That was a fair and rational opinion from rhett even if I dont agree with it

The most important part of choosing a guitar is the nose, aroma and fragrance it gives off when the sommelier uncorks it.

I'll save you'all 10 mins of the click-bait title.... Rhett prefers satin necks and rolled fretboards, has really nothing to do with relic finishes but no one would get all pissed off and click if that was the title. ;)

I like the look of relic guitars, but I have to disagree that rolling the fingerboard and steel wool-ing the neck is relicing. For a guitar to be reliced, I think it has to give the impression of being a relic in all aspects--it has to show that it has significance as an instrument, which means it has to look like it was used a lot. Increased ergonomics like a rolled fingerboard and non-sticky neck, are just a development in production methods, and actually signify a later stage of production.

Relic or not, a good guitar is a good guitar, a bad guitar is a bad guitar, period.

I think we may be getting a few things mixed up together here, myself. "I" would suggest that rolled finger boards and rounded fret ends are not the same as relic guitars. Sanding the paint off and artificially aging the fret board is what I'd call a relic job. It would seem to be purely for aesthetics and have no affect on the playability. However, A natural or mat finished neck and rolled finger boards and rounded fret ends are all upgrades to a guitar that can be accomplished without artificially aging anything so that it looks old. Total novice here and this is just an observation that could totally be wrong. Thanks for a great video

Back in the day, the nitro-finished Fenders started looking relic-ed the minute they got gigged, and the maple fingerboards got divots if you even THOUGHT about playing them. Drove guitar players nuts and there were innumerable rattle-can refins. That is why there are so few original-finish Fifties Fenders left, and I suspect a lot of those are restorations masquerading as original. It's also why Leo went to rosewood fingerboards starting in 1958. It's ALSO why CBS went to poly in the early '70s. Rolled fingerboards and satin neck backs are ergonomically useful but can be part of new production without a banged-up body trying to impersonate an original. My take on relics is that by this time in history, no one now active remembers that once-upon-a-time your average-Joe player could make a decent living just playing music in the local bars, so today's dentists, accountants, and urban planners who do play have to make do with looking like they were real musicians.

I'm 45, have played ~ 30 years. I can give all the reasons why I like relic'd guitars, but if nothing else, I enjoy them. I also have a new non-relc'd guitar that I wouldn't really want to get dinged up. Both have their place.

A lot of these reasons you listed are why I only buy used guitars. They don't have to be vintage to be broken in. You can get a guitar from 15-20 years ago for much cheaper than a new guitar. And it will often be very comfortable to play. Sure, it won't be as worn down as a vintage or relic'd guitar, but it will have been played enough to get rid of the rough edges and sticky neck.

I just have to clear this up because it bugs me. Polyurethane is the finish polyester is a fabric

I've been repairing guitars for over 25 years, so this isn't something i share really often, but personally i recoil from relicing. I don't think it's because in making it look old, they're making them look more valuable as much as it's imbuing it with a sort of manufactured character. There's definitely truth in the idea that they're more comfortable and lived in feeling, and that they tend to sound better due to the things that happen in the relicing process: thinner finish, lighter and dryer wood, etc. But there's nothing keeping people from building a new unreliced guitar with all of those same characteristics: the neck profile, fretboard shaping, thinner and harder finish (they changed the finishes more to last longer than to make it any safer. They add plasticizers and inhibitors to make it more mailable longer so it doesn't cheque and flake off, but there's still finish without them), etc. I get why people like them, i just don't ever see having a guitar built for myself and opting for an aged look. 🤷

spin it any way you want, but relics are still for posers.

My favorite aspect of having a lightly reliced guitar is that you don’t care if you get a ding or scratch. With a shiny new guitar, the first ding is a travesty, with a reliced guitar, it adds character. You’re 100% right about a reliced guitar feeling way, way better

I prefer non-relic guitars 🎸. Every nick, ding, smudge and scuff is something that I have accidentally done to them. Just my personal preference. I agree with Samurai Guitarist.

Rolling fingerboard, making the neck mate doesn’t count as relicing because it doesn’t look old. The neck doesn’t wear that way. Relicing is aesthetic and adjusting the neck is ergonomics. You should buy custom shop with intact finish and “relic” neck.

Im going over to the gear page and starting a scathing thread before I watch this. brb

Sanding down the neck, fretboard, or fret edges is just a MODIFICATION. The flaking paint and artificial fret gunk is a "relic" thing. IMO obviously.

