Classic & Vintage - Vintage cutoff date?

So what's the cutoff date for something to be considered vintage?

Is it the technology? A simple year reference? I know w bunch of folks swear by steel but there are old Alum frames too.

When I ride my 1990 Trek 1400 everyone in the group rides considers it "old". I'm the only one with 7 gears, down tube friction shifters, no carbon fiber, and no fancy cycling apparel for that matter.

Is there a 20-25 year old cutoff like with cars?

I had a Schwinn LeTour a la '87 or so but it was just too small for me and I sold it. I always liked my dad's '70's Raleigh, turd green paint and all.
I'm sort of tempted to scout out yardsales and such for an older bike, break it down, clean/grease/lube, repaint and put it all back together just for kicks.

Warning...you are opening the proverbial can of worms.

You will probably get several different answers and probably all of them will have their merits. The CR list that gets mentioned here has a cutoff date of 1983..or is it 84. Anyway that is about the time Tulio Campagnolo died and his son took over the operation. And that is not the only stipulation. Frame is to be lugged lightweight steel. No carbon, etc. But exceptions are made for both material (titanium) and for age (Keepers of the Flame, KOF) when the frame is newer and built in the traditional brazed lugged steel manner. No welding there. So it all gets blurred.

Here it's a bit looser.....

Lucky for us, there's no agreed upon definition. I go with at least 25 years personally, because todays new technology is tomorrow's vintage. But call it what you want and like.

My definition is pretty loose, I think that anything pre 1990 in the bike world is pretty much vintage. There is also the Keeper of The Flame (KOF) definitionn which is modern stuff built in the tradition of old so lugged steel frames etc... however I would consider a 1986 lugged frame vintage as opposed to KOF because it was likely built by a firm that has a long heritage of building lugged steel. Making any sense? Beside super record from 1987 is essentially the same as super record in 1977 (okay yes first gen. super record had more in common with nuovo and is worth extremely large sums of money)... but anyway, even C-record and first generation chorus is vintage in my personal definition so that means my cutoff is pretty much brifters and non-lugged steel and alluminum.

Pre-90 is what I'd consider it now. Late 80's saw the intro of indexed shifting (which one of my 'vintage' bikes uses), but 90's brought STI, 8speed, and the more or less death of lugged frames. I'm fairly flexable myself, but no carbon.

"I'm fairly flexable myself, but no carbon."

Give it a few years. If it all doesn't fall apart, it'll be vintage :)

Pre-90 is what I'd consider it now. Late 80's saw the intro of indexed shifting (which one of my 'vintage' bikes uses), but 90's brought STI, 8speed, and the more or less death of lugged frames. I'm fairly flexable myself, but no carbon.

What about early carbon like Graftek Exxon or ALAN? IMO, these are vintage so why discriminate based on material?

I'm only 27, and I presume to be quite young for this board. At this stage in my life I consider anything pre-1990 to be vintage, be it bikes, clothing, figurines... It won't be long before someone finds an early CF frame at a flea market for $50.

I'd have to say I'd base it on age. Older than 90 might be classic, older than 80 would be vintage. I would consider anything vintage styled or maybe something from the 90s that is particularly interesting, important or unique to be classic too. For example, a 90s Rockhopper is something I would consider to be classic because it is the quintessential 90s mountain bike to me.

I always thought a persons own age may come into play more than a simply choosing a specific year, but maybe not seeing some peoples answers here.

When I see a 1990 model car I dont consider it the least bit old. If I see a 16 year old person (Born in 1990, do you consider them old/vintage? I dont know about everyone else, but I certainly wouldn't. Needless to say if I see a 1990 bicycle it aint old to me. I myself was born in 1980, anything made around the same time period as me I dont really consider 'vintage' cause I grew up around it, and was never a 'rare sight'. So thats my answer.

...I myself was born in 1980, anything made around the same time period as me I dont really consider 'vintage' cause I grew up around it, and was never a 'rare sight'. So thats my answer.

Boy, when I was your age...

...iPods had B+W displays.

I'm 30 and grew up on steel bikes. I was all over LeMond and Hinault and Fignon.
I rode in a Systeme U jersey as a kid till it was too small.

