seams like it might, my friend bought some off brand sg copy thats like 20 years old and he says it's the best guitar he's ever played, I played it, for a copy it's all right, and mudder says "yup" so yeah probably.
if i'm not mistaken...yes
Originally Posted by evening_crow
Quoting yourself is cool.

WARNING: I kill threads.
Quote by SForbz-Rockstar
You're a bald gopher with wings that lives in the countryside, working on a farm.

Quote by Bubban
Having sex in a pool full of jello? How strangely erotic. No, not just any sex, butts-*gets shot*

God bless the underdog and God bless the antihero.
Let me add that if you wanted to "season" or "age" your guitar you could set it's stand in front of your stereo speakers and leave them playing all the time. The vibrations act similarly to the vibrations of playing the guitar.
It's a fine line between clever and stupid.
yes it does ina way "age" mainly its just the guitar gets broken in and plays nicer then when u first gett it . like the wood isnt as stiff everything on the guitar gets seasoned which is always better then brand new stuff (execpt strings really) thats y most people play guitar they have had for years over new ones
my gear:
Schecter Damien 6 w/emg's
gibson sg standard
dean performer e acou/elec
ibanez tone blaster=[
ibanez ts7 tubescreamer
boss ds-1
boss sd-1
dunlop crybaby from hell wah
oh so playability wise, an aged guitar is better? i thought that sound wise the difference is pretty negligible?

funny review here about halfway down submitted 01/09/2006 by anonymous
is the guy right though?


on a solid body electric i mean

fender mexican strat > carol ann tucana 2 > mongotone 2x10
Last edited by Jonny Cacique at Feb 12, 2007,