I have three main guitars, I did sand off a bit of the shiny lacquer on the neck on two of them (Ibanez Artcore AF75, Harley Benton TE70) and I do appreciate the fact that my No. 1 (Music Man St Vincent) already has a nice soft finish. This is adjustment to personal taste, but I wouldn't call it "relicing", as I did it right away after I got them. But then, this may be just different wording. But I just cannot grasp the fact that someone's willing to pay around 5600 Dollars for a Telecaster with a relic finish. This is just beyond me. I get it, quality wood, quality tuners, well-crafted pickups, exact measurement, acute craftmanship in putting the components together. But it's a freakin' Telecaster - literally the prototype of mass-produced guitars. I don't mean this in any derogatory way, I love the simplistic design, but incredibly variable tone. But paying effing 5600 Dollars for a Telecaster with all the ingredients of a 50s design plus "relic" is just ridiculous, sorry.

For me the sweet spot was Fender's short-lived Road Worn Player series. Neck finishes were nicely broken in but an even, consistent fashion over the entire length without patches of extreme wear/ discoloration.

So true! When I bought my tele, I had no intention of buying a reliced guitar but fell in love with how a reliced one felt. 7 years later, the neck on that guitar still makes me happy every time I play it.

The most important advice on guitar buying I ever got, from my first teacher, when I was 16: You need to buy the guitar with *looks* that inspire you most--it's what will get you to take it off the wall and play more, which is how you improve.

I think most people's issue with relics is not the "broken in" part. It's the esthetic and the fact that you are deceiving people about the nature of the instrument and the time you might have spent on it. Yes, sanding the fingerboard and the back of the neck is a sort of "relic" that makes your guitar feel better. The finish being uncomfortable is not an argument for relic'ing, it's an argument against the finish. Does the finish feel bad? If yes, then why is it there? Find another one if you're gonna get a custom guitar. And making the guitar look like it was played even though it wasn't makes a prop out of it imo. I'm all for making your instrument more comfortable with strategic sanding and modding, that's absolutely a way to make it your own and improves your instrument. But that is not the argument against relic'ing for people who don't like it. I whole-heartedly agree with Ol' Sammy G about earning the ageing. The only reason for a relic look, as you admittedly argue after his clip, is that it looks like it's from the 50s because a newer one will never age the same way. It's a fetishization of the vintage. To each their own of course! Let's just be honest about why people like relics and pay (a big) extra for it, it's not the feel, even though the feel is improved.

Grew up dirt poor in the 60s and 70s…all we could afford was “relics “…😂 they were in a barrel with 3 rusty ‘relic’ strings and warped necks in the back or hanging from a wall next to the automotive parts in the pawnshop….hey, if it makes you happy and play better I’m all for it…😊

In 50 years people will say - ''It just doesn't wear like a Polly finish''. I'll be 90 years old doing this... 🙄

I have a Sonic Blue 1960 Fender Stratocaster Custom Shop relic which can happily sit out on a stand and be played ANY time without worrying about damage, discolouration, nicks or dings. It plays beautifully. I also have a Mint- Alpine White 1987 Gibson Les Paul Custom with Tim Shaw's. It also plays beautifully, but it lives in its case in the attic for fear of damage, discolouration, nicks or dings... This is why I love a 'relic'. I've also got two other 'road worn' Telecasters which can sit out on stands - the Joe Strummer 2007 and Chrissie Hynde 2022. They stay out on stands, whilst my Mint Pink Paisley CIJ Telecaster is forced to hide like a recluse in its case. I'm not trying to fool anyone, but for me it's the smoothness and feel of playing these relics, but mainly because they can be ACCESSIBLE at all times. As for the naysayers - "That guitar didn't earn its damage" and the "You're just a poseur" all I can say is "I don't give a f**k what you think !!"😄

I can’t agree that filing fret ends smoothing a neck finish to play smoother falls into the ‘relic’ description. As you show, many guitars are built with nicely rounded frets and minimal fishing on the neck to play smoother. Performing those tasks is merely bringing the guitar to a performance spec that is not intended to make the guitar look like something it isn’t.

