What is Vintage

[Carlisle Blues]

A few choice Depression-era frocks, with a focus on ’70s garb and ’90s grunge florals.....

Is everything considered vintage???

http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/fas...s_new_places_to_find_vintage_clothing/?page=2

 

[Feraud]

Anything and apparently everything that can have the "vintage" label slapped on it is.
These is so much consumer retail junk called vintage it's become silly.
It's a marketing phrase.

 

[pretty faythe]

well technicallly...
websters deff
3 a : a period of origin or manufacture <a piano of 1845 vintage> b : length of existence : age

if its old its vintage lol

 

[LizzieMaine]

"Vintage" sounds more upscale to modern sensibilities than "Second Hand."

 

[Feraud]

Very true Lizzie. We cannot have a country committed to being green, recycling, and leaving small carbon footprints doing so thrift stores.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Here are some long ago thoughts of mine on this...and semi related things...

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?t=16291

I think here at the FL..'vintage' has become a simple one word term for things that actually aren't, and thus the real term is a bit confused for those of us who hang out here..

 

[kamikat]

The accepted usage on a sewing board I frequent that regularly hosts contests for sewing with a vintage pattern considers any pattern older that 1920 to be antique, between 1920 and 1969 vintage and 1970-1999 retro. Anything less than 10 years old is just out-of-date.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

The accepted usage on a sewing board I frequent that regularly hosts contests for sewing with a vintage pattern considers any pattern older that 1920 to be antique, between 1920 and 1969 vintage and 1970-1999 retro. Anything less than 10 years old is just out-of-date.

Yep...but when you make a dress from that vintage pattern ...its not a 'vintage' dress....its either a reproduction...or vintage inspired...depending on how far off the original one goes in fabric choices..etc.

and that's where our use here gets things muddled.....we call most of those..I made this vintage dress'

 

[Forgotten Man]

The term “Vintage” is such a loose term that it should be used sparingly. As of late it has been used in the wrong contexts to its original definition.

The word Vintage mostly should go with something associated with a specific year. Like so:

This car is of a 1940 Vintage. Or this Wine is a 1920 Vintage. To say something that’s older then 25 years is Vintage means really nothing if you think of it. It has become a trendy way of saying something is old.

I’m tired of the word my self. I know some who use it overly so… Maybe if we choose to say that what we enjoy is “Classic” or how we dress is “traditional” may be an alternative. But, as the years go on, those who own real pieces of clothing from the eras we like, those are becoming more Antique then vintage. When you think of it, any item of clothing that is over 50 years old is really antique as far as clothing goes.

For the dress makers:

A pattern of an earlier style could go under such a title as: A 1937 vintage pattern and when you make the garment, it wouldn't be a reproduction because it's a production piece, and it's not vintage because the material used isn't old and it wasn't made in the period.

Call it a copy of a 1937 Vintage dress... makes sense to me.

 

[Inusuit]

I agree it's a marketing term that's greatly overused and often misleading. It's used on Ebay because people use the term in the search function.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

And now you see why everyone just resorts to

vintage



Because I am wearing this copy of a 1937 Vintage dress....sounds clumsy...

 

[Forgotten Man]

Because I am wearing this copy of a 1937 Vintage dress....sounds clumsy...

Maybe clumsy, but it's correct VS the use of the word 'Vintage'.

If I were to wear a suit made today in a period fashion, if someone asked if the suit was old, I'd say, no it's a copy from a period pattern.

But, that's me and I'm long winded lol

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Maybe clumsy, but it's more correct then the use of the word "Vintage".

No argument there at all. If you go read the thread I posted....I had an issue with the usage of the word..oh 4 years ago now....

I am just saying that in conversation...at a club or wherever...the vast majority of folks will not say the correct thing....because its clumsy and not graceful to say...

and so will say 'vintage', accurate or not.

 

[kamikat]

And now you see why everyone just resorts to

vintage



Because I am wearing this copy of a 1937 Vintage dress....sounds clumsy...

