Antique and Classic Definitions

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

Most of us regulars are probably aware of the CCCA definition of what a classic is. I think most of us would also have agree that that definition is not what the majority of people (especially those not really "into" this hobby) mean when they use that term. From that standpoint, we should probably lighten up, especially on the newcomers to the DF. <P>Now, for the definition of an antique. It is my understanding that the AACA accepts any vehicle 25 years old and older as an "antique". Peter Hartman has another definition, something about contracting external brakes, among other things. I was not aware of any such definition. I was curious as to where this definition came from. Is this a recognized definition or just a pet peeve? <P>By the way Peter, I'm not trying to start anything. Just curious.

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Model A Hal,<P>It is my own personal observation that the term "antique", when applied to just about anything (or anyone) is a subjective term, quite relative to the age of the person employing it at any given time.<P>Here's a bit of annecdotal evidence:<BR>I acquired some copies of old trucking magazines in a box lot at an auction some years ago, and read through the ones that weren't falling apart.<BR>A 1942 issue of "Fleet Owner's Monthly" had an article on fleet maintenance, which was a hot topic at the time, since no new trucks were being produced for domestic consumption, and companies had to find the best ways to make their existing equipment last as long as possible. The company featured in this article was a large California dairy, which had a lot of trucks to keep going, and they were constantly looking at new products- lubricants, gizmos, etc- that would increase the efficiency of the trucks, extend their lifespan, etc.<BR>Their "guinea-pig" truck was: "an ancient Pierce Arrow" (sic), that from a photograph looked to be mid-'20s vintage. Given the time of publication, the Pierce was not more than fifteen years old, yet it was regarded as "ancient"....<BR>I have found other references to cars in various literary sources (I'm thinking if 'Grapes of Wrath', and similar books) where anything over ten years old was regarded as "old-fashioned" or ancient, etc.<P>Perhaps this might be attributable to the great advances in automotive technology that occurred between , say, 1926 and 1936: safety-glass, all-steel bodies, four wheel brakes, hydraulic brakes, better tires, independent suspension, and so on.<P>We can get hung-up on vocabulary; one of my passions is "talking machines", which most everyone (including people who know the difference between "old", "antique", and "classic" cars) ubiquitously refer to as "victrolas". <BR>Strictly speaking, a "Victrola" (with a big V), is a talking machine mfr'd by the Victor Talking Machine Co, of 1906 vintage or later, with the horn ENCLOSED IN THE CABINET. Indeed, there is no such thing as an "RCA Victrola" either; Radio Corporation of America purchased the Victor Co. and the Victrola was replaced by the RCA "Electrola". (Some exceptions might be the portable wind-up machines that continued to be made into the '40's).<BR>Even the term "phonograph" is used a little too generously: strictly speaking, a "phonograph" is a cylinder player (only!) with the stylus moving up and down in the groove ("hill & dale"recording), where as the flat disc record and its machines are "gramophones", as named by their inventor Emil Berliner.<BR>Time and popular habit have blurred all these distinctions to the point where any musical play-back machine with a crank is a "victrola" (even if the label clearly says "Edison"!), even if it's a music box!<P>Anymore, I just groan inwardly, smile at the offending party, and if I think there's a chance of educating them, try to gently correct them; otherwise I just go on my merry way.... ("musical comedy face"). <P>As for the term "Classic" car, perhaps that should only be applied to those cars with bulletproof provenance that links them to the original 'Classic' Greek and Roman cultures, pre-Middle Ages... <P>I bet the chap with a 1930 Packard Dietrich dual-cowl phaeton really boils when some on-looker says (innnocently enough) "Nice model "T"...". At least they noticed it at all...<P>When I'm out with the '41 De Soto, all the time people say things like "what year is this Plymouth?" even though the name "De Soto" is plainly embossed in the rear bumper and highlighted in red... at least they called it by a MoPar name...<P>I'm all for using correct vocabulary, I guess we just have to be patient with those who haven't had the benefits of "specialized education"!<P>Cheers!

[Guest]

Regardless of what AACA or CCCAs definitions of the words may be, people unknowledgeable of these clubs will use these words as the they see fit. To berate them for not using them "correctly" is counterproductive to our hobby.<P>When someone refers to a car as either an antique or a classic it's an opportunity for use to engage with a potential new member of our hobby. It's a perfect time to educate them (subtly I hope) on the definitions of those words as it relates to antique cars and the clubs that support them.

