Good question. I believe the answer will vary depending on the age of the person responding. It seems as we bumble through time the mind gets stuck on "what was is" and that is the way it will be.

The fact I could put collectors plates on my 92' civic really blew my mind wide open the last time I had it insured

 

Good question. I believe the answer will vary depending on the age of the person responding. It seems as we bumble through time the mind gets stuck on "what was is" and that is the way it will be.

The fact I could put collectors plates on my 92' civic really blew my mind wide open the last time I had it insured

My next door neighbor has some late 70's Datsun Z something muscle car, he pays $200 a year on his insurance.

I think 30 years is considered "vintage"

Kinda exciting to think my 1993 MIJ 1962 Fender Jaguar reissue will be vintage next year.....weird! haha.

Hmmm, might have some CD's or DVD's around that are now vintage too. I know I got a few betmax tapes around, sooooo vintage.

edit: guys let up jeezus I meant Laser Disc! Phew. Yeah, something on Laser Disc. I have the Mash movie on something really weird.

 

For the big guitar company's products (Fender, Gibson Martin) the cutoff is early 1970s with very few exceptions. Obviously they still made some nice products but all of those companies were rethinking the manufacturing process to keep up with demand and maximize profit. Nothing went up in quality. 70s guitars are just "used guitars" for the most part.

 

The term "vintage" is derived from winemaking, where it pertains to a) how the weather that year affected the grapes, b) the particular type of grapes, c) the 'terroire' (soil properties), d) methods for production and storage employed by the particular vintner, and e) what adjacent years were like. So when someone pays $1000 for a bottle of 1996 Chateau Hungadunga, they're paying for all of that.

When it comes to "vintage" guitars, they are regarded as special by virtue of:
a) materials used at the time but rarely thereafter,
b) unique design aspects that were discontinued,
c) fabrication methods with sonic implications that are not used anymore,
d) models that were produced during a defined period and discontinued,
e) wood that has aged well.

All of that overlaps a bit with both age and rarity, but is not equivalent to either. Something can be old but crap. A limited release (e.g. only 50 made with so and so's autograph on the headstock) can also be run of the mill. Being older than the player themselves does not make something 'vintage'.

 

The term "vintage" is derived from winemaking, where it pertains to a) how the weather that year affected the grapes, b) the particular type of grapes, c) the 'terroire' (soil properties), d) methods for production and storage employed by the particular vintner, and e) what adjacent years were like. So when someone pays $1000 for a bottle of 1996 Chateau Hungadunga, they're paying for all of that.

You forget the number one reason: the story (same goes for guitars IMO).
One of my ex used to work for Chateau Margaux (the “thousands dollars bottle” kind of chateau). If you’ve been in the region you know there’re more chateau by square meter than restaurant and coffee shops.
But they don’t all have THE story, in caseof Margaux it dates back to 1855, if my memory serve me well, when they were classified as a 1st “grand cru”.
It’s not to say the wine is not good, but again, blindfolded 99 out of 100 individuals would fail to distinguish it from a 100$ wine. It would probably be different and not necessarily better.

I think guitar are the same, the story is the most important factor in deciding what goes down as great vintage and old crap.

 

marketing ploy

 

I think the moment Fender began making reissues of earlier product is the cut off. When their current product was so different or had strayed so far that they had to try and copy themselves and market it as specs from a bygone era, nothing beyond that line can be considered vintage.

Not only that, the entire "vintage" thing with guitars started because of the dramatic drop in quality of the production instruments from Fender and Gibson into the 1970's. That's the entire reason why "pre-CBS" meant something in terms of value of a used Fender. And with Gibson it was pre-Norlin era.

Old does not equal good. The only reason 70's Fender stuff is somehow valuable now is because of the scarcity of pre 1970 guitars. It's like a spillover effect.

Is a 1960's Fender amp special? How about a 1980's red knob Twin?

 

I think the vintage-ness of a guitar increases with the age of it. The older the guitar, the fewer there are. Both because production numbers increase over time and because they get destroyed. It’s harder to find a ‘50s LP than a 2020. Given the choice between a ‘95 LP and an ‘85 LP all else being equal, which would you choose?

 

Given the choice between a ‘95 LP and an ‘85 LP all else being equal, which would you choose?

I might take the '95 actually.

 

30 years. And marketing.

Market and nostalgia dictates what sells anyway.

 

I agree with George Gruhn on 'Golden Eras':

Defining the Golden Era

by George Gruhn
For me, the term “vintage” should be applied to instruments manufactured in a specific “Golden Era” time frame and has no absolute fixed reference to an accumulated age based on an arbitrary mark (i.e. 50 years old or 100 years old). For each individual maker or manufacturer, their “Golden Era” may be a different time.

The “Golden Era” for Gibson and Martin steel-string acoustic instruments begins in the 1920s and extends into the early 1940s. The “Golden Era” for Fender and Gibson solidbody electric instruments is completely different (beginning in 1950 and continuing into the mid-1960s).

