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?

the old farts that hang out here

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

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...

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

That seems to be the template so far.

Well, not always:

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.

I'm an antique then.

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

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

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

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

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

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." !

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

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).

https://cyclart.com/vbanews/vbamain.html

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 ).