What constitutes a classic?

[Morrisand944S2man]

Might as well start this thread seeing as it was starting to get covered in another.

Are there any age restrictions? Value, amount built etc?

Discuss.........lol

I would like to re-state the simple formula for determining what is and is not a classic.

Old is not sufficient. Old can also be rubbish, or mundane and unremarkable.

A car has to be both old and great to be a classic- if an everyday car in it's time, it has to be a breakthrough design or a first, or something special or unique in its day.

Classic = old + great

Dictionary definition:-
Classic: 1) of recognised value or merit; serving as a standard of excellence,
2) both traditional and enduring.

So, by this definition a Morris Minor is definitely a classic car, but a Marina is not. In the end, the public decide, that is why there is 15,000 Minors on the road + thousands tucked away and only 600 Marina/Itals left.

We have to draw the line somewhere or ALL cars will be classics, regardless of age or merit. It is not enough merely for a car to be old. Dull 90's cars that should never become classics:- Ford Mondeo, Rover Montego, any Kia, Proton etc, Vauxhall Corsa, any Peugeot, Citroen Saxo. unremarkable cars now, and they still will be in another 10 or 20 years time.

This can be extrapolated back to the 80's and 70's for similar dull front wheel drive Euro/Jap boxes. But then we start upsetting people. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against someone running a survived mundane car from these eras, but it should not be called a "classic". Merely an old car or old banger, depending on condition and care.

I also think that the 1972 historic cut off date was fortuitious in some ways- after the early 70's cars were increasingly alike and bland and increasingly mass produced on automated production lines. Go back to the 60's and you find cars were made by "Roberts" not robots, and the cars were more diverse in their design and construction and configuration. Front wheel drive, fuel injection, four cylinder in line was not the bland default state then.

On the other hand when you have a chrome bumper MGB from 1972 and a chrome bumper MGB from 1973, one is historic, the other not, this highlights the incongruity. I believe all cars such as the MGB that did not change appreciably from 1973 to 1973 should be allowed to have classic status- and the historic tax classification.

However, there are some mundane/ bad cars from the 60's and 50's that perhaps do not really deserve the classic status. The standard 8 is one that comes to mind. I know of a chap who had a standard 8, he was trying to get rid of for years. He did not like driving it, PITA to drive for various reasons, whereas he loved driving his Minor. Both cars were old, but only the Minor was old + great = classic old car, the other Old +bad = non classic old car. That is why so few of some makes and models survive. Because they were just not very good cars in their day. A bad/dull/mundane car in its day is no better 40 or 50 years later.

Simplicity is also a factor. In 1982- a 1972 Minor was a classic car then as it is now. How many 2001 cars can you say the same of in 2011??? As cars became less hand- made and more electronic they became less DIY repairable- so the more modern a car you have, eventually it will, due to complexity, be impractical or completely financially unviable to restore and keep it on the road.

The mere passage of time does make a bad car suddenly become great.

[Morrisand944S2man]

If you think it's a classic then it's a classic!

There are no definitions, not like edwardian, veteran and vintage which have precise definitions. basically it's anything old, ideally with a bit of a following and some spares back up and maybe an owners club.

Is the RIGHT answer.

So it is

Can we lock this and make it a sticky so nobody tries to get in an argument with everybody again?

No, it isn't- see 2006 Peugeot example and my definition.

"Ladas, FSO and all the other eastern European cars seem to have been wiped out by the Hyundai, Kia, Proton"

none of these either!

Let's start with some very worthy 20/30 year old cars that very much should be modern classics and are worthy of being restored:-

Mk1 Mazda MX-5
Audi Quattro
Toyota MR2 Mk1
Porsche 944 (all versions!)
Sierra Cosworth (I hate Sierras but the Cosworth is a special case)
Golf GTi Mk1 (arguably the first/best GTi)
TVR S1 (or any 20 year old TVR)


BTW, I DON"T think the MGF should be included as by all accounts it was a pretty ropey car.

So please no more proffering old tat as a classic. Use the formula!

[JPB]

On the other hand when you have a chrome bumper MGB from 1972 and a chrome bumper MGB from 1973, one is historic, the other not, this highlights the incongruity.

Before the rolling, 26th year VED exemption came along, only cars built before 1948 qualified for a concessionary, though not free, rate of VED.
I recall vividly the arguments that this caused among - for example - owners of Riley RMA and RMB, both of which spanned both rates of VED.

That car, just as the MGB picked as an example in the quoted post, highlighted an incongruity but also illustrates that this issue didn't arrive with the free VED that was - and thanks, Cuddly Ken, for trying - that attempting to define "Cla**ic" or indeed "Historic" by age, where that age is fixed, is something that only serves to cause rifts among, rather than uniting owners of different examples of the same model.
For that reason, I like the FIVA rolling 30 year concession idea, apart from the bits about modifying or their definition thereof. It seems to work well enough over in the RoI and hasn't made owning or using older cars any more difficult there. Quite the reverse in fact.

So if coming up with a purely age-based definition such as theirs is the difference between our being lumbered with the sort of restrictions in place in some countries or states and continuing to enjoy our freedom to choose when and for how long each year we use our old motors, then I'm playing the coward and rolling with that definition, ostensibly incongruous or otherwise!

Old is not sufficient. Old can also be rubbish, or mundane and unremarkable.

