Re: Why so many relics

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:15:54 -0700, nick wrote:

On Oct 26, 1:46 pm, Woody <use...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I even blogged thusly:http://guitritus.bumlasers.com/?p=31

Wow - I didn't know that server had another use :-)

ok - now I read that I see that it is pretty well exactly what I said! So
yes, I agree. I also think a sunburst, black or white (well, cream I guess)
looks better relic'd than a red. But I don't know why. So if you have a
white one, presumably you need a *lot* of teabags?

All the tea bags. Ever!

ok, I won't get a white one, I would need more teabags.

On the subject of relic'ing, I read somewhere on t'interweb - probably
during research for the ... uh "teabagging" - that modern guitars will
not experience anything like the same aging process as their
predecessors.

I guess they won't because of the materials and the amount of bacon used.
Oh, no sorry, that was wolfbagging, not teabagging!

I'm sure that improved techniques regarding paint and
whatnot have either improved the cosmetic longevity of guitars, or
meant that they age differently at any rate. I'm sure this will only
serve to boost the "strategically bashed about" market in the future.

Probably that nitro-celulous dufer stuff. My gordon smith had that on and
looked old already, even though it wasn't. Although in the future, old
guitars won't be worth as much, as there are more of them now. I assume.

Unless we all start collecting Westone concordes.

--
Woody
.