I traded two wheels for four and a motor but after a long break I'm now riding again.
I grabbed my bro's '90 bike he never got rid of. I kinda like the nostalgia of it, like an old friend... and it just doesn't seem that old.

I guess as I get older I appreciate the stuff that was around when I was growing up since you never see it anymore. I think that's why there's a fascination with the older bikes too. They are "different" and "unique" now that everything else has advanced into the composit and plastic age of disposable everything

Classic... any timeless bike... usualy lugged steel, but filet brazed or almost any traditional steel frame could fit the bill for me.

I see classic as a style not an age.

Vintage... technically I wouldn't argue too hard with anyone who said anything older than whatever is current, but I tend to think that anything pre-brifter is vintage... the last significant technology change besides frame materials.

I see a classic as an inspired, rare, or masterfully executed design. (A Calfee Bamboo bike is a classic to me).

These are almost never carbon or aluminum, but sometimes filet-brazed and mostly lugged steel.

Vintage I see as anything pre-1983.

What about early carbon like Graftek Exxon or ALAN? IMO, these are vintage so why discriminate based on material?

I even conside the lugged carbon trek frames to be sort of classic. WHen I was getting into road bikes I wanted to buy one at a used sporting goods store, but it was clearly too small for me (a 58cm). I have one bike that is older than me and soon will have another, I even bought NOS shoes made before I was born so I could ride it in style. It will be truely vintage. The sad part is most of the people my age, even those who are somewhat aware of the whole classic and vintage attraction don't really get as excited about it as I do. Guess that is why I have always been more of a gearhead than a fierce competitor.

Since bicyles are "new" like automobiles, I'll go with 25 years is vintage, 50 years is antique, regardless of material or build technique, that just makes them more desirable or less desirable. Other collectibles, e.g. furniture, art, glassware, etc., are twice the age, 50 years is vintage, 100 years is antique.

October 29, 1972!
Seriously though, vintage or classic or antique -- take your pick!

25 years is a standard benchmark bandied about for automobiles, perhaps bkes as well?

On the other end of the vintage scale, and one that's been bugging me lately...


At what age does a 'vintage' bicycle become a 'collectible' and cease to be a regularily ridden bike? In other words, when do you hang a vintage bike up for a restoration? 40,50,60 years?

The reason I as is I have a mid 1950's Schwinn World, and its a lot of fun to ride. but I'm worried about beating into the ground if I ride it a lot. the stem is pretty delicate. Also, a 1960's Corvette that needs to be built back up.

Do I restore them, or keep them in good shape and ride them till they snap?

The reason I as is I have a mid 1950's Schwinn World, and its a lot of fun to ride. but I'm worried about beating into the ground if I ride it a lot. the stem is pretty delicate. Also, a 1960's Corvette that needs to be built back up.

Do I restore them, or keep them in good shape and ride them till they snap?

What I am doing with my 1955 Corvette is getting it into riding condition. So I would vote to ride them.

my rule of thumb... if you have to ask if it is, its not.

At what age does a 'vintage' bicycle become a 'collectible' and cease to be a regularily ridden bike? In other words, when do you hang a vintage bike up for a restoration? 40,50,60 years?

Do I restore them, or keep them in good shape and ride them till they snap?

To me, a truly collectible bike is one in rideable condition. After all, they still fit into the 'transportation' or 'sports and recreation' categories.

Unless it's signed by Ted Willams, an old glove is an old glove, until you go out and play catch with it.

Then it becomes a Classic & Vintage glove.

I'm waiting for Cap'n Lotek to weigh in on the matter.

Also, I have a '87 lugged steel Bianchi I just built up with modern 9 speed Veloce. I figured it would be OT here, so I have not posted.

I think if it is that old you shouldn't ride it regularily or in foul weather. Like a classic car you take it out when the weather is good and you can let 'er ripe for a bit to make sure she is still all there but you maintain it ever so meticulously including cleaning after every ride so that corrosion and dirt can't even begin get a finger hold.

