Are the 80s still really considered modern?

bigdcards · June 28, 2014 8:26AM

It was 25 years ago and other than production run, the 80s have everything in common with the cards before them and nothing in common with the cards after them. Topps cards in '55, '65, '75 and '85 were printed and cut the same way. Picture on one side and one color on the cardboard back with stats. Then they were distributed in wax packs with gum. '95, '05 and '14 saw none of that. Glossy pics with high tech printing. No gum, Foil, holograms, inserts and tamper proof packaging. What criteria for the cards themselves separate the 80s from what came before as opposed to the major differences in what came after?

swartz1 · June 28, 2014 8:31AM

Yes...

bishop · June 28, 2014 8:32AM

I have collected Topps from 1948 to 2014. Folks should collect what they like or what they relate to best. If you are collecting as an invetment, that is something different altogether.

grote15 · June 28, 2014 8:34AM

When I hear "modern," I think of glossy cards and inserts, 1995 or later, but that's just me. I wouldn't consider 1982 topps modern by any means, though I wouldn't necessarily categorize it as "vintage," either.

scashaggy · June 28, 2014 9:11AM

Comic book collecting uses the following (for the most part):

Golden Age (1938-1950)
Silver Age (1956-1970)
Bronze Age (1970-1985)
Modern Age (1985-Present)

ReggieCleveland · June 28, 2014 9:24AM

Unfortunately, I think this is an exercise in semantics. Modern is going to have a different meaning to each person. Maybe....

19th century
Pre-War
Post-War
Post-Gum

?

For the longest time I considered post-1980 as "modern" but if we all want to decide that post-1990 is now modern, that's cool with me.

scashaggy · June 28, 2014 9:28AM

Maybe there can be a division between 'Modern' and 'Vintage'. We can call it the 'Overproduction Era'.

ashabby · June 28, 2014 11:53AM

I wonder myself. I kind of use the 30 year rule. So a moving target...it would be nice if we had a standard.

magikbilly · June 28, 2014 12:13PM

It changes of course - in autographs, to me, something from 1980 is in no way vintage. But, I am 44. Vintage might be anything before you were born - still different for all.

Eric

addicted2ebay · June 28, 2014 12:28PM

When kids started placing there cards in penny sleeves to keep them mint they gave birth to junk modern wax and that happen in the 80's.

vintagefun · June 28, 2014 12:33PM

For me it's when the 4th major manufacturer hit the scene. So 88 for me. By 89 we had Upper Deck join the fray, and then it was a mess, at least 5 brands running and then it was Stadium Club and Ultra, etc. added to the mix. That was the beginning of the end of what I knew to be card collecting. Quality was up, but so was price and selection, making a constant guessing game for the buyer/collector, and it was all so mass produced that none of it had value.

Perfect timing for me to head off to college and leave collecting mostly behind me, until recently.

Though it's even more of a mess now. Just too much crap to choose from.

For the most part, Heritage and Archives are the only modern I really like.

One guys opinion.

Boopotts · June 28, 2014 12:57PM

I think the term 'modern', in this context, refers to the approximate year in which people began to realize that the current year's cards carried monetary value. Where you want to draw that line I don't know, but clearly a kid breaking a pack in 1954 had a different perspective on that pack's contents than a kid cracking a wax pack in 1986.

MisterBungle · June 28, 2014 1:34PM

Vintage>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Modern

It's a sliding scale, depending on the current year and how
old you are.

~

miwlvrn · June 28, 2014 1:45PM

I like R.C.'s "Post-Gum"

PMKAY · June 28, 2014 1:55PM

What was the last year to have gum? I think 1991-92 OPC hockey still had gum in it.

Griffins · June 28, 2014 1:57PM

For me "modern" is once baseball was integrated, so basically when Bowman and Leaf started in '48.

ReggieCleveland · June 28, 2014 2:31PM

<< For me "modern" is once baseball was integrated, so basically when Bowman and Leaf started in '48. >>

Yeah but you're a dusty old fart.

ldferg · June 28, 2014 2:35PM

<< When I hear "modern," I think of glossy cards and inserts..... >>

Exactly this!!!

Griffins · June 28, 2014 2:50PM

<< 

<< For me "modern" is once baseball was integrated, so basically when Bowman and Leaf started in '48. >>

Yeah but you're a dusty old fart. >>

Said the guy with the old peoples ailment

ReggieCleveland · June 28, 2014 3:59PM

Dementia isn't just for old people.

edmundfitzgerald · June 28, 2014 8:17PM

The 1980's should be referred to as the steroid era.

Players were on steroids.
Card companies production were on steroids.

