Nothing wrong with that either. Actually if you buy a 2010 Strat and take care of it, who knows what that may be worth 56 years from now? I guess you would not be able to play it much to avoid wear and tear...or gig with it often where it is inevitable to chip and gouge it etc... and it may lack a degree of "mojo"..but, I bet it will still have value.

_________________
I'm almost out of stuff to sell.

Personally I would rather have a nice new strat and all the scratches and dents that it would earn would be my own.

I find no attraction to worn out looking guitars be they original or artificial, but that's just me.

Folks will go to somewere like GuitarCenter and spend big bucks on a factory aged strat, but pass up a "new" guitar at a reduced price that has some store dings.

_________________
I remember when we were free!

I used to have GAS over a sunburst '60s Road Worn Strat until I bought my beat to hell '87 MIJ (I, in a way, wish the MIJ had a nitro finish, but ah whatever). Every nick, scratch, ding, and bit of damage were due to heavy use and it shows. I'd even go so far to say a real road worn guitar has a touch of a different tone than a DIY job that was done with a screwdriver and some sandpaper. Relic finishes have started to look less and less convincing to me recently, so I see the whole point here.

Bottom line, if you want a beat up guitar, go out and buy a beat up guitar, not a new one trying to act like it. Additionally, you'll manage to save a few bucks buying one too. In case you didn't realize it, they charge extra to have John Doe throw rocks at it down at the plant if its new.

_________________
2006 Fender AVRI 70s Stratocaster: Natural Ash | Sovtek MIG 60 & A No Name Cabinet | Pedals & Junk

I got the chance to play Kenny Neal's Tele not long ago, now that's a real relic! That thing has an indent just below the bridge pup that Kenny himself caused from years of playing (30+ years)... man that Tele had some serious mojo! You just can't duplicate that in a custom shop.

To each his own I guess. If I could afford a real vintage strat or tele with natural relic wear like that, I would have it. If i could afford a new "relic" beat up by Fender I would not buy it...because I can bang it up myself.

However since I appreciate the relic thing anyhow...even if not natural from time..I would love to be able to make my own cheap that looks very natural. And there is a market as well for selling these to people who want the look but also can not afford a real one, and Fender relic, so get stuck with a crappy unnatural looking one.

I want to figure out a way to make the wood look 50 years old..maybe soak it in ocean water for a few months, then sun dry it for another few months? ha ha..I guess I could destroy a body too that way..expensive trial and error.

_________________
I'm almost out of stuff to sell.

To me it just looks like there is no way it can sound bad. I guess if it has been played long enough to wear it down like that..there was a reason they left it that way. For those of us who appreciate the look and mojo..it is priceless. Some say the wear exposing the wood is why the tone is better..I just like the look really because these guitars looked played..not pampered. You can't gig and pratice and rehearse and jam alot and not start to have wear and tear, especially with nitro bodies and maple necks. Heck some of my 90's maples are starting to look worn...but I likes.

What I do notice...is the maple neck wear is what really pops..and the look of the wood from age. That does seem to be a key factor and at least from any CS relic I have seen, they have missed the mark in that area. They all seem to be sanded on top...scraped on the bottom, and have chips in specific spots..neither the 54 strat from this post, or the tele look unnatural or like someone just sanded specific spots and threw rocks and keys at it.

_________________
I'm almost out of stuff to sell.

OK... whichever side of the debate about cosmetically aged or time/played aged (does that make sense?) one is from, there is one factor that cannot be replicated.

This would be the "Ding Chronicles" whereby if the instrument has been in your possession for a few years..
Decades even, you can recall the history of the scars, the time you turned around quickly and slammed the neck into the high hat or (for myself) That special girl was at the door, put Les Paul on guitar stand, rush to answer door, caught foot in the lead only to hear the Les Paul fall over and snap at the neck/head joint. (amp was on, volume at mid) It's been over 30 years since this incident, yet I still cringe when I recall that moment, ( oddly I cannot remember the girl )

It should be obvious from the images of this and the Tele pictured above that there are a multitude of factors which impact on the way the woods and finishes age and wear. We have all seen examples of vintage guitars which are down to bare wood. Several things pique my curiosity about this guitar. The dark areas on the neck and fret board which I would expect to be worn to bare wood, that perhaps some wood polish had been applied to it at one time. I wonder about the "layering" into the fret board on that closeup and notice how, in the photo above, the light reflection off the dark 'worn' area on the forearm offset. IMHO that should not be. An acquaintance of mine still uses his '54 regularly in his work. It is well worn but looks nothing like this one.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

Matt Jenny at http://mjtagedfinishes.com/ does a real good job for a one man shop at reasonable prices. I have him building me a light light relic telecaster right now with a neck and body I sent him.

of course that first Strat pictured is a REAL relic!