Not only does it sound clumsy, but to a seamstress, it implies something that it isn't. To say I made a copy of a 1937 Vintage dress implies that one copied a preexisting item, not made a dress from a 1937 pattern. In modern terms, saying you made a copy of a Calvin Klein suit is completely different from saying you made a suit using a pattern that Calvin Klein designed for Vogue Patterns. Personally, I say "I'm wearing a vintage dress" because to me, it is. I make ALL my clothing, so I don't buy RTW vintage clothing, just as I don't buy modern RTW clothing. All my clothes are either from modern patterns or vintage patterns.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Besides the marketing cachet of "Vintage", I think it's also just general shorthand used by people for things that existed before they were born -- and when used in that sense, it's a term that can't help but float. When I started collecting, nothing after 1950 was ever called "Vintage," and it was rare to hear anything from the '40s called that -- anything from the '40s to the 60s was just "mom's old clothes." But every new generation that comes along pushes the "Vintage" line forward, so that now we're even seeing high school kids who think '90s stuff is vintage and 70s and 80s stuff is virtually antique.

And to them, it is....

As for me, when someone asks me what I'm wearing I generally say just "a dress I made."

 

[kamikat]

Maybe clumsy, but it's correct VS the use of the word 'Vintage'.

If I were to wear a suit made today in a period fashion, if someone asked if the suit was old, I'd say, no it's a copy from a period pattern.

But, that's me and I'm long winded lol

Ah, but it's not a copy. That implies something completely different. That implies that your tailor studied an actual vintage suit and used it to make a new suit. It would be proper to say "this is a suit made in a vintage style". As soon as you make any minor change, say a different color, or different buttons or whatever, it ceases to be a copy.

 

[Ethan Bentley]

The accepted usage on a sewing board I frequent that regularly hosts contests for sewing with a vintage pattern considers any pattern older that 1920 to be antique, between 1920 and 1969 vintage and 1970-1999 retro. Anything less than 10 years old is just out-of-date.

I've heard this too.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Ah, but it's not a copy. That implies something completely different. That implies that your tailor studied an actual vintage suit and used it to make a new suit. It would be proper to say "this is a suit made in a vintage style". As soon as you make any minor change, say a different color, or different buttons or whatever, it ceases to be a copy.

And neither the copy or the 'suit made in a vintage style'....-are- actually vintage.no matter when the pattern came from...or whatever else. If it was made in 2009...it is by definition...not vintage.

Reproduction...sure....but vintage. nah.

Even if it is made from fabric from 1939 and a pattern from 1939 and thread from 1939....the dress itself did not exist in 1939....

A reproduction of a 1939 dress made with vintage materials.


And I am not trying to argue here....but to me its a contested term...and its a losing battle....I do realize that.


and just to be clear, I do not only wear actual old clothes....and think that reproductions are fine..anything is fine...there is nothing that makes a reproduction 'less okay' then an old dress....nothing at all.

 

[Foofoogal]

On Etsy it is 20 years. lol lol lol

So anything before 1989. Isn't that funny.

An antique is still 100 years to me (except autos) and I personally would put vintage as 1970s.

It really depends on the persons age I have found.
I used to do shows and an older dealer was appauled that I had 1950s clothing and Fire King like Jadeite.
She made a pretty big deal out of it. I finally asked her. Lady I can sell this EAPG glass from 1904 for $10.00 or this Jadeite bowl for $200.00. Not a big jump for me.
People always want what they played with or wore or was on their mamas table. Most always anyway. I love Art Deco best I think.
I do understand it is a highly abused term though. With search engines you have to keep in mind though that sellers have to put vintage to seperate from newer. This adds to the misuse greatly.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I do understand it is a highly abused term though. With search engines you have to keep in mind though that sellers have to put vintage to seperate from newer. This adds to the misuse greatly.

Exactly -- what we're getting into here is the difference between what "insiders" consider Vintage with a capital V, and what the general public considers "vintage" with a small v. The Collecting Community can come up with all sorts of micrometer variations between different shades of Vintageness, but people outside that community can't be expected to adhere to such accuracy. If a fellow enthusiast at a vintage event asks about something we happen to be wearing, it's appropriate to go into the vintage/repro/modern discussion, but when some stranger in the grocery line says "Oooh, I love your vintage dress," it's not really worth the trouble to explain, "No, see, I made this dress from a 1937 pattern using contemporary fabric and notions, except for the buttons, which are old stock from 1950 so it's actually semi-authentic vintagesque repro, but thank you."