Welcome to the MLP Arena!
Site Announcements Arena Tutorials Sigs & Site Support Introductions Pony Corral Swap Talk! Pony Fairs! MLP Nirvana Nirvana Sales Pony Brag Arena Off Topic Dollhouse Toy Box & Games Cupboard Customs Custom Sales Arts & Crafts Corral Adoptables For Sale - For Auction For Trade Wanted Trader & Classifieds Support What's Your Problem Private Messages Contact Us!
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Disagree. Antiques are a lot older then that.
Quote from: Leave a Whisper on May 13, 2018, 06:40:36 AMDisagree. Antiques are a lot older then that.That’s why I said “by some standards”. 50 is the standard for some antique collectors... At 35, G1s are closing on that number pretty quickly.In any case, a collectible surviving 35 years only to end up being dubbed “bait” and then irreversibly customized rather than restored... seems pretty sad to me.
Quote from: Nemesis on May 13, 2018, 10:19:06 AMQuote from: Leave a Whisper on May 13, 2018, 06:40:36 AMDisagree. Antiques are a lot older then that.That’s why I said “by some standards”. 50 is the standard for some antique collectors... At 35, G1s are closing on that number pretty quickly.In any case, a collectible surviving 35 years only to end up being dubbed “bait” and then irreversibly customized rather than restored... seems pretty sad to me. 35 is not even close to 100.
They're not 50 either. They'd be considered vintage at this point. You said by some standards they're old enough to be considered antique. That's flat out ridiculous, since 35 isn't anywhere near the 50-100 category. Its not an interchangeable term so your contradicting yourself and resorting to hyperbole.
Quote from: Leave a Whisper on May 13, 2018, 10:36:35 AMThey're not 50 either. They'd be considered vintage.That’s why I said “nearly”. In “toy years”, 35 is a pretty ripe old age... Look at everything Barbie went through between 1959-1994.I’ve come to loathe the word “vintage”... It technically gives no definition of age, and half the time is used to describe items from ten years ago. ;
They're not 50 either. They'd be considered vintage.
Quote from: Nemesis on May 13, 2018, 10:40:35 AMQuote from: Leave a Whisper on May 13, 2018, 10:36:35 AMThey're not 50 either. They'd be considered vintage.That’s why I said “nearly”. In “toy years”, 35 is a pretty ripe old age... Look at everything Barbie went through between 1959-1994.I’ve come to loathe the word “vintage”... It technically gives no definition of age, and half the time is used to describe items from ten years ago. ;The terms aren't interchangeable. You said by some standards they're considered antique which is flat out ridiculous. Your contradicting yourself and resorting to hyperbole. 35 is nowhere near 50-100. Especially since there are toys far older then that. Furthermore Vintage is at minimum 20 years. So you can't say it has no definitive age. People describing 10 years as vintage is just as silly as you describing antique ar 35 years.
And I said they're not even considerd nearly. Funny, all I need do is type in requirement age for vintage and it pops up as 20 years. That sure sounds like a definitive age to me.
Quote from: Leave a Whisper on May 13, 2018, 10:54:01 AMAnd I said they're not even considerd nearly. Funny, all I need do is type in requirement age for vintage and it pops up as 20 years. That sure sounds like a definitive age to me.15 years isn’t much, IMO. If you thinnk it is, that’s fine, since “much” and “nearly” are also completely arbitrary.Any strict age requirement for “vintage” isn’t in the actual definition of the word. I just gave you the dictionary definition.
Quote from: Nemesis on May 13, 2018, 10:59:21 AMQuote from: Leave a Whisper on May 13, 2018, 10:54:01 AMAnd I said they're not even considerd nearly. Funny, all I need do is type in requirement age for vintage and it pops up as 20 years. That sure sounds like a definitive age to me.15 years isn’t much, IMO. If you thinnk it is, that’s fine, since “much” and “nearly” are also completely arbitrary.Any strict age requirement for “vintage” isn’t in the actual definition of the word. I just gave you the dictionary definition.Interesting. I gave you a definition of antique and you chose to ignore it. Bit hypocritical of you.
Quote from: Leave a Whisper on May 13, 2018, 10:54:01 AMAnd I said they're not even considerd nearly. Funny, all I need do is type in requirement age for vintage and it pops up as 20 years. That sure sounds like a definitive age to me.15 years isn’t much, IMO. If you thinnk it is, that’s fine, since “much” and “nearly” are also completely arbitrary.Any strict age requirement for “vintage” isn’t in the actual definition of the word. I literally just gave you the dictionary definition.I have no problem with debating an opinion. But you have been rather uncivil to me, calling my statements “silly” and “hyperbole”.