Mundane and/or unremarkable can still have show appeal since those are the cars that tend not to survive in such great numbers, as you suggested in the Minor/Marina comparison, so great or not, all part of engineering history and worthy of being shown some love, IMHO.

The mere passage of time does make a bad car suddenly become great.

Errrr.....

[Rhythm Thief]

See, my ex had a Minor for a while - quite a nice example from a well known Minor specialist in Bath - and I'm afraid that far from being "great" I found it absolutely dreadful. There wasn't much innovative about them, although that could have been different if they'd put the flat four engine in. The problem with your definition Morrisman, is that it relies on what is great and what isn't, which is subjective. I'd never say a Minor isn't a classic, because as far as I'm concerned every car is a classic in its own garage, but I'd be happy if I never drove another one. And ultimately, that's just my opinion, which is worth no more or less than yours, and this is why all debate on this issue is pretty pointless.

[Seth]

I would like to re-state the simple formula for determining what is and is not a classic.

Old is not sufficient. Old can also be rubbish, or mundane and unremarkable.

A car has to be both old and great to be a classic- if an everyday car in it's time, it has to be a breakthrough design or a first, or something special or unique in its day.

So, by this definition a Morris Minor is definitely a classic car, but a Marina is not. In the end, the public decide, that is why there is 15,000 Minors on the road + thousands tucked away and only 600 Marina/Itals left.

Using your reckoning I'm trying to figure out why there are so many MGBs left.

[bnicho]

Morrisand944S2man, who died and left you with the title of guardian of all things classic?

Are you Jeremy Clarkson in disguise!?!

Are you really so egotistical that you believe your over-inflated opinion (or silly formula) matter more than anyone elses?

I could make a grand, sweeping statement like "Only rear-engined Porsches are Classics". I've heard as much muttered at shows. Ask yourself, does that make it right? Just because someone uttered it or typed it?

If you think this forum is going to support your arguments, you are really barking up the wrong tree.

[CHPD]

Classic = old + great

Dictionary definition:-
Classic: 1) of recognised value or merit; serving as a standard of excellence,
2) both traditional and enduring.

BTW, I DON"T think the MGF should be included as by all accounts it was a pretty ropey car.

Both the Delorean and Ford Edsel were spectacular failures in their time, for entirely different reasons. Both are also very much recognised as 'classics' on both sides of the Atlantic and indeed further afield. So I find the fact that you argue the MGF shouldn't or couldn't ever be termed a 'classic' because it was a 'ropey' car slightly concerning. The Delorean was apparently notorious for quality control issues, but no-one seems to be arguing it shouldn't be termed a 'classic' due to that.
There are also so many recognised 'classics' that the formula 'classic = old + great' cannot be applied to, throughout the decades that I find the whole general sweeping nature of your statements too crasse and bold to be true and they also miss the whole point of enjoying cars however old or new they are.

'For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he' is a good a proverb as any to apply as a formula to 'classics'.

[TriumphDriver]

I tried to resist.... but.. it's useless.
In these days of yooman rites and everyone passing exams cos we can have no failures, then anyone who has a car believes it to be a classic, and we dare not say otherwise as that will make us bigoted and elitist. We can't go by what's featured in magazines as they want to sell as many as possible, so lets include everybody and offend nobody.
Consequently, most shows (including the one I'm going to tomorrow) will include:
Dozens of MX5s, some only months old, plus:
At least one modern BMW with blacked-out windows, one modern Mini, any Toyota MR2 from 2000-onwards as long as it has a huge exhaust and a loud stereo, and a new VW Beetle advertising the local dealership. These have to be parked at an aggressive angle with the doors and boot open so the stereo can be heard in all corners of the field, and so take up enough room for three other cars. This means that as space is often limited, many cars from the 50s and 60s end up parked outside along the verge.
Some shows I attend, the chip van is older than some cars on display.
We have at least one local show with a cut-off date of 1981, but entry is by prior booking so cars are sifted by staff long before they appear near the gate. This is probably divisive, but as space is restricted there has to be some sort of limitation. It's also the biggest show in the country with over a thousand cars attending.
What it boils down to is that any sort of regulation, restriction, or category is bound to offend somebody who believes that they should be included. Similarly - if your car interests me, it's my personal preference. If it doesn't, it doesn't make me narrow minded or elitist, so you'll forgive me if I gravitate towards people who share my interests.

[Aar0sc]

So would my old 1956 Austin A35 be a classic?
I mean, it's old, but was it all that great? Good, long running engine, but the car was outsold by the Minor....

This really is a flawed argument - like I said earlier, there's nothing great about a Minor. There's nothing "great" about many cars. In fact, what do you even mean with "great"? Our E-Type is '74. It's the SIII, which of course has the wrong engine, the LWB body, the un-hooded headlamps and a grille of all things! Is it a classic? Is there anything "great" about it?

(Once again, no offense to Moggy owners )

[stagman]

I would say anything over 30 yrs old - so yes we are starting to "just" look at 1980s stuff. Do not see anything any younger yet I am afraid. Yes i know that rules out my wifes 21yr old Mini Cooper but as it is not much different from one built in the 50s she might want to argue!!

I would say it is a rough rule of thumb (possibly on a basis of when the first ones of that model were made) that I wish PC would take into consideration. Just my opinion though