I like relics but man 90% of them look like shit in real life

Rhett one of the biggest (at least for me) advantages to a relic guitar is that you dont have to handle a finely made instrument with kid gloves. I had an ES335 that i left in the car on a cold night accidentally that ended up checking in the cold in a weird way and it basically was a $1000 mistake. My Novos I bang on stuff all the time and it doesnt matter because no one can tell what was intentionally done and what was accidentally done

Relic-ing is way more about the aesthetic of aging a guitar's finish and other cosmetic elements. And if you only sand your neck and roll your fingerboard edges, you're not really relic-ing your guitar. 100% it's about image and stolen valor.

The worn jeans example is so funny to me when 99% of the jeans people buy are already washed and worn when you get them. Yes even the 501, even your cowboy cut wrangler. Everything that’s not raw denim is “reliced” to make it comfortable to wear out of the store. And I’m not even talking about the stone washed ones…

To improve the quality of this video, release it in sepia tone. Ridiculous.

Nope. I'd never pay for faux-jo. I've got a few beaten up vintage lap steels but otherwise I prefer new guitars in near mint condition because I haven't beaten the shit out of them and called it mojo. Which is as pathetic as fake ripped jeans.

“Fake memories” - Tom Bukovac

I love a relic job that mimics years of lovingly accumulated honest play wear. That tele’s finish looks like it’s been subjected to abject abuse, vandalism and neglect. Not the same thing.

The guitar feels nicer because it has a rolled fingerboard and the neck is satin finished, not gloss (and sticky) Anyone can do these jobs on a new guitar - but there are also a load of new guitars that already do these things anyway without faking a guitar to make it look 60 years older than it is Maybe if you are in some sort of Tribute band and you look like and play like Rory Gallagher, then you might actually want a Strat that looks like the Rory Strat, then fair dos I mostly dislike the blatantly artificial look of the wear on the fretboard, specifically on strats with maple boards. They look so blatantly like someone has just taken a grinder to just take off the finish / lacquer. They probably look a lot better after they been played every day for a couple of years, but the brand new ones look so fake... So this is click bait It's not a relic guitar that you like, Rhett It's a guitar with a nice neck feel. The rest of the guitar does not need to have artificially corroded parts, or an angle grinder taken to it, does it?

So relic necks feel better to play which is why they should relic the body?

Totally ruffled. I put my own scratches/dents in my stuff thank you very much. No upcharge either.

How come nobody relics a PRS premium top ? Would play so much better.

The relicing treatment on the neck and fretboard server to alter the feel and playability of the guitar. In that sense, there is a mechanical function being served. Relicing the body, as far as I can tell, is more about aesthetic. (I'll happily concede this point, as I'm not an experienced player. It's just what I currently perceive) Both are completely valid. If you want a worn-in neck, so you have a slightly smoother feel as you play, then by all means, go to town on the neck. If you want to put up an older "feel" to your show, then you wear grubby older clothes, you let the stubble grow in so you look rough around the edges, and you relic the body of your guitar, to match the image. Do either of these effect the tone of the guitar? Not as far as I know. Do they effect the feel of playing it? Absolutely.

Over 20 years ago I walked into the Fender Custom Shop room at the Dallas Guitar Center and played just about all of the Strats in there. Most were relics but a couple were NOS models. The NOS models felt noticeably stiff compared to the relics, which felt wonderfully broken in and also sounded great acoustically. Ever since then I have preferred relics. I don’t really like the overdone heavy relics so much as what they now call a journeyman relic, which has a few dings and dents and a very broken in neck. The feel of the broken in neck is really what I like the most about relics. Also, I don’t worry in the least about bumping it or scratching it on something. I’m not trying to deceive anyone and it doesn’t matter to me what anyone else thinks about why my guitar looks the way it does. It is purely for my own enjoyment. I would gladly tell anyone how old it is if they asked me. I’ve been playing guitar for more than 50 years and don’t have anything to prove to anyone else.

Every guitar goes through sanding in production, sanding the neck to your desired feel doesn’t seem to me like “relicing” the guitar. If it’s comfort you are after, i believe there are a lot of options to choose from in 2024. Other than that relicing is purely vibe and looks (which is totally fine, I just don’t see the reason to hide it with functional reasons)

I can’t think of any other word than “poser” for people that buy relic guitars. “Relic” it yourself by playing the hell out of it for several years. Use it as a tool and not an art piece.

Nailed it. I have two Nash relics and one from the Fender Custom Shop and they’re amazing in looks and in feel. Nobody is into these because they’re trying to trick people. We just aren’t going to live long enough to relic a new poly guitar.

