Now that it's 2007, do the 1972 cards

Cincykid8123 · January 4, 2007 1:14PM

now become vintage?

Boopotts · January 4, 2007 1:20PM

Probably depends on who you talk to. The Net54 guys, for example, seem largely of the opinion that nothing printed after the McKinley administration qualifies as 'vintage', so they would say 'no'. I've always thought of 1975 as the cut-off date, but it's always interesting to hear how other people interpret it.

ezyshooter · January 4, 2007 1:52PM

Personally i think pre 80 should be considered vintage. Yes so sets were mass produced but some of the 60's also have alot of mass produced years. Just like e-bay's pre-80 rookie button !! LOL
JMHO Steve

diamondman · January 4, 2007 4:04PM

<< <i>Probably depends on who you talk to. The Net54 guys, for example, seem largely of the opinion that nothing printed after the McKinley administration qualifies as 'vintage', so they would say 'no'. I've always thought of 1975 as the cut-off date, but it's always interesting to hear how other people interpret it. >>

I have always thought of 1973 being the cut off last series production, while others consider everything past 1966 high numbers as being mass produced and of course others who say 1941 and
before. I guess to each his own. Just have FUN!!!!!

Boopotts · January 4, 2007 4:16PM

<< <i>

<< <i>Probably depends on who you talk to. The Net54 guys, for example, seem largely of the opinion that nothing printed after the McKinley administration qualifies as 'vintage', so they would say 'no'. I've always thought of 1975 as the cut-off date, but it's always interesting to hear how other people interpret it. >>

I have always thought of 1973 being the cut off last series production, while others consider everything past 1966 high numbers as being mass produced and of course others who say 1941 and
before. I guess to each his own. Just have FUN!!!!! >>

That's kind of a cool way to think of it! I've never looked at it that way before. I've always though of 1975 because with the Yount, Brett, Rice and Carter RC's it seemed like the set that ushed in the 'next generation' of stars-- or at least if felt that way to me when I was a 13 year old kid back in 1985. But the more I think about it the more I like your line of thinking better

frankhardy · January 4, 2007 11:38PM

Vintage is probably different for different people since our ages widely vary.

I think in order to be consistent - everybody should just go with what I think!

Seriously, I probably would consider 1980 and older because 1980 was the last year of the Topps monopoly.

gaspipe26 · January 5, 2007 12:00AM

That sign actually exists in St Louis?

yankeeno7 · January 5, 2007 1:11AM

I have seen vintage Frank Thomas rookies on Ebay! You mean, that ISN'T vintage?????

I started collecting in 1978 so I am NOT ready to consider that vintage! That would mean that I am vintage! eeek!

I have always thought of vintage as pre 70.

joemaggio · January 5, 2007 7:47AM

About three years ago, I saw someone selling a "Vintage" Tampa Bay Devil Rays jersey on eBay.

SOM · January 5, 2007 12:37PM

Urp!

Just finished a bottle of wine, "Vintage 2005."

Blackborder · January 6, 2007 9:59AM

There probably should be three eras in my opinion. Pre gum cards, i.e. up to 1932, when cards weren't marketed toward kids necessarily. The "vintage" gum card era, 1933-1973, when the last cards were produced in "series", and modern era 1974-now.

Southerncards · January 6, 2007 11:40AM

Pre-1980 is generally where vintage falls

Now that it's 2007, do the 1972 cards

Comments