Another lame thread defining “vintage”

[saucywombat]

I like 1991 as the cutoff currently as it was the last year Topps produced cards on cardboard sheets and is 30+ years ago.

Just thinking out loud maybe some voice for Vintage being prior to 1974 which I believe was the first year for "factory sets". That really changed the game on how people were able to collect.

But definitely agree that will change over time.

In ten-twenty more years easy date will be prior to 2000. Just because it'll have been a long time ago and clearly is an important change in time.

[homerunhitter]

Vintage could be looked at in many ways.

The general consensus in the hobby is 1979 and below.

Some say it’s 1980 and below because 1980 is the last year that topps owned a monopoly on sports cards.

1990 Topps was the last year Topps put gum in its packs.

1991 Topps was the last year Topps issued cards in actual wax packs!

1994 Topps is the first year Topps cards were glossy

So vintage could be whatever you want for your collection. Collect what you like! After all it’s your collection to enjoy!

In 100 years 2022 Topps will be considered vintage cards to some!

[BobC]

I personally think of vintage as 1980 and earlier also.

First, because as you said, 1981 was the first year after the courts ruled Topps could no longer monopolize the baseball card market, so Fleer and Donruss also entered the fray. And 1981 was also then technically the start of the junk wax era, at least IMO, so definitely not vintage to me.

Secondly, and also partially in tribute to Bob Lemke, the old Krause/SCD catalogs always cut-off the vintage and modern sections of their earlier catalogs at 1980 as the last year for vintage as well. And then SCD/Krause continued using that 1980 vintage cutoff year for later, more recent additions of their catalogs, which they just issued separately for vintage cards alone. I've always felt those SCD/Krause catalogs were (and to me really still are) the most comprehensive, overall single source of vintage card information out there and available. So if 1980 was good enough for them, its good enough for me.

Obviously, many younger collectors may disagree because the 80's are before their time, and likely don't even know about the SCD/Krause catalogs.

[4reals]

Originally Posted by BobC

And 1981 was also then technically the start of the junk wax era, at least IMO, so definitely not vintage to me.

So, this is the point I was attempting to make… Should the value of cards during an era define whether it’s vintage or not? Shouldn’t it be less about value and more about age? I get that older collectors will have more trouble accepting 80s cards as vintage but I don’t feel necessarily that this needs to be an opinion thing that is defined differently by everyone, that’s disorganized and chaotic thinking. Isn’t it logical that the 25 year rule is in play for an item to be classified as vintage and then within that classification there are vintage sub-groups (eras) like pre-war, golden age, and junk wax? To further this idea, another era frequently discussed with modern collectors is the slab era which ushered in the junk slab era which led to the recent backlog problems with psa and bgs. Eventually, slabs 25 years or older may be considered vintage slabs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[G1911]

Vintage is about age of course, but that cutoff varies widely depending on context. Stamps, pottery, firearms, coins, cards, any area will have a different year or era as the cutoff.

I think vintage implies, beyond “old stuff”, that the item under discussion in this period was markedly different, that it’s age is a defining virtue of the item and not an incidental of time simply passing.

I tend to favor the 1980 cutoff, it’s not perfect but it’s the approximate end of an era. Many eras are covered by vintage, and multiple by not-vintage or modern or whatever we term it. However, if we divide card history into only two chunks, I think the early-mid 1980’s is the most reasonable cutoff. Before this time cards were advertising freebies or very cheap and designed for kids. By the mid 1980’s, cards were the domain largely of older people, not kids, and collecting cards was largely about money. Whether it’s Mattingly in 1984 or Jeffries in 1988 or Franco in 2021, the modern hobby is hit-centric, and largely financial. Collecting vintage is too now, but the cards in their own time were mostly all worthless and not designed for this investment, or even for adults. While the modern hobby has seen plenty of innovation and change its basic structure is largely the same as it was in the mid 1980’s, while before this period it was markedly different. I think the end of the Topps monopoly and this titanic shift in what baseball cards are for and seen as is the most reasonable cutoff. I don’t see the definition of vintage changing until another titanic shift.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by 4reals

So, this is the point I was attempting to make… Should the value of cards during an era define whether it’s vintage or not? Shouldn’t it be less about value and more about age? I get that older collectors will have more trouble accepting 80s cards as vintage but I don’t feel necessarily that this needs to be an opinion thing that is defined differently by everyone, that’s disorganized and chaotic thinking. Isn’t it logical that the 25 year rule is in play for an item to be classified as vintage and then within that classification there are vintage sub-groups (eras) like pre-war, golden age, and junk wax? To further this idea, another era frequently discussed with modern collectors is the slab era which ushered in the junk slab era which led to the recent backlog problems with psa and bgs. Eventually, slabs 25 years or older may be considered vintage slabs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with your thinking. There should be subgroups to vintage, and modern eras. To me, 1980/81 is the cutoff to one of them. I could easily see there being a breakdown of eras, as follows:

Vintage Nineteenth Century Era (I think most would concur you can lump this together as one era)

Vintage Pre-War Era (From 1900 - 1941/42)
(This can be further broken into sub-genres)

Vintage Pre-War Dead-Ball Era (1900 -1920)
Vintage Pre-War Live-Ball Era (1921 - 1941/42)

Vintage Post-War (1942 - 1980)
(This can be further broken into sub-genres)

Vintage Post-War (1942 - 1960)
Vintage Post-War Expansion Era (1961 - 1980)

Vintage Junk-Wax Era (1981 - 1999)

Modern Era (2020 - Present)

To me, these work out to be some very logical groupings and breakdowns, which just so happen to work out to about 20 years each, save for the 19th century era, which deserves its own grouping.

[gustomania]

I also struggle with the vintage cutoff and to me 1980 makes sense….but for some reason the feel of cards through 1984 feels right to me.

For me anything after 1985 just doesn’t scream vintage to me

[mrmopar]

I think your point is valid, but the majority of collectors are aging and stuck in their mindsets. That will probably only change with a changing of the guard. I see a whole different picture of "collecting" when I view online facebook groups, for example. There may be crossover, but those people who are highly active in the groups I am a part of seem to see things very differently.

I first started collecting in 1978, buying packs from a grocery store. I didn't have access to shops/shows and the only "outside" world became TCMA catalogs. A few years later, I remember getting a 1933 Goudey card from a rare card shop visit, thinking I had something incredible and amazing. That card was obtained by me in 1983 (just to make the math easier). It was 50 years old at the time.

I certainly don't feel the same sense of magic when I think of a 1972 Topps card today, yet that is now a 50 year old card!

1989 seems like another well defined break in an era of card collecting, with the UD issue. Hard to think any of us will ever really look at a 1988 Topps card any differently though, probably mostly due to massive overproduction, the almost instinctive need to protect cards by then and that late 80s period of time where there seems to have been fewer high profile players making their debut who went on to eternal greatness.