People getting upset over relic guitars is by far worse than owning one. If its not your thing, just don't buy one lol pretty simple.

I don't know, I don't see it. I understand making a guitar more comfortable, but is that ageing? Not in my book.

I think people like relic'd guitars because it looks like they've played longer than they have.

Yeah no sorry you can talk a mile of words but this 'feels already worn in' argument is just a fancy way of saying 'well it looks vintage so now I can feel some kind of way' which is saying YES in fact it is all about aesthetics. No shame if you love a relic guitar but let's not pretend if actually plays better because somebody scuffed the paint and hardware a bit.

It's funny the mental gymnastics people do to claim "relic guitars are better". I don't know which group makes better gymnasts, the relic crowd, or the tonewood crowd.

Fake wear is the stupidest concept that's EVER been introduced to the world. What a part of FAKE Don't you get?

There is a company called RUF who use a manmade material called RUFFAINE to make their guitars - and what makes it special is that - RUFFAINE can be altered to mimic any density of wood - so that you can custom make any sound profile you want. I would argue that the coating of a guitar has very little to do with the actual sound - and that the most important is the pickups on electric guitars. There is a resonance and sustain profile - but it is small as well. The next in impact are the strings that are used. And then the material. AND if you are focused on the feel of the instrument - why not get an unpainted partscaster ? $5000 for a relic Guitar - is a placebo effect. It places the idea that someone played the hell out of an instrument so it must be seriously good sounding. And it might be seriously good sounding - but I think it comes more from the pickups than anything else.

I stopped playing guitar for about 10 years (life got in the way) and one day I saw Fender’s road worn series. I thought what a cool looking guitar and I swear I felt the calling. It was like that guitar was telling me I need to get back on the saddle. Now, from the industry point of view, since then, I’ve brought 4 more guitars, amps, a bunch of pedals, cables, strings, etc, etc so it’s a definitely win for them.

Relic neck yes, high-quality relic of the body to include finish checking yes but a large portion of the finish having been worn off or removed or whatever that is you have on that telly is a no for me.

Agreed. The anti-relic crowd thinks it’s about deceiving people into thinking you bought a new shiny guitar and played the crap out of it for years to make it look aged, when it’s not about that at all. It’s a way to get the feel and character of a VINTAGE (as in already old and worn when you first come across it) guitar, without having to actually buy a 5 to 6 figure (and often high-maintenance) vintage instrument

I have a Carson Hess broadcaster that is indistinguishable from a real broadcaster. I even have a 1950 champ lap steel pickup in the bridge and the old wiring harness. I love it even more than my real 1957 and 1966 telecasters.

I bought a Fender 52 Hot Rod Telecaster Butterscotch Blonde used about 15 years ago. I love the feel of vintage gear, worn necks and dings, you know, the character thing... Well, rather than just outright relicing it, I accidentally dropped it once and it got a good dent in the edge of the body all the way to the wood. Since then I just use it and abuse it. The thing is a tank and I just throw it around and kinda neglect it and never polish it -- drop my keys and tools on it when I change strings, and scrape the edges with a pocket knife, and run green Scotchbrite on the neck to keep it nice and smooth (the neck had a satin finish but now it's gone where my hands travel on both the fretboard and the back). So, I play the crap out of it and gig with it. It looks like I have put 40 years of wear on it so far and I just love the way it looks, feels, and plays -- It has some serious mojo.

To me the ripped jeans analogy is a strawman argument. A more appropriate analogy is a worked in baseball glove

When I play a new guitar I’m paranoid to scratch, but when it’s a relic you just go wild 😂

Very much agree with your take on this Rhett! I used to feel this shame to like the broken in and beat up look. Now I truly see the work these custom shops are doing as art in its own right. It’s beautiful and anyone that takes issue with it I feel has some issues they need to deal with. I actually have a couple vintage guitars and while I love the honest wear, it’s not MY wear and I never really feel like the guitar is mine, at least not for some time. This doesn’t happen with the custom shop stuff. I feel instantly at home and I’m happy to let my additional bumps and bruises make it mine as we go. You guys can keep the pristine ones, relic mine and relic them GOOD!

I refer to relic my own guitars by playing them. Next you'll saying relic cars are better.

