brand new finish makes you worry about getting dings and scratches on it so your answer is to buy one that’s ready dinged and scratched up?

It makes sense. The first ding is always the worst! And it takes a lot of wear before it goes from “devalued” to “wow this bass has history and mojo”

A road worn bass “in mint condition” is funny though. I think if i had a road warn bass i would try to be a bit more rough with it.. just cause i am so careful with everything else.

 

[Fernando Costa]

An old instrument, used, worn, with the marks of its own history has its charm, of course, and I have nothing against anyone who tries to simulate it. I prefer new instruments, I like to keep them looking fresh. It's wrong to worry about it too much.

 

[bobyoung53]

That took some work. Poly is tough. Kinda what I meant that they dont wear the same or at the same rate.

Oh yeah, I've seen a few old Poly finishes but nothing like this, it was his only bass for most of that time i think. He's one of the best fretless players I've ever seen.

 

[jd56hawk]

LOL so it’s elitist or “country club” to think that buying a bass at brand new price that someone scratched the crap out of at the factory is completely insane?

So because they actually use good finishes now that last forever and don’t wear out that’s why you have to buy a road worn so it looks worn out like the old ones did even though it’s not an actual authentic vintage bass?
Fender should call them their
Fake Vintage Series

Did I say that?
Let me check.
No, I didn't.

 

[Fun Size Nick]

 

[Grinderman]

That's nothing...


Road worn!

That's awesome. Very '90s, Lee Ronaldo.

 

[bobyoung53]

i wven went through my own “worn is cool”. My 71 ric 4001 has some natural wear and scuffs.

clean is always a good look! always will be.

The tough one is the bass with 2-3 dings. No longer clean… not worn enough to be cool.

I bought an early 90's jetglo 4003 some years ago as a beater bass, it looked like someone had thrown it around without a case for a while but it was a great sounding and playing bass, wish I never sold it.

 

[Grinderman]

I reckon the Mods are probably on their way by about now.

 

[bobyoung53]

It makes sense. The first ding is always the worst!

The first ding is the deepest.
Baby, I know, the first ding is the deepest

 

[bobyoung53]

I reckon the Mods probably on their way by about now.

I was just thinking the same thing

 

[Mosfed]

The neck on my roadworn Jazz is absolutely amazing. I did have the body refinished in nitro with some very light finish checking as I didn’t love the factory Fender wear. They are amazing instruments

 

[whero]

If I buy a bass that's 5, 10, 20 (whatever) years old, I expect it to have a little wear and tear on it. The odd dent or scratch, maybe a a bit of paint gone where an arm has rubbed over the top, maybe a bit of buckle rash on the back, etc. If it's an instrument I'm interested in, it wouldn't worry me too much. But I just don't get why I would want a brand new bass that has been intentionally "damaged" by the manufacturer.

Would I buy a new car, and wait for some guy on the shop floor to put a big scratch down one side and a couple of dents in the door to give it some "road wear", maybe because Paul Walker drove one that looked like that in some Fast and Furious film? No. And if I bought a new bass online and it arrived with one big chip in the lower bout where it fell off a rack, I wouldn't accept the manufacturer telling me it was "slightly road worn".

Jaco's old Jazz and Sting's old Precision are special because Jaco and Sting own(ed) them and recorded iconic tracks or played legendary shows with them. A brand new Jazz or Precision that some guy has taken a sander to in the factory after looking a a photograph of Jaco and Sting's basses? That isn't special at all.

Now, Fender have sold a few of these things, so I'm guessing they have done their market research and decided there are enough people who don't think like me to make it worthwhile. Good on 'em. But me, personally, I'm not into it.

 

[JW56789]

There are players that like, really dig that 'roadworn' look. I'm not one of them, but it's good that's an option for those cats that are really into it.

It's one thing if it's actually a 19-- model, and it's 'real' wear, but for the life of me, to pay extra to make a brand new axe look like that is just way outside my wheelhouse, hell I can't even see it from the bridge with the spotlights.

I like mine clean and shiny. The occasional small ding is expected, but that '23 years in a honky-tonk' vibe just isn't me. Really isn't me.

