Ok, so I recently bought a watch made in 2002, which I would consider vintage as its over 20 years old and I once ready a watch article (forgotten which site) which described any watch which is over 20 years old as a vintage watch. But it go me thinking, 'vintage' is a relative term, so thought I would ask the community for a little fun.
P.s. image is just a pretty mountain scene I made with an AI program a while a go, fancied something peaceful!
It is relative. In cars and other items, it is widely considered 25 yers.
Hell, I am an antique. Even my most of my vintage watches where not when I bought them.
I'd say 30 years, not 20
Something recognizable as unbuyable new and a generation or two gone from the market. Iconic watches can be older than dirt but not vintage in my mind because I can buy the same thing new right now!
I'm in the 25-30 year camp, relative to motorvehicles, bikes ect. Have my vintage Swatch Irony and Citizen WindTimer pre-promaster!! Crazy to think these are vintage because then I have to acknowledge my age in doing so 🤷
What PoorMansRolex said. A Royal Oak Jumbo from 5y ago is virtually identical to that from 50y ago. Even the movement is the same. So one can't really be vintage if the other is not.
For me it's more a matter of how it is made and not so much when that was.
Retro= Pre-2000
Vintage= Pre-quartz
Antique= Pre WW2
Retro= Pre-2000
Vintage= Pre-quartz
Antique= Pre WW2
This sounds about right to me.
Anything older than me is vintage. Anything my age is really old shit.
If it is older than me, vintage.
If it existed when I was in college, neo-vintage.
FWIW, Tag Heuer considers anything older than 20 years to be vintage (and charges significantly higher prices for service)