Although the whole relic thing isnt by bag, I understand the added price of the factory Relic'd instruments. They have to put in the time and labor to make the guitar looked beat up, and ive seen the result of people who dont know what they're doing, a newer looking guitar with scratches and pits. But what i dont like to see, is now because of this, anyone with a badly cared for guitar that was sitting in a basement or back of a closet put them for sale online for way more money than what its worth for what it is, an instrument in bad condition, as opposed to very good, good or even fair. Before they started making the Relic instruments, you'd be able to buy a used guitar in poor condition for, say, $150. Now, they call it Relic, no matter what it is, and expect $400. I know this sounds like a rant, and it is, but I just got done doing my bi-weekly craislist search, and found about 20 of these.

I agree, When I was younger the guitars I bought that looked rough came from someone in the neighborhood who had a brother that never picked it up and it got knocked over or kicked around in the corner. Now they sell those for big money and sometimes it takes big money to get them playable again. Playing the not so nice ones made me appreciate the ones I have now. Although I do have my favorite one that is a pretty worn, but it just player's wear and I would never consider selling it.

I agree 100%.I hate that whole relic bulls&*t.Number one I look at guitars as pieces of art,a thing of beauty.To plunk down a large chunk of change for something that looks unaturaly abused is a joke.Every dent and ding on my guitars cost me a nights sleep and after so many years it takes on a nice natural look of a guitar that has seen a lot of work and thats great.But when I see a guitar that looks like a blowtorch and sander has been taken to it that is not my cup of tea at all it is just a ploy.Now outside of SRV WHO WE HAVE ALL SEEN THROW HIS GUITAR ALL OVER THE PLACE and his number 1 is a thing of beauty,there are only a few other guitarist associated with a beat up ax -RORY GALLAGHER,JOE STRUMMER,YNGWIE Plays a few and a couple of others oh Becks Esquire which takes first prize in the ugly department.But I dont think anyone wants to start of with an ugly guitar.Let nature and time do the work not the custom shop.

The sales numbers prove you wrong.

WHy does anybody care what somebody else buys? I don't have a relic and don't want one, but I don't give two flips if somebody else - say, Keith RIchard - thinks it's a cool idea. It certainly doesn't threaten me in any way, and it's ridiculous to say that beating up your own guitar is somehow morally superior.

Windwalker i strongly suspect you may have fallen foul of fenders marketing evil genius's. FMIC do not want people buying used instruments, they want them buying new from them. So as you say they have effectively raised the price of used instruments, even poorly cared for ones.

_________________
No no and no

+1
I could not agree more.

If an object's craftsmanship is to your taste, you should pay whatever it's worth to you. The custom shop produces some beautiful work for those who want it (which appears to be all the customers who don't post here... perhaps they're busy playing their guitars). I agree with the original poster's findings, though -- seems like everyone who has ever taken a grinder to their guitar and then regretted it is trying to offload it as a "relic", while instruments that have been abused all their sorry lives rejoice in the title "natural relic". The credulous will no doubt continue to get ripped off by unscrupulous sellers; nothing new there. Fine examples of the art form will always be worth something to those who happen to like that sort of thing... can't help noticing that the early ones that were outsourced to Vince Cunetto are appreciating nicely.

I dunno... I quite enjoy looking at all the listings and shouting "Whut?! They want how much for that?!"... it's like a spectator sport. It's probably better than seeing a once-in-a-lifetime must-have every other week.

I have also noticed a lot of that.

_________________
Custom Shop '59 Strat with John Cruz Master Design Pickups
Vibro King
Fulltone Clyde>Deja-Vibe>TS-808>TS-9>Boss Tuner

This discussion is based on a false premise: Relics have not raised the price of used instruments, poorly cared for or otherwise. Some people imagine this is true and ask high prices for poorly "relic'ed" guitars, but these online auctions are targets of wild derision on guitar forums, and the guitars almost never sell for the asking price.

If used guitars cost more now than, say, 5 years ago, it's just simple inflation... it certainly isn't because the existence of Custom Shop Relics have made all used guitars more valuable.

SLAPCHOP, I really did not get the point that you were trying to make.First off I think most people are interested in what guitars others are getting.Maybe they are thinking of getting the same model or would just like to know how that ax plays. or you would not see so many people asking to see pics or asking someone who purchased a certain ax what they think.Threatened why Would you feel threatened over what someone else has? and who said they were superior for beating up there guitar.As for Keith any relics he has are as old as he is.

Go back and read my earlier post again. If you still don't understand it, then just let it slide.

Also, "relics" were invented because Keith Richards asked the Custom Shop to take back the guitars they had just made for his upcoming tour and "make them look old." I was referencing that story.... his stage guitars are frequently NOT as old as he is.

SLAPCHOP,Ok I had missed your second post.I was puzzled trying to see what side of the fence you were on in this discussion.I see where your Keith Richards comment comes in now.Interesting, if that is the case for the birth of the relic will take a closer look at the history.

I don't plan on ever buying one but I don't begrudge those who want/have them. I can understand the reasoning behind the concept: it's a guitar that looks and feels as if it's been really broken in. Similar to people who buy a new baseball glove and immediately add a little oil to the pocket, put a baseball in it and slip it under your pillow. You want the item itself to be brand new but you want it to feel as if it's been played for years.

Well the whole odd thing about it is that people have bumps and bruises on their guitar because it happened ACCIDENTALLY. But they like the guitar and are comfortable with it so they keep it. Its not there because they want it there. Well, normal people that is....

_________________
2008 PRS Mira vintage cherry
2008 Martin DM acoustic

My point is, that instead of describing a used guitar for sale accurately as in poor condition, they say its "Relic", and they do want more for it than if they called it what it is. Look for yourself. Go onto craigslist, and look at how many times they're listed as relic, and look at how many are just listed in less than good condition.

Imagine looking for a used car, or set of golf clubs, or furniture, and seeing them in bad condition with "relic" on them like its a good thing.
Like I said in the initial post, I wouldn't be interested in a relic, unless it was a great deal, but I understand people like them, and I understand there is an art to doing it right. I'm just saying that I find it crass to stick the word relic to a poorly maintained guitar, then try to profit from that fact. My most recent strat purchase was an 07 MIM reissue that I got a rediculous deal on; less than $300 w/hsc for a guitar that cost the previous owner almost 3 times that. The reason I got it so cheap, besides having the sale set up from my luthier, was that it had a scuff on the front, and some small scratches on the rear. If this was one of these craigslist specials, they would have tried to beat it up more, then asked $500-600. Now I have something that I don't mind getting kknocked around a bit. My post wasn't an attack on relic guitars, or people who like them. Its the people who try to use the new fad as a way to overcharge for something.