The Bassist and Guitarist thread

[Cycleops]

No, they really do remove the finish with sandpaper and other tools and methods. The thing that amuses me is that they don't seem to 'relic' it in the places where it would usually naturally get worn so you can spot it's fake.

 

[DRM]

No, they really do remove the finish with sandpaper and other tools and methods. The thing that amuses me is that they don't seem to 'relic' it in the places where it would usually naturally get worn so you can spot it's fake.

I don't get it either, if I spend a fortune on a new guitar, I want it to look new, there's no reason why the neck can't be detailed to perfection at this price point, if the likes of Jet can manage it on a £150 instrument, so can the big boys, but also a genuinely old instrument has a certain mojo, and a story behind it, that a relic doesn't have

 

[Drago]

it's just decals i believe, rather than actually removing paint to achieve the distressed look. But if that's what folk want...

They actually use a template to assist to keep it consistent from one instrument to the next and do the wear by hand. In this case they did a close photographic survey of Mike Dirnt's actual bass, and he reckons its a very decent facsimile.

I have a Limelight precision and that is very convincing, but when I ordered it I chatted to the guy on the phone and he was telling me he'd spent years examing different instruments and wear patterns. A lot of them, particularly DIY jobs, look very unconvincing at best, appalling at worst.

I've got plenty of immaculte basses, plenty of room for another replica or a roadworn on the fleet.

 

[Salad Dodger]

Sorry if it upsets anybody, but I can't abide "relic'd" guitars and basses.

Both my telecaster copy and my Yamaha acoustic were bought brand new. Both get played at local open mic and/or folk sessions. Both have been marked by colliding with furniture or other obstacles, but neither was marked deliberately. I can't conceive of taking a carefully built, carefully finished guitar and then walloping 20 kinds of cr*p out of it, just to make it look older than it really is.
If I'm still around in 30 years time, and still able to play them, my guitars will have earned whatever scars or patina that they will have built up.

Would anyone buy a very tidy classic car and then go around hitting the panels with a hammer and some paint stripper to make it "road worn"?

 

[Drago]

The nice thing about my Limelight is I don't have to clean it, it doesn't matter if it gets knocked or banged, and it cost a fifth what a real early sixties Fender would have cost (and likely sounds better too) which I would have been frightened to take anywhere and actually use.

As aforementioned, I've plenty of immaculate instruments, the Limelight serves a useful purpose that they can't.

 

[Badger_Boom]

Sorry if it upsets anybody, but I can't abide "relic'd" guitars and basses.

Both my telecaster copy and my Yamaha acoustic were bought brand new. Both get played at local open mic and/or folk sessions. Both have been marked by colliding with furniture or other obstacles, but neither was marked deliberately. I can't conceive of taking a carefully built, carefully finished guitar and then walloping 20 kinds of cr*p out of it, just to make it look older than it really is.
If I'm still around in 30 years time, and still able to play them, my guitars will have earned whatever scars or patina that they will have built up.

Would anyone buy a very tidy classic car and then go around hitting the panels with a hammer and some paint stripper to make it "road worn"?

The crazy thing about relic-ed guitars is that old instruments that have aged naturally by being used are worth less than pristine examples, and yet people will pay a premium for new ones that have been made to ape actual wear. It boggles my mind.

 

[Drago]

Because, as aforementioned, a real battered pre-CBS Fender is liable to cost 5 or 10 times as much as a modern relic, be less suited to okayi g, particuly gigging, and have tired and crackly electrics.

The real crazy thing is that swapping out pots etc to make an old one more reliable and useable can actually devalue it. Even if you keep the original parts you can't restore the original solder, etc.

I can get it totally if people don't dig them. Taste is a very personal thing. But taste aside, most of the other reasons people trot out to justify it don't hold water.

 

[DCBassman]

To add my 2p: even as a pub musician, I'd use a nice bass. No point in having just for home noodling. Also why I don't have a lot of them. Two is a bit of a nuisance, space wise.

 

[Drago]

Oh, I use a nice bass live, but would you risk using a 10 grand Fender when a replica costing a tenth that can be had?

Our rhythmist has his PRS stolen at a gig and now, quite understandably, refuses to use anything except Harley Benton live. Imagine the vapours you'd have losing a 10 grand early 60s Fender compared to my Limelight?

The only legitimate objection against them is one of personal taste.

 

[DCBassman]

Oh, I use a nice bass live, but would you risk using a 10 grand Fender when a replica costing a tenth that can be had?

Our rhythmist has his PRS stolen at a gig and now, quite understandably, refuses to use anything except Harley Benton live. Imagine the vapours you'd have losing a 10 grand early 60s Fender compared to my Limelight?

The only legitimate objection against them is one of personal taste.

I wouldn't have a vintage instrument because in my opinion, there is nothing better about them at all. They're just old. If I were to order a Custom Shop Precision, at whatever cost, I'd gig it. Anywhere.
My first bass, new, was a 75 Precision. The next two were 60s Fenders, one of which was beautiful but an absolute dog, the other was heavily road-worn and was lovely. Absolutely without exception, every bass I've bought or built since has equalled any of the vintage originals. Vintage stuff, unless unique in some way, is a waste of good money. IMHO, natch.

 

[Drago]

I never said there was anything better about them.

That doesn't mean some folk don't prefer them though.

 

[DCBassman]

I never said there was anything better about them.

That doesn't mean some folk don't prefer them though.

Indeed. What I don't understand is why?

 

[delb0y]

I've been working on a few different fingerpicking pieces. This is an old piano rag from 1908, played on a Martin 00015m with a deliberate "dead thumb" sound.

View: https://youtu.be/nES111RaJ4k?si=B_t6ZaMXDA3B4n9m

 

[Richard A Thackeray]

I’ve posted in this evenings Friday Night Is…’ , l thought it was good enough to add here?

Almost criminally under-rated as a guitarist*

Glen Campbell
The William Tell Overture

View: https://youtu.be/GUBhE00h9U0?

* as are Jerry Reed, & Brian Setzer
(if Reed can have Chet Atkins looking astonished at his playing, l think that speaks volumes)

 

[Drago]

I’ve posted in this evenings Friday Night Is…’ , l thought it was good enough to add here?

Almost criminally under-rated as a guitarist*

Glen Campbell
The William Tell Overture

View: https://youtu.be/GUBhE00h9U0?

* as are Jerry Reed, & Brian Setzer
(if Reed can have Chet Atkins looking astonished at his playing, l think that speaks volumes)

I've always admired his playing, great economy of movement.

And in other news I've today done an audit of my basses, and about 2/3 have strings showing either visible wear, or staring to sound a bit dull. I've cobbled together two decent sets (all are super Slinky hybrid .45-.105 so mixing and matching is legit) for my older/ cheaper hacks, but I've just been bent over by G4M for eight new sets of Super Slinky pinks for the rest. I forsee a lot of tiresome string changing in my near future.

The Steinberger, Hofner violin and Hofner shorty aren't used so much and run different strings so they've escaped this time around.