Yes; I know...the "relic vs non-relic" thing has been done to death. But I wonder if anyone has thought about what major guitar manufacturers think about producing relics. I remember the first time I ever saw a relic; it was sometimes in the later 80s. I was at a well known high-end guitar shop in Manhattan, & they had 2 exact same Mary Kaye guitars hanging together. One was brand new, the other beat to crap & worn out looking. I was surprised when the salesman at the counter said both were brand new, and told me of the new concept called a "relic". But what really flummoxed me was that even though they were the EXACT SAME guitar, the beat up one was $500 more than the mint one. I thought he was joking, but nope. Then,over the years, I got to thinking...what does a guitar manufacturer think of their customers when they take a brand new guitar, beat the hell out of it, and charge more for it? My feeling is they think like this: "We have so little respect for our customer base, that we feel they will not only buy the concept of fake mojo & pretentiousness, but they will be willing to pay more money for this fakery". Personally, if I were a guitar maker, I would have enough respect for my customers that I would sell them a brand new guitar in MINT CONDITION, because when you buy "brand new", you should get brand new! I would think my customers were enlightened & smart enough to eschew fakery & pretentiousness. Look at it this way...would you buy a brand new pickup truck that had been pre-dented & rusted out at the factory, to make the owner look like he was a hard working man? Why not? Would you buy dentures that were "pre-greened & rotted" so they would look more like your natural teeth? When I think back on that day over 30 years ago when I first saw that relic in the store, I thought to myself "What a stupid concept; it'll never catch on". I was sadly mistaken. It has become a sign of the times. Pitiful.