why are some fenders made like this

[1SHOT1HIT]

I just got a new car. But, I didn't want it to look new. So, I had the dealer add dents in it, a couple of primer spots, dry rotted windshield wipers, and swapped the tires for an old, non-matching set. Now it drives even better!

That would be a pretty bad decision, but if you bought an old 67 Shelby GT500 and you wanted it to look authentic one might make it look period correct.

Or

If you bought a 2007 Shelby GT one might put an Elenor body kit with the side pipes, the duck bill spoiler, the lowered and centered fog light conversion, and the stripe kit to make it look much like a modern version of the original 67.

Or

Add the modern car of your choice and surely someone has modified it to look like the real thing or done something to make it appear to resemble the classics.

Or

For instance like Dodge has done with the Charger made to resemble the original old school version.
The Challenger made to look like the classic.
Chevy's Camaro made to resemble the lines of the late 60's early 70's body lines.
Or the Mustangs as mentioned above.

And on and on and on and on and on.

 

[curbowkid]

Well consider, you gotta pay for health insurance and labor costs to gooch a basses looks with dings and chips. Violent work to be done over at the fender factory

 

[Rocky]

What really irritates me are these guys in the LA Philharmonic that use really really old bases that obviously they didn't play since new.. What a bunch of posers!

 

[bass32]

I think when you start comparing cars, clothing, guitars, etc..., you're really comparing apples to oranges.
JMHO, but some things look better with a used look than others. To me jeans look better faded than the "new" blue. You can modify cars to look like their predecessors, but people don't beat 'em up and rub the paint off when they do it.
When it comes to guitars, well it's just a matter of preference. I don't know the actual numbers, but I bet the amount of "new looking" new guitar sales out number the relic and roadworn look by a wide margin. If I'm correct, then you're naturally going to get more anti-relic posts than those who like it.
Just guessing, but maybe the reason some of those who do like it is because even though the guitar is new it gives them the feeling of playing an old friend and has absouletly no bearing on their playing ability and/or character as a musician or person.
To me it's one of those things where there is no right or wrong. Just depends on what a person prefers. Like I've stated before, I don't care for it myself but it doesn't bother me at all if you do.

 

[brainburst]

"appreciate the look of a vintage bass, or a bass that's been worked for years and years. Who cares how each guy goes about getting that look."

It's like appreciating a nice rack and realizing their fake. No there's nothing wrong with that, but we all have a right to appreciate the natural look don't we?

 

[keyofnight]

How exactly are they avoiding or trying to avoid putting their own marks?

And how are they missing anything at their gigs because they have a bass with a different finish on it?

And yes they will put their own marks, scratches, wear & tear on these basses just like any other bass, so what exactly is different?

Are you saying if I buy a road worn bass and gig with it for the next 20 years, tour the country playing shows all over, sweat all over it, drop it because I was drunk, have a bottle thrown into it, play it some more, practice on it for 3-4 hours a day every day, change the P'ups, change them back, change the strings s few hundred times, change through a few different pick guard colors and back again.

And you do the exact same thing with a bright shiny Un-reliced bass, you will have gained something more from your 20 years that I didn't during mine because your bass started more shiny & clean?

C'mon you guys aren't serious with this nonsense are you? Do you really believe that?
Honest question here, I'm not trying to be confrontational in any way I'm just having a hell of a time trying to understand the logic behind your thinking.

Right, that's why I tried to anticipate that kind of argument. It's also why I ended my explanation with: "I don't know if any of this is a bad thing." This is where the argument gets complicated.

Imagine, for example, the life of a prolific chef. Let's say he grew up in Mexico and learned how to cook from his mother, got made fun of for doing "woman's work," and went through a rough life in kitchens in D.F. All the while, he used the same set of knives that his uncle made for him. They're beaten to hell, and he remembers every knick—every scratch.

Say he moves to the UK and to start work at a high-end restaurant. The other guys in the kitchen think he's got a lot of skill, and they want to be more like him. They see his knives, and they think the knives are badass. So! They go buy a set like his—with a similar handle and a similar blade—and start to, on purpose, nick the blade and handle to mimick this prolific's chef's knives made by his uncle back in Mexico.

