Originally Posted by
SJX426
I am not sure that time is the right criteria for determining the answer. We all have our perspectives of what the critiera are and how we weight them.
I agree with that- to further my point.
IMO something doesn't become desirable just because it's old. It *may* be desirable because of it's rarity in relation to how old it is. For me, it's got to do with how things were built at the time they built them.
As you're probably aware, the word "vintage" comes from wine- and the vintage of the wine is from the season in which the grapes were grown and the wine was made.
It's not that 1941 was almost 75 years ago- and not all wines from 1941 are regarded as good- but apparently, the 1941 Inglenook Cabernet Sauvignon is considered one of the best wines evAr.
For me and old guitars... in 1969 Gibson was bought out and was owned by a conglomerate known as Norlin. It's not so much that Norlin owned Gibson- but they instituted changes in the guitars- some people like the changes, some people just grew up with the changes thinking they were "normal." IMO- the plastic-y feeling finish, the much lighter rosewood used on fingerboards, 3 piece Les Paul tops, and those gaudy wide headstocks... those things weren't improvements- so the instruments made *before* Norlin owned the company were considered better- and IMO- THOSE are the vintage Les Pauls- not the 70s stuff. The 70s stuff is just "old" to me.
With bikes and me, I think SIS makes a good cutoff... but Suntour's contributions to bicycling were huge to me- so IMO, after Suntour, there was a monsterous shift towards Shimano. IMO- that's where the line is crossed- when Shimano assumed global domination. It affects all levels of bikes, everywhere-