Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[traction39]

Maybe a little late on this one.....

Globetrotting vintage Austin Seven in charity auction
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-32553742
_________________
Alistair

Citroen Light 15 1953, "12" 1939,
Riley 9 Special 1932

[Ray White]

I am sure to some I am being pedantic but why do the media insist on calling all old cars, regardless of age, vintage?
This is not a "vintage" Austin Seven.

It's not as though they don't get criticised when they do this. Letters to Editors constantly explain the different categories and yet they persist with incorrect descriptions.

They wouldn't make the same mistakes with other areas of reporting like titles for example. They don't refer to the Curate of Canterbury in place of the Archbishop or the Earl of Wales instead of The Prince of Wales.

I fully understand that in other countries datelines vary but surely there is no excuse for sloppy reporting of British cars; it confuses the general public.

Sorry for the rant.

[peter scott]

Antique is much abused too.

Peter
_________________
https://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon

[ukdave2002]

[Ray White]

I'm sorry, but I just can't let that go. vintage when referring to a motor car in this country signifies one that was manufactured before 31st Devember 1930. This has been the case since the VSCC settled on it in the 1930s.

[Dipster]

I wonder what sort of money this should fetch. Any ideas? My brother had a Ruby years ago and I loved the simplicity of it.

[Rick]

I wonder how many people flocked to the village hall yesterday evening for the auction???? Did anyone here go?


RJ
_________________
Rick - Admin
Home:https://www.oldclassiccar.co.uk
Videos:https://www.youtube.com/user/oldclassiccarRJ/videos
OCC & classic car merchandise (Austin, Ford ++):
https://www.redbubble.com/people/OldClassicCar/shop

[goneps]

My sympathies are with Ray, albeit I generally refer to the Morris Eight as a vintage car when talking to those who know nothing of old cars since it's a term laymen understand without further elaboration. Referring to it simply as an old car tends to convey the impression of a clapped-out Corolla or some such; calling it a post-vintage would result in confusion and glazed eyes.

Being as pedantic as Ray, my personal bug-bear is those who refer to Two-Seaters as Tourers, an infuriatingly common practice in Morris circles. The ignorant term "Two-Seater Tourer" sets my teeth on edge—it's equivalent to calling a 2-door Saloon a "Two-Door Four-Door Saloon". Had I a quid for every time I've heard or seen the Two-Seater Tourer oxymoron I'd be a wealthy man.

Richard

[Ray White]

My beef is with the media who seem to deliberately go out of their way to use incorrect terms for no other reason that they always have - so they think they must be right. For example, every year we are subjected to the ritual misuse of terms to describe Veteran cars taking part in the London to Brighton Run such as "Vintage cars" or "Classic cars". Admittedly not so many of them use the "old crocks race" expression these days but only because they have found a sub story in relating how much it annoys some of the entrants.

I fully accept that Americans, for example, will use terms like "horseless carriages" and "brass age" for their early vehicles and they LOVE the word "antique" to describe almost anything - but there really is no excuse in muddling up terms that have been accepted in this country for many years; it just confuses things.

I do not dispute there are anomalies; especially where "Post Vintage Thoroughbreds" are concerned and the cut off date for Vintage seems irrational in some cases. I know of cars that were made in 1931 yet are identical to those that qualify for the term but they are relatively few in number and there is seldom a problem for one good reason. The use of the term Vintage is in no way a reflection on the quality or design of a car but merely a dating category which has been generally accepted for a long time. For example, a Veteran is generally accepted as being a pre 1905 car and as such is eligible for the 'Brighton Run but it would not be described as a "vintage" car; neither would an "Edwardian" car - although here we are getting into rather esoteric territory.

I make no excuses for the stance I take because I believe it makes sense to continue with the tradition rather than abandon it to confusion but I stress it is not my intention to cause offence to others who wish to take a more relaxed approach. After all, it is your car and if anyone wishes to describe their classic car as a Jalopy or any other term they have every right to do so. My criticism, as originally stated is with the media.

[ukdave2002]

I would think a motoring journalist should be familiar with the vscc categories, I too know what they are, and appriciate what the Vscc have done to support our hobby, however a couple of things bug me

Firstly I like to preserve the english language, I'm dyslexic, so perhaps worry about this more than most, whilst accepting that languages evolve over time, I still try and drill into my kids some discipline, so trying to justify the way the vscc are using terminology like vintage and veteran as fixed points in time is difficult...

