The definition of vintage

[GhostPlayer]

Ok... so technically speaking, the term "vintage" comes from wine making, referring to a particularly good year and non-mixture of inter-year grapes.

There is a misconception that "vintage" comes from the french "vingt", meaning twenty, so objects that are 20 or more years old. This is not true, but becoming a sort of socially accepted unwritten law. A pedigree of confirmed antiquity, lets say.

What about guitars? What defines vintage? Here we have it as pre-1980 ... but will that statute linger on for eternity?

And why 1980, and not 1985 when CBS turned into FMIC? Oh right, there are other guitars besides Fender, I keep forgetting

A Jan 1986 Fender will turn 30 years next month.

What are your thoughts?

[FightingPlankton]

well, if you go by cars...
a classic car has to be 10 years old, a antique car is normally 45 years old, and vintage is 20-30 years. Now, this depends on your local laws concerning collector plates and other things like whether or not the leader of your local car club likes your car or not. I drive an 81 datsun that is technically a vintage...but the guy doesnt want it in his car shows...but he has other imports like VW's and a guy with a delorian. but back to guitars.
I think a guitar has to be older than me in order for me to consider it vintage.

[saxjag]

Vintage has the connotation of "desirable" (since nobody cares how old something is if it's crap). It also has the connotation of "hard to find" (since nobody wants to part with something that's really good).

On craigslist, however, vintage means "anything over 5 years old that the owner really, really wants to get rid of."

[Unicorn Warrior]

lol ^ check out this vintage B.C Rich flying V, made in 2002. Will throw in vintage digitech deathmetal for $60 more

[Larry Mal]

In wine, which carries with it the only actual meaning of "vintage", it's simply the product of a particular vineyard in a season.

Hence, the "vin" which means "vine" and where the word wine comes from.

And it always refers to a specific year, well, more accurately, a specific growing season. There may be better years than others for particular grapes, vineyards, regions, blends and growers, but the term "vintage" doesn't mean anything regarding that. There is no association with quality in the strict sense of the word's meaning, since every single grape is part of a vintage somewhere somehow. If it's a better grape that leads to a better wine is up to you to know.

Of course, in wine sales as well as guitar sales and the rest of it, "vintage" has come to mean quality in an effort to make sense to people who don't really know what they are buying in an effort to separate them from their money. "It's vintage!"

But, really, when it comes to guitars and cars and literally everything else it's bullshit. It's been corrupted to mean things that are old, or collectible, and that's also prevalent with wine also. But that shit you have in a box from California has a vintage as does the best champagne* you ever hoped to pour on a bunch of hookers once your rap career takes off.

And I know that there are now legal definitions of "vintage" that refer to cars after a certain age. It's still bullshit. The word doesn't mean that. Use "collectible" or something.


*Strictly speaking most champagnes are not from a specific vintage. They are usually blends from various vintages. That's why you don't see a date on there. There are now, though, grower's champagnes which are pretty cool, and they vary a lot from year to year, as you'd expect from a wine that has an actual vintage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grower_Champagne" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[øøøøøøø]

For me, it means this--

A guitar from a specific period that is distinguished in some way as having a reputation for high quality, good sound, good craftsmanship, or something else special.

Like wine connoisseurs sometimes prize bottles from a certain year, guitarists likewise prize guitars from certain years or periods.

For example-- I love the shape of Fender Stratocaster necks in 1957. The ones made in 1956 were slightly different, and the ones made in 1958 were different again. I also love the shape of Fender necks in late 1962... the earliest veneer boards. Les Pauls from 1958, 1959, and 1960 had a certain combination of features that make them highly desirable. Gibson flat-tops made during WWII had exceptional sound and workmanship that distinguishes them from guitars made even a few years later. Martin flat-tops before WWII were similarly distinguished. Martin style 28 (and higher) flat tops after 1968 had a different species of wood on the back and sides that made them less desirable.

Etc etc etc... this kind of stuff is what "vintage" means to me.

Is your 1987 Strat Plus "vintage?" For me to conceive of it that way, you'll have to convince me that something about Strat Plusses during that era was somehow special or distinguished above Strats from another era. Personal preference being what it is, for you that might be true. If enough people agree and place a premium price (based on desirability) on 1987 Strat Plusses (ABOVE Strat Plusses from later periods), then congratulations-- you have yourself a vintage guitar.