I think if it is that old you shouldn't ride it regularily or in foul weather. Like a classic car you take it out when the weather is good and you can let 'er ripe for a bit to make sure she is still all there but you maintain it ever so meticulously including cleaning after every ride so that corrosion and dirt can even begin get a finger hold.

Agreed. After all, you wouldn't want to leave your favourite glove out in the rain, now would you?

I firmly believe that something is usless unless it can be enjoyed. If you can enjoy a bike by looking at it hanging on the wall, good for you. I can't. I therefore refuse to own something too nice to use, I'd rather sell it and buy cool stuff that I can ride/drive or whatever. I own a couple of old scooters, a Vespa and a Lambretta. Both would be considered classic or vintage, but neither is so collectable that I'm afraid to ride them. Same with my old VWs. My '70 VW single cab is about the most rare or collectable thing that I would feel comfortable using on a regular basis. Anyway, that's my take on the thing.

My dictionary defines classic as "a work of enduring excellence", also "serving as a standard of excellence", so I see that as a design that never goes out of style because it was done right from the beginning.
Vintage is similar, but "of old, recognized, and enduring interest", so vintage is more related to a particular time period.

well, thats the question, isn't it?

for example, my Jan de Reus is a 1990 bike, wears Croce D'Aune gruppo and
I consider it to be classic.
My Serotta is a 1989 model, campy ergo 8 speed and I consider it maybe KOF but not classic or vintage.
My RIH is a 1974 model and I consider it both classic and vintage.
a subtle distinction, no?

We definitely play faster and looser than Classic Rendezvous, but thats a good thing (imho atmo).
For me I guess classic is in the details, and vintage is in the date.

here's a poser: can a bike be vintage and NOT classic?

Marty

Great answer, but what is the definition of the term "cranky?

Great answer, but what is the definition of the term "cranky?

the old farts that hang out here

(and I REALLY want to rename this to Cranky & Vintage forum)

here's a poser: can a bike be vintage and NOT classic?

Marty

That depends on your definition of classic and vintage. Personally, my definition of vintage is purely based on age (25+ years). In that case, a POS from 25 years ago can be a POS today and won't be classic. On the other hand, a POS 25 years ago can be a classic today.

I don't know enough about bikes to give an example but I can use cars. An AMC Pacer was a POS, now, because the the kitsch value, it is a classic. My first car though, a Chevy Chevette, was and always will be a POS, and will NEVER reach a classic level.

And just to clarify things, my definition of classic is based on aesthetics and not on age.

And, pardon my French.

It's purely 'in the eye of the beholder', isn't it? Nothing to do with age imho; consider today's bikes and how many of those will be called classic or vintage in 25 yrs. time? Then again, who knows how bikes will look 25 yrs from now...

Then again, who knows how bikes will look 25 yrs from now...

They'll probably have two wheels, pedals and handlebars and a saddle.

That seems to be the template so far.

They'll probably have two wheels, pedals and handlebars and a saddle.

That seems to be the template so far.

Well, not always:
http://www.supercycles.co.uk/images/onzatlite600wide.jpg

The Vintage Bicycle Association puts the cutoff in the mid-1980s. Road bikes before that date consistently had toeclips, 5- or 6-speed friction shift, lugged steel frames, and either centerpull or single-pivot sidepull brakes. Since mountain bikes evolved a bit later, I would put the old-school / vintage demarcation closer to 1990, before front suspension appeared.

I think everything I own or ride (see signature) qualifies as vintage, including the rider. :)

Classic Rendezvous uses 1983 as the cutoff year because in 1984 everything changed: Campagnolo died and junior immediately started taking the company in a different direction, Shimano introduced SIS and indexed shifting took off, Look invented the strapless pedal and toe clips and straps (supposedly) immediately became obsolete - those were the majors, and there were a few other changes, but '83 was definitely an end of an era that stretched back to at least 1945.

As to antique, I tend to go with the 25 year cutoff although as a rough line rather than something inflexible. That's always worked in antique cars and motorcycle for me, so it should work here.

As to antique, I tend to go with the 25 year cutoff .

:(

I'm an antique then.

