Is "vintage = pre-1980" still a useful frame?

[øøøøøøø]

Not saying it isn't!

Obviously using a year cutoff is an imperfect, but simple and useful (even necessary?) way to focus communication.

With Fender guitars (and offset-waist guitars in particular) you could make the case that "pre-1970" would be even better. But in 2023, you could also make the case that something like a '97 Squier Super-Sonic should be considered "vintage"

They are increasing in value, sought-after as archetypal of an era, a quarter-century ago, and have been reissued. They never would've been considered "vintage" in 2006-ish, but a lot of time has passed since then.

It's hard to shake the feeling that something like that would seem to fit better as "vintage" than as "new and reissue" in the year 2023, especially since it has been reissued (or am I crazy?)

[Embenny]

I think it's specific to the brand. Vintage just means "from a specific time," after all.

For Fender, the pre-CBS and CBS/pre-reissue eras make for logical cutoffs.

For Squier, there are several prized eras. The early SQ/MIJ era, the Vista/MIK era, and the MIC Classic Vibe run are all widely regarded as being the best. The Vistas in particular stand out because they introduced a couple of brand new models during that time.

You can look at any brand that's been around for more than a couple of decades, and they'll often have specific series, eras, or factories that are most desirable. Thus, they have preferred vintages.

So yeah, I agree that you could call a Vista Supersonic a "vintage Supersonic." But until Boomers release their stranglehold of the guitar market, we probably won't see widespread use of the word "vintage" outside of what they deemed acceptable 30 years ago.

In guitar marketing speak, "vintage" is really used to mean, "from when Boomers were young." It'll take time for that to change, but it will (and kind of is already, albeit slowly).

[øøøøøøø]

It's long been a bit of a moving target, I think.

Anyone who called a '79 strat "vintage" in the 1990s was probably laughed out of the shop, but in 2023 nobody would really dispute it (at least nobody who doesn't have a vault full of '50s Fenders)

I've always felt that "vintage" means more than just age. I think desirability and significance matter.

Like... a 1981 Lamborghini Countach is unquestionably a "classic car," but a 1981 Dodge Omni is definitely not.

[Larry Mal]

Like... a 1981 Lamborghini Countach is unquestionably a "classic car," but a 1981 Dodge Omni is definitely not.

Right. Or like Uncle Mikey has pointed out, "vintage" tends to mean "shit Boomers wanted to own as kids", because a 1960 Les Paul is as vintage as it gets but a 1946 ES-125 can be yours for $2500.

To me, though, I feel like a Fender Bullet from 1981 is certainly "vintage" in that it is rare, older and collectible, but I guess I am glad that they are still cheap.

[øøøøøøø]

Unless you’re talking about clothes.

Then “vintage” means “concert t shirts from the back of a Gen Xer’s closet”

I have a 1987 Ibanez JEM777 and there is no doubt in my mind that it is a “vintage guitar.”

It’s first-year production, synonymous with a specific era, and has become kind of silly valuable for what it is.

[Embenny]

Unless you’re talking about clothes.

Then “vintage” means “concert t shirts from the back of a Gen Xer’s closet”

I have a 1987 Ibanez JEM777 and there is no doubt in my mind that it is a “vintage guitar.”

It’s first-year production, synonymous with a specific era, and has become kind of silly valuable for what it is.

Doesn't the clothing thing have more to do with the longevity of garments vs guitars? And, in the case of band T-shirts, doesnt it also have to do with their era of production? Tour T-shirts basically only became popular in the 70s, and popularity/production numbers ramped up over the course of the next couple of decades. Combine that with the fact that shirts get worn out, ruined, or thrown out pretty easily, and it's no surprise that the vintage T-shirt market is dominated by Gen X-era stuff.

Plus, I bet the older shirts were more likely to be made of cotton, and were claimed by moths at a much higher rate than their synthetic and blended successors.

I agree that your '87 JEM is a vintage guitar.

[øøøøøøø]

Virtually everything I wear besides socks and underwear was made before 1980, most before 1970.

So in short, not really

[JSett]

It's long been a bit of a moving target, I think.

Anyone who called a '79 strat "vintage" in the 1990s was probably laughed out of the shop, but in 2023 nobody would really dispute it (at least nobody who doesn't have a vault full of '50s Fenders)

I've always felt that "vintage" means more than just age. I think desirability and significance matter.

Like... a 1981 Lamborghini Countach is unquestionably a "classic car," but a 1981 Dodge Omni is definitely not.

In the car world there's 3 distinct sections people tend to use but are slightly fluid in the cut-off years and by whomever is using the terms: 'vintage' or 'antique' (usually pre-WWII), 'classic' (40s-80s inclusive and 'retro' (80s-mid/late 90s). There's overlap between them too and people don't tend to be too hung up on the labels except the vintage car guys...who are normally boomers. So maybe it's more of a boomer generation mentality to define things so rigidly?

Here in the UK there's certain dispensations allowed to classic cars regards taxes and road-worthyness checks. It used to be a firm 'pre-73' cut off year but is now a rolling 40 year bracket. If your car is 40+ then it's automatically considered a 'historical vehicle' in the eyes of the government (and subsequently becomes tax-exempt).

Maybe the logical step would be to change to a rolling system - but that's confusing and hard to police on a forum.