[zhivago]

For me, it means this--

A guitar from a specific period that is distinguished in some way as having a reputation for high quality, good sound, good craftsmanship, or something else special.

Like wine connoisseurs sometimes prize bottles from a certain year, guitarists likewise prize guitars from certain years or periods.

For example-- I love the shape of Fender Stratocaster necks in 1957. The ones made in 1956 were slightly different, and the ones made in 1958 were different again. I also love the shape of Fender necks in late 1962... the earliest veneer boards. Les Pauls from 1958, 1959, and 1960 had a certain combination of features that make them highly desirable. Gibson flat-tops made during WWII had exceptional sound and workmanship that distinguishes them from guitars made even a few years later. Martin flat-tops before WWII were similarly distinguished. Martin style 28 (and higher) flat tops after 1968 had a different species of wood on the back and sides that made them less desirable.

Etc etc etc... this kind of stuff is what "vintage" means to me.

Is your 1987 Strat Plus "vintage?" For me to conceive of it that way, you'll have to convince me that something about Strat Plusses during that era was somehow special or distinguished above Strats from another era. Personal preference being what it is, for you that might be true. If enough people agree and place a premium price (based on desirability) on 1987 Strat Plusses (ABOVE Strat Plusses from later periods), then congratulations-- you have yourself a vintage guitar.

Big +1

For me the instrument needs to be of a specific era.

So for Fenders, it is 1950 - 1965
For Gibson electrics, it is 1952 - 1965
For Gibson acoustics, it is 1930 - 1941 or so
For Martin guitars, it is late 20s - 1941 or so

Everything else for falls under the category of "old guitar"...like vintage instruments, some old guitars are better than others. But unless the fall in the above categories, I don't think they can be called vintage, really. the above time frames are widely accepted by actual collectors to be the "Golden Eras".


The "20 year rule" has been invented by sellers. And who cab blame them?

[spacecadet]

The meanings of words change, and the words we use to refer to certain things change as well. But there's a pretty specific reason why the year 1980 is used as a cutoff here (that was the last year of the Jazzmaster's original production run... the Jag had ended a few years before I think). Other sites may use a different cutoff date depending on what's considered "vintage" for their particular subject matter. This site mainly focuses on Jazzmasters, Jags and maybe Mustangs, so 1980 is used as the cutoff.

Anyway this question comes up here a lot, but the answer's not actually that complicated. This site isn't intending to define what "vintage" means *in general*, it's just defining it for its own subject matter.

[Maulden7]

So for Fenders, it is 1950 - 1965
For Gibson electrics, it is 1952 - 1965
For Gibson acoustics, it is 1930 - 1941 or so
For Martin guitars, it is late 20s - 1941 or so

And as soon as somebody sticks their neck out & tries to be definitive the arguments start in earnest!

I only know a little about Fenders, but apart from company ownership, what changed in 1965? The same people continued making guitars in the same way, & with the same materials & tools etc for some years after that? Isn't 1965 another "date of convenience" for Fenders, that is of little - if any - actual relevance at all? We have this situation where guitars with the "L" serial numbers are considered by some to be "vintage", & yet those made in the same year, but with the later serial numbers, are not, which considering how the "L" stamping happened makes this even more questionable perhaps?

Ok, there were some instruments that were nothing to do with Mr Fender, so do we go down a level & exclude those, but include others?

The recent & successful reference book written by Martin & Paul Kelly & Terry Foster defines the "golden age" of fender to be 1946 - 1970?

All good fun.

[Larry Mal]

Well, no, CBS didn't make the guitars the same way after Leo Fender sold the company, CBS started running Fender as a profit driven company and less as a maker of fine instruments. The quality dipped in measurable and demonstrable ways. The products also changed in ways that were to be improvements but still stand in contrast to what came before (or after), like the sometimes very narrow nut widths on some guitars of that era (my '69 Jaguar and '79 Lead 2 could be examples of this).

Which brings me to this: if Fender and Gibson, the two biggest names in electric guitars then and now, hadn't both gone through ownership changes that resulted in notably different designs and quality? We might not even be having this discussion. If Fender kept making Stratocasters the exact way they made them in 1965 or whenever, some guitars might actually just be "old" and not really considered any better because of that (although a lot think, and I do, that older guitars often play better due to age).

