Me Scandar Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 When the father of Aging Tom Murphy was asked if it was pure comsmetics or if it did enhance the playability he answered: "The patina is softer and I do expose the finish to some processes that possibly help the lacquer to cure faster. But I can't say that the aging process physically adds to functionality of the guitar. On the other hand I think that psychologically, people feel like the guitar performs more like a vintage instrument because it looks like a vintage instrument. These instruments are made for people who understand and appreciate a vintage instrument and the era it represents. A nice, new shiny guitar just doesn't do it for a lot of these people. Our intent is not to replace the vintage market or vintage guitars. Those instruments will always have prospective buyers. Gibson and I are simply trying to capture the spirit of the vintage guitar, and provide a product that's fun for people to own and play."Today I met someone who told me that when you aged a guitar, process started by tom murphy but that the beatles were the first to start doing it, the guitar lost the "plastic" sound, that sometimes all the paint would make it sound more shiny, and that by taking some of it off, you could get a more "raw" sound. What do you guys think? Worth it or Not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.