Vintage Year

[slickrik]

Sorry in advance for the simple question, I am new to the site and have read but can not seem to find an answer. How old does a guitar have to be to be vintage? I have a 1986 Super 400 and am wondering if it falls into the vintage category? Thanks!

[btoth76]

Hello and welcome to the Forums.

 

There is no absolute definition for that term. You'll find, everyone has His/Her own concept on that.

 

In my experience, people refer to instruments older than 20 years, as vintage.

 

Bence.

[slickrik]

Hello and welcome to the Forums.

 

There is no absolute definition for that term. You'll find, everyone has His/Her own concept on that.

 

In my experience, people refer to instruments older than 20 years, as vintage.

 

Bence.

 

Thank you very much for the reply! That is kind of the time frame I had gathered reading and researching. Was thinking about getting rid of my Super 400, but was unsure of it being vintage or not. Then again that may not really matter much.

[L5Larry]

How old does a guitar have to be to be vintage?

 

The term "vintage" is greatly misused, especially among guitar enthusiasts. Technically speaking, "vintage" IS NOT defined by age alone.

 

Webster's New College Dictionary defines "vintage" as "of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality".

 

So, besides age, a guitar should meet the added criteria of "recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality". The age requirement used to be thought of as 20 years old, but a 20 year old guitar is only "vintage" if it meets the other added criteria.

 

I would say your '86 S-400 DOES meet all the requirements, age, interest, importance and quality.

 

On the flip side of the technical definition, here's a run down on two of my guitars which although old, really don't meet the criteria for "vintage":

 

1947 Gibson L-7:

Old - yes, really old

Recongnized - yes

AND

Enduring Interest - not really, only among archtop players that can't afford an L-5

or Important - no, Gibson was building a ton of different archtop models in the 40's

or Quality - it has "implied" quality, but not like an L-5 or Super 400

Vintage - NO

 

1975 Gibson Les Paul Standard:

Old - Yes, it meets the 20 year mark

Recongnized - Yes, it's a Gibson Les Paul

AND

Enduring Interest - No, just because it's an LP doesn't mean there are people lining up for 1975 models

or Important - No, it's a Norlin era LP, even if mine is the only one they built in '75

or Quality - No, let's see a pancake body, boat paddle headstock, three piece mis-matched plaintop

Vintage - NO WAY

[slickrik]

The term "vintage" is greatly misused, especially among guitar enthusiasts. Technically speaking, "vintage" IS NOT defined by age alone.

 

Webster's New College Dictionary defines "vintage" as "of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality".

 

So, besides age, a guitar should meet the added criteria of "recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality". The age requirement used to be thought of as 20 years old, but a 20 year old guitar is only "vintage" if it meets the other added criteria.

 

I would say your '86 S-400 DOES meet all the requirements, age, interest, importance and quality.

 

On the flip side of the technical definition, here's a run down on two of my guitars which although old, really don't meet the criteria for "vintage":

 

1947 Gibson L-7:

Old - yes, really old

Recongnized - yes

AND

Enduring Interest - not really, only among archtop players that can't afford an L-5

or Important - no, Gibson was building a ton of different archtop models in the 40's

or Quality - it has "implied" quality, but not like an L-5 or Super 400

Vintage - NO

 

1975 Gibson Les Paul Standard:

Old - Yes, it meets the 20 year mark

Recongnized - Yes, it's a Gibson Les Paul

AND

Enduring Interest - No, just because it's an LP doesn't mean there are people lining up for 1975 models

or Important - No, it's a Norlin era LP, even if mine is the only one they built in '75

or Quality - No, let's see a pancake body, boat paddle headstock, three piece mis-matched plaintop

Vintage - NO WAY

 

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense, probably the best definition of vintage I have seen anywhere I have read. I really appreciate you taking the time to lay that all out for me...

[JimR56]

Sorry in advance for the simple question, I am new to the site and have read but can not seem to find an answer. How old does a guitar have to be to be vintage? I have a 1986 Super 400 and am wondering if it falls into the vintage category? Thanks!

I've been interested in vintage guitars- particularly Gibsons- for nearly 40 years. There's an established marketplace, a history and tradition, and there are experts on the subject. They will tell you that (keeping it as simple as possible) the cutoff point for "vintage" guitars is roughly 1970 for Gibsons (pre-Norlin) and Martins (pre-brazilian rosewood restrictions), and slightly earlier for Fenders (pre-CBS). I've seen this topic discussed on other guitar forums, and the obvious takeaway every time is that people on the internet who want to believe that their 1970's (and later) guitars are "vintage" do not erase the established history and the tradtion and suddenly make it so. As for the "20 years" thing... that's so vague and arbitrary as to be ridiculous. As Larry said, it's not the age alone that defines the term. The "20 year" concept was of course accurate at a point in time (circa 1990), but it's now meaningless.

 

Just because your L7 is not an L5 does not mean it doesn't qualify as a vintage Gibson, Larry. In my humble opinion, it does. It certainly has the quality of an L5 in many ways, and as for "important"... I think that you're setting the standard a bit too high there (perhaps being a bit too absolute in terms of using the Webster's definition). Desirability among different models will always be somewhat subjective, but there are going to remain plenty of people who will desire a nice vintage L7 like yours.

 

Congrats on owning a nice Super 400 from the 80's, slickrik. Vintage or not, that's got to be a fine guitar. Got any photos to share?