I too get a laugh out of 'barely played, like new' for one of these things. What would you look for ? ? ? Real scratches and rub marks instead of synthetic ones ? I also wonder what kind of polish you use on those flat finish axes . . . .

The older I get, the less I understand.

 

[podmornica1]

 

[2F/2F]

Well, since you asked, I think they're lame as hell.

That said, I do own two (both guitars).

1. G&L Rustic from 2010. I am a huge G&L fan, and this line was the first they had used lacquer since the very early '90s – and even then, it wasn't the norm, as it had been mostly phased out starting in 1985. The aging is extremely mild. No sanding through the finish. The only artificial chips are very small. I don't like that it is aged...but at the time, I stomached it to get a lacquer finished instrument from my favorite guitar maker.

2. Fender Chrissie Hynde Tele. Great specs (lacquer finish, 7 1/4" radius, Blue Ice Metallic, HSC) at a great price, and about the most minimal and tasteful fake aging that Fender has ever applied to an instrument. The finish is still glossy like a normal finish, and it has no dings and no sanding – only checking, on an otherwise factory fresh finish. The aged metal guard went away, as did all the stock aged hardware. Now it is just a really nice Blue Ice Metallic '59–'62 style Telecaster reissue with a lacquer finish, with a HSC, at a fair price ($1,400 including tax and shipping).

 

[Rip Van Dan]

That's me as well. I've had (and have) nitro-finished basses, and they never seem to age. I DO take care of my basses, but I'm not fanatical about it.

It might have something to do with body chemistry. Remember Rory Gallagher's Strat? He had a rare blood type and some say because of that his sweat was unusually acidic, which contributed to the finish-loss on his Strat. So maybe some people's sweat "ages" an instrument more quickly than others. I sweat a lot; but oddly enough, my hands almost never sweat.

I think this is really true. I never had any wear on my 1965 Jazz even after touring with it for 3-years (about 750 performances) plus playing weekend gigs before and after that. I would get smudges on it but never had any of that nitro finish wear off at all over the 10-years I had it. And I do rest my arm on the top contour of my Jazz a lot. My '82 has the poly finish and no wear spots on it either after 36-years of playing it, but it is a poly finish so it's much tougher than the nitro finish of my '65. I do have a few spots on my neck binding where the finish is coming off, but that's about it.

 

[2112]

I used to be part of the "keep my bass pristine as possible" club. And for my collection basses, I'm still there. For my gig basses, I don't care if they get knocked around, that going to happen to tools.

Lately, I've really gotten into parts builds, and I refuse to buy pristine/new bodies for them. I've boughten a mess of MJT nitro/reliced bodies over the past year, plus some very used bodies on here and other places. Why? Because I got bored of my basses looking like everybody else's. And in the case of the latter, I can get them cheap. And now I'm looking to build a couple barncaster style basses. And I've even put stickers (gasp) on some of my players. And I'm sure at some point my tastes will change again.

I guess in the end, I'm a bit surprised that there's so much butthurt over what others' preferences are... especially when those preferences have absolutely no bearing on what anybody else is doing.

 

[jamro217]

I can understand why some players prefer them. Vintage instruments with decades of war stories are cool. Going on the road with an irreplaceable instrument is foolhardy. Getting a relatively inexpensive replica of a vintage bass is the perfect solution. I don't really like most of the unconvincing attempts to relic a pristine instrument by attacking it with a belt sander and hammer. All that does is trash a nice bass. If carefully done it is like an art forgery used to fool the public. That's fine as long as you don't try to pass it off as the real thing. The second, third or fourth owner after you may get burned. Not into that at all. I like clean instruments. If they get a ding or two I'm usually not celebrating it. Some great music and great shows have featured worn finished instruments. I'm all for that.

 

[Mili]

Not for me, I can't stand fake things (fake iPhone, fake vintage instrument and fake silicon bumps) But if I want a signature bass really bad which they only offer it in Reliced condition ...

 

[mmon77]

I neither like, nor understand the allure of artificially worn finishes. So I will not be buying an instrument that has one.

You do you though. No judgement here.