-
^These are the higher-end ones, the Artstar Vintage series.
^ These are the Artcore Vintage guitars.
What are your thoughts? I think it's pretty cool to see Ibanez do something like this, AFAIK they haven't before. That said, the wear on the Artcores looks better than on the Artstars IMO.
Edit:
Here's a video of the Artcore Vintage in action
Looks and sounds fantastic!!Last edited by mr quick; 01-23-2016 at 04:16 AM.
-
01-23-2016 04:14 AM
-
not a fan of the look, they just look odd...plus I hate those headstocks. why can't they just leave the headstock blank(except for the name) and remove the block inlays? small things but they bug me. I'm more interested in the new gb model they released.
-
I just don't "get" aged guitars.
Don't like it on custom shop Strats, Teles or Les Pauls, and don't care for it here.
-
Agree completely. Gimmick. Ibanez try everything under the sun - red guitars, blue guitars and lightning blocks on headstocks. Sometimes it works. These examples look like damage more than wear which implies that the player bought a damaged guitar or damaged it him/her self. Not a USP.
-
I don't love the Artstars but I dig the look of the Artcores.
-
They look terrible.
-
Where's the cigarette burn?
-
Awful!
-
Ridiculous! Stupid!
I take great care in ensuring that my instruments remain in as pristine a condition as possible. I would feel terrible if they were to acquire a new ding, dent or scratch.
I would have no interest.
-
Hey Marwin,
If the consensus around here holds true, it looks like they won't be very popular.
That's OK -- leaves more for you & me . . . hopefully at deep discount
I always thought the relic thing was stupid too until I got my dreamy pink strat!
-
Buncha old guys! You guys prolly wouldn't buy ripped blue jeans either.
-
Well, I'm 35 and I think it looks awful
Strats, Teles, even LPs can all look 'cool' as a result of 'natural' wear and tear.
But Semi-Hollows etc? Nope. And not 'on purpose' either. Just a gimmick.
I do my best to keep all my guitars in great shape. Not just to keep value, but because I also respect them as pieces of art (and items I spent my hard earned cash on).
I just don't 'get it' on these guitars, if at all
-
I prefer making my own "vintage" items.
-
Most here don't like it, but I give it another thumbs up. If everyone had the same taste in guitars there would only need to be one model and one color.
-
Originally Posted by GNAPPI
Back when I was getting started if you saw cigarette burns or nicotine stains in a headstock you knew it was probably a good guitar because it was really gigged a lot. Same with old amp cigarette burns and beer bottle rings in tweed or tolex meant it was gigged a lot and good.
I have a couple relic'd guitars, but got them because they were great deals on good guitars. I've never went looking for a guitar because it was relic'd. Most to me don't look like real wear they over do it and that's what I think of those Ibanez's in the photos doesn't look real.
-
They charge extra for the ripped jeans. Don't they? Schmucks! Originally Posted by Jonathan0996
Buncha old guys! You guys prolly wouldn't buy ripped blue jeans either.
-
The Artstar Vintage has the worst relicing job I've seen. I've seen a lot of old guitars with organic wear and tear. None of them looked like someone took a small chisel to them. That's just not how old guitars look.
If I saw those first two guitars in a pawn shop, I'd figure the previous owner's girlfriend found him with another babe and got even with him.
-
I've gigging with my guitars since the 60's and they don't look like that!...must be doing something wrong!....L...
-
The cheaper art core looks ok. The more expensive arts tar looks downright stupid.
-
I would certainly want those if I lived here:
BTW that is a picture of an Art installation; just as contrived as the guitars.
-
Was that a sequel to this?
-
Clarification to my earlier post: the darker artcore is the one I like. The artstar looks silly to me.
-
I think the reliced ones look stupid. You reading this Ibanez ??
-
I say that naturally beaten guitar has some value to its owner, because the guitar has some history to it, and unless it's something structural, you shouldn't restore it. Restoring such thing is like applying botox to your wrinkles. It's not a manly thing to do. Deliberately ruining a guitar so it looks like it has a history behind it is like when a preteen or teen wants to look older. Buying a relic'd guitar, or even signature relic'd guitar, and that for a higher price is plain stupid in my book. But then again, people buy fake bumblebee caps for that mojo thing, so what do I know...
-
It occurs to me that from a manufacturing standpoint, the whole "relic-ing" thing might have begun (somewhat like sunbursts) as a way to salvage instruments that were inadvertently lightly damaged in handling or which developed or revealed defects during finishing. In other words, turning a bug into a feature, with perhaps a serendipitous upcharge.
Just spitballin' here.
Reply With Quote
Any Archtop guitar shows?
Today, 04:40 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos