# What is a vintage???



## corailz (May 1, 2008)

Hi, i should want to know what a guitar need to have/be to be considered as a vintage?I have a mint MIJ 1986 Ibanez RG440 RoadstarII and i want to know if it could be considered as a vintage !Thanks 

What are you thinking about that ??
























Thanks alot!


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

I think in most cases 20 years does the trick but as time goes on the definitions tend to 'morph' into something with altered meaning. 

1976 Ibanez Les Paul
































I really love the 'planer' marks on the back!!


----------



## corailz (May 1, 2008)

WOW!That Ibanez is a beauty!!!!

Ok,so ,mine should be a Vintage (Strat style body and 22 years old).


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

smorgdonkey said:


> I think in most cases 20 years does the trick but as time goes on the definitions tend to 'morph' into something with altered meaning.
> 
> 1976 Ibanez Les Paul
> 
> I really love the 'planer' marks on the back!!


Nothing like skipping a grit or two to save some money 

:smile:


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

In all honesty, the word "vintage" has absolutely no meaning to me at all with regards to anything other than wine. A vintage year is a specifically recognised year of excellence for the wines produced, and is so by organisations, agencies, groups, and awards ceremonies that are positioned to judge such years.

:/ otherwise it's only the word that house moms use to whore things on eBay, selling "vintage" dime store tea pots and shizz that has little to no meaning or value.

*edit*
Just trying to say, I think the word has been devalued, it is sad, but it is how I feel... I used to think I knew what "vintage race cars" were or "vintage table lamps", you know the ones made to last forever from the 1950's that look as good now as when they were new.... :/


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I agree that vintage has lost at least some of its meaning. According to some people all my guitars, except my 12 string would be vintage--I have trouble thinking of them that way. To me vintage should be at least 40 years old.

As for corailz's 86 Ibanez--there's an Ibanez site out there that cuts off vintage at 1983 (So, basically 25 years.)

But don't worry whether the guitar is vintage or not--just play it & enjoy it.


----------



## sneakypete (Feb 2, 2006)

the term is loosely defined in my dictionary and mostly associated with wine, but even then, a vinatge year doesn`t always mean it`s old according to what I read. There is no specific number of years mentioned, even antique is defined differently for cars as opposed to works of art for example. So if vintage notes a particularly good year for grapes or wine, the same could...I say could ... apply to guitars...the 80s were certainly vintage years for many MIJs by that definition...anybody who owns a good Japanese guitar from that time period has to agree...though that doesn`t mean ALL MIJs from then are collectable, or even playable for that matter. So using that, the earliest Japanese Fenders, the JVs, certainly have fallen into that catagory...they ain`t building them anymore, quality was excellent, people are spending big bucks buying them and they are highly sought after...I have no problem with that, the term lawsuit on the other hand gets thoroughly abused...like it was some kind of holy grail or sumthin. By the mid 80s Fender Japan was making all kinds of models, some nowhere near the quality of the JVs and seperated only by a few years...even though sales pitches try to make every 80s MIJ sound spectacular...they ain`t. Just like wine I`m guessing...I have zero interest in the grappa...just because a certain year was outstanding for one maker doesn`t mean it was for everybody...or does it? How could it be considering many countries produce wine...would a certain year be vintage for all wine makers from every country?


----------



## smorgdonkey (Jun 23, 2008)

shoretyus said:


> Nothing like skipping a grit or two to save some money
> 
> :smile:


For sure...

"ok make sure that the top is perfect but don't spend any time on the back...nobody will see it anyway"

Someone told me that now Ibanez has 1.3 people for quality control to every 1 person involved in actual guitar production. I guess that's why their $300 guitars are still eye-opening to a degree (to me...rather sterile, rather devoid of 'grabbing me' but still eye-opening). The necks are incredible (if their neck profile and shape is 'for you') and fit & finish are pretty much perfect.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

*Vintage*

The word Vintage gets thrown around as much as the word Rare . On Ebay every other Guitar is rare or Vintage.

I have 3 guitars that i feel are not Vintage but Rare > They where made in 1993. I have a 1982 LP custom that is not rare, but maybe vintage.. if you go by older than 25 yrs.

Rick


----------



## devnulljp (Mar 18, 2008)

I agree with keeperofthegood...the language is being seriously abused.
Vintage is one of those nice words people like to use in marketing...like bespoke, it conjures up a picture that may not be true.
FWIW, I don't consider 80s to be vintage, by any stretch of that word (and my main guitar is a 1980). 
Someone else posted this hanging on the wall of a store: We sell vintage/antique. We buy junk.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

A 1981 Gibson Les Paul I would not consider vintage. A 1981 Hamer Special on the other hand,...


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

I think it is a term that gets used way too much. I also don't like the way that the term vintage has also come to be associated with "better", which isn't necessarily the case at all. There is alot of stuff that has now been coined as vintage that was crap when it was it new, but now it's vintage.


----------



## 59 Jr (Jun 12, 2008)

Here's a couple of fourty's for ya


----------



## SHEA (Jul 22, 2008)

*Not Sure*

hi im new at this site,not sure if im in the right site! i have this guitar it was given to me as a gift many years ago, its a e1 degas cl0043 .. the modle number and serial are in french i think lol ...anyway if someone has any info on it please let me know . i would love to know what year it was made and a bet of information on it please and its really ugly lol thank you


----------



## Ripper (Jul 1, 2006)

welcome to the forum, you should maybe have started a new thread for that question, but do you have any pics?


----------



## bluezombie (May 7, 2007)

Well i don't know, for me i guess it's any year before i was born, haha :smile1990).

I have a 1968 Gibson melody maker 12, when i saw it for 500$ bucks, I just knew it was going to be a great first vinatge!


----------



## The Usual (May 14, 2008)

This is a tough one. For guitars, I think to keep it simple, 20+ years is a good place to start. 

The problem as I see it, is that guitar lovers equate vintage with good. There's the mistake which frustrates folks. It's not the same as wine. Even the best brand on the best year will produce 80% relative dogs. That's the way guitars work. They don't get made in huge batches where they are all the same. 

So in our world, you go with time. Even a ball of turd after a certain number of years becomes vintage. To me, that's 20 years.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

The Usual said:


> This is a tough one. For guitars, I think to keep it simple, 20+ years is a good place to start.


That would make all but one of my guitars vintage. And that just seems odd, or maybe it just makes me feel old--because I've had them for more than 20 years.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

If we are talking vintage electric guitars in a meaningful way, we would be referring to the instruments made up to the mid 60's, after which the quality of the products from the 2 major houses, Gibson and Fender began to fall off dramatically.

For many many folks, a 70's Norlin Gibson may technically qualify as vintage but market price tells you that it really isn't.


----------



## sneakypete (Feb 2, 2006)

I think one problem with the 70s Gibsons is the quality.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

sneakypete said:


> I think one problem with the 70s Gibsons is the quality.


I've read a number of threads about Norlin era guitars. It seems to me that if you have to pick a year for quality falloff, it has to be 1974. Some will argue plus or minus a year or two. 1968-70 Gibsons are starting to command vintage prices. A couple of 68 goldtops with p90s in very good condition, all original, have gone for well over $20 grand.


----------



## Gene Machine (Sep 22, 2007)

*it depends...*



Robert1950 said:


> I've read a number of threads about Norlin era guitars. It seems to me that if you have to pick a year for quality falloff, it has to be 1974. Some will argue plus or minus a year or two. 1968-70 Gibsons are starting to command vintage prices. A couple of 68 goldtops with p90s in very good condition, all original, have gone for well over $20 grand.


like most things i think norlin era guitars get a bad rep due to misunderstanding.

while thhe design changes were sketchy (pancake body, volute, Fugly multi piece tops) there are some real gems that were made during the 1970s. one of the things about hit-and-miss quality control is every now and then you score a real hit. 

BUT, that being said, it is interesting that some idiots selling norlin Les Pauls want super vintage prices for them on the used market. I personally wouldn't pay more than $2000 for a 1975 Les Paul. 

Same thing goes for CBS era strats. people didn't want them then, why do they want them now?

g.


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

Yeah, the line between 'vintage' and 'old junk' has become pretty hazy.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

Robert1950 said:


> I've read a number of threads about Norlin era guitars. It seems to me that if you have to pick a year for quality falloff, it has to be 1974. Some will argue plus or minus a year or two. 1968-70 Gibsons are starting to command vintage prices. A couple of 68 goldtops with p90s in very good condition, all original, have gone for well over $20 grand.


Forget 74. 

The 68 LP's are unique. No big premium on a 68 ES 335.


The ONLY reason the 68 and very early 69 LP's are worth $$ is that they were made the old style way with long tenons and one piece necks and bodies. There are several transitions from 68 to 70 and by 70 the value is gone.

Anyone paying big $$ for a 72 Deluxe just doesn't understand what's driving the $20K 68.

Here's a pic of the 68 I owned. The crown logo indicates the very first batch.


----------



## Soldano16 (Sep 14, 2006)

Gene Machine said:


> Same thing goes for CBS era strats. people didn't want them then, why do they want them now?
> 
> g.


That's why the Hendrix reissue Strats were such a bogus concept.

Let's reissue the worst guitars we ever made.:frown:


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

Post '74 Gibsons changed to maple neck and short tenon. Well, the trans tenons trickled through on some all the way to '76.

The problem I see with 'Vintage' as opposed to 'old' is guys automatically equate a certain age with increased value.

Love or hate Norlins, they are going up in price quickly.

I've got a great '74 Custom, so, I guess I'm happy it's worth a lot more now than I paid for it, but it wasn't that many years ago that a Norlin era Les Paul was a good inexpensive entry into a Les Paul. And I think it's a shame that has changed.

And value should relate to supply/demand, not simply age. There were what? something like 1800 original bursts built in total? IIRC in 1974 alone Gibson made about 7500 Customs. They are never going to be rare, just old.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

With the term "vintage" there are a lot of definitions and I think the main problem is equivocation. The definition that fits with instruments pertaining to their value is "Characterized by excellence, maturity and enduring appeal; a classic". The use of any other definition to establish value doesn't make sense. For the Les Paul the late 50's is considered to be the best period of manufacture for that model. Quality at Gibson generally was considered to be excellent until 1965 when Ted McCarty left, after that it started to slide due to poor management.

Rarity also doesn't automatically imply value. There are a lot of things that are rare for good reason. They were terrible ideas to begin with.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Gene Machine said:


> while thhe design changes were sketchy (pancake body, volute, Fugly multi piece tops) there are some real gems that were made during the 1970s. one of the things about hit-and-miss quality control is every now and then you score a real hit.


I like volutes--as long as they're in the right place--unlike the Alex Lifeson model seen here recently. They strengthen the neck/headstock joint. I've seen Gibsons with volutes dropped and not have the neck damaged when a non volute Gibson has broken off with less of a fall.

Three of my guitars have volutes--and they are all in the top 4 of my guitars.

So I am curious as to why people hate volutes, other than the ones that are placed incorrectly. My Les Paul is pre 74 (according to the serial number it's 71-73--although the same serial number appears on a 1963 Gibson--but in 63 it would have been SG shaped.) It has the volute--and it feels weird to me to play a Les Paul without one.


----------

