Sunday, 23 June 2013

When Relics Go Bad: Epiphone Dot Studio
It's the long-awaited return of the occasional Guitarz series, When Relics Go Bad. I personally think that the whole concept of guitars that have been artificially aged is quite ridiculous. Whatever your opinions on the concept, it can't be argued that there are those who excel at the process of creating aged-looking used and abused guitars, and there are those - usually the enthusiastic amateur DIYer - who really should leave well alone.

Take for example this poor unsuspecting Epiphone Dot Studio semi-hollowbody. WHAT was the owner thinking? How would a guitar end up looking like this complete mess even after many years service as a gigged instrument. Unless of course, it is supposed to be the re-creation of a guitar belonging to legendary psychobilly band King Kurt whose live shows were notorious for flour, eggs, paint and all manner of missiles being thrown at the stage.

Thanks to Matt for bringing this abomination to my attention. The eBay seller is asking a Buy It Now price of $375 for this guitar. It might play well, but in this state a price like that is most definitely optimistic. Dreadful

G L Wilson

© 2013, Guitarz - The Original Guitar Blog - the blog that goes all the way to 11!
Please read our photo and content policy.


  1. Don't forget the shipping, which to my address is $76.00 and puts you just over $450. But hey he's throwing in a case worth $100 and he says the guitar is worth $500 so it must be true.

    1. Anonymous6:42 pm

      Seems he's deleted that part of the description now and added a bit at the start saying "stop sending me messages making fun of it"! But that's just made me even more tempted to make an offer of one dollar for it. Also as a side note, what on earth is that thing actually made out of? As I can't see any grain in the body wood whatsoever!

  2. Okay... I'm a person who can respect a relic guitar, I don't mind them all that much, and think perhaps they're not so bad. What makes relics silly is the fact that the MORE knackered and broken in a guitar is, the higher the price should be?? That's messed the hell up. Especially with realtively mundane guitars squiers and epiphones.

    I'm also willing to defend the fender roadworn series guitars. They don't cost more (roughly) than the classic series and classic player guitars they're modelled on. And the cuistom shop relics are not so much fake reliced as ACTUALLY reliced using sweat-like solutions and a careful attention to detail.

    But my policy on relics is the same as my policy on guitar mods. KEEP IT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF GOOD TASTE.

  3. Another example I can think of - John Squire of The Stone Roses painted his ES-335 (copy?)

    but it was his art (VERY Jackson Pollock-esque). So it's certainly possible this isn't a road-worn idea but rather a "piece".

    Mani (SR bass) also painted his Rickenbacker. A whole thread on Dot cosmetic mods:

    1. First off, how dare you mention John Squire in the same universe as this abomination unto the guitar gods!

      That said, Squire's guitar is in a vastly different area to bad relics, cheifly as it is a decoration job. Painting your guitar up how you want it isn;'t a crime, especially when you do it properly as he did. I mean, there's a badly decorated Silvertone U1 on guitarz which is badly decorated due to being decorated in incredulous manner, it was covered in wrting and drawings to make it look like someone had decorated over years instead of just over a weekend to give it false 'mojo'.

      When you do decide to ascetically modify a guitar it has to be genuine in its intent, or it will just appear pointless and incredulous and will just look like shit. I've decorated few of my guitars, but always in subtle ways that i ha thought about and considered, and which reflected my own tastes.

      Also, John Squire's guitar was an exceedingly rare Hofner Verythin T4S, it had 80's schaller electronics and hardware and a deeper, es-335, body depth. Only made for less than 2 years and quite desirable.

    2. Certainly JS and his guitars, and the above guitar are by no means comparable. And yet, if JS can put his art on a guitar, so can someone else. Not saying that's what happened here, but it's possible that's what this particular specimen is- someone's idea of "art" (which, as noted by the post and comments, none of us seem to like!)

      Thanks for the note on the Hofner. I never could find out exactly what it was.



Related Posts with Thumbnails