The best guitars have been well-played AND CARED FOR. Some of my own guitars that are 50 to 60 years old were purchased new, had the hell played out of them, but were wiped down and put away in the case. I’ve needed refretting a time or two, have honest neck and body wear, naturally “rolled” fingerboard edges, but very few dings or missing finish. Wearing the paint off of your guitar was never cool - it’s just ignorant to destroy your valuable instrument - especially in the name of relic’ing it. It’s like taking a pretty girl and giving her acne and rotten teeth to artificially age her - a really bad idea.

A relic guitar is posing. It didnt earn the damage nor does it have stories to tell. Its simply posing.

I have a 1952 Goldtop. My lifetime guitar. It sounds amazing, but looks even better all greened out over 70 plus years. I recently went into a local shop that I frequent and picked up a used Gretsch which is my first Gretsch and I in honeymoon mode with it right now. I have owned dozens of Gibson Les Paul R9' R8's and R7's. I can appreciate the difference in price for them (maybe not so much now, but when I started buying them the difference in price was not so astounding) But I could never bring myself to pay 5k plus for a bolt on neck guitar! As I was leaving the guy I work with said "if you want one of those custom shop Fender's Ill make you a great deal!" I grabbed a 52 Tele with a humbucker in the neck. I have a 51 Tele Vintage Reissue 2 which is FANTASTIC! As soon as I grabbed the neck on the custom shop I thought damn I am in trouble! I felt great and when I plugged it into a Vox AC10 it was alive! He looked around the corner in suprise and said "thats the BRIDGE PICKUP?!" It was just a phenomenal guitar. So much I started calculating what I could move/trade to come up with the cash. He did offer me a great deal. I havent pulled the trigger but it does keep me up at nights at times! I gig and record so I am not a collector per se. But in my opinion there IS a difference. Do you need to spend that much? No. But Damn that Tele was nice!

I'm in the camp that thinks relic as an aesthetic looks dumb over 99% of the time. Case in point: When Rhett first got that Tele, he said it looked ridiculous, and I agree. I get the point that a relic'd guitar 'feels' better and thus, is the reason, and can appreciate that. I guess my gripe or disagreement is the neck example - got a poly coated neck? Scrubbing it with steel wool, to me, isn't a relic as much as it's just fixing it - doing it right, vs. artificial aging. If the industry could stop doing that to necks, and just do it lighter or choose a different method (but not charge us for 'less is more') then the guitar would be fixed - not relic'd. The example of the pre-worn guitar that doesn't look like it is great, but if they charge a premium to just do it right - build it more comfy as a standard, that's where I feel like they're taking advantage. More labor to make it like that? Sure. But if it wasn't such a high falutin feature, and just what was done during assembly as a standard, it wouldn't get what is likely a higher price for it. Build a comfy guitar for a comfy price, instead of guitars that aren't comfy, or take work to complete it after you paid too much up front. The video is great, and covers the argument well, But if they were all built with comfort features for, say, a Fender American Standard price, without the extra aesthetic, that'd be great.

Well i have reliced 2 squier strats…I love it. They feel good, they look great and guess what…I will keep relicing guitars for fun, because i enjoy playing a broken in instrument and they look dope❤ 100% with you Rhett. But I also have my Gibson LP Studio that I got as a gift back in 1996. That one I leave it as it is which is also 30 years old and I will let it age acordingly. ❤

Why I’m not watching this video and it’s ridiculous premise.

None of us hate relic guitars themselves, they’re just objects. We hate people who misrepresent their amount of experience for cred

Fenders relics don’t really look or feel vintage if you’ve played real examples. That said, they do still feel better than a non relic’d version.

I agree Rhett. Less fear of scratching or denting frees me up to play them. I typically prefer the feel. Maybe I’m too nice to the new ones. I’m also 56 years old. I’m not going to see 60 more years of natural aging in my bar gigs. Finally, you get vintage feel, better reliability at a tenth of vintage cost.

I would make a distinction between performance enhancement (rounding/wooling the neck) and relic (aesthetic "blemishes"/aging etc)..

I like the oiled neck idea. That seems to be the part that makes you comfortable. Making the finish on the body of the guitar to look like it survived an inferno doesn't add a thing for me.

I love the feel, but hate the look. Pre-worn jeans, I love. Pre-ripped jeans, I hate. Everyone likes pre-worn equipment. Baseball gloves, Motocross boots, guitar amp speakers, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc. I had to sell my PRS because I was too afraid to scratch it. I only played when I was in a room by myself. It was too beautiful and too expensive. It never broke in and was always "just for looks". Same for Rhett, he looks pretty worn-in, and plays like it!

