What do you consider Vintage?

[Giroux]

Just curious, is there a consensus? Or it's up to the person

[hxcmilkshake]

Originally Posted by Giroux

Just curious, is there a consensus? Or it's up to the person

Whatever scootermcribs says

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

[mjohnatgt]

Read back two months, four months, six months, and eight months ago and read those threads. This is one of those "beating a dead horse" questions.

[discodanman45]

Here is the last thread about it. https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1412248

[Giroux]

Appreciated

[mintacular]

73 for baseball, last year they printed in series

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Giroux

Just curious, is there a consensus? Or it's up to the person

It is up to the person. However, the cut off is somewhere from 1969 to 1980. It is often determined by a person's age with younger collectors often picking 1980 and older collectors an earlier date.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is up to the person. However, the cut off is somewhere from 1969 to 1980. It is often determined by a person's age with younger collectors often picking 1980 and older collectors an earlier date.

I was born in 1978, so vintage has to be 1977! I am out of all modern right now, but I still find some special 80's cards to be worthy of being stored with my vintage. Cards like my Topps Traded Cal Ripken, 1984 Fleer Update Puckett, and the 1989 Fleer FF Bill Ripken are all special enough to be regarded differently than my junk wax cards. Iconic cards will always be treated differently, even from the mass produced eras. There are probably many pure vintage collectors that have a 1989 Upper Deck Griffey in their collection right next to their 1960's Mantle's.

Really I don't think the word vintage should even be used anymore in card collecting. I collect what I want and I am not a risk taker. Modern for me is absolutely ridiculous at this point and 99% of these cards that are slabbed right now will be worthless in 15 years. I am not playing the flipping game anymore.

[pip]

Pre-1968.

[mfw13]

Pre-1981....i.e. when there was only one set per year.

[shayscards79]

I guess I go with the Beckett definition... pre 1980.

Works for me since I was born in 79.. so I guess that makes me vintage.

[oplum29]

doesn't it fall under:

pre 1980s- vintage
1980s- junk wax (baseball) and modern (football)

after that, idk what they call the new stuff. 90's, 2000, 2010s, etc

[salas1991]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

I was born in 1978, so vintage has to be 1977! I am out of all modern right now, but I still find some special 80's cards to be worthy of being stored with my vintage. Cards like my Topps Traded Cal Ripken, 1984 Fleer Update Puckett, and the 1989 Fleer FF Bill Ripken are all special enough to be regarded differently than my junk wax cards. Iconic cards will always be treated differently, even from the mass produced eras. There are probably many pure vintage collectors that have a 1989 Upper Deck Griffey in their collection right next to their 1960's Mantle's.

Really I don't think the word vintage should even be used anymore in card collecting. I collect what I want and I am not a risk taker. Modern for me is absolutely ridiculous at this point and 99% of these cards that are slabbed right now will be worthless in 15 years. I am not playing the flipping game anymore.

There seems to be a growing number of people, junk wax labeling aside, who draw the dividing line (I guess multiple dividing lines) where cards were still made out of traditional cardboard and not glossed up, so pre-Upper Deck, or 91 Topps, etc. I think that's a better classification of "vintage" now than the whole pre-1980 argument.

[mintacular]

Originally Posted by salas1991

There seems to be a growing number of people, junk wax labeling aside, who draw the dividing line (I guess multiple dividing lines) where cards were still made out of traditional cardboard and not glossed up, so pre-Upper Deck, or 91 Topps, etc. I think that's a better classification of "vintage" now than the whole pre-1980 argument.

So 1987 Topps is Vintage? NO

[salas1991]

Originally Posted by mintacular

So 1987 Topps is Vintage? NO

At what point does 1987 Topps become vintage then? Does it have to wait until next year when it's 35 years old? 2037 when it's 50? 2087 when it's 100? If 1970s cards, esp pre-74 when they originally did away with series, have basically been considered "vintage" for the last 20-25 years or so already, I agree with folks who think it's high time to start moving the chains on that definition, and considering all the surges in prices on key rookies from the mid-late 80s over the last year vs. no major surges on 90s stuff (with some exceptions, sure), that seems as good a new dividing line to me as any.

