No.
The issue at hand is the definition of C&V. You probably read a couple dozen of the hundreds of threads that try at that foolish endeavor. But, in general, most agree vintage is an age (25-35 years) and classic means "stands the test of time" and is not faddish, like the OP topic. I decided in my post to split hairs and say indeed these fugly things are vintage, and not classic as only a mother could love that ugly baby. Others have decided not to split that hair, either they are classic AND vintage, or you are not. They have a point, whether you agree with it or not, is irrelevant.
Getting to turkey wings, I'll split hairs again, certainly old, certainly a waste of metal.
This is a common response from you in this forum and it never gets old.
When it comes to opinions on something that has no agreed upon definition, sure everyone then has a point even if I or you don't agree with it.
Thst isn't some revolutionary observation.
It's a message board and discussion is meant to exist here. If responses weren't meant to exist, there would be no quote button. But there is a quotr button and responses are encouraged. So yeah, responses to opinions will happen.
Grab ons clearly aren't modern, so i said they are c&v sincethe status for the specific item is pretty binary to me.
Others hated on it and declared it's bad and therfore not c&v. I asked if only nice stuff can be c&v.
^!thought a recap could help you see that multiple opinions have been given and we all recognize that there is no clear line for what is or isn't c&v from a date or quality perspective.
A wise man taught me that even if you disagree with my comments here, I have a point and your disagreement is irrelevant. Since it would be absurd to post an irrelevant reply, it's best thst you don't.