Over-relic'd

[Brad Little]

Just vernacular, Charlie. No idea, myself. Maybe "reliced" isn't a legitimate tense of the verb? Google's spell correction appears not to like it too.

That apostrophe misusage is everywhere. It bugs me when I see it too, but I've come to accept it.

Relic'd is actually a correct usage as it replaces an omitted letter. See section 2 on this page: Apostrophe usage

 

[Neal]

Couldn’t we just call them “intentionally beat up”?

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Relic'd is actually a correct usage as it replaces an omitted letter.

It is, indeed, if the "correct" word is reliced. (See Guildedagain's post, #18.)

Or it might be replacing two letters: k and e, as in relicked.

But does it need to? (I don't mind if it does. It's just interesting.)

And it's high time we consider the British past-tense t solution (which Americans also use in a few words, like slept and kept): relict.

Maybe Brits don't relic their guitars. Or don't care how it's spelt.

See section 2 on this page: Apostrophe usage

Yes, thanks, I know how to use apostrophes.

Now 'scuse me while I go lick the lice off my guitar again! . . .

 

[GGJaguar]

Couldn’t we just call them “intentionally beat up”?

Or "distressed" or "aged"?

 

[GAD]

“Relic” is a trademark of Fender, so how it’s spelled is up to them but I don’t believe they use the word as an adjective.

Technically, I’d imagine Fender frowns on people saying that any artificially aged guitar is a relic, because they could end up losing the trademark due to genericide.

 

[chazmo]

At least it wasn't done with a dash!

Uh oh, I'm stirring the pot, ain't I??

 

[Guildedagain]

“Relic” is a trademark of Fender,

I was a guitar show back in 1993 when Fender unveiled the first relics, and what sad business they were.

I'd already been aging guitar parts to match vintage guitars for a while, using muriatic acid fumes to get a dull finish on nickel parts, whereas Fender bead blasted the tuners, wrong appearance from the start, wouldn't look any better wth actual aging, and the dings/dents and sanded down paint looked quite horrible. The prices were dang near even with real vintage, $3k for a relic, the going price of a beat '65 at the time.

People make much too much of things like worn finish on the back of a neck, just ridiculous.

All the 60's icons like Hendrix made fine music on brand new guitars, with narrow nut widths, apparently not knowing what they were missing.

I have two vintage Strats, both have 100% finish on the back of the neck, as well as being very clean, the way most folks like their guitars.

RB said it best, poseur wear.

 

[Brad Little]

....People make much too much of things like worn finish on the back of a neck, just ridiculous....

That was supposedly the source of the feud between Bill Monroe and Gibson. Gibson has a policy that all repairs done at the factory have to leave in the same condition it would if new. They refinished the neck on his Lloyd Loar mandolin and he was pissed because it had been worn off to where he wanted it. Same thing happened to a friend of mine with his mando, but at least he didn't scrape of the Gibson logo, just lived with it!

 

[tonepoet]

All the 60's icons like Hendrix made fine music on brand new guitars, with narrow nut widths, apparently not knowing what they were missing.

This is a point that I think most "vintage purists" miss. Those guys back then, even back to Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry, were playing new guitars through new amps with new speakers (and probably mismatched power tubes). That was the vintage sound, not this idea that 40 or 60 year old pickups and speakers make the difference.

I may ruffle a few feathers here when I say this, but I think the whole "vintage" guitar market is a device of guitar stores jacking up prices to create a demand and higher profits. To me they are old used guitars that should be in the hands of musicians to play at used prices, not $50,000 investment instruments that end up in a locked glass case on someone's office wall and untouched due to "how much it's worth".

And someone might say; "Well, George G. says it's worth $50,000". That could be because George G. owns a guitar shop and is in the business of selling guitars.

I was drawn to Guild solid bodies because of the Guild acoustics I owned, curiosity and 20+ years ago they were under the radar and I could pick them up for used prices, usually without anyone bidding against. Almost all my used Guild solid bodies bought then were done with opening bids. No competition... except maybe Hans or Matsickma . Everyone was fixated with "vintage" Fenders and Gibsons. Now, I see 4-figure prices on Guild solid bodies and scratch my head and don't buy. But I'm glad I bought them when I did.

 

[Brad Little]

,,,,I may ruffle a few feathers here when I say this, but I think the whole "vintage" guitar market is a device of guitar stores jacking up prices to create a demand and higher profits. To me they are old used guitars that should be in the hands of musicians to play at used prices, not $50,000 investment instruments that end up in a locked glass case on someone's office wall and untouched due to "how much it's worth"....

When I taught at a small music store, there was a customer who came in about once a month and bought high end new and vintage archtop guitars, mostly new Gibsons and original Epiphones. He didn't play, but had a wing in his house that was climate controlled just for the guitars.
On a slightly different note, there's an annual violin contest in which the winner gets to use a Stradivarius from a museum, I think in Cremona, for a year. Much better than having it sit in a glass case.

 

[walrus]

This is a point that I think most "vintage purists" miss. Those guys back then, even back to Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry, were playing new guitars through new amps with new speakers (and probably mismatched power tubes). That was the vintage sound, not this idea that 40 or 60 year old pickups and speakers make the difference.

I may ruffle a few feathers here when I say this, but I think the whole "vintage" guitar market is a device of guitar stores jacking up prices to create a demand and higher profits. To me they are old used guitars that should be in the hands of musicians to play at used prices, not $50,000 investment instruments that end up in a locked glass case on someone's office wall and untouched due to "how much it's worth".

And someone might say; "Well, George G. says it's worth $50,000". That could be because George G. owns a guitar shop and is in the business of selling guitars.