[discodanman45]

Originally Posted by salas1991

At what point does 1987 Topps become vintage then? Does it have to wait until next year when it's 35 years old? 2037 when it's 50? 2087 when it's 100? If 1970s cards, esp pre-74 when they originally did away with series, have basically been considered "vintage" for the last 20-25 years or so already, I agree with folks who think it's high time to start moving the chains on that definition, and considering all the surges in prices on key rookies from the mid-late 80s over the last year vs. no major surges on 90s stuff (with some exceptions, sure), that seems as good a new dividing line to me as any.

I think it is time to abandon the word vintage in card collecting at this point. Unless the hobby has a strict definition like they do in wine, it just leads to conflict. We could say 1951 to 1980 was the Topps monopoly era. For me I really just collect by player. Mainly concentrating on HOF players. I stop my player runs at 1980 because of the introduction of Fleer, Donruss, etc... It just is too much for me right now. Maybe if I get bored in the future I will complete Topps runs for HOF players like Winfield, but putting a 1987 Topps Winfield in a top loader doesn't interest me. That is how I store all my PC cards.

[jkk503]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

I think it is time to abandon the word vintage in card collecting at this point. Unless the hobby has a strict definition like they do in wine, it just leads to conflict. We could say 1951 to 1980 was the Topps monopoly era. For me I really just collect by player. Mainly concentrating on HOF players. I stop my player runs at 1980 because of the introduction of Fleer, Donruss, etc... It just is too much for me right now. Maybe if I get bored in the future I will complete Topps runs for HOF players like Winfield, but putting a 1987 Topps Winfield in a top loader doesn't interest me. That is how I store all my PC cards.

I think you could make a good case, at least as of right now, for vintage ending in 1980 for exactly the reason you describe. The proliferation of different companies after that time certainly created a new era, in which cards ceased to be toys and began to be investments. We do, however, need a term for the pre-1951 era, and the flaws in "pre-vintage" as a descriptor are self-evident. I don't have a good solution there, which is a little embarrassing for an editor with a background in ancient history. You'd think of all people, I'd have some useful suggestion. Ah, well.

[salas1991]

Originally Posted by discodanman45

I think it is time to abandon the word vintage in card collecting at this point. Unless the hobby has a strict definition like they do in wine, it just leads to conflict. We could say 1951 to 1980 was the Topps monopoly era. For me I really just collect by player. Mainly concentrating on HOF players. I stop my player runs at 1980 because of the introduction of Fleer, Donruss, etc... It just is too much for me right now. Maybe if I get bored in the future I will complete Topps runs for HOF players like Winfield, but putting a 1987 Topps Winfield in a top loader doesn't interest me. That is how I store all my PC cards.

Good point - "vintage" will (or at least should) also always be a shifting target, so probably better to classify through completely different terms. Of course, then there will be conflict in deciding how to replace the whole concept!

Originally Posted by jkk503

I think you could make a good case, at least as of right now, for vintage ending in 1980 for exactly the reason you describe. The proliferation of different companies after that time certainly created a new era, in which cards ceased to be toys and began to be investments. We do, however, need a term for the pre-1951 era, and the flaws in "pre-vintage" as a descriptor are self-evident. I don't have a good solution there, which is a little embarrassing for an editor with a background in ancient history. You'd think of all people, I'd have some useful suggestion. Ah, well.

Lol, we're having a postmodern discussion on the classification of pre- and post-vintage sports cards.

[VanLingoMungo46]

I could see a case for 1980. Or 1975. Or 1973. Or 1969.

[twist1one]

anything older then the 80s or 1980.

[asianassassin24]

1979 and before.