SO I still dislike the term "vintage" with guitars. For one, it's not exact, it's mainly marketing more than anything. People who own old guitars have every interest in you finding value for their instruments, of course. And "vintage" sounds the best.

Yet not every old guitar is vintage, is it? So it's not simply an age thing. And it's not simply guitars of a certain era, because now things that had never been considered "vintage" in the sense that they reflected a heyday of guitar making are now starting to be marketed as "vintage", my Fender Lead is a great example of that.

Hell, even Jaguars and Jazzmasters are examples of that. They were hardly considered part of any "vintage" no matter what era they came from.

The only thing that changed was demand went up, and so did prices. Like I say, "vintage" with guitars is a term that means absolutely nothing specific except that it's how a guitar is being marketed towards you. And since it doesn't actually mean anything, I try not to use it.

"Rare", "collectible", "valuable", "historic", etc. All those would be more accurate.

And I know I'm being a curmudgeon about this and that "vintage" is a useful loanword that helps people communicate more easily in some cases.

[øøøøøøø]

I only know a little about Fenders, but apart from company ownership, what changed in 1965?

Aside from company ownership changing on Jan. 5, the following things happened, broadly, in 1965:

• pickups changed from black bobbins to gray bobbins
• "clown bursts" introduced to allow use of less-premium cuts of wood
• large peghead introduced
• pearloid dots replaced clay dots
• fingerboard binding introduced on some models
• offset waist introduced on student models
• witch hat knobs introduced on jazzmaster
• maple cap fretboards introduced as an option
• tele pickguards move to 3 layer from 1-layer
• thinner logo replaced with "transition" logo (actually in 1964)
• metal spacer on string trees replaced with nylon
• method of painting changed to a faster method, 'nail holes' under pickguard gone
• celluloid "mint green" guards replaced with a different plastic
• "F" logo added on neck plate

Many of these are substantive changes; some are merely cosmetic or small. But anyone who has spent significant time around the guitars from this era knows that the "vibe" of the guitars changed... certainly from 1965, perhaps as early as 1964. Doesn't mean 'better' or 'worse' (though most feel the earlier ones are better, generally), but definitely DIFFERENT.

Of course, shortly AFTER 1965 (certainly by 1968), there was a whole host of other (more substantive) changes introduced. You have to remember-- the main thing is that production EXPLODED after CBS bought the company. They added a new wing of the factory that something like quintupled the square footage of the plant, and ramped up production VERY fast. A lot of new, less experienced workers, combined with a lot of cost-cutting measures implemented by corporate bean counters (i.e. cast zinc saddles and inertia blocks, thick polyester finishes, green unseasoned wood, etc) meant that the essence of a Fender guitar was certainly quite different by 1968, and by 1970 they didn't really resemble the 50s and 60s guitars much at all in terms of sound and feel.

[øøøøøøø]

Which brings me to this: if Fender and Gibson, the two biggest names in electric guitars then and now, hadn't both gone through ownership changes that resulted in notably different designs and quality? We might not even be having this discussion. If Fender kept making Stratocasters the exact way they made them in 1965 or whenever, some guitars might actually just be "old" and not really considered any better because of that (although a lot think, and I do, that older guitars often play better due to age).

Classic test case for this is Guild. They kept on making high quality guitars, pretty much unchanged, up through the late 1980s at least. The older ones never really skyrocketed in value. There are other factors (less celebrity draw), but this had to play into it at least a bit.

It's interesting to me how people seek out CBS Fenders and Norlin Gibsons now as "vintage guitars." These guitars are the REASON "vintage guitars" became a thing in the first place, because they were noticeably not-as-good when new. By the late 1960s people were realizing that the old guitars were somehow better, and by 1980 it was pretty much accepted as fact that if you wanted a good guitar (as opposed to just a pretty one), you probably should start your search with the dusty old guitars from the 1950s and early 1960s.

it's mainly marketing more than anything.

Not so. Well, maybe some people use it that way, but in reality there ARE substantive differences and unique qualities that guitars from certain eras possess. I know I like late 1962 Fender necks. I might seek those out if I were in the market for a nice guitar. Just like I might seek out a bottle of wine from a specific year if I were a wine connoisseur. That's the meaning of "vintage."