The definition of “vintage guitar” remains a function of the instrument’s production during a “Golden Era”, not because it is a specific number of years old. Much the same can be said for fine art. The quality and desirability of art is not simply a matter of age.

 

Difficult question to answer as it is a matter of perception, but to me, for the guitar market, I think it is a set year threshold (early 70's, so 50+ years old) and not a sliding scale. It may vary from manufacturer to manufacturer depending on what changes they made to their build methods and material selections (and perceived quality impacts), but it is hard for me to believe that a 1991 Ibanez RG560 can be thought of as "Vintage" on Reverb in the same way as a 1964 Stratocaster can. According to Reverb's view, my 1992 PRS CE24 went "Vintage" this year, but it is hard to think of a company started in 1985 to have produced instruments now considered vintage. Some argue the 1995 move to CNC makes earlier PRS instruments to be considered Vintage, but I disagree.

 

For me, I started playing guitar in the early 80's and played friends and bandmates 70's guitars and even then, it left a lot to be desired. A close friend's '72 Tele was the bain of my existence and I think my hatred for Tele's was spun by that guitar.

With Gibson and Fender making major shifts in the 60's (Gibson focusing on the SG and the buy out of Fender), the mystique of guitars built PRE those events escalated to levels of hype that borderlines ridiculous. Having said that, I've owned a few 50's and 60's vintage guitars and they were fantastic. ymmv.

 

I just saw a "vintage" MIM on Kijiji. 2009-2010. Yeah, that's REAL vintage. 12yrs old is not even close to being classic in car years.

 

Just apply a Vintage decal on the headstock and there you go… a Vintage guitar!

 

There is a brand called Vintage... chinese made, I see them on kijiji once in a while.

 

I've never thought of "vintage" as a number of years thing. To me it represents a defined era, usually defined points in a particular guitar company's history that no longer exist today.

 

I'm thinking 'vintage' Hammer or PRS are good examples here.

 

So what year (and prior I assume) would a PRS have to be to qualify as vintage?

 

Obviously 1967 🤣

The whole thing is funny, in my humble opinion because every guitar is "A" vintage. Might have been a bad year, crummy production or yesterday, but it is still of that vintage if we are using the term appropriately.

Maybe instead of vintage, folks should be labeling guitars as "Historic" or just drop the charade from Fender and Gibson and say what folks really mean. Pre CBS and pre Norlin and there you have it. Forget the rest.

As for those PRS, I honestly don't know enough about them to say, but I bet there was a point in their "History"ic that they changed production or moved or something that denotes a shift in their operation be it for the better or worse.

Coming back around, CBS Fenders are Vintage, they are the CBS vintage Fenders, same for Gibbies. Norlin Vintage Gibson is a thing, not a thing apparently people want to openly admit... but if you drop only one of the words, voila, Vintage

 

Vintage is anything older than me.

Back in the so called day Townshend was saying Gibsons were shit and you had to play 20 to find a good one.

I think they might be better now.

 

Thing is you can google this stuff, and find that every industry has a different idea about what is "vintage" vs "retro" and "antique"

only 56 years to go until my Fender amp is antique......

Then you get this when trying to find out what is an old car on your first search "Usually, the classic car moniker applies to vehicles over 20 years old. Antique cars are over 45 years old, and vintage cars are built between 1919 and 1930. "

And your brain just decides it would like to do something else.

 

Thing is you can google this stuff, and find that every industry has a different idea about what is "vintage" vs "retro" and "antique"

I've been married for 52 years and bought a Gibson Firebird for $250 around that time. I'd say it's not vintage, it's an antique just like our wedding presents.

 

I have a 1997 vintage Squier Strat I'd like to sell. No real price in mind, whatever a vintage Strat goes for will be fine.

 

Antique has a rule, vintage is more of a memory

 

 

Also golden era and vintage are two separate terms, so im not sure how the distinction would be confusing?

 

If it's from after the early 60s, it's not vintage, unless it's really nice.

 

Defining "vintage" from the perspective of the few biggest brands - Fender, Gibson, Gretsch, Martin - and what years were associated with their respective best efforts, is limited. Certainly, there are some years that define some of their best efforts, but those aren't the only years that matter. Many highly-respected companies have emerged since then. For instance, could there be no instruments from PRS, Collngs, Dusenberg, or Fano that could ever be considered "vintage"?

 

I consider my 1971 Flying V and 1974 LPC vintage, maybe my late 1984 proto type American Series Kramer could be considered vintage now .

Seems that today, the more " battle " scared a guitar is, the better.
30 years ago, they would have docked off a few hundred dollars for the little tiniest dents or scratches.

 

Totally depends on the buyer. Some folks want mint and some folks think more wear means more play means a better guitar. Neither of those answers are wrong.

 

Bubba, that's weird , isn't it ?

 

For me, in the world of guitars, a guitar that would be considered vintage is a guitar from the '70s and earlier.