Rhetorical question

[Tim Plains]

Why is it...
Say I buy a brand new, mint condition R9, play it for a while, give it a few scratches, dents, chips, buckle rash, wear the finish, etc.
Why is it worth less if I try and and sell it but a Murphy aged is worth more?

I understand the answer is "Well, you're not Murphy" but it doesn't make much sense when you think about it, does it?

 

[Es Paul]

People are buying the name. Murphy. Murphy sells.

 

[Es Paul]

I don't understand either, tim

 

[VILLANOVA]

This reasoning shows us why it's a sad, sad world we live in.

..And I think the Fender Road Worn series is absolutely ridiculous

 

[shtdaprdtr]

Why is it...
Say I buy a brand new, mint condition R9, play it for a while, give it a few scratches, dents, chips, buckle rash, wear the finish, etc.
Why is it worth less if I try and and sell it but a Murphy aged is worth more?

I understand the answer is "Well, you're not Murphy" but it doesn't make much sense when you think about it, does it?

pure genius! excellent point.

 

[Jason]

It doesn't make much sense to me to buy or play a guitar with its resale value in your mind anyway.

 

[FrankieOliver]

It doesn't make much sense to me to buy or play a guitar with its resale value in your mind anyway.

That's about how I feel about my guitars, however quite a number of people have a different take on it. I think it's a valid question and because I do happen to have an R9, I'd be interested in hearing more from people with different takes on this. Thanks R9.

 

[Ed B]

Why is it...
Say I buy a brand new, mint condition R9, play it for a while, give it a few scratches, dents, chips, buckle rash, wear the finish, etc.
Why is it worth less if I try and and sell it but a Murphy aged is worth more?

I understand the answer is "Well, you're not Murphy" but it doesn't make much sense when you think about it, does it?

sorry Timmy your "scratches, dents, chips, buckle rash, wear the finish, etc." are not calculated art.

they are just marks of a hack!

 

[SKATTERBRANE]

Well in my opinion your used and less than perfect R9 is worth less than a mint one, and so is a new Murphy, it is worth much less to me than a mint one. I would rather spend $3500 for a mint R9 used, than $2500 for a brand new Murphy R9.

 

[SKATTERBRANE]

And the aged Bloomfields or Pearlys are worth less to me than the first mint, glossy R9 50ths too!

 

[Nick59]

I look forward to the day when "Murphy" has lost any meaning and doesn't command ridiculous premiums. Give me a beautifully and naturally aged guitar (and I don't include careless dings) any day. For all this talk of Murphy this and Murphy that, there are heaps of non-Murphy guitars that have been painted better, and I will never get past my feeling that any fake ageing is just make-believe and let's-pretend anyway. I understand liking the feel and look of a naturally aged guitar, but anything to replicate cigarette burns, cold checking, sweat marks, buckle rash etc, is just a joke (IMHO.......)

 

[ZampraZ]

Because having a guitar beat up in production adds to the value because we all like wear and tear. If a guitar has natural wear and tear it doesn't because it's wear and tear and wear and tear is bad. Duhh

 

[thornie]

I agree in spirit with the point you are making. It does make no sense why artificially aged guitars by people like Tom Murphy and Dave Johnson command 2k-3k more than a naturally aged guitar played by you or me.

I personally love aging, and I love the way it looks and would like nothing more than to have a Murphy or a Dave Johnson aged LP. I just don't like the price, and I do think the astronomical price for something that is ultimately degenerative defies logic.

That being said, from reading about the amount of detail, man hours, and craftsmanship that goes into pulling off an accurate artificial aging, I can in some way understand the high cost. I'm just not so sure if its worth the cost of what would essentially be a new guitar.

 

[dave999z]

personally, i think aged guitars are ridiculous. even VOS is ridiculous (the gunk part anyway, though I can understand preferring the look of aged hardware and maybe the look of low gloss instead of high gloss).

the only sensible explanation i heard regarding the attraction to pre-aged guitars is that you then don't stress so much about putting another ding in a $5k (or more) guitar. and that factory aging doesn't make the guitar seem as violated as if some schmo stranger sweat all over it and then you buy it used and it's like- yuck. but even that rationale would not work for me. i don't want a beat-to-shit looking old guitar unless it is a vintage guitar. i think if i'd be that paranoid about something happening a guitar in the course of, gulp, playing and/or gigging with it, then i really can't afford that guitar.

this is just my opinion. not trying to offend anyone who likes murphy aged, etc.

 

[dave999z]

i also think "Vintage Original Spec" is a bad description for what Gibson is providing in a VOS guitar. it accurately describes the fact that the parts are as close as they can get to the parts that were used on the original model (though each year Gibson pulls the: "oh wait, did we say last year it was accurate, well, look at the improvements we made this year to make it more accurate"). but that's true of the gloss models too, yet those aren't called VOS. and, "VOS" does not describe the only things that are unique about VOS guitars, which are that they have aged looking hardware and sticky crap on the finish.

 

[SKATTERBRANE]

Gloss is far more vintage correct, because in 1959 when you bought a Les Paul it had a gloss finish.

 

[flameburst]

Gloss is far more vintage correct, because in 1959 when you bought a Les Paul it had a gloss finish.

BUT - very, very few people were actually buying Standards in 1959! They could be had in jumble/garage sales for $60 or less back in the early 1960's.

Only when Clapton, Bloomfield and a couple of others recorded with them in 1966, were the guitar shop owners inclined enough to dust off the 6 year old cases they had out the back and then be able to sell them as 'new old stock'.

Today, some people want a guitar which conjures up the evocative sensation of owning an original Les Paul Standard. Mere mortals and players cannot afford the original guitars now... but chasing the dream is not so out of reach nowadays with the TM or DJ aged Historics. Sure they are not cheap - but then nor was a 1959 Les Paul Standard in 1959. You could buy a lot of other (more important) things with that sort of money.

If you were lucky enough to buy an original burst in 1959, then play it a few times a week and held onto the guitar for 50 years, it probably would not look to dis-similar from a Tom Murphy-aged R9.

Plus, let's assume that we're mostly aged between 30 and 50 on here - that means if we all bought new Les Pauls today, we'd have a great looking, naturally aged guitar with 'tons of mojo' by the time we were 80 or 100

People buy aged/reliced guitars for many reasons. For me, it's to have a guitar that 'feels and looks' vintage, and I don't have to fear adding to any dings or scratches. Once you have a guitar (or guitars) you can play and bond with, the 'monetary value' or "shit, look what I just spent" factor goes out the window.

People have opinions and their own tastes and preferences dictate whether their guitar should be glossy and new - or spanked to an inch of its life.
I like both, so I bought both. We're all lucky to have the choice. All hail the funky dollar bill.

 

[ptgold]

the silly thing is if you buy a Murphy aged......then you start playing it and nick, scrape, worm and chip the hell out of it and then decide to resell it, itll still command the same price you bought it for because itll be considered Murphy mint.....nobody will know who did what to the guitar.

However you nick and scrape your mint regular R9 that you bought for 5K.....prepare to take 1K to 1.5K off the price.

Its stupid......but in a way I guess you wont be scared of playing your Murphy since its already f$·%d up to begin with. Thats probably the only advantage