Unpopular Pony Opinions

[starstrider]

I feel the same way about customising G1s.  I hate seeing ponies with just a few flaws being cut open and repainted, rehaired, and rebranded.  Restoration is possible in most cases, and I wish people would put their energy into conserving the G1s sill in circulation rather than customise them. If the pony is really, REALLY baity and there's nothing short of a miracle which will fix it, then customisation is okay rather than the pony being just thrown away. It especially bothers me when I see poor quality G1 customs.  It feels like a pony was murdered and abused sometimes.  However, I have to admit that there are some really talented customisers out there who produce some beautiful customs. 

[Leave a Whisper]

Disagree. Antiques are a lot older then that.
 

[Nemesis]

Disagree. Antiques are a lot older then that.

Antique is a somewhat arbitrary word; that’s why I said “by some standards”. 50 is the standard for many antique collectors... At 35, G1s are closing on that number pretty quickly. Others might say an object becomes an antique at 70 or 100.

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.

[Leave a Whisper]

Disagree. 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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique

[Nemesis]

Disagree. 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.

Yes, but I said 50... 100 is the strictest definition of antique, but not the only standard.

[Leave a Whisper]

They're not 50 either.  They'd be considered vintage at this point. 

[Nemesis]

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.

Actually, I said “nearly”. 35 is a pretty ripe old age for a toy... 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. ;

[Leave a Whisper]

They'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.

[Nemesis]

They'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.

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. ;
[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

I said nearly. Nowhere did I say that they were, presently, antiques.

Also, vintage does not imply a set age: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vintage

I have no idea why you’re being so catty about this... If you want to debate this, fine, but please be a bit more civil and a bit less condescending. And at least read my entire posts before telling me what I did or did not say.

[Leave a Whisper]

And I said they're not even considerd nearly antique.  Funny, all I need do is type in requirement age for vintage in search and it pops up as 20 years. That sure sounds like a definitive age to me.

I'm not being catty or rude. I've been perfectly civil. If you interpret it that way, That's strictly your problem, not mine. This is my topic and unpopular opinions invite discussion and differing opinions. If you don't like it again your problem.

[Nemesis]

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.

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”.

[Leave a Whisper]

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.

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.

[Nemesis]

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.

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.

I didn’t ignore it. I said that 100 was the strictest definition of the word. I suppose I’m giving you the strictest definition of “vintage” now. Also, the very article you linked even talked about varying opinions of “antique”’s age specification.

Also, you’re being just as hypocritical, by your own definition, as I am... You just keep choosing the source (Google search, Wiki) that suits you, and taking that as law. Those aren’t even academically citable sources. Furthermore, you ignore half of what I say and just repeat your own opinions.

Also:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antiques

By “various custom laws”, an antique is 100 or more. However, many definitions of the word don’t even imply a standard age requirement at all.

[Leave a Whisper]

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.

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”.

Silly and hyperbole isn't an insult. If i were being uncivil and rude to you, trust me, you'd know it. As I'm not always the nicest person and I'm quite mouthy and uncouth.

If you think that someone calmly pointing out that 35 years isn't close to 50 or 100 is rude, uncivil or catty, then I don't know what to say to that. But once again, that is strictly your problem for choosing to interpret it that way.

[RoseNoire]

Judging whether or not 35 is close to 50 and deciding at what age something is "vintage" of "antique" is kind of a matter of opinion. I think your argument might go on until G1s are definitely described as archeological artifacts.