Normal wear and tear on a bass.

[cloudburst]

I've used my jazz bass (74 mocha/maple) as my main bass since new 38 years ago, only retiring it earlier this year.

All it has in terms of wear and tear are:
- minor marks that wouldn't be noticed in a photo
- slight yellowing to the headstock
- patina on the tuners
- slight lacquer cracking - but again not noticeable in photos
- replacement nut
- wear to the scratchplate due to trussrod adjustment in the early days
- 1cm of bare wood on the heel due to my strap

I feel this is representative of an instrument that has had a LOT of use whilst being very well looked after.

Hope this helps.

CB

[darkandrew]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1356372115' post='1909678']
Did you sit in the bath with it?
[/quote]
Isn't sitting in the bath with a plugged in bass frowned upon these days on the grounds of health and safety?

But on the topic of new things with an intentionally reliced or "roadworn" appearance - would you buy a new car that had been reliced? It does seem an odd thing to do, if you want an old battered one then buy an OLD battered one surely?

[thumperbob 2002]

I have two roadworns Both jazzes. One fiesta red and one sunburst. Fantastic playing instruments. The fiesta red one is the best jazz I have owned in 36 years.

It's great that I am not bothered about the odd ding or two. Not really too bothered about the relic thing but they do look cool.

[Lozz196]

The Roadworn Precision that I played was one of the nicest Precisions I`ve ever played. I don`t go a bundle on fake relicing, but from my limited experience with the RWs, cracking basses.

[Muzz]

Yep, it's a personal taste thing, I hate relicing as it always looks so fake, but when I actually played a RW Precision I was very very impressed. With my eyes closed.

Chas/Dave's* 40+ year old Precision has done a zillion gigs, and has some very distinctive wear (because of his/their right hand technique) but none of that belt sander hoohah EBay is full of. Was there a period in the 60s when sandpaper suits were de rigeur?


* The prog showed them both using it over the years, which I thought was very cool...

Edited December 26, 2012 by Muzz

[molan]

There are some good relic finishers out there who can reproduce things to look really natural.

Then there are those, as described by the OP, who take a sander and a chisel to an instrument and it looks totally fake.

Somewhere in between are the mass market cheaper makers who just sand away certain sections and it simply doesn't look real.

I saw what should have been a nice bass recently that had been fake relic'd and not only did it look fake but some of the wear marks are in places that would simply not have natural wear so it looked totally wrong!

Edited December 26, 2012 by molan

[ezbass]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1356526901' post='1910743']
There are some good relic finishers out there who can reproduce things to look really natural.
[/quote]
A mate of mine has a side line in reliced Strats and Teles. They're very sympathetic and well done. Doesn't do basses though.

[NancyJohnson]

Taking the thread back in the general direction of the original posting, along with age and the amount of work/use the bass has had, one primary issue to factor in has to be the material used on the instrument when it was manufactured.

Consider Fender (as this is generally the benchmark for wear'n'tear); they stopped using nitrocellulose on their guitars in the late 1960s...this finish was soft/prone to drying out/crackling/peeling and reacted with rubber in such a way that the finish would melt after prolonged exposure. (It wasn't uncommon for guitars to be returned to Fender for refinishing.) After nitro was discontinued, Fender moved to a polyurethane finish. Hard/brittle/bombproof.

With this in mind, it's feasible that if you had a two identical Fender basses from 1968-70, both of which were subject to [i]exactly [/i]the same level of daily usage and care over a period of 40+ years, it stands to reason that the nitro-finished model would/should be expected to be in worse condition than the poly finished version. This isn't to say that all poly (or nitro) finishes are identical. A generalization is that it's probably a fair comment to say that a 50 year old Poly finish will look considerably better that a 50 year old nitro one.

In closing, the oldest bass I owned from Fender was a 1979 Precision. Poly. I used that bass for 20+ years. I jammed/gigged with it two or three times a week and it was played daily and it barely had a ding on it. There are guys on here who have 50s/60s basses who I'm sure will be happy to share their opinions and experiences. Everyone has their own experiences and production values differ from manufacturer to manufacturer.
P

[lobematt]

[attachment=125885:IMG_1183.JPG]

My Warwick has got the most wear on it and it's all from playing (and maybe a little from not looking after it very well...) The most noticeable is where the wood has been worn away from my thumb resting on the pick ups. There's other places it's going as well which is playing related, a few good knocks and dings around the corners, and rusty pole pieces and hardware.

I think this is quite common for Warwicks though as I've seen quite a few in similar condition, don't think it helps that the top wood on the bass is a soft maple with just an oil finish so it doesn't take much to ding it!

Edited December 26, 2012 by lobematt

[3below]

The amount of distress on some relics is worrying, they must have had a 'hard time', to the point of would you consider that bass/guitar if yoi had the ££ for the real thing that was in that condition? My 79 USA bass looks like new, my 85 USA has chips here and there, belt buckle attack before my time. Most worn bass I owned was 58 Gibson EB2. Serious wear to lower edge of fingerboard finish at about 20 yrs old. Nitro was also cracked and crazed, however no wearing through from arm contact as seems very prevalent on relics. Each to their own though

Edited December 26, 2012 by 3below