_________________
Blues with a feeling.

GUILD GUITARS: MADE TO BE PLAYED!

I have to jump on Cedarblues' bandwagon I see absolutely no point in relicing especially when you have to pay extra to have someone ruin the appearance of a new guitar.I will never understand of wanting a guitar that merely looks like it's old it seems all too poseur to me.As I have said many times before would you relic your new car or house to give it the broke in/lived in look if so you need help.

_________________
'65 Strat,65 Mustang,65 Jaguar,4 more Strats,3 vintage Vox guitars,5 Vox amps,'69 Bassman with a '68 2-15 Bassman cab,36 guitars total-15asst'd amps total,2 vintage '60s Hammond organs & a myriad of effects-with a few rare vintage ones.

[quote="guitslinger"]I have to jump on Cedarblues' bandwagon I see absolutely no point in relicing especially when you have to pay extra to have someone ruin the appearance of a new guitar.[quote]
+1.........and my wife would relic me in all the appropriate places if put $$K-Large into something on the order of let's say, this LTD TBO which is coming down the pike.

_________________
"Another day in paradise!"

The specific spots in which a neck or body can wear....is due to several factors. One being the way the player(s) held the guitar. If the player is an old school session or "bar room" player, most of the body wear would be like this guitar because the player (not a trained monkey but a raw player) would be sitting down for the most part, with the guitar resting on the opposite leg that a "trained monkey" guitar instructor would have us believe is where we need to rest it.....IF...we want to learn to sound just like the instructor.

Natural players tend (if playing righty) to rest the ax on the opposite leg when sitting, which will cause the wear patterns (generally) as seen on this 54 (also the way the player(s) rests the right arm).

As far as the neck wear...anyone's guess but it looks natural to me. This guitar is 56 years old..who knows if the neck has been refinished, re-fretting, repaired etc..or how many times for that matter..if it was played a lot..is would be normal for it to be refinished. And that may explain the "layering"..or it could just be the pic itself exaggerating it.

I don't wish to get into a debate regarding who is better at judging this guitar..but to me who is a Strat fanatic, and was raised by a Strat Fanatic (my first ax was a 70's orig)..and the fact that I spend the better part of my life researching and asking about the pre-CBS models..I think I can tell a natural from a make believe...at least I would hope so.

Sure, it would be nice if I was old enough to have had a 50's Strat when it was new and keep it until 2010..and tell stories of every nick and scratch and which $@!&# I slapped with it..but if I am ever to own a guitar like this...it will be second (or lord knows how many) hand. Or...if I don't want to wait until I hit the lotto..build one myself and hope it can even come close in look, feel and sound.

_________________
I'm almost out of stuff to sell.

Who said it always has to be a "new" guitar"?

As far as relicing a house...you don't think there are people that go through a heck of a lot of effort to "antique" the house to increase resale?

To each his/her own...different strokes for different folks..any cliche you wish to apply..still applies. I think anyone who would relic a guitar..or spend thousands extra to buy a CS where Fender beat it up...is simply for the reason that they can not afford an authentic vintage.

I mean why did Ford re-design the Mustang to look like it did in the 60's? Why did Chevy bring back the Camaro? Why did Chrysler bring back the Challenger?

And why is it, that "rat rods" are the rage? Not to say anyone would beat up a 2010 Mustang...but there is something to 60 year old car..that looks as it would in natural state 40 years ago. I can not convince anyone who does not understand to appreciate it, but only ask to be open minded enough to understand why someone else would. It is all about economics my friends, and wanting something we can not afford, so have to "settle" for a relic as the next best thing.

Since my "players" are going to end up scared, dented, dinged, worn and yellowed anyhow..so what if some of us rush it along a little?..who is it really hurting?

_________________
I'm almost out of stuff to sell.