There are lots of legitimate responses. By legitimate, I mean we can understand why a person would respond that way. The chef could be flattered. He could also think it were strange that someone would try to bottle or copy something so personal to him—like his battered old knives. He might also think that chipping a knife, on purpose, strange practice: why destroy a nice new set of knives? He might remember how he babied his knives when was given them, and he might think about all of the times he wish he were more careful with them. The young chefs' behavior would seem very odd indeed, as if they didn't care for their tools. There are lots of legitimate reasons the prolific chef might look at the young chefs and shake his head.

That's where I think people are coming from…reliced guitars, pre-ripped jeans, and other "weathered" items mimic something we can get by just loving an object into submission. Some people think they're a lazy shortcut, but I'm not sure what to think of them. I'm just trying to capture why a person would care about this problem. I think what it comes down to is that it seems like cheating, it seems inauthentic, it seems irresponsible, or it seems dishonest. I'm not sure if relicing is any of these things.

IMO, this is such a reach of reasoning.....another continuous amount of banter about reliced vs. non-reliced....

taking a totally subjective topic and trying to justify it is one of TB's favorite passtimes......

i guess its time to see if thunderbirds really have that big of an issue with neck dive....

these get so old!

lol. This problem comes up anytime you talk aesthetics: one person has a position, another has a counterposition, both throw their hands in the air and go "it's subjective anyway!" Conversations that go this way are unfulfilling at best.

We certainly feel strongly one way or another about these issues, and no one learns anything if we just throw our hands in the air and call the topic subjective.

I could even say your disgust for the topic is just a matter of taste—why try to justify how much you dislike arguments like these? But if I did say that, we wouldn't learn anything about: why we have arguments like these, why we believe what we believe, why we like the objects we like, why we hate the objects we hate.

 

[1SHOT1HIT]

"appreciate the look of a vintage bass, or a bass that's been worked for years and years. Who cares how each guy goes about getting that look."

It's like appreciating a nice rack and realizing their fake. No there's nothing wrong with that, but we all have a right to appreciate the natural look don't we?

Absolutely, but if you find a nice girl with a great natural rack and then start running around on your high horse telling anyone dating a chick with implants that they are less of a man for dating a women with "fake" breasts, it's no different.
Just because you don't like, don't get, don't appreciate the fake ones, does not make it okay to go around telling those that do they are inferior to your awesomeness because your girl has natural breasts and that all you like.


Appreciate natural breasts/basses all you like but to start telling anyone different they are beneath you for not being like you is pretty arrogant and messed up.

The argument isn't so much about who likes what, it's about the stigma attached that anyone who plays a road worn or reliced bass is less of a player, a "poser", or whatever other labels have been attached to them.

I guarantee for every participant in this thread that's calling these guys posers and I mean absolutely EVERY single one, there is at least one guy out there with a "fake" reliced bass or road worn Fender that could easily play circles around them, works 10 times as hard as them, has 10 times the passion as them, etc.

Ahhhhh, probably not because that would be impossible, those guys can't possibly know how to play well because owning a reliced bass physically limits those players ability to be good, and having a "real" bass makes you a pro.

Even if you think relicing a bass is the dumbest thing to ever do to a bass that's cool, you don't have to like it. But insulting those that do is a bit ridiculous.

 

[1SHOT1HIT]

Right, that's why I tried to anticipate that kind of argument. It's also why I ended my explanation with: "I don't know if any of this is a bad thing." This is where the argument gets complicated.

Imagine, for example, the life of a prolific chef. Let's say he grew up in Mexico and learned how to cook from his mother, got made fun of for doing "woman's work," and went through a rough life in kitchens in D.F. All the while, he used the same set of knives that his uncle made for him. They're beaten to hell, and he remembers every knick--every scratch.

Say he moves to the UK and to start work at a high-end restaurant. The other guys in the kitchen think he's got a lot of skill, and they want to be more like him. They see his knives, and they think the knives are badass. So! They go buy a set like his--with a similar handle and a similar blade--and start to, on purpose, nick the blade and handle to mimick this prolific's chef's knives made by his uncle back in Mexico.

