Bike Forums - What Qualifies as "Classic?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonAaron Snake (Post 13224101)

This is obviously going to be very subjective...but here's my take.

Classic isn't a function of age, though age can be a contributing factor. Bikes that are classic are the bikes that we drool over and likely can't afford when new. They're the best of the best. They began a style or were representative of that style. Classic bikes are the ones that we'd have bought if money wasn't an object and we purchased only based on our emotions. Classic bikes are often the ones that defined a period of cycling...for instance, Armstrong on his Madone is an iconic image. Classic bikes are the ones kids will want when they get middle aged and become collectors.

Classics are timeless, beautiful and cross cycling niches in their appeal. They have something that differentiates them from the other bikes on the market. They are the best in class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by khatfull (Post 13224880)

Classic is related to style and design.
Vintage is related to age.

It is possible to have a vintage bike that isn't classic, think 70's Free Spirit:

It is possible to have a classic bike that isn't vintage, think 2011 Cinelli SuperCorsa (thought I'd build it with much different components, think the frameset):

/thread

I agree with both of these sentiments. It's interesting that lotek quoted Richard Sachs as he was introducing his new lugs with a 14mm head tube extension early in the thread. I consider my 2007 Waterford RS-22 "classic" even though it has "modern" 953 OS tubing, Richard Sachs' stainless Newvex lugs with the 14mm extension, and Ergo shifters. What makes it classic to me is its geometry with a horizontal top tube and frame dimensions and angles virtually identical to my 1972 Paramount.