Anything per-1979 is vintage in my book.

Estil · June 28, 2014 8:53PM

Traditionally the modern era was 1981-present...today well, yeah it does get a bit more complicated. 1992 is probably when the idea of inserts really took off though.

bishop · June 28, 2014 10:45PM

Not sure about cards, but do know that neither Arthur or Anthony are modern...or mint

itzagoner · June 28, 2014 11:28PM

postmodernism presumably became an accepted term of our culture in the late 20th century, so anything which preceded it was modern. anything which preceded modern was pre-modern and anything which follows postmodern is post-postmodern. there is also a period of deconstruction somewhere in there, as well as a little black hole known as nap.

otwcards · June 29, 2014 12:09AM

<< Unfortunately, I think this is an exercise in semantics. Modern is going to have a different meaning to each person. Maybe.... >>

Huh!?!?!

ReggieCleveland · June 29, 2014 2:51AM

<< Not sure about cards, but do know that neither Arthur or Anthony are modern...or mint >>

My centering is a bit off.

Mapleleaf · June 29, 2014 4:29AM

<< I like R.C.'s "Post-Gum" >>

+1

cpamike · June 29, 2014 4:49AM

<< 

<< Not sure about cards, but do know that neither Arthur or Anthony are modern...or mint >>

My centering is a bit off. >>

Top to bottom or left to right?

bigdcards · June 29, 2014 4:57AM

So from what I gather from the group, there are several schools of thought. The least compelling to me are the "because I said so" and "it's when I quit collecting as a kid" approaches. I do appreciate them being brought up since it's what many people use. Then there is the relation to the collecting trends and state of mind of the collectors. While that's not my preference, it does apply a specific criteria for someone to use within the decision making process, which is really what I think should be there.

I'm not sure what to think of Anthony's call on '48+ being modern. I need something different for current 1 of 1 lottery tickets at $100 a pack vs my '65 5 cent pack. Somehow AARP collectors seem like a different crowd than the kids in the LCS today. My gut also tells me that all the senior citizens should have been born before the time we are using the word modern in collecting. Admittedly, that's arbitrary.

Then there is the distinction that goes with the cards and packaging. I personally can't get away from this idea as a breaking point. If the 80s need a sub classifiaction for some, I can see that. There is the change in attitude, but also the addition of the other card companies. And of course '83 fleer packs boast that there are pictures on both sides of the cards inside!

Aurthur, I like post gum! It's clean and allows for the grey transition that is the reality of the situation. 1990 topps fits the old cards in terms of actual product, while '89 upper deck fits with the newer. The gum is a clear indicator.

bigdcards · June 29, 2014 4:58AM

<< 

<< 

<< Not sure about cards, but do know that neither Arthur or Anthony are modern...or mint >>

My centering is a bit off. >>

Top to bottom or left to right?

>>

I think both for most of us. We really just need to avoid that (MC) tag.

Brick · June 29, 2014 8:32AM

I forget.

ReggieCleveland · June 30, 2014 2:55AM

<< 

<< 

<< Not sure about cards, but do know that neither Arthur or Anthony are modern...or mint >>

My centering is a bit off. >>

Top to bottom or left to right?

>>

Top to bottom. I'd say conservatively I'm a PSA 5(ST)

Dnice · June 30, 2014 8:17AM

Vintage to me is a term in which it represents to me the late 60's and earlier. The fact that there are plenty of sealed wax still out there from the 70's even (maybe not through BBCE but its out there being stored away) to me doesnt count as vintage. When i see cards from 1975 for example, i dont classify that as vintage. As someone mentioned, its like the golden era of baseball - when the world was compleely different and not every home had more than 1 tv and such. Vintage was a time period when it comes to cards, yet i see a toy from the early 80's and i have no issue calling that vintage - i dunno. At the end of the day, no - i do not consider (baseball cards at least) from the 80's vintage.

grote15 · July 1, 2014 9:22AM

According to the PSA set registry, a modern set/issue is anything 1970 or later..

Set Registry Winners

PMKAY · July 1, 2014 9:41AM

<< According to the PSA set registry, a modern set/issue is anything 1970 or later..

Set Registry Winners >>

But if you used that for unopened then virtually all unopened is considered modern

grote15 · July 1, 2014 10:25AM

<< 

<< According to the PSA set registry, a modern set/issue is anything 1970 or later..

Set Registry Winners >>

But if you used that for unopened then virtually all unopened is considered modern >>

True. I wasn't suggesting it was accurate or should be used as the demarcation point between vintage and modern; it was more of just an observation on PSA's part.

Are the 80s still really considered modern?

Comments