begin_within
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 09:43 PM
Original message |
How long should something exist before it can be called "a classic?" |
HuskerDU
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message |
1. 20 years was always the standard for a car to be a 'classic.' |
|
I think it's a good rule of thumb for most anything IMO.
|
Fire Walk With Me
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. That's a good time for things like music, technology, and anything that is quickly changing. |
|
Ah, Husker Du. Time to pull out those LPs.
LPs are classic!
|
begin_within
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. So Gremlins, Pintos and Yugos are now classic cars? |
Left Is Write
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
In other words, if the benchmark is 20 years, then a car should be at least 20 years old to be considered a classic; that does not mean that ALL cars 20 years or older should be considered classic.
|
Oeditpus Rex
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. It's 25, but it's not an automatic |
|
Certain cars were classics almost as soon as they rolled off the assembly line. Others could be 125 years old and they'd still be crap.
|
begin_within
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. What else is required to qualify? |
Left Is Write
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. Got me. I'm not into classic cars. |
|
I just know that a Gremlin and a Yugo ain't it, especially if classic is defined as having enduring worth and value.
A thing doesn't get to become "classic" just because it became old.
|
darkstar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message |
2. What's the rule w/ cars...25 years? |
|
That seems about right, or 20-30 I suppose. At any rate, 50 years seems way too long and 10 way too short....
:hi:
|
KG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 09:50 PM
Response to Original message |
3. about eleventy-hunnert years... |
Mutley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 09:51 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I considered myself classic once I turned 25 |
Kutjara
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 09:52 PM
Response to Original message |
6. It doesn't even have to exist these days. |
|
I remember Disney advertising the upcoming release of "The Little Mermaid" with the tagline "Disney's Newest Classic." It hadn't even been shown yet! To me, that's like selling "brand new antiques."
But, yeah, to answer your question, 20 years is about right.
|
idgiehkt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 10:10 PM
Response to Original message |
|
if it is something that is still around, it must be very old.
If it is something no longer made or present in the culture, then I guess it's a 'classic' by default. :shrug:
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jul-16-07 10:51 PM
Response to Original message |
13. I think it's as much an issue of how many knock-offs have been made based upon it... |
|
... as much as it is the absolute amount of time it has existed.
|
Alexander
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-17-07 02:18 AM
Response to Original message |
begin_within
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-17-07 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
15. That's a good answer. |
|
If something appeals to more than one generation, then it could be considered classic rather than merely popular.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:09 AM
Response to Original message |