Aged True Historic - Factory Buckle Rash or Not

[Sahalee]

I purchased sight unseen an Aged True Historic from an authorized dealer that told me I am/would be the first owner of the guitar. Upon delivery, I immediately noticed that there was significant buckle rash that did not look consistent with the rest of the aging of the guitar. I would like to get opinions on if people believe this was part of the factory aging process or occurred after. Thanks for any insight.

 

[LPaddicted]

 

[PierM]

More info on the guitar? Also more pics.

Hard to give you an opinion just based on a closeup.

 

[Sahalee]

2016 59 True Historic Factory Aged. Here are two more photos of the back. I love the aging expect for that one particular area of the close up. I can appreciate that it probably sounds silly asking about buckle rash on an aged guitar.

 

[Tim Plains]

I would think not factory aging but you have keep in mind that Gibson has not made any True Historics in over two years, so even if you are the first owner, that guitar may have sat in a music store all this time. Don't ever buy guitars sight unseen unless it's at/below wholesale, even then.

 

[MikeyV]

Probably not factory, but I like it. I put a little purposeful rash on the back of my '14 R8.

 

[PierM]

Hmmm...I think you’ll never know for sure.

 

[freebyrd 69]

I would think the same thing you do....probably not factory. You can call Gibson and give them the serial number. Tell them your concern about being the first owner, and they can tell you where the guitar was originally shipped. That might help check the honesty of the selling dealer. If you aren't the first owner, or that guitar was shipped somewhere else originally, I would tell that dealer to stick it up their ass.

 

[RAG7890]

I purchased sight unseen an Aged True Historic from an authorized dealer that told me I am/would be the first owner of the guitar. Upon delivery, I immediately noticed that there was significant buckle rash that did not look consistent with the rest of the aging of the guitar. I would like to get opinions on if people believe this was part of the factory aging process or occurred after. Thanks for any insight.

View attachment 404233

This is an extremely rare & valuable collectible edition marked by.............................

 

[Sahalee]

I appreciate all the feedback. Kinda confirming my suspicion that it is not factory aging which is of course why I posted. I thought I would share the money shot of the guitar because other than the marks on the back it is a nice guitar. I did contact Gibson and they were able to confirm that it has not been registered by anyone else. It is a reputable dealer. I did get a good price assuming it was in mint condition as originally described. I am worried about the marks because this guitar is more of a collectible for me than anything I would every play. I appreciate any additional feedback. Thanks.

 

[Subterfuge]

it's like George Gruhn said, if Gibson beats it up you PAY big bucks, if you beat it up you LOSE big bucks when you sell it ... I know, it makes no sense

 

[Pete M]

Regardless of what I think about buying a Historic to collect and keep under the bed, or the irony of thinking real play-wear ruins a fake aged guitar - there's no way that was part of the intended factory aging process and buyers will know that if you intend to sell it in future.

 

[wavemagnet]

As crazy as it sounds, there's "aging" and then there's damage. That looks like damage to me.

 

[Duane_the_tub]

The buckle rash is not consistent with any factory aging I've ever seen. Not sure that would be enough to dissuade me from keeping such a nice guitar, but you're the one who has to look at it every day. If it bugs you now it's going to bug you forever.

 

[Mattcran]

I've got a newer factory aged r9 and the buckle rash looks like scribbles you'd make trying to get an ink pen going over about a 3" wide area. I think they vary and factory aging is quite different than Murphy. Still trying to decide if I like factory.

 

[bblooz]

You didn't buy it from GC, did you? They're notorious for selling a guitar, taking it back days, or weeks, later and listing it as new, or sending to another store to try and sell it.

 

[jb_abides]

Send it back, tell them they didn't finish the job... they didn't wear away enough finish

You need to bang some frets into it...

 

[ESchmidt]

Certainly not factory aging. But if it were me, it would not deter me if the guitar felt and sounded right.

 

[Sct13]

Nice guitar....

Just play it....Probably not factory....but I 'm thinking it wont affect tone or playability....Congrats

 

[Sct13]

come to think of it my aged guitars do have that kind of buckle rash...

I do know that they use the handle end of a screw driver like tool to do that as well...

So I doubt its actually a belt buckle....