Welcome to The Purse Forum.

cocobean1793 · Jul 4th, 2009, 08:52 AM

Lately I have seen the term "vintage" used more and more frequently to describe a pre-owned handbag and this made me curious about what the term really means. Does anyone know if there is a guide line or even a generally accepted rule of thumb as to how old a bag should be, to be considered vintage, rather than just pre-owned? Obviously you would not call a bag from last season vintage, but how about 5 yrs old? 10? I know in the world of antique collecting, serious collectors only consider an item a true antique when it is @ 100 yrs old ....so if there is no real rule about bags..............at what point do you think a handbag becomes vintage?

MiuMiow · Jul 4th, 2009, 10:21 AM

I don't think you can really put an age on it. I mean obviously three years old is hardly vintage and over a hundred obviously is. But it depends on a lot of things, is the designer/brand still around, how popular or sought after were they, what condition is the item in, are there not five thousand others of it out there... the list goes on.

Those are some of the criteria I look at before considering something vintage. Even something fifty years old is sometimes just an old bag.

fashionista86 · Jul 4th, 2009, 10:29 AM

completely off topic...but miumiow, what a cute dog!!!

MiuMiow · Jul 4th, 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by fashionista86

completely off topic...but miumiow, what a cute dog!!!

Completely off-topic thank you! He's Humphrey

Louiebabeee · Jul 4th, 2009, 11:53 AM

lol I dont know why but I always thought a bag was vintage when it was 30+ years old...I think I heard it somewhere

Liberté · Jul 4th, 2009, 01:13 PM

I general for clothes I thought it was 25+ which is shorter than the 85-100 for antiques as fashoin items tend to wear quicker. Same would be true for bags.

magictrix · Jul 4th, 2009, 04:44 PM

The usage of the word seems proportionate to someones age. If someone's 20 they think 10 years old is vintage. If someone's 50 then they usually don't consider anything less than 30 years old vintage.

I also think that sometimes when a designer's current collection's style is totally different from a bag that is less than 15 years old and it looks dated, interested parties call it vintage so that they can give it some extra value.

Very interesting question.

KittyKat65 · Jul 4th, 2009, 06:05 PM

It all depends on the item and the designer. I recently sold 2 pairs of Gucci sunglasses on eBay. When I first listed them I just mentioned they were 10 years old and got no bids. I relisted and called them "vintage" Tom Ford era and they sold for $40 over my BIN. Perception carries a lot of weight.

CaliforniaGal · Jul 4th, 2009, 06:21 PM

KittyKat, so true!
Just me .. I think vintage is more than 10-15 years old .. for bags.

cocobean1793 · Jul 4th, 2009, 06:51 PM

I agree with KittyKat............when I see a listing for a vintage piece I tend to consider adding it to my collection more than something just called "used", but that is only at first glance. After my first attraction to a vintage piece, I definitely make sure it's not just something from a few seasons ago, and obviously not a piece still available in the stores.

Jul 4th, 2009, 08:52 AM	#1
cocobean1793 OP Member Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 275	How old does a handbag have to be to be considered "vintage" Lately I have seen the term "vintage" used more and more frequently to describe a pre-owned handbag and this made me curious about what the term really means. Does anyone know if there is a guide line or even a generally accepted rule of thumb as to how old a bag should be, to be considered vintage, rather than just pre-owned? Obviously you would not call a bag from last season vintage, but how about 5 yrs old? 10? I know in the world of antique collecting, serious collectors only consider an item a true antique when it is @ 100 yrs old ....so if there is no real rule about bags..............at what point do you think a handbag becomes vintage?
cocobean1793 OP Member Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 275	__________________ cocobean

Jul 4th, 2009, 10:21 AM	#2
MiuMiow Member Joined: May 2008 Posts: 541	I don't think you can really put an age on it. I mean obviously three years old is hardly vintage and over a hundred obviously is. But it depends on a lot of things, is the designer/brand still around, how popular or sought after were they, what condition is the item in, are there not five thousand others of it out there... the list goes on. Those are some of the criteria I look at before considering something vintage. Even something fifty years old is sometimes just an old bag.
MiuMiow Member Joined: May 2008 Posts: 541

Jul 4th, 2009, 10:29 AM	#3
fashionista86 Member Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 94	completely off topic...but miumiow, what a cute dog!!!
fashionista86 Member Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 94	__________________ "Fashions fade, style is eternal.” ~Yves Saint Laurent Follow me online: http://twitter.com/Fashionista1oh1

Jul 4th, 2009, 11:53 AM	#5
Louiebabeee Member Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 535	lol I dont know why but I always thought a bag was vintage when it was 30+ years old...I think I heard it somewhere
Louiebabeee Member Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 535	__________________ LV mono speedy 30 LV cream/red cherry blossom pouchette Juicy Couture exclusive crest daydreamer-black The SAK black silverlake satchel COACH signature shoulder tote COACH black/sig. capacity wristlet COACH pat. teal legacy slim wallet Dooney and Bourke mini barrel Dooney and Bourke heart wristle Wish list chanel Jumbo black flap*

Jul 4th, 2009, 01:13 PM	#6
Liberté Member Joined: Jan 2007 Location: with the sprout Posts: 7,753	I general for clothes I thought it was 25+ which is shorter than the 85-100 for antiques as fashoin items tend to wear quicker. Same would be true for bags.
	__________________ MY PARISIAN BLOG

Jul 4th, 2009, 04:44 PM	#7
magictrix Member Joined: Jun 2009 Location: uk Posts: 45	The usage of the word seems proportionate to someones age. If someone's 20 they think 10 years old is vintage. If someone's 50 then they usually don't consider anything less than 30 years old vintage. I also think that sometimes when a designer's current collection's style is totally different from a bag that is less than 15 years old and it looks dated, interested parties call it vintage so that they can give it some extra value. Very interesting question.

Jul 4th, 2009, 06:05 PM	#8
KittyKat65 Aussie Gal In U.S.A. Joined: Feb 2007 Location: Central Texas Posts: 2,358	It all depends on the item and the designer. I recently sold 2 pairs of Gucci sunglasses on eBay. When I first listed them I just mentioned they were 10 years old and got no bids. I relisted and called them "vintage" Tom Ford era and they sold for $40 over my BIN. Perception carries a lot of weight.

Jul 4th, 2009, 06:21 PM	#9
CaliforniaGal Member Joined: May 2008 Posts: 1,128	KittyKat, so true! Just me .. I think vintage is more than 10-15 years old .. for bags.
CaliforniaGal Member Joined: May 2008 Posts: 1,128

Jul 4th, 2009, 06:51 PM	#10
cocobean1793 OP Member Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 275	I agree with KittyKat............when I see a listing for a vintage piece I tend to consider adding it to my collection more than something just called "used", but that is only at first glance. After my first attraction to a vintage piece, I definitely make sure it's not just something from a few seasons ago, and obviously not a piece still available in the stores.
cocobean1793 OP Member Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 275	__________________ cocobean

Welcome to The Purse Forum.

Our Purse Forum, or TPF, is the #1 online social network for everything designer handbag related. Join over 200,000 enthusiastic members in this friendly community and start engaging in the discussion today.