Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Guitars in General' started by shane8, Feb 25, 2009.
.......than an NOS? ...... well does it punks?
curious to know the concensus
That's a great question...I'm curious to see what comes of this one.
I don't know.... but I don't see how scraping up a paint job on a guitar can add to its tonal timbre?
like a good woman can do for a man the right guitar can inspire a player and vessel to the fingertips what another wont ,
so if a particular guitar a relic for instance is your fancy i would say yes its the inspiration one finds in that instrument .
I don't think there's a black and white answer to this. Between all the "sum of parts" and the different players and what they like, I don't think one can say one is better than the other.
I think only if there is no arm wear . The arm wear really takes away that arm area frequency. Joking aside, not a chance if built equally.
how do you define "sounding better"
Which direction is the sanding belt going?
When I try out a bunch of new Strats, sometimes the best one is a relic and sometimes it isn't...but that's VERY subjective and only YOUR hands and ears would know for sure .
There are some players that believe the heavy poly finishes used on a lot of guitars muffles the tonal qualities of the body wood. By this same token, "natural" finishes, using oils (tung, tru-oil) leave the pours of the wood open which produces better resonance. Thus, anything that takes the finish off the guitar (e.g., relic'ing) should help it tonewise.
I'm not saying I suscribe to this, just that some players do.
There is no difference in sound between my son's relic Nocaster and my NOS Nocaster........certainly no more difference than comparing 2 identical examples of the same guitar will yield.
I started a thread like this about 2 years ago after a respected store (employee) was trying to justify the relic'ing process by telling me that the "guitar will sound better". Maybe if there is significantly less paint on it, MAYBE, but IIRC, a lot of the people answering the thread thought this guy was off his rocker with the comment.
Play before you buy. I've played relics and polys that sounded the opposite of what you'd expect.
I don't think relics could possibly sound better than their counterparts with regular finish.
It astounds me that people will pay twice as much for a reliced Mexican Fender than a regular one. That says a lot about the guitar-buying market, and that's open to interpretation.
They do look good if they are not too overdone. On the other hand i was set to buy a joe strummer and the idea of having a guitar already cosmetically inferior appealed to me mainly because i didnt have to worry about bearing up an beautifully done paint job.
They had no strummers in stock so i got an American Ash Tele. I see the appeal of a relic though.
this may sound sexist or offensive or something, but to me, a "relic" guitar is like breast implants. I like 50 year old guitars because theyre authentic, i like big breasts because theyre authentic. fake is fake
Some do. I think the odds are a bit more in your favor with a Custom Shop or Relic, but I've even had some great-sounding low-end production models.
Ditto. I have both types, and each one sounds great.
You're comparing a heavy Poly finish to thin nitro, whereas this thread is comparing a thin nitro to a checked thin nitro.
It's all in how you look at it ....
Yes, absolutely! Positively, sounds much, much better. No comparison.
There, I felt lucky...