I wasn't a fan until I played one. Went into Coda Music to try some guitars, played a relic guitar and was instantly converted. Walked out with a CS Jazzmaster

I can’t wait for the Internet to explode over this (I’m with you Rhett)

My counter argument IS : Everyone has different acid and oil levels in their bodies . So everyone’s degree of relic will differ . We all hold the guitar differently , so the touch points will age in different areas . I come from a saxophone background and some people like unlacquered horns because of the relic look . But once you touch an unlacquered saxophone , your body acid/oil will stain the metal and no two horns will ever look the same . The difference is that a new saxophone’s unlacquered brass will look relic as the individual touches it . I have 3 unlacquered saxophones and they all look different after being exposed to the elements.

FYI, dried Nitrocellulose, itself, is NOT toxic, nor does it have an odor, but the solvents and some of the modifiers used in the lacquer can be.

I hate seeing a wall of relic'd guitars that are all relic'd identically.

I waited to finish the video before I went to comment. I still respectfully disagree. I think the difference is negligible. If the feel of a guitar is the deciding factor for whether or not it’s worth the premium of relicing then I would have to say it’s not worth it. As long as a guitar is built properly, has decent hardware and is set up properly, I think fixating on the feel is reading too much into it. To that end the point of relicing to me is mostly aesthetic and therefore imo goes back to the argument samurai guitarist brought up about “stolen valor”

Dude, doesn’t like the tube screamer and now he’s making an argument for this well….

Thank you for making this video. I've always wanted to clear this is up. See, buying a relic has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else. It has to do with how YOU like a guitar to feel in your hands. People who have been playing for 20 or 30 years are not interested in trying to deceive anyone about the age of their guitars. They just aren't, guys. If you've ever played a really good vintage guitar, they feel great. They have a certain mojo and a vibe, and for me, when a guitar feels worn in, I just want to sit and play the guitar and not think about anything else. A lot of that is in the neck but it is also psychological/visual. You're often looking down at the guitar while you're playing, and so the visual aesthetic of the body does contribute to that worn in "feel" of the guitar. Many people simply like the way vintage guitars feel and look, and a relic feels closer to a vintage guitar.

You could have Fender and Gibson save a lot of money by not painting the guitar at all and then Rhett will be happy.

I got a custom shop masterbuild last year, the Blungeon. Ordered it before the prices went up. Custom shop guitars now cost what I paid for the masterbuild. This guitar made me a better player all around.

Nope

From the perspective of someone who had guitar crafting apprenticeship.Light Wood selection makes a big difference as it raises the bar of starting point. Then the wood goes through CNC and first stage of sanding. Next is design and the actual body and neck shaping. Body and Neck Shaping is very critical when it comes to softening the edges of every corner even the pick up routing cavities. That’s what gives out the feeling of smoothness or the broken in feel when you look, hold and play it. Great body and neck sanding will result in evenness on the surface of top and back with no bump when running hand through it even the armrest will feel smooth and the feel of transition is very minimal to none. Also something that the eyes can’t see as the process of putting the neck together. Truss-rod, fingerboard, side dots - imagine a chunk of glue were applied unevenly, that might add some stiffness. Neck are sanded to the exact measurements using straightedge to make sure there is no bump along the neck when running your hand up and down. Well crafted instruments are given attention to those little things. Then when the body and neck is sanded precisely to the measurement. I mean precisely measuring with straightedge and checking the shadow reflection for uneven layer of sanding. Then it is ready for painting. Now every guitar are starting to off with brand new paint then to the relic process. From my experience, the place I had an apprenticeship are handcrafted relic guitars only. They are in 4-5000 price range. All attention to detail were given to most guitar equally although strat takes longer than tele. But the end result, same model, same relic, same hardware, same builder but the one with lighter wood seems to stands out. But that does’t mean then just pick out the lightest guitar because if the attention to detail of the craftsmanship is not there then its not going to be at its best stage. However I only handled body and neck shaping while the other staff does the painting. I can say that body and neck shaping making everything softer will make the guitar has broken feel in your hand.