[slickrik]

I've been interested in vintage guitars- particularly Gibsons- for nearly 40 years. There's an established marketplace, a history and tradition, and there are experts on the subject. They will tell you that (keeping it as simple as possible) the cutoff point for "vintage" guitars is roughly 1970 for Gibsons (pre-Norlin) and Martins (pre-brazilian rosewood restrictions), and slightly earlier for Fenders (pre-CBS). I've seen this topic discussed on other guitar forums, and the obvious takeaway every time is that people on the internet who want to believe that their 1970's (and later) guitars are "vintage" do not erase the established history and the tradtion and suddenly make it so. As for the "20 years" thing... that's so vague and arbitrary as to be ridiculous. As Larry said, it's not the age alone that defines the term. The "20 year" concept was of course accurate at a point in time (circa 1990), but it's now meaningless.

 

Just because your L7 is not an L5 does not mean it doesn't qualify as a vintage Gibson, Larry. In my humble opinion, it does. It certainly has the quality of an L5 in many ways, and as for "important"... I think that you're setting the standard a bit too high there (perhaps being a bit too absolute in terms of using the Webster's definition). Desirability among different models will always be somewhat subjective, but there are going to remain plenty of people who will desire a nice vintage L7 like yours.

 

Congrats on owning a nice Super 400 from the 80's, slickrik. Vintage or not, that's got to be a fine guitar. Got any photos to share?

 

Thank you, have a few photos with a few years of case dust on it. But will post a couple for you. I now have a much better understanding of vintage!

[slickrik]

Here ya go

 

Guess there is a 500kb limit on files, so I could only post one.

[slickrik]

Here ya go

 

Sorry for the double post

[aliasphobias]

The term "vintage" is greatly misused, especially among guitar enthusiasts. Technically speaking, "vintage" IS NOT defined by age alone.

 

Webster's New College Dictionary defines "vintage" as "of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality".

 

So, besides age, a guitar should meet the added criteria of "recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality". The age requirement used to be thought of as 20 years old, but a 20 year old guitar is only "vintage" if it meets the other added criteria.

 

I would say your '86 S-400 DOES meet all the requirements, age, interest, importance and quality.

 

On the flip side of the technical definition, here's a run down on two of my guitars which although old, really don't meet the criteria for "vintage":

 

1947 Gibson L-7:

Old - yes, really old

Recongnized - yes

AND

Enduring Interest - not really, only among archtop players that can't afford an L-5

or Important - no, Gibson was building a ton of different archtop models in the 40's

or Quality - it has "implied" quality, but not like an L-5 or Super 400

Vintage - NO

 

1975 Gibson Les Paul Standard:

Old - Yes, it meets the 20 year mark

Recongnized - Yes, it's a Gibson Les Paul

AND

Enduring Interest - No, just because it's an LP doesn't mean there are people lining up for 1975 models

or Important - No, it's a Norlin era LP, even if mine is the only one they built in '75

or Quality - No, let's see a pancake body, boat paddle headstock, three piece mis-matched plaintop

Vintage - NO WAY

 

 

That should be framed and hung on the wall someplace here Larry. I tend to agree with the Jim that you may have set the mark a little too high in regard to your L7. But, point taken.

[aliasphobias]

Nice mid '80s 400 slikric and welcome here.

[stein]

The term "vintage" is greatly misused, especially among guitar enthusiasts. Technically speaking, "vintage" IS NOT defined by age alone.

 

Webster's New College Dictionary defines "vintage" as "of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality".

 

So, besides age, a guitar should meet the added criteria of "recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or quality". The age requirement used to be thought of as 20 years old, but a 20 year old guitar is only "vintage" if it meets the other added criteria.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've been interested in vintage guitars- particularly Gibsons- for nearly 40 years. There's an established marketplace, a history and tradition, and there are experts on the subject. They will tell you that (keeping it as simple as possible) the cutoff point for "vintage" guitars is roughly 1970 for Gibsons (pre-Norlin) and Martins (pre-brazilian rosewood restrictions), and slightly earlier for Fenders (pre-CBS). I've seen this topic discussed on other guitar forums, and the obvious takeaway every time is that people on the internet who want to believe that their 1970's (and later) guitars are "vintage" do not erase the established history and the tradtion and suddenly make it so.

Edited mostly for space, but both post are full of good info.

 

I have to say, in the "guitar collecting" community, it's more the latter post.

 

Pre-70 is generally the cutoff, because that's kinda the golden age, AND the guitars from that period tend to be copied, or "reissued" as we call them.

 

It describes an era, rather than specific guitars.

 

The pre-70 era fits the definition of the word, though. As stated in the above post. Thus, "old" and "vintage" are NOT the same thing.

[slickrik]

So here is my take on this, I have a mid 80's 400. It is not vintage because it is not a pre 70's model and it is no where close to old in the guitar world since it is only barely 30 years old. As far as collectible or sought after I am unsure of, I do know it must hold some value because I was offered a pretty good amount of money from a local shop for it and my george benson hollow body as a pair. I think maybe I may be as confused as when I first posted..lol. But thank you all for the input and knowledge.

[JimR56]

So here is my take on this, I have a mid 80's 400. It is not vintage because it is not a pre 70's model and it is no where close to old in the guitar world since it is only barely 30 years old. As far as collectible or sought after I am unsure of, I do know it must hold some value because I was offered a pretty good amount of money from a local shop for it and my george benson hollow body as a pair. I think maybe I may be as confused as when I first posted..lol. But thank you all for the input and knowledge.

People are always going to be attracted to Super 400's. They have always been among the most desirable of Gibson models, for obvious (I hope) reasons, going back to their appearance in 1934. A guitar doesn't have to be vintage to be desirable and of fine quality. Your guitar would be more desirable and more collectible and more valuable if it was made in 1959 rather than 1986, but it's still a Gibson Super 400, and it's still a valuable and desirable musical instrument.

 

Thanks for the photo- that's a nice looking example!