Practically Classics Forum

I clearly cant read as you said 2006 not 206 but the theory is the same lol.

Depends - if you thought it was a classic piece of design(or whatever you want to insert there) - then that's your opinion and you're welcome to have it. But if you thought it was a classic just because it was a good car - well; it's a good car, not necessarily a classic (if that makes any sense )

Lots of people consider the Ford Puma to be a classic, especially in the limited edition Racing spec and thats recent.

For me its not about what is a classic its just someone enjoying their car and being an enthusiast. It cant just be about age. Were the late Mini Cooper Sportspack not classics but a 15 year older 998cc City was? The same with Morgans, Caterhams, etc. Even the current Land Rover Defender has the same body as the 1980's Defender.

One that often crops up in these arguments is the Nissan Figaro.

You will find that some folks will say no way is it a classic, no way at all, it's a boring old Micra in drag, etc, but I would say look at them, they look different, they're 20 odd years old now and there weren't many built, yet you still regularly see them on the road, there's an enthusiastic following and an owners club and some specialist garages and suppliers dedicated to keeping them going, they hold their value, and basically you have to want one and the people who do have them obviously see them as more than transport....now looked at that way it ticks all the boxes and it's most definately a classic, as much as any MGB is!

Not this old chesnut again?!!!




John Simpson

Grease Monkey wrote:Not this old chesnut again?!!!




John Simpson

^^^WHS^^^

I'd ban this topic from the forum if I had my way......

Aw my bad, just wanted to remove it from the dep ed thread lol.

Luxobarge wrote:

Grease Monkey wrote:Not this old chesnut again?!!!




John Simpson

^^^WHS^^^

I'd ban this topic from the forum if I had my way......

I was thinking a making a diary note, to post the FIVA definition on here every quarter, just in case.

There will always be people, who euphemistically refer to their banger, as a classic. I suspect most of them, were their finances to improve, would be off to the nearest BMW or Audi garage and the erstwhile “Classic” would be off to the scrap yard.

As to the boy racer “Max power” (Surely that should be max volume) brigade, I’d say their pretensions, towards being car enthusiasts, are a phallusy (My misspelling was deliberate), the car simply being a means to an “End”.

If there are any exceptions to the age rule, I’d say the original Mini was one, due to the fact that it was essentially a 1959 design, that was still being made forty years later. The Morgan is another case in point. I suppose those cars, currently leaving the factory, are classics by association but they are not yet historic. I piece of reproduction furniture, no matter how authentically made and “Distressed”, is not an antique, though given time it will be.

There are of course design classics but this is not really the same thing. It may however influence the value of cars when they are old, though I can think of one range of cars, whose values are in the realms of hundreds of thousands of pounds, that were nothing special (Apart from being fast in a straight line) in terms of design and in terms of finish, were abysmal. Equally I can think of some cars, that were very good, well designed cars, that have not appreciated the way you might expect.

Martin Evans wrote:I was thinking a making a diary note, to post the FIVA definition on here every quarter, just in case.

That would only help if we all thought that was the correct definition of a classic, which in my opinion it isn't. But that's the point - it's only my opinion. FIVA's opinion, your opinion and that of everyone else is probably different.

As of writing this, we have 476 members on this forum, and I'd wager that you'd get 476 different "opinions" to this question, in spite of the fact that some here seem to feel that their opinions are fact. They are not, they are opinions, and this is why I think this subject should be banned from the forum - it's pointless.

Thank God Vintage & Veteran were settled all those years ago or we'd have people asking whether their 1998 406 was "Vintage". The FIVA definition is less rigid, in that it is rolling (Though it does encompass vintage and veteran). In essence, I don't see anything too wrong with it, though I have questioned why a car is any less historic because it is used regularly. It is important that we have a defintion such as this, so that there can be some protection offered (By way of classification) against any anti banger legislation. This was one of my main concerns, when Brown decided that history stood still on 31 December 1972.