It’s weird that people hate on relics. It’s like hating EV cars…

What I find funny is that Jimmy Page's #1 Les Paul has been extensively toured around the world and been around for 50+ years, yet it looks nowhere near the "heavy relic" we see on some of these instruments today. I've never seen a touring player have a guitar that looks as heavily reliced as that Tele. SRV's Strat wasn't even that beat. Fact is, most people would have had a guitar that looks like that Tele resprayed at some point, just because it protects the wood and the guitars start to look beat.

*checks date* oh wait this isn’t a joke

Up until a couple years ago, I was one of those guys who thought relicing was just a cosmetic thing for posers. Then I heard the arguments about the ultra smooth feel and playability.. However the most compelling argument was the fact that with a relic you can have a top-notch guitar that you don't feel afraid to wail on. All of that being said, I would NEVER pay $5K for a guitar. Not because it isn't worth it; I just don't have that kind of money to spend on a guitar. A couple years ago I bought a Sire T7 "Tele" for $450.00 brand new. The fit and finish is perfect... not good, not great.... perfect. But mainly, Sire rolls their fretboard edges just like a $5K relic, and it is INCREDIBLY comfortable. Plus, they use an ultra-smooth matte finish on the roasted maple neck. You would swear you were holding the neck of fantastic relic.

In the 80s, we relic'd our own jeans

"My middle-aged ass looks so much cooler when a grungy, dinged-up guitar is hanging in my office than a shiny new one that I obviously never play".

Favorite part: It creates space for me to let my kids hold the guitar without being worried if something happens. Having 4 kids means a new guitar will only look new for a couple weeks.

Pre-ripped jeans? That’s all I buy! On the topic of guitars though, I was never a relic fan until recently. I bought the EVH ’78 Eruption model - now I know it’s a “cheap” relic from Mexico but I adore it, the dings and worn through bits, and the smooth neck is stunning! It’s also a lot nicer (IMO) to play than the shiny Stripe series. I’ll never be able to afford a Custom Shop relic, but the Mike McCready Strat is high on my list as it looks awesome and I bet it feels even better.

Glad this weeks post is non controversial! 😂 I bought a ‘66 Telecaster in the late 80’s that was truly worn in. No finish on the back of the neck, checking, dings, chipped, worn, rust, stains etc. Have no idea if it was all real? Part of the reason I bought it…REGARDLESS, I wasn’t the one who had put those miles on the guitar! That guitar had a whole life before I got it. I didn’t feel bad for playing it, or guilty for not being the one who put the miles on. In that same time period people were already making their guitars less pretty (think PUNK ROCK), abusing the finish, adding stickers, taking the finish off, routing the “wrong” pickups into the “wrong” guitars. SRV, Eddie Van Halen, Joe Strummer and countless others fucked up their guitars on purpose, with purpose or just ‘cause! I think relics can be very cool. FYI, I would never look at that Tele and think it’s a real ‘52.

Artificially relic'd guitars just feel like cheating imo. I get the aesthetic I just think it'd look way cooler and it's 1000x more fulfilling if it happens naturally after years of performing with it. I've never personally had a problem with a neck getting sticky or anything even remotely close to that with any kind of finish on a neck, and I sweat a ton. I have necks that are very high quality with what looks like no lacquer, and ones that look like they were made in a lollipop factory. But I've never experienced the "sticky sweat hands" like what seems every other guitarist in the world is prone to. If a guitar comes artificially relic'd I get that, but don't go artificially relicing good instruments because you don't know how to wash your hands properly lol Plus 9/10 homemade relicing jobs look absolutely atrocious, so do your research if you're considering it

I think the word “relic” part of the problem. A relic by definition implies old and valuable. A guitar that is trying to look old, and thereby valuable - either monetarily or as street cred - is inherently artificial. But you made it very clear you can get all the improvements in comfort without making a guitar that looks old. So they are in fact separate things. A relic look is an aesthetic choice just like sparkle, pointy guitars, or stickers. I don’t think we have to justify it as functional any more than we have to condemn it as dishonest.

I was in my local Harley Davidson dealer once to collect my '64 Panhead. A guy came in to buy some riding gloves and the dealer showed him a selection. "No", he said, "These all look too new, I want the aged ones." That's easy the dealer replied. Buy these new ones and go and put 10,000 miles on your bike. Aren't guitars the same? Rory Gallagher's strat looked like it did because he played the shit out of it every night for 20 years. Peter Green's 59 Les Paul the same. The idea that a cosmetic stylist gives instant cred to the player so he or she appears like they've been gigging for years makes no sense to me. Love your channel Rhett but can't agree with you on this one.