[zhivago]

When we first set up the forum the vintage section was labeled pre-1980 to cover the original run of Jazzmasters, Jags etc until the point they got discontinued. So it still makes sense to leave it as such.



...having said that, the other day I saw a vintage restoration video of a 1999 Fender Telecaster, so everyone's mileage definitely varies

[øøøøøøø]

When we first set up the forum the vintage section was labeled pre-1980 to cover the original run of Jazzmasters, Jags etc until the point they got discontinued. So it still makes sense to leave it as such.

This makes total sense.

Conversely, I feel like the “desirable to boomers” definition doesn’t *quite* get it.

My sense is that the “vintage” label is most-applicable when something is reflexively (and uniquely) associated with any specific past time period (with the result that the artifact is almost synonymous with the era)

You can’t look at an E-Mu SP12 sampler without thinking of the late 1980s/early 90s, etc etc etc.

To the extent that this is predominantly a boomer phenomenon, that probably just owes to them having more “past eras” to draw from than the rest of us.

Maybe what makes offset-waist Fenders somewhat unique is that the era with which they’re most associated was 30-ish years after their earliest manufacture, and a decade after they were discontinued.

[zhivago]

When we first set up the forum the vintage section was labeled pre-1980 to cover the original run of Jazzmasters, Jags etc until the point they got discontinued. So it still makes sense to leave it as such.

This makes total sense.

Conversely, I feel like the “desirable to boomers” definition doesn’t *quite* get it.

My sense is that the “vintage” label is most-applicable when something is reflexively (and uniquely) associated with any specific past time period (with the result that the artifact is almost synonymous with the era)

You can’t look at an E-Mu SP12 sampler without thinking of the late 1980s/early 90s, etc etc etc.

To the extent that this is predominantly a boomer phenomenon, that probably just owes to them having more “past eras” to draw from than the rest of us.

Maybe what makes offset-waist Fenders somewhat unique is that the era with which they’re most associated was 30-ish years after their earliest manufacture, and a decade after they were discontinued.

I agree 100%.

And your previous example of an 1987 Ibanez JEM777 being vintage with regards to what it is makes so much sense. I agree completely and that is really the point that people are missing sometimes.

Lately George Gruhn has started using the term "Golden Era" to refer to prewar Martins and pre-1970 Fender, Gibson, Gretsch etc guitars.

That might be a way around it, although I am not sure about referring to some of my guitars as "Golden Era" in public...sounds a bit elitist.
...but then again maybe the term "vintage" gives the same elitist vibe

...in my book, there are just cool guitars...sometimes they are old, sometimes really old, and sometimes REALLY. REALLy old.

[øøøøøøø]

The issue I have with Gruhn’s frame: in reality it varies a bit manufacturer-to-manufacturer.

Some makers have had no agreed/well-defined “golden era” (e.g. Guild) while others have had more than one (Gibson had at least three that I can think of—one for archtops/mandolins/banjos, a second for flat-tops, and a third for electrics… with very little overlap!)

I think the only clear dividing line that exists across multiple makers is The Beatles’ 1964 Ed Sullivan appearance.

After this, American demand for electric guitars and drums spiked literally overnight, and set in motion a chain of events that left pretty much nothing untouched.

It almost certainly directly led to the sale of Fender 11 months later, and also to Ted McCarty leaving Gibson in ‘66 (this—not the Norlin sale—was what truly ended the third “golden era” at Gibson). By ‘67 Gretsch’s sale to Baldwin was complete.

Rogers drums sold to CBS in ‘66 and was relocated to Fullerton along with the massively-expanded Fender.

Ludwig fully doubled their revenue overnight, were making drums literally 24/7—and still backordered. This position of strength is probably why they weren’t swallowed up but instead went on the offensive, acquiring the Musser mallet percussion company in ‘65 and massively expanding.

I think this is a much more useful (and obvious) cutoff than any of those that are commonly used, because there is a direct causal relationship to changes in quality, ownership, and manufacturing techniques across multiple manufacturers. But for some reason it hasn’t been widely adopted

[sal paradise]

This sounds like a really cool topic for a book. The 1964 rock instrument explosion.

[Larry Mal]

I've always said that guitars sellers should stop using the arbitrary "vintage" terms and instead borrow from comic books and use things like "Golden Age" and "Silver Age" and such.

For instance, the 1946 ES-125 is what could be called the "Golden Age" of electric guitars, where you mainly see older acoustic guitar concepts having added electronics, and then the "Silver Age" would be when the concepts coalesced and the whole era of the modern solid bodied electric guitar concept boomed with the Les Paul and Stratocaster and so on.

"Bronze Age" could cover the era of the big names faltering in the face of overseas competition and then the Modern Age would cover the re-organization of the big names around their classic lineups and the SuperStrat era and so on.

But the market seems pretty set... maybe "vintage" won't be as useful a term as it is now when it really seems to be shorthand for "popular with Boomers".

After all a 1975 Gibson Marauder has only recently become "vintage", CBS Fenders are finally "vintage" and I think we all can remember when Jazzmasters and Jaguars were not really "vintage" since Boomers didn't care about them and weren't driving the prices up and offset guitars were just kind of old junk despite them being old guitars.

[Larry Mal]

Although now that I've seen the reasons for why this forum, with its focus on offset guitars, would use the 1980 distinction.