RoyB Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 Ok first let me say don't turn this into the typical I hate Relics topic. I don't care if you hate them or not, we just want you to vote on if this specific guitar would be cooler new or aged. Should it be New with matching headstock aged with matching headstock new no matching headstock aged no matching headstock
belikerick Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 New With Matching Headstock - SPARKLY!! p.s. you should put up a poll, would seem easier
RoyB Posted February 13, 2010 Author Posted February 13, 2010 New With Matching Headstock - SPARKLY!! p.s. you should put up a poll, would seem easier I thought I did, but I guess it did not work.
Rocktuna Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 Age that bad boy, not a fan of matching head stocks.
jerseydrew Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 Age that bad boy, not a fan of matching head stocks.Agreed!
dangravano Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 Ok first let me say don't turn this into the typical I hate Relics topic. I don't care if you hate them or not, we just want you to vote on if this specific guitar would be cooler new or aged. Should it be New with matching headstock aged with matching headstock new no matching headstock aged no matching headstock No matter what you do Roy it will look great, If I were getting it I think I would want aged W/ matching headstock
DaveL Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 aged, non matching headstock... light to medium, don't gocrazy on the arm wear patch
cmatthes Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 I like matching headstocks, but only with rosewood boards. Matching headstocks on maple boards looks like ass.Not on point here, but I HATE that overdone arm wear patch on many aged/relic guitars. I've been around vintage guitars for over 25 years, and very rarely see anything as deliberate looking as the way that is usually done.
RoyB Posted February 13, 2010 Author Posted February 13, 2010 I like matching headstocks, but only with rosewood boards. Matching headstocks on maple boards looks like ass.Not on point here, but I HATE that overdone arm wear patch on many aged/relic guitars. I've been around vintage guitars for over 25 years, and very rarely see anything as deliberate looking as the way that is usually done.Oh and I should have said it's a rosewood board.
BubbaVO Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 The rug should always match the curtains. Turn this one into 100% cougar.
Stike Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 I like matching headstocks, but only with rosewood boards. Matching headstocks on maple boards looks like ass.Not on point here, but I HATE that overdone arm wear patch on many aged/relic guitars. I've been around vintage guitars for over 25 years, and very rarely see anything as deliberate looking as the way that is usually done.Oh and I should have said it's a rosewood board.I agree with Chris 110%. You say RW then I vote new with matching head. Except for Goldtops I'm not a big fan of aged metallics and that one looks to be more coarse/sparkly than Goldtop bronzing powder.
RoyB Posted February 13, 2010 Author Posted February 13, 2010 I like matching headstocks, but only with rosewood boards. Matching headstocks on maple boards looks like ass.Not on point here, but I HATE that overdone arm wear patch on many aged/relic guitars. I've been around vintage guitars for over 25 years, and very rarely see anything as deliberate looking as the way that is usually done.Oh and I should have said it's a rosewood board.I agree with Chris 110%. You say RW then I vote new with matching head. Except for Goldtops I'm not a big fan of aged metallics and that one looks to be more coarse/sparkly than Goldtop bronzing powder.Yep this is full on gold sparkle not gold top powder. It's kind of Dick Dale looking.
santellavision Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 I voted new, matching. I don't feel aging looks that good on custom finishes. Yeah, I love aged guitars, especially on Bursts or solid colors, but not on sparkle type finishes. Just my 2¢.
Stike Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 Yep this is full on gold sparkle not gold top powder. It's kind of Dick Dale looking. Matching guard might be kool. Even though the wear is honest I think "The Beast" would look better in new condition . I saw him live in the early 90's and it was beat to shit then.
murkat Posted February 13, 2010 Posted February 13, 2010 new, with matching headstock, but...... hee hee... not aged, but, dull, pewter'd parts
RoyB Posted February 15, 2010 Author Posted February 15, 2010 Well after all the voting on the guitar looks like aged with non matching headstock it is.I'm thinking under the bed aging on this, so no real wear, just checking and bulled finish and hardware. Thanks for the votes.
Punkavenger Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Metallic finishes should be left free to sparkle ... and matching headstocks rule. Aging looks best on transparent finishes
Feynman Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Agreed with Ernie. An aged worn 'normal' guitar is great, but this one says to me "I've made it and can play the blingiest stuff around."I say minty fresh with matching headstock, and a matching gold sparkle pair of shoes with it.
Caddie Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 All Black with ebony fretboard & your name in gold sparkle on the fret board, gold tuners. Betty Grabel "cheesecake pic" on the headstock just like on the WWII aircraft. Or the timeless Skull & Crossbones on the headstock.caddie
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.