What constitutes a classic?
Discussion
Maybe this has been addressed here before but what is it that makes a car “a classic car”...
History, prestige, maybe evolution or does every rust bucket that crosses its 20th birthday and still have two matching doors rewarded the medal of honour of classic motoring status? I started to notice that almost every old car for sale is now listed as a classic and i’m starting to question are we just using illusive words to attract the multitude.
A quick definition search of the word “Classic” reveals: “Belonging to the highest rank or class”, “Having lasting significance or worth; enduring”, “Formal, refined, and restrained in style” “A work recognized as definitive in its field” and so on..
Let me expand..
There are cars manufactured today that instantly have, and will become tomorrow’s classics, no need for me to mention that all Astons fall into this category.
Sitting in my garage at home is a Bmw E21, and an E30 M3. In my mind the M3 has always been a classic, not only when it got the stamp on the insurance certificate, a car that set down blueprints in so many areas, an engineering masterpiece. On the other hand, the E21 is the working class hero, the car that put the 3 series on the map. I don’t however feel this car falls into the classical regime, nor does the ford Cortina, or the fiat 131 mirafiori.
Maybe someone will tell me they all are and it’s just a question of magnitude, how high up the scale they fit in..
Cheers
-Galen
History, prestige, maybe evolution or does every rust bucket that crosses its 20th birthday and still have two matching doors rewarded the medal of honour of classic motoring status? I started to notice that almost every old car for sale is now listed as a classic and i’m starting to question are we just using illusive words to attract the multitude.
A quick definition search of the word “Classic” reveals: “Belonging to the highest rank or class”, “Having lasting significance or worth; enduring”, “Formal, refined, and restrained in style” “A work recognized as definitive in its field” and so on..
Let me expand..
There are cars manufactured today that instantly have, and will become tomorrow’s classics, no need for me to mention that all Astons fall into this category.
Sitting in my garage at home is a Bmw E21, and an E30 M3. In my mind the M3 has always been a classic, not only when it got the stamp on the insurance certificate, a car that set down blueprints in so many areas, an engineering masterpiece. On the other hand, the E21 is the working class hero, the car that put the 3 series on the map. I don’t however feel this car falls into the classical regime, nor does the ford Cortina, or the fiat 131 mirafiori.
Maybe someone will tell me they all are and it’s just a question of magnitude, how high up the scale they fit in..
Cheers
-Galen
We regularly beat this topic up on here, just after new year seems to be the "classic" time for this discussion.
There is no formally accepted definition of what constitutes a classic car. It tends to be a case of beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Typically the newer the car, the more likely there is to be an argument about whether it is a classic, or whether in fact it ever could be.
There is no formally accepted definition of what constitutes a classic car. It tends to be a case of beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Typically the newer the car, the more likely there is to be an argument about whether it is a classic, or whether in fact it ever could be.
poprock said:
According to our current Government, any car registered prior to 1st January 1973 qualifies. Nothing newer does.
Trying to define a 'Classic car' is impossible but our government actually uses a phrase for a pre-1973 that's even more open tomisinterpretation - 'Historic Vehicle'.
Right.. Excuse me if i disregard governments interpretation, as every beat up tin can would quality at some stage.
Provenance certinally is important, but to me is it not so much to do with design or engineering, the one that set the example in its day?.
Yes it seems that its more often than not, a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Guess its a good job we all dont fancy the same chick!
Provenance certinally is important, but to me is it not so much to do with design or engineering, the one that set the example in its day?.
Yes it seems that its more often than not, a case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Guess its a good job we all dont fancy the same chick!
A classic is simply a survivor that people have a soft spot for either because it was a brilliant vehicle or something so st that people buy it for sts and giggles, a Lada, a Metro, or a 405mi16, Rover Sd1 there are plenty of cars that people could desire or just want for the laugh value.
Doofus said:
Alex said:
Some provenance or history often helps. Taking your examples, the Ford Cortina or Fiat 131 are not obvious classics, but the Lotus Cortina and 131 Abarth certainly are.
Makes no sense. All four of the above can have both provenance and history.poprock said:
According to our current Government, any car registered prior to 1st January 1973 qualifies. Nothing newer does.
Sorry to be a pedant but it's any car BUILT (not registered) prior to 1st January 1973.Might not seem too important - unless your car was built on Dec. 23rd 1972 but not registered until sat June 1973, at which point it can make £190 per-year difference.
I think its all to do with how the owner sees his car. To me a classic is any 'older' car that is kept for its own sake ie for the pleasure it gives its owner. A simple example: I had a 1977 Triumph 2500TC and I loved it, even though it was glorious 1970s BL poo brown. To me it was a classic. But to the person I bought it from it was just an old car, formerly a general runaround, that was now cluttering up their driveway. Horses for courses and all that...
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff