Where’s the line, if there is one?

Personally, I’m not a fan of relicing, especially on acoustics. If you are, great. That’s one of the beauties of guitars- there are so many types and styles and so many types and styles of players. To be clear, we’re not talking about aging. We’re not talking about torrification. We’re talking about taking a new guitar and making it look like it’s been on tour and played hard everyday for decades.

Maybe it’s that I feel like battle scars should be earned, not created. You could argue it’s a form of art, but I’d bet the manufacturers don’t see it that way. Whether you like it or not, is there a line where it’s just… too much? Trying too hard? Diminishing the product? I think so and I found an example.

I recently picked up a nearly $2,000 guitar from a major manufacturer. It was an acoustic and it had a relic’d (proper word?) top. I didn’t like it, but I try to keep an open mind. It sounded okay, but a little soulless. I noticed a tiny little ridge on the lower bout and ran my finger over it. It was a sticker. A printed sheet of vinyl or some other material over the entire top. A $2,000 guitar, with a sticker over the entire top to make it look old. I hope, even if you like relicing, that crosses the line for you. Maybe, just maybe, if it was a couple hundred dollar guitar meant to entice the beginner- a cool looking guitar that brings them in- I could understand it. I mean, it’s not that far from using highly figured veneer on lower priced guitars for the same reason, but at that price point?

It doesn’t matter, in the end, what I think about a product I wouldn’t buy and don’t sell. I have to wonder though, what were they thinking? If the level of dust on the one I played is any indication, it isn’t going over well.