I will be meloncholy until I'm considered a classic...;)

My dictionary defines classic as "a work of enduring excellence", also "serving as a standard of excellence", so I see that as a design that never goes out of style because it was done right from the beginning.
Vintage is similar, but "of old, recognized, and enduring interest", so vintage is more related to a particular time period.

There are bikes that are considered classic that do not meet the dictionary definition of classic. They are probably more correctly defined as vintage. Yet we consider them classic. Not that they are mutually exclusive terms.

1983

The Vintage Bicycle Association puts the cutoff in the mid-1980s. Road bikes before that date consistently had toeclips, 5- or 6-speed friction shift, lugged steel frames, and either centerpull or single-pivot sidepull brakes. Since mountain bikes evolved a bit later, I would put the old-school / vintage demarcation closer to 1990, before front suspension appeared.

I think everything I own or ride (see signature) qualifies as vintage, including the rider. :)

Key point about about the TYPE of bike...I have a friend who restores BMX bikes from his youth, all of which I was too old (big?) to ride the years they were produced. I consider my 1989 Marin Pine Mountian somewhat vintage or at least 'old school'. (the kids tell me so) ;)

And well...I have never graduated from toe clips :D

Campy Delta brakes, introduced teasingly in 1984 and first sold in 1986, confer classisicm all by themselves, IMHO.

here's a poser: can a bike be vintage and NOT classic?



Yes, see, Sears Free Spirit as an example. Old mass produced crap can be vintage simply due to age, but will never be classic.

What I am doing with my 1955 Corvette is getting it into riding condition. So I would vote to ride them.

I am with you, I have a June 1956 Corvette and I ride it. The SA 3speed slips a little. I can't quite get it dialed but other than that, it is in great shape.

I had a hand-me-down Corvette 5-speed as a grade-schooler in the mid-60s. I put a bananna seat on it and some ape hangers, and was so proud that I could call it a "Corvette Sting Ray." !

... It won't be long before someone finds an early CF frame at a flea market for $50.

A little over a year ago, I found a complete early 90's Trek 2100 carbon tube bike with aluminum lugs at a thrift for $15. Rode it all summer before selling it. It was a pretty nice bike, too.....

I knows it when I sees it.

I don't really mind what the words mean, I think it's more relevant what catches the interest of people here. And the answer to that is, not new bikes. I guess that for me, it's kinda things that are pre 1990. In another way, it's things that aren't current any more. So, an old Peugeot lugged carbon frame - definitely. A new lugged steel bike - less so.

There's a Vintage Bicycle Association?? lol. My only three requirements for being a classic, REGARDLESS of manufacturer. Some of you guys are just plain snobbish, haha. 1990 or older, STEEL frame, and NO BLACK HARDWARE!,,,,BD

I think if it is that old you shouldn't ride it regularily or in foul weather. Like a classic car you take it out when the weather is good and you can let 'er ripe for a bit to make sure she is still all there but you maintain it ever so meticulously including cleaning after every ride so that corrosion and dirt can't even begin get a finger hold.

If we define "classic" as "too good to ride in foul weather," then my Capos qualify and my Peugeot UO-8 does not. The UO-8 is an interesting case in point in any "classic" versus "merely old" discussion; its decals and lugs have a distinctive, "classic" look, but it was a mass-produced entry level 10-speed for the masses; I think of an early 1970s UO-8 as the bicycle world's answer to a 1950s or early 1960s Chevrolet.

Because it is such an absolute pleasure, I actually do ride the 1959 Capo quite a bit, but only on good roads and under favorable traffic and weather conditions, and only when I either do not need to park it at all, or can do so securely and without risking damage to the paint. In contrast, I am riding the UO-8 into the ground, until the frame finally cracks (been there ... done that with my previous UO-8).

There's a Vintage Bicycle Association??
http://cyclart.com/vbanews/vbamain.html


My only three requirements for being a classic, REGARDLESS of manufacturer. Some of you guys are just plain snobbish, haha. 1990 or older, STEEL frame, and NO BLACK HARDWARE!,,,,BD Change that to "LUGGED steel frame," and I think you will get lots of agreement in this thread. Personally, I would add "friction shift" and "originally equipped with toeclips and non-aero brake handles," but that's just my opinion (and what I ride :) ).