My local boutique guitar store - http://wildwoodguitars.com/new/ - does a booming business in brand new, high-end Fender and Gibson guitars that have been "relic-ed" to look old, worn and beat up. This all started when Fender wanted to reintroduce classic nitro finishes, but knew they'd be too fragile to hold up under warranty. So, they put nicks, dings, scratches and wear marks on them and sold them as "relics." Now, Fender offers NOS (New Old Stock, unaged, which I prefer) and Closet Classic variations.

I think the re-creation guitars, made to look and feel exactly like a star's main axe, are interesting. At least, you get some insight into how they've used and abused their favorite instrument. But the idea of buying a new guitar that has been made to look artificially old really bugs me.

With a "real" old guitar, you're buying the instrument's mojo and history. With a "relic" guitar, you're paying extra for what amounts to fake mojo, in my opinion. Personally, I want a new guitar to look new, then I can watch it take on a patina of age that reflects MY history with it. To that end, I paid an up-charge to Gibson to have them NOT age my custom-color Les Paul.

I realize there are some playability and sonic differences with, say, a worn in neck or aged pickups. But I also think there are more fraud possibilities, where an unsuspecting buyers pay top dollar for what they think are "real vintage" guitars.

But that's just me. Clearly a lot of high-end buyers disagree. Where do you stand?