Relic'd Instruments

[mykljpao]

Does anyone but me feel like there is something completely skewed about paying a premium for an instrument that is intentionally beat up, yet that same non-relic model instrument will decline in value if it has legitimate wear vs being pristine?

This is more of a philisophic question than economic. I understand the extra labor that goes into relicing and also understand that the companies only produce that which sells, so obviously, there is a strong market for those instruments.

[Dave Orban]

You're asking this as if guitarists are supposed to be a rational bunch...

[gregc]

Oh -No...... and away we ......................go!
(hint: use the 'search' feature). You'll be busy reading for daze.........

[clothwiring]

I don't know, I like my Cunetto Era 50s Relic and I don't think it's lost any value...in fact I believe it's slowly going up. Not bad for a 9 year old guitar to already be going up in value.

[landru64]

it may be 'skewed' in a conventional sense of worth (condition based) but then there is some economic sense in the idea that you might pay more to have less built in depreciation. that is actually REAL money value, far greater value (for me) than just say paying a premium for a brand name. so, yes, it seems crazy on the surface, but i'd happily pay and extra thousand for something if i knew i was going to lose nominally way less when i'd sell it. of course, the assumption here is that you'd want to USE the instrument. i have no interest in buying instruments that i have to put under the bed. so i think it's pretty cool that you can buy a relic, use it, get to know it, and sell it with less (or no?) depreciation cost. find me a product that is like that!!

[Born2Blues67]

You're asking this as if guitarists are supposed to be a rational bunch...


Very astute observation.

[Thwap]

Search relics, this has been done a time or two.

Or three.

Or four.

[The Golden Boy]

Search relics, this has been done a time or two.

Or three.

Or four.

Right...:rolleyes:

This topic has never been touched on!

"Aaannnd they're off!!!"

[ScotWithOne_t]

I personally think fake antiques are tacky. Reminds me of people in highschool or college who would pay $75 for a pair of pre-beat-to-sh** jeans or baseball cap from A&F. I just feel that every scratch, nick, and dent on my guitar gives it character, and has some sort of memory behind it. The only reason I would every buy one is if I had more money than I knew what to do with, and wanted one for a cool wall decoration.

[mykljpao]

You're asking this as if guitarists are supposed to be a rational bunch...

You are SO right! What could I have been thinking ?!!:D

Landru64, I was unaware that relics held their value better. If that is the case, it certainly makes a lot more sense to me. I actually do play all of my guitars. I just try to be really careful with them, even at gigs. Only those of "investment" grade don't leave the house.

Sorry guys if this has already been done a hundred times, I honestly haven't seen it and was curious after a discussion I had the other day.
I'll go for the appropriate search. Thanks.

[landru64]

You are SO right! What could I have been thinking ?!!:D

Landru64, I was unaware that relics held their value better. If that is the case, it certainly makes a lot more sense to me. I actually do play all of my guitars. I just try to be really careful with them, even at gigs. Only those of "investment" grade don't leave the house.

Sorry guys if this has already been done a hundred times, I honestly haven't seen it and was curious after a discussion I had the other day.
I'll go for the appropriate search. Thanks.

well i think from retail, probably nothing holds its value too well ;)

but if you think about it, if i buy a relic and play it and add a few dings, the used price is the same as if i hadn't. even in some cases, like the cunettos, they go up. if i buy a spankin' new guitar and play it and add a DING. just one, and a lot of guys want the price to go way down. a lot of the guitars i see getting all the money on this board are 'mint'. the ones that are played take a beating. i don't think i'm making that up...

so maybe that's a clearer analysis.... in one scenario, you pay for use; in another, you don't. if the guitars cost the same when they're new or new/used, then the relic is a no brainer. if the relic's premium outweighs this feature of 'free' use, then it's a wash. you're just paying up front for that. just thinking out loud here.

p.s. i'm all for tacky.... ;)

[LIGHTNIN1]

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/407643-can_of_worms.jpg

[chadbang]

First of all, I think relics are kinda of cool. But what bothers me is that Gibson asks for more money from exquisitely finishing some guitars, as in it's Historic models. Whereas Fender asks more money for pounding on regular parts with a sock full of bolts. I ask you: which takes more talent?

[jerrylee]

of course when the relic'd guitars come up of sale used there the issue of "custom shop relic wear" vs "real world dings"...kinda strange I think

[choppermn]

Personally, i'd never pay more for some rube to relic a guitar, reminds me of the stupid phase where women would try to vintage thier wood furniture and the whole country motiff crap.
I get that some musicians like a worn in guitar as it's easier to play, but to pay more for that seems dumb, just buy a new, and break it in yourself, heck if you like dings let your kids into your studio for a while.
Lastly though I have to admit that comment about paying for worn in jeans and baseball hats is so true, just a fad, yet there are those really wore in thier shoes, and jeans and I can respect that.
Later:o