[Guest]

Hi..Model A Hal:<P>It is a free country...who would deny anyone's right to speak their mind, and call whatever they want a "classic" or "antique". <P>Generally speaking, when someone uses either of the above words, given their present meaning, all we can generally learn, is what THEY are about, rather than what the car they are using those terms to describe, is about.<P>As we know from going thru any modern publication, a "classic" car generally meets one or more of the following attributes"<P>1) the guy wants to sell it<BR>2) the guy wants to sound important<BR>3) a tree is growing up thru the frame<BR> where the engine used to be<BR>4) at one time it had at least three wheels<P>I am beginning to agree it is pointless to try and explain anything technical to anyone who his had what passes for an education, in the United States, within the past 30 or so years. To try and explain, these days, what the word "classic" or "antique" means, to anyone who hasn't had an adequate technical education , is pointless.<P>The FACTS are irrelevant to the modern generations, and that is logical. As we slip further and further towards being a third world socieity, with more and more of our manufactured goods coming from overseas, it is normal and natural that our language reflect this.<P>If you came out of high school when I was a kid, you were capable of reading a micrometer, and "precision of speech" was essential to that nice job where you worked as an apprentice learning to operate a milling machine, or other "value added" production device.<P>Coming out of high school these days, where teachers feel lucky to have been able<BR>to teach the kids enough to say:<P> " YOU WANT FRIES WITH THAT.."?<P>obviously, precision of speech and thought is less valued...even a nuisance.<P>I dont see why anyone would want to restrict the use of the word "antique" to a car 25 years old. After all, can anyone point out significant technical differences between a 26 year old car and a 24 year old car ?<P>Who wants to be bothered by what REAL antique cars were, and how you would tell them from a later and more modern "vintage" era car.<P>Sure, a car made before the 1920's has technical features much more primitive than the later "vintage" era, which began roughly around 1918, and ended with the onset of the "classic" era, or around 1925. But is there a need amongst the auto buffs today, to be able to tell the difference between a 80 year old car and a 20 and a forty year old car ? Do they need to know ? Do they care ?<P>Of course not! <P>Elsewhere in this chat forum we see people complaining that so many of the few remaining old cars are being gutted, so that only portions of the sheet metal are kept, and mounted on modern running gear. Can you blame them ? They dont know, or care, what kind of driving conditions early cars were designed for. They dont know, or care, how our cultural "norms" have changed. Is it really of ANY interest at all to an auto buff of today, how much faster a Lozier, Crain-Simplex, or Pierce Arrow was, than a Model "T" Ford...? <P>Yes, I am one of the lucky ones with a big, powerful expensive car of the late 1930's, that, "bone stock" IS suitable for high speed driving, now that it is equipped with a high-speed rear axle ratio. But I GUARANTEE you..if I lived east of the Missouri River (where it is much more humid than here in the west) I wouldn't think twice about cutting up whatever I had to on it, to install modern air conditioning (Packard didn't have "factory air" until the 1941 model year, so it sure as hell wouldn't be "authentic".<P>C'mon...now..let's admit it...driving a Model "A" Ford, on the road conditions it was designed for, on a day that isn't too hot or muggy, is more fun than a barrel of horny monkeys. But on a modern Interstate, be serious. Anyway...who CARES !<BR> <BR>And who would deny the right of a private property owner to do what they want with their property, so they CAN use it the way they want. There will always be a few purists and museums for those who DO care about history.<P>Yes...I agree with you, my own personal definitions, are at variance with what you read today. SO WHAT !<P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ<p>[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: pete hartmann ]

[1937hd45]

What is so wrong about explaining to anyone that an "Antique" automobile is a brass era car manufactured in 1915 or earlier? The CCCA defined what a "Classic" was way back in the 1950's. If a 220 pound jock showed up in full NFL gear to play field hocky with your daughters team wouldn't you point out the differance in sports? Nobody advertizes Cameros in the "Brass era" section of Hemmings, last time I looked AACA even had the cars broken up into CLASSES. The 25 year old rule is just a money maker for the club.Education is not something to be ashamed of, share what you have learned. Life is way too short.

[R W Burgess]

Hey Peter, I hope that rear gear conversion on your Packard used standard Parkard production gears and not some old discarded gear set out of one of your old farm tractors. "Bone Stock"?, I love to pick on you. Wayne

[Guest]

Pete Hartmann,<P>Do you actually read what you write? You can't possibly! GEEZ.<P>You manage to badmouth everyone... from kids in school who don?t know how to use a micrometer to the entire nation by stating we are slipping into a "third world country".<P>You loose all credibility with your insulting overgeneralizations, winded diatribes, an non-constructive comments. Get a clue.<P>Peter<p>[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

[Dave@Moon]

Pete, ponder this one for a while<P><B>If I'm watching <I>Reservoir Dogs</I> on DVD, am I still camping?</B> <P>I can hear the relevance pondering already! <p>[ 08-14-2002: Message edited by: Dave@Moon ]

[Dave@Moon]

If you think it's old, it's an antique.<P>If you like it, it's a classic.<P>If you don't belong to the club, it doesn't matter if they call it a gelgamek or a trout.<P>Don't complicate things, it just confuses. (And yes, I have a sense of irony.)

[Guest Skyking]

Boy! this is getting to be one confusing forum.....I don't know what I own anymore

[Guest]

Pete Hartmann,<P>I doubt anyone in this df would disagree that you are a "classic". Are you an "antique" as well??

