I actually agree and think there is more than an element of truth to this, which we don't realise.jvpp wrote:
...It probably is all in the mind of the player and or owner
I think it comes from how we unconsciously approach a new guitar vs and old guitar. Especially if the old guitar is really well preserved vs well worn in.
I noticed this when I worked in a shop dealing in collectible cameras back in the 80s. At that time, the latest and greatest cameras from Leica sold for about $6k new. Then you added lenses on to that!
Vintage second hand versions from the 50s and 60s could sell anywhere between $2k to $10K depending on condition and rarity. The more pristine, mint and complete the camera was, the higher the value but also, the greater the reverence it received. Back then we could sell an empty Leica box and case candy for a few hundred to the right collector.
As a photographer who liked to get out and take actual pictures, there was no way I could see myself owning such cameras, new or used.
Then one day a beaten up old shitter of a Leica M2 found its way to us and no one paid it much attention because its collectors value simply did not exist. I picked it up with a reasonably decent lens for about $550. Spent about $100 to service it and then USED the thing every day for years. It ran faultlessly and took fantastic pictures.
Later I started buying and selling various Leicas if they turned up as affordable. Especially if it was considered a user model vs a collectors item. I had probably 3 M2s, an M4 and 2-3 M6s over the years. None of which I paid more than $1600 for. I would happily use them day to day. Chuck them in the car. Leave them laying around the house in case a good shot presented itself. Even used them commercially for a while.
But if they were MINT I'd have been shit scared of putting a scratch on them or using them as any sign of wear would immediately halve the value of the cameras and lenses.
I think a very similar thing happens with guitars. I've only owned two guitars from new. One Ibanez when I was young, which I traded within a year for an older Strat and a tele that Ash built for me about 6 years ago.
All my other guitars and amplifiers have been used and you could easily tell that by looking at them. If they felt good and sounded good, I'd buy 'em and use the fuck out of them. Those were the ones that I connected with most.
If someone handed me their brand new Martin or even their precious vintage Les Paul, no matter how nicely it played, I'd be terrified of bumping or damaging it in some way. Same with new gear. I tend to treat things sooooooo carefully........... until the first scratch! After that I'm like, "FUCK IT! It's a user guitar now!!!" Then I relax and start to enjoy owning the things.
I hate seeing an instrument abused and try to take good care of my gear. But I can't stand the pressure of preciousness. It sucks the enjoyment out of what I bought the gear for in the first place. To make music (or good photos)
So in a way, I don't think things necessarily need to wear in over time to be better. Although that does occur quite often.
I think that the age, condition and rarity of a guitar affects our perception of it. It changes how we think of them and how we handle them. How unconsciously comfortable we are with them.
Oddly enough, my least mint guitar which I love playing most, is my 1981 Tokai. It is far from pristine and none of he hardware on it is original but the guitar is so rare that it has become my most precious. If I was ever in the (unlikely) situation where I had to tour with a band, I'd rather buy some common garden Les Paul than risk damaging or losing that guitar!
Oh and... I've got no time for dogs.