Monday, May 05, 2014

Digging Into the Box V: What is "Vintage" Anyway?

I've had a blast sorting through the giant box of cards that my brother sent me.  So far, I've had four posts on the box...and I might have gone through about 10% of the cards in the box!  Last time, I ripped a couple of the wax packs, this time we return to some of the loose cards.

Once again, I grabbed a handful of cards in order to show off some of the cards that happened to catch my eye for various reasons.  This time, the stack was about 40 cards high - and from that I found quite a few that were interesting.  However, in the interest of not making this post too long, I chose five cards to showcase!

#5:  Magglio Ordonez

I'm such a sucker for Pacific cards - there were a couple of 1998 Pacific Paramount cards in this stack which made me quite happy!  I don't know for sure which Pacific sets I'll end up trying to complete, but this one has a chance if I keep acquiring cards from '98!

#4:  Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays

If I were ten years old, this card would be awesome to me.  I think all sets should have team checklists with a gigantic team logo on the front...  I used to spend hours trying to draw the various team logos - having a larger logo to look at would have been great.  Of course, it wouldn't have actually helped my drawings any...I have absolutely no artistic talent!

#3:  Orel Hershiser

First, I'm glad my name isn't Orel.  Second, this is a 1985 Topps card which got me thinking..  Is this vintage now?  I mean, it's 2014 - which means this card is one year short of being 30 years old.  Holy freaking cow that makes me feel old.  Actually, it'll make me feel old when the 1987 Topps set is 30 years old since that was the first set I have any actual recollections in terms of collecting "new" cards.  Still, I can't help but wonder if this Hershiser is a vintage card by most people's standards.

#2:  Randy Myers

I almost decided to try and collect the 1995 Upper Deck SP set.  I kind of like the look of the set but ultimately I can only go after so many sets at any one time...and I can only fit so many binders full of cards on my bookshelf!  Priorities I guess and the 'ol SP set got kicked out.

#1:  Royals Prospects

I asked earlier if the 1985 Topps card was vintage.  Now I have to wonder if this 1989 Fleer card is vintage too?  I know someone (Night Owl maybe?) wrote a long piece awhile back about what constituted vintage and if I recall correctly the decision was 25 years old was the deadline.  If that's true (and I might be off on what was decided), then this card is now decidedly vintage.

That's a scary thought for me if 1989 really counts as vintage.

(Now get off my lawn)

3 comments:

hiflew said...

I have always felt that vintage, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. My definition of vintage is exactly one year before a person is born. I was born in 1976, so vintage for me is 1975 and before. But someone born in 1990 would be also correct in thinking of 89 Fleer as vintage from their viewpoint. My definition is not perfect, but it does mean that I will never have to refer to a card set I remember as vintage.

Tony L. said...

I refer to vintage as "before I collected." So, for me, vintage is pre-1977, though 1978 might be the better cutoff since that's when I started caring a bit more about "condition" as opposed to "let's smash the cards with my Hot Wheels!"

Mark Hoyle said...

I usually think of vintage as pre 79.

Post a Comment