Secondly I dislike anyone attempting to catogories me or my ways; do I have a vintage , veteran or classic , frankly I don't care if I enjoy a 50's car great if someone else enjoys a 20's or 90's vehicle that's fine too if we want to call them all classics then we are all happy. ( I'm probably prickly on this topic as we have an election in the UK and I'm sick of any party telling me what's good for me!!!)

Finally I think what will confuse folk (and I'm googling these dates, so don't shoot the messenger!) is that we have cars made to 1919 are veteran , in the next 11years we have vintage (to 1930) ...then what ? ?..nothing The dates don't move? And the longer things go on the odder it will look. In just 15 years time no vehicle aged less than a 100 years old will be a vintage or veteran vehicle ?
And as Ray points out we can have 2 identical cars made within 24 hours of each other one is a vintage and the other isn't ?

Dave

[Ray White]

Some interesting points there, Dave.
1) It is just plain popularism (if that's the word?) for a motoring journalist (working for the media) to describe Vintage and Veteran cars incorrectly because he knows full well that his write up will be read by the general public who know nothing and care less about our motoring traditions.

2) the terms used by the VCC and VSCC are not and never have been anything other than categories and should not be used to infer desirability of a car; although originally the use of "vintage" DID infer such with a perceived falling away of quality in the '30s. The difference with the term "classic" is that it generally DOES infer something better than the norm - although quite what is open to interpretation.

3) There are anomalies which have been mentioned here before but it is up to the VSCC to do something about it if their membership demand a change. There is of course, the PVT (Post Vintage Thoroughbred) catogory for those who don't quite fit in but that is again more to do with club events than anything else.

Whilst I respect your difficulty in handling terms like vintage or veteran - if referring to anything other than old cars they would indeed be generic rather than specific - their usage has been accepted for so long in vintage and veteran car circles that I think a little flexibility is not that much to ask.

3) Historically, of course, there were no such categories at all and conversely the term "classic" was unheard of until much later...and that is my point; You might not like having your cars categorised which is fair enough, but it is usually those who have come later who are trying to muddle up clear and concise definitions that have been used for generations.

I personally wish people would not refer to my cars as "classic" - they are Vintage cars by date - but interestingly, my Triumph GT6 was a "classic car" when I sold it. Quite when it acquired that nomenclature I don't know but during the 38 years of my ownership it managed to become a "classic" - whatever that means.

4) The definition of Veteran is an interesting one. Up to 1919 is Veteran but it needs qualification. Those cars produced prior to 1905 are strictly described as Veteran and have the distinction of being eligible for the London to Brighton Run. Those veterans from 1905 to 1919 are generally understood to be "Edwardians" and are excluded from the famous Run - although they have their own rallies etc.

The vintage period, as discussed, is up to (but not including) 1931 and as the VSCC needed a category for later cars, they introduced the PVT (post vintage thoroughbred) and this being a Club issue need not trouble us mere mortals.

The period from 1931 to whenever cars are deemed classic is ambiguous which should please those who do not like to categorise cars. There is no reason why cars which fall into this 'no man's land' should not have a category all their own - I call them "Pre War" but whatever they are they are specifically not vintage.

[goneps]

This subject was under discussion a year or so back in Beaded Wheels, the bi-monthly magazine of the VCC of NZ. It was suggested by at least one person that the term 'vintage' has become a matter more of snobbery than anything more useful. Someone else pointed out that when the VCCNZ was formed immediately after the war a vintage car could be as little as 16 years old, whereas until quite recently no vehicles later than 1960 qualified for membership.

Going off at a slight tangent, since the decision was made to admit vehicles on a rolling 30-year-old basis the categories have become something of a dog's breakfast. After the long-standing post-vintage and post-war classes we now have Post-60, -70, and so on.

Personally I think it was a mistake to admit vehicles so relatively new as 30 years old. When I lived in South Africa it was as little as 20 years, and the result was that runs became a procession of fairly recent cars because it was less trouble to fire up the 350SE and enjoy the comfort and air conditioning than spend a morning fettling the Model T or some such. In my book anything more recent than 1960 or so is a modern—which probably says more about my own vintage than any car's.

Richard

[Ray White]

As I have mentioned previously, the term 'Vintage' is an intrinsically British tradition when relating to cars. It is a date specific description and nothing more.

You are of course correct about inferred snobbery in that some ill informed people will try to make more of it than is that case. The fact remains that the vintage era is no more or less than a date specific indicator when referring to relevant vehicles in Great Britain. No other values are applicable.

I say we should celebrate British traditions like this rather than throw them all away.