Reminds me of this great video 
O-M-G.
That was actually rather interesting to watch. I have a child's fascination when it comes to stuff like that. I still see it as some sort of magic. I really liked to see it getting back to shape but I could have done without the aging. He did that quite well too. I just don't see the point at all.
Anyway, I read this entire thread today and found myself torn between finding those MK Les Pauls really interesting and then finding it all to be way too much about collecting, the idea of an investment and the like. It reminded me of a comparison between a very cheap Les Paul style guitar and an original 1952 Les Paul. I have always found that it helped balance things out quite a bit when I tend to forget the basics:
If you feel I am going of topic, please say so and I will remove it.
This topic is practically dead anyway, because who wanted this guitar already purchased it and it will never be played or sold or looked on or touched again in 100 years to preserve the value
I'm not a fan of relicing either, it's sort of resembles me buying a signature of a celebrity off of somebody, it's like — what's the point? The point of a signature is for you to remember the meeting, the story around it, your personal story. If anything, I would rather buy a stock VOS 1958 Les Paul to beat it up myself. No pointless signatures or some guy beating up a perfectly new guitar for no reason.
The previous owner of my 1997 Gibson Advanced Jumbo had a huge lacquer crack on the back of the headstock, because his kid has dropped the guitar once. The crack was only sealed with some shellac and never been truly repaired, so it's just sitting there and looking lake damage with almost bare wood showing. But it's cool to know the story of it.