There are lots of legitimate responses. By legitimate, I mean we can understand why a person would respond that way. The chef could be flattered. He could also think it were strange that someone would try to bottle or copy something so personal to him--like his battered old knives. He might also think that chipping a knife, on purpose, strange practice: why destroy a nice new set of knives? He might remember how he babied his knives when was given them, and he might think about all of the times he wish he were more careful with them. The young chefs' behavior would seem very odd indeed, as if they didn't care for their tools. There are lots of legitimate reasons the prolific chef might look at the young chefs and shake his head.

That's where I think people are coming from...reliced guitars, pre-ripped jeans, and other "weathered" items mimic something we can get by just loving an object into submission. Some people think they're a lazy shortcut, but I'm not sure what to think of them. I'm just trying to capture why a person would care about this problem. I think what it comes down to is that it seems like cheating, it seems inauthentic, it seems irresponsible, or it seems dishonest. I'm not sure if relicing is any of these things.

I get what your saying, and I get what others are saying.
I'm simply saying those opinions are fine and good, but there's no need to insult others for feeling different.
Not saying you did or have just in general.

Live & let live.

 

[bass32]

Absolutely, but if you find a nice girl with a great natural rack and then start running around on your high horse telling anyone dating a chick with implants that they are less of a man for dating a women with "fake" breasts, it's no different.
Just because you don't like, don't get, don't appreciate the fake ones, does not make it okay to go around telling those that do they are inferior to your awesomeness because your girl has natural breasts and that all you like.


Appreciate natural breasts/basses all you like but to start telling anyone different they are beneath you for not being like you is pretty arrogant and messed up.

The argument isn't so much about who likes what, it's about the stigma attached that anyone who plays a road worn or reliced bass is less of a player, a "poser", or whatever other labels have been attached to them.

I guarantee for every participant in this thread that's calling these guys posers and I mean absolutely EVERY single one, there is at least one guy out there with a "fake" reliced bass or road worn Fender that could easily play circles around them, works 10 times as hard as them, has 10 times the passion as them, etc.

Ahhhhh, probably not because that would be impossible, those guys can't possibly know how to play well because owning a reliced bass physically limits those players ability to be good, and having a "real" bass makes you a pro.

Even if you think relicing a bass is the dumbest thing to ever do to a bass that's cool, you don't have to like it. But insulting those that do is a bit ridiculous.

1SHOT1HIT
I understand the point your trying to make and even though I'm on the other side of the relic/roadworn issue I don't necessarily disagree. To each their own.
But when reading the part of your post that I highlighted, it could be taken that you're doing the same thing that you accuse others as doing. Kind of diminishes your point.
Even if what you claim is true, it didn't need to be said to prove your point.

 

[JumboJack]

 

[keyofnight]

I get what your saying, and I get what others are saying.
I'm simply saying those opinions are fine and good, but there's no need to insult others for feeling different.
Not saying you did or have just in general.

Live & let live.

I agree—just as long as both sides recognize how nuanced this issue really is.

…and yes, we could talk about it for generations without beating a dead horse if we would recognize the nuances. (;

 

[Vinnyboonbots]

Real simple...

If you like the look, you like the look. Sure, it's a bit of a ruse, but it's like having fake brick or a wood panal floorboards. If it looks the way you want...so what?

Personally, I just don't see the point of paying EXTRA for it. Scratching and dinging up a bass is the easiest thing in the world to do. At least then it won't look like 5000 other "roadworn" models.

 

[1SHOT1HIT]

1SHOT1HIT
I understand the point your trying to make and even though I'm on the other side of the relic/roadworn issue I don't necessarily disagree. To each their own.
But when reading the part of your post that I highlighted, it could be taken that you're doing the same thing that you accuse others as doing. Kind of diminishes your point.
Even if what you claim is true, it didn't need to be said to prove your point.

I think you forgot to highlight whatever it was you said you highlighted, at least I'm not seeing it????