[Guest]

I relly enjoy Pete Hartmann's replies. He has been lucky and he knows and admits it. He is also very knowledgeable and some of us appreciate his knowledge, wisdom and most of his opinions. I always understood that on this side of the pond Brass was pre 1915, Antique was 1916-1929 (ie the end of external contracting brakes), Vintage (my car)was 1930-35 or 36 depending when a particular manufacturer went to turret top (for you newcommers that is all steel top), followed by pre war (should be obvious even for the current almost funtionally illiterate graduates) followed by post war (once again obvious). Just a personal opinion I think the "Best Car in the World" was not RR but Packard, Ford has never built a car since the Model "T", if I can't afford a Packard I will stick with my 1930 Pontiac. I have owned 23 different post war cars, driven over 60 different ones in my employment and the only improved one over my car is my wife's 1998 Malibu.<BR>Happy hobbying

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

Perhaps you meant "functionally" illiterate?

[Guest]

Tho not closely related to our theme - <BR>someone wrote in response to PFH's comment to-wit:<BR>"You manage to badmouth everyone... from kids in school who don’t know how to use a micrometer to the entire nation by stating we are slipping into a "third world country".<P>PFH MIGHT be more on target than we care to admit???

[Guest]

Conversely:<BR>In the immortal words of PFH himself "this is hobby, not a religion".

[Guest]

Unregis..!<P>Let me come to the defense of Gariepy, and his "attack" on my above "post". Yeah..he may be a bit of a hot-head...but remember..he DOES devote his time to helping out on this marvelous new form of communication !<P>He has a RIGHT to make fun of my "posts" - again..the "crucible of ideas" is what helps us ALL improve our knowledge.<P>Let's just all relax, and extend our thanks to him for working for ALL of us to help keep this forum working !<P>And..listen..you guys...watch out what you say...I am VERY sensitive about SOME things...that I dont want joked about...yeah...I don't classify my interest in the old car hobby as a religion.....but my interest in Britney Spear's body....now THAT'S A RELIGION for me..!<P><BR>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

[Guest]

For 54 Oldsman:<P>Damn...you "found me out"...so you KNOW...I really am THAT old.....truth is...I am so old...that when I was in the service...they were still issuing the troops....ROCKS !<P>We were just starting to go "hi tech" when I got out. Damn...that was hard for me...you guys have ANY clue how hard it is to make a tight "group" with a stick...when you are used to throwing ROCKS...?<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest]

Hey...1937HD....you wanna know what I would call a "220 lb. lineback"...if he was near ME...? "FRIEND"....! (and I would say it with a smile...!)<P>Pete Hartmann

[Guest De Soto Frank]

Skyking,<P>I know what kinds of cars I own: <P>all are "green, 4-dr sedans!" <P>None of them are "classics", and maybe if they get old enough, they might become 'antiques'! <P>Swinging back to my earlier post on the topic, going on my defnition of "old" as technologically obsolete, would my '93 Escort GT now qualify as "ancient" because it doesn't have ABS, GPS, or R-134 A/C ? <P>Cheers!

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

A long time ago, I posted a Glossary of Automotive terms on the CCCA web site. You can find it at: <A HREF="http://www.classiccarclub.org/Glossary.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.classiccarclub.org/Glossary.htm</A> <P>As to its accuracy, well, that's anybody's guess. Even relatively well-informed people who are quite active in the hobby can't agree. Maybe we can start some kind of huge controversy over all the stuff you'll find on that page.<P>I'll start looking for my asbestos Jockey shorts.<BR> <BR>Chuck

[ply33]

Chuck,<P>That actually is just about the best glossary of old car terms I have seen on line. There are a couple that you seem to be missing however:<P>Veteran (Br) - Cars older than "vintage".<P>Classic (Br) - Post WW-2 collectable car.<P>Horseless Carriage - Cars earlier than 1915.<P>Brass Era - <P>Humorous definitions:<P>Antique - Any car older than yourself.<BR>Classic - The car you wanted when you were in high school but could not afford.<BR>New - Any car newer than your oldest child.

[Guest J446]

Reid<BR>I must take exception with your comment that "Ford never built a car since the model T".<BR>35 years ago they made my MK-IV. (There's a pic of it on the Agoriphobia thread) This is the only car made in America to have won the 24 hours of LeMans.<BR>When you drop down a gear, engauge the clutch, and and put your foot to the floor you might mistake it for a F-16 but trust me <BR>you won't dismiss it.<BR>Best<BR>Jim

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

Those are great additions. It's been so long since I posted that page, I can't remember what's on it. With your permission, I'm going to put your suggestions in the glossary too.<P>Any other contributions from others woulld be appreciated. If you like, you can email them directly to me at chuxgarage@aol.com<P>Thanks,<P>Chuck

[Guest Hal Davis (MODEL A HAL)]

I agree with Tod. Good glossary.

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

Since I received no objections, the updates have been made.<P>Thanks,<P>Chuck

[Guest]

J446 Appreciate your commets. Not sure about a MK-IV but I sure might consider a MK-II.<BR>Happy hobbying