I was drawn to Guild solid bodies because of the Guild acoustics I owned, curiosity and 20+ years ago they were under the radar and I could pick them up for used prices, usually without anyone bidding against. Almost all my used Guild solid bodies bought then were done with opening bids. No competition... except maybe Hans or Matsickma . Everyone was fixated with "vintage" Fenders and Gibsons. Now, I see 4-figure prices on Guild solid bodies and scratch my head and don't buy. But I'm glad I bought them when I did.

Tonepoet, have we seen pics of the impressive guitars in your signature? I did a search and was stymied. If not, that would pretty cool!

walrus

 

[lungimsam]

All the 60's icons like Hendrix made fine music on brand new guitars, with narrow nut widths, apparently not knowing what they were missing.

I heard sometimes some of the 60's artists destroyed their gear onstage because they were fed up that they could not get the instruments to work well. It would be interesting to ask them if they really liked the instruments because as the years rolled on, alot of them moved on to different brands.

 

[dwasifar]

What I don't get is why people spell it relic'd. Or any of the other goofy ways I've seen it.

Because the alternatives invite misunderstanding, I'm thinking.

Reliced looks like it should be prounounced to rhyme with "he diced" and sounds like the guitar became reinfested with vermin.

Relicked looks like it should be pronounced to rhyme with "be kicked" and sounds like it's talking about licking the guitar.

I think this the natural result of trying to verb a noun that doesn't want to go and is resisting the process with kicking and screaming. We need a new word altogether, like "shabbify."

 

[dwasifar]

I may ruffle a few feathers here when I say this, but I think the whole "vintage" guitar market is a device of guitar stores jacking up prices to create a demand and higher profits. To me they are old used guitars that should be in the hands of musicians to play at used prices, not $50,000 investment instruments that end up in a locked glass case on someone's office wall and untouched due to "how much it's worth".

And someone might say; "Well, George G. says it's worth $50,000". That could be because George G. owns a guitar shop and is in the business of selling guitars.

Paging Ed Roman.

 

[chazmo]

To be fair, I think the guitar industry is using "relic'd" (with or without apostrophes and "k"s) to describe something rather different in nature and purpose than the aging that's done to classical instruments. I know I made the comparison earlier, but I guess there's a bit more to say. For most of the relic'd guitars we discuss, they are made to look like so-and-so's special guitar. I mean, not true in all cases, but many. They're beat up and worn out in similar ways to the original.

Classical instruments are not usually done for this purpose -- to look like someone's specific instrument -- well, if they're not forgeries, that is. The luthiers deliberately build them to eschew a brand-new look and feel.

Funny anecdote... My parents installed a bunch of wood beams in the ceiling of our dining room. They looked like railroad ties to me (maybe they were). In our garage, the installers broke out chains and saws to mess them up according to the decor of the day. It was a thing, I guess. Moral of the story is that people will pay extra for aesthetics that they like. Personally, I cannot imagine buying a guitar that's been relic'd. I could certainly imagine buying an aged, new classical instrument. And, I don't see myself installing abused lumber for aesthetics in my house.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Because the alternatives invite misunderstanding, I'm thinking.

Reliced looks like it should be prounounced to rhyme with "he diced" and sounds like the guitar became reinfested with vermin.

Relicked looks like it should be pronounced to rhyme with "be kicked" and sounds like it's talking about licking the guitar.

Yep. That's pretty much what we've been saying. Glad you concur!

I think this the natural result of trying to verb a noun that doesn't want to go and is resisting the process with kicking and screaming. We need a new word altogether, like "shabbify."

Excellent! Count me in!

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

. . . To me they are old used guitars that should be in the hands of musicians to play at used prices . . .

Dat'd be me, boss! It's one reason I like old Guilds. They're great guitars that aren't collectible — strictly for players.

 

[Guildedagain]

Personally, I cannot imagine buying a guitar that's been relic'd.

No wear at all is better than fake wear.

I bought a Tele - online - that had some arm wear once, I though it was natural from playing.

Upon receipt, I noticed horrid sanding scratches all around the area and flipped out. No way I could own something defaced like that.

I contacted seller, who admitted that he'd done it.

I was in touch with eBay custome service in minutes to get a shipping label to get it gone, and back it went.

Willful destruction is the way I would describe such an act.

I clean and wax my guitars regularly, trying to keep the appearance as good as it can be, instrument that show signs of love.

 

[fronobulax]

Not all of the hate is justified, IMO.

Let's separate appearance and function.

If the process is all about appearance then it is clearly a matter of personal opinion. Some people want an instrument that looks like one EVH played. Others didn't like it even when EVH was actually playing one. If people want an instrument that appears play worn because they want people to think it got the play wear because they played it then that is their preference but "poser" can certainly be applied. Some people just like wear patterns more than pristine unblemished finishes.

On function, the process does introduce some functional differences and for some people that is an improvement. Many people prefer to play an instrument where the finish has worn from the back of the neck. You can get that from instruments that have been through the process I am not going to name . But suppose a new instrument has the finish sanded off at the factory and the instrument with a "partial satin neck" is sold. Then it is just a feature that not everyone wants.

I am reminded of blue jeans. Ignoring the style and fit options you still have original stiff denim, prewashed, faded and distressed where the holes and wear patterns come from the factory. Some people like the choices. Some people think it is an abomination to wear jeans with wear patterns that they did not create.

I have nothing to contribute to what the process should be called but I am amused that the discussion is happening.

 

[GGJaguar]

I am amused that the discussion is happening.

Me too. Had I titled my post as "Corroded!" there wouldn't have been this many pages of discussion.