But I believe I get what your pointing out.

I'll wait though to see if your going to specify before I respond.

 

[bass32]

.......I guarantee for every participant in this thread that's calling these guys posers and I mean absolutely EVERY single one, there is at least one guy out there with a "fake" reliced bass or road worn Fender that could easily play circles around them, works 10 times as hard as them, has 10 times the passion as them, etc. ......

I was referring to this comment.

 

[muljoe]

I have a 75 P that is very worn. Looks great sounds great...pretty heavy though. I also have a Rebel Relic 62 J...it kills. I love my P but honestly the Relic'd J out performs it, out plays it and even though I haven't played too many actual 60's J basses, the few that I've played don't sounds or feel nearly as good. Of course I'd love an actual Pre CBS J but my poser one is the best bass I've ever played hands down. I've gotten nothing but complements from bassists on my tone and how it plays even those who own "the real deal"

Ironically enough most of the people who are commenting on folks being a poser for not buying the real thing and how it looks cheesy, are the only ones commenting on how the bass looks not how it plays or feels...I guess I would have always thought that "posers" were the guys more concerned with looks than utility...strange dynamic going on here....

 

[keyofnight]

Real simple...

If you like the look, you like the look. Sure, it's a bit of a ruse, but it's like having fake brick or a wood panal floorboards. If it looks the way you want...so what?

Personally, I just don't see the point of paying EXTRA for it. Scratching and dinging up a bass is the easiest thing in the world to do. At least then it won't look like 5000 other "roadworn" models.

That's definitely another problem people have with there: they allow the company to make decisions about how the guitar gets worn in, and the world end up with 5000 guitars worn in the exact same way.

Of course, it doesn't matter much… the manufacturer has to make a decision one way or another. If I buy a 2012 American Standard J, there are 5000 out there with the same configuration. Does if matter to my individuality if I buy the shinny paint or the sandpapered finish? It doesn't seem to matter much at all.

The extra money is an issue, but let's face it…it's a lot more work to relic an instrument in the right way (without making it look obvious) than to just paint it in a time-tested way. (;

 

[NML1986]

Is it the best road worn for metal?

 

[1SHOT1HIT]

I was referring to this comment.

I'm saying that for anyone that is calling an owner of a reliced or Road Worn Fender bass a "poser" that the reality is, that their are plenty of much more advanced, dedicated, hard working & talented bass players that exist out there.
So even if we had a way to measure the absolute most bad @$$ bass player within this thread or forum for that matter that is insulting/calling these guys "posers" their is w/o question a much better bass player than them that has still managed to get there while owning/playing a reliced or Road Worn bass.

Which is kinda nothing more than s long way of saying.
Until you are the best of the absolute best, save the judgements for people better suited to be doing so.

What about that is bad? How does that make me anything like anyone insulting someone for the basses look they choose to play?
It's reality, there is always someone that is better than you, I & the next guy (unless the next guy or you are John Enthwhistle or Geddy Lee or James Jamerson or the like)

 

[1SHOT1HIT]

I have a 75 P that is very worn. Looks great sounds great...pretty heavy though. I also have a Rebel Relic 62 J...it kills. I love my P but honestly the Relic'd J out performs it, out plays it and even though I haven't played too many actual 60's J basses, the few that I've played don't sounds or feel nearly as good. Of course I'd love an actual Pre CBS J but my poser one is the best bass I've ever played hands down. I've gotten nothing but complements from bassists on my tone and how it plays even those who own "the real deal"

Ironically enough most of the people who are commenting on folks being a poser for not buying the real thing and how it looks cheesy, are the only ones commenting on how the bass looks not how it plays or feels...I guess I would have always thought that "posers" were the guys more concerned with looks than utility...strange dynamic going on here....

You make excellent points.

 

[bigswifty1]

I wonder if those who don't like relic'd instruments have ever worn a pair of jeans.

I happen to own two roadworn jazzes, and I couldn't care less whether they are relic'd or not. I do like the nitro paint but wouldn't care if the finish was unmarked. They are simply an instrument that suits my musical needs.