[øøøøøøø]

For me, it means this--

A guitar from a specific period that is distinguished in some way as having a reputation for high quality, good sound, good craftsmanship, or something else special.

Like wine connoisseurs sometimes prize bottles from a certain year, guitarists likewise prize guitars from certain years or periods.

For example-- I love the shape of Fender Stratocaster necks in 1957. The ones made in 1956 were slightly different, and the ones made in 1958 were different again. I also love the shape of Fender necks in late 1962... the earliest veneer boards. Les Pauls from 1958, 1959, and 1960 had a certain combination of features that make them highly desirable. Gibson flat-tops made during WWII had exceptional sound and workmanship that distinguishes them from guitars made even a few years later. Martin flat-tops before WWII were similarly distinguished. Martin style 28 (and higher) flat tops after 1968 had a different species of wood on the back and sides that made them less desirable.

Etc etc etc... this kind of stuff is what "vintage" means to me.

Is your 1987 Strat Plus "vintage?" For me to conceive of it that way, you'll have to convince me that something about Strat Plusses during that era was somehow special or distinguished above Strats from another era. Personal preference being what it is, for you that might be true. If enough people agree and place a premium price (based on desirability) on 1987 Strat Plusses (ABOVE Strat Plusses from later periods), then congratulations-- you have yourself a vintage guitar.

Big +1

For me the instrument needs to be of a specific era.

So for Fenders, it is 1950 - 1965
For Gibson electrics, it is 1952 - 1965
For Gibson acoustics, it is 1930 - 1941 or so
For Martin guitars, it is late 20s - 1941 or so

Everything else for falls under the category of "old guitar"...like vintage instruments, some old guitars are better than others. But unless the fall in the above categories, I don't think they can be called vintage, really. the above time frames are widely accepted by actual collectors to be the "Golden Eras".


The "20 year rule" has been invented by sellers. And who cab blame them?

Well, for me I think the eras that are desirable are fluid.

For example, lots of people really like the Fender Telecaster Custom, Deluxe, and Thinline with the Wide-Range Humbucker pickups. That's a distinguishing era-specific thing, not available in other eras, that might make someone seek that guitar out. So for me, a 1972 Tele Thinline is absolutely "vintage."

For me, a 1987 Ibanez JEM 777 with the pyramid inlays and monkey grip is also "vintage" now. They're going up in value. It's worth more than a new JEM. People specifically want the ones from 1987-1989 or so, because they're distinguished by quality, sound, a unique aesthetic, and excellent craftsmanship. So they are absolutely "vintage guitars."

The reason things don't tend to get the "vintage" label until being 20 or so years old is that these things require a bit of hindsight. Generally we don't recognize we're in a "golden era" until we move into an era that's not as golden.

[Larry Mal]

Not so. Well, maybe some people use it that way, but in reality there ARE substantive differences and unique qualities that guitars from certain eras possess. I know I like late 1962 Fender necks. I might seek those out if I were in the market for a nice guitar. Just like I might seek out a bottle of wine from a specific year if I were a wine connoisseur. That's the meaning of "vintage."

Sure, but that's part of my problem. Guitar necks and playability change from year to year, but also from guitar to guitar, especially during the era we are talking about before CNC machines. How often do you see the advice that "vintage" guitars aren't necessarily better just because they are old, that there are good ones and bad ones?

The same is absolutely not true with wine, in which all the fruit ripens, and is harvested, pressed and bottled at more or less the same time (and any difference in that time averages out in the bottle). So, a 2008 from a particular winery will be distinct completely from a 2007 and a 2009 as well as somewhat different from the wine produced from literally every other year. That's the whole point of vintage, because some years are better (or worse) than others for the grape and that is reflected in the final product.

The point of labeling a bottle of wine with the vintage is not to advertise how old it is, because only in very rare exceptions does wine actually improve with age past a certain point. People who know wines aren't in a hunt for the oldest possible wine, they are looking for specific years in which the climactic situations at a particular vineyard or region led to a better product (late rains, or that sort of thing).

Again, this is why the "vintage" labeling doesn't apply to anything except wine, it's misappropriated with guitars although it does carry some vague and unspecific meaning. Like you mention with Guild, which are not always what we think of when we think of "vintage", because at the moment they are simply not as "collectible".

[Larry Mal]

And by the way I know that my complaining about the word "vintage" on here means nothing. I'm just talking to hear myself talk.