Sorry, but all your arguments are simply dragged in by the head and shoulders. You say a relic guitar feels better because it feels broken in - but the difference to a so called new guitar is just that the neck is painted with the wrong lacquer or the fretboard is not taken care of enough. A new guitar does not have to be painted in polyester and a fretboard can be taken care of without having the whole guitar looking damaged and used for 60 years. All the things you say you prefer on a "Relic" guitar can be taken care of on a "New" guitar as well and it will feel and play as well as your "Relic" guitar. Why don´t you simply say "I like it that way" ? That is ok. But don´t try to find reasons that don´t exist.

I found a NEW way to relic a guitar: I let my 8th grade students play my Strat.

An interesting discussion. I was against relic’d guitars until recently when I tried and subsequently bought a Murphy Lab ‘59, swiftly followed by a ‘56 gold top with P90s. I absolutely agree that it’s not just how they look but also how they feel. I think a big part of the argument, especially for the Murphy Lab models (and possibly Fender too) is that the guitars that end up relic’d have been specifically chosen for features such as lightness and overall quality. I agree that a cheaper guitar with an aged neck will probably feel marginally nicer to play than one with a thick poly finish, but the feel of a Murphy Lab LP compared to a factory ‘standard’ is like night and day. It’s not just the relic’ing but the standard of the guitar before the process even begins.

The thing I never see people mention with a relic guitar is that it is going to continue to age MUCH faster than a non aged guitar. It will wear into your playing style so it fits like a glove in no time. So the bare wood will absorb your sweat, blood, and tears, the paint will take on your own mojo and the relic will merge with your own play wear.

Rhett, I love your stuff but have to call BS on your choice of terms while agreeing with some of your general argument. If a guitar maker (or repairman after manufacture) adjusts the fingerboard edge roll or carefully finishes the fret ends more carefully, or leaves the neck finish off entirely to make it play better that's craftsmanship, not a relic. I even understand the nitro finish choice in that it does wear differently and arguably more desirably. I can see where you would want to replace a part on a vintage guitar with a used part if you could find it so it matched the age and appearance. I guess the next best thing would be a repro part that was (gulp) distressed in some way. But that's restoration. Guitars that wore naturally? All the respect. When I see CS guitars with Rhode Island size patches of finish missing, it just looks silly. Putting parts in corrosive chemicals to age them... what a hoax. Besides, of you want metal to corrode you would call my friend Guillermo and just have him touch the parts. He once placed his palm on the hull of a battleship and it sank 20 minutes later. That's why he uses Elixers. I agree with the Samurai guy that artificially creating the appearance of age and use is dishonest and contrived. This reminds me of the movie Crossroads when the Willie Brown guy told the kid that he probably bought his guitar because he thought it looked beat up. Let's also remember that our heroes generally played new gear, especially after they were famous. Hendrix played big headstock Strats eventually. Most of those were horrible. Pre-CBS was a term that was already being used in the mid 70s. To young people, those are old guitars and the next thing to be called vintage, but as a made in 1962 guy, I'll tell you we had no respect for guitars of that era, and time hasn't changed that for me. I think 1962 was the peak year for Fender guitars and basses, so maybe that's not a coincidence. I bought an 1964 L-series Jazz Bass from my gym teacher for 140 bucks in the 70s. I sold it to Stan Jay a long time ago for 2K and i'm sure I got some nice things with that money. I loved that bass, and it made the Jazz Bass (model) my forever number one. But I wouldn't pay the going rate to get it back because modern reproductions of those instruments are fantastic / better. That golden era Jazz Bass of mine had a pick guard screw going in at an angle. So they drilled out the bevel to get it to go in further and be less noticeable. That would never have passed modern QC. I have a big instrument, amp, mic and recording gear collection and a few of the things I have are actually old. Most guitars I have are relatively modern because if someone is crazy enough to pay for my vintage things, I'll go along with it. Minus a few sentimental favorites, I replace them with similar looking modern tools. But even the vintage instruments I have look new. You see, when I bought something, I used it, but took care of it. Don't confuse that with not getting played. I love finding closet instruments because I like things to look new. But after that, they're in the pride parade because I want to show them off. Do I have a few dings on my most used instruments? YES, but not many, and not on purpose.