Leaderboard

I really don't like relic'd guitars, but they do seem to have thinner finishes, and many of them that I have pickup up, and played next to their non relic'd counterparts, do seem a little louder acoustically. But I think a lot of the resonance is lost electrically if the pickups are potted, losing their ability to sense the vibration of the wood, and all custom cores have potted pickups. I say if you're buying online, and it's really tough decision, get a good return policy and buy both. Return the one that loses the comparison. Looks like the OP bought himself a Bartlett, which to me, is a guitar that was built by a master builder, and who has a great wood stash. I've never heard a bad Bartlett! There's a guy on the Les Paul Forum that has done some killer demos of Bartletts (I think he's owned three), and all of them sounded very vintage sounding to me in the best way. That said... I still can't get behind relic'ing, I'm just not a fan, no matter who does it! As for the quote "the finish is aged, faded, and checked naturally" in the description of the Bartlett, I don't get that. Because I have a different definition of naturally. To me, that means it was done by actually playing and owning the instrument, and earning those wear marks. It doesn't mean frozen by leaving it outside (or in a freezer) to check, or slicing the finish with a razor blade, Or using acid on the metal parts to get them to discolor of corrode, or tapping little dings into a finish. But to each his own so to say, and if aging makes the guitar feel or play better to the owner that's what really counts. Many players that I respect love aging, and some of them are very close friends of mine.

Your son works at Heritage now???

I’ve never heard that a relic’d guitar sound more open or better than a non relic’d one before. I can say that with about 40% of the finish rubbed off my 150 neck it does sound different now than when it was new. When I move my hand over the bare areas or scratch my fingernail on them it is louder than on the non bare areas. The guitar is more open than before but is that from the finish wear or the play time over the years and many hours of vibrating in front of a loud amp? Maybe a combination? It makes sense that a factory aged guitar could have more resonance and openness. I’ll never sport a guitar that wasn’t aged through real life and preferably from my real life; however, I do like to look at some of them because when done right they are quite beautiful.

I've heard people say that heavier guitars resonate more, I've heard that lighter guitars resonate more. Clearly there isn't a consensus about that. I'm of the opinion that there's more involved than weight. However, for me lighter guitars are a plus in the "stand and play" department! I was playing my 157 yesterday, and after 30 or so minutes, I had to stop. But it sounded killer while it lasted. 20 years ago, that wasn't a problem. I've got a bunch of guitars and none of them have checking, including a 1947 BR3 lapsteel. Equating checking with the guitar vibrating really doesn't make sense. That's actually the first time I've ever even heard anyone say that. The nitro coating is incredibly thin and it would be next to impossible for it to restrict the wood from carrying vibration. My belly pressing up to the back would dampen far more vibration than any coating. The look of the CC headstock is a nice improvement. The Don Grosh looks really interesting. I've played a couple of Grosh guitars and they were excellent instruments. I don't know that I've ever seen that model. The ones I've seen were Strats and Teles.