Vintage vs. Modern Threads

[Centerfield]

Brett, is there a way to place threads in their proper category? There seems to be too many modern discussions in the vintage category recently.... thanks!

[spedrunr]

Hi Centerfield et al,

Perhaps we should have an acceptable definition of "Vintage" v. "Modern" glove so forumites will be able to place the threads in the proper category.

Looking back at the history of gloves, it would seem that Wilson pretty much defined the modern glove with it's introduction of the A2000.

I am fairly new (2004) to this glove collecting hobby.

Anyone else care to clarify this dilemma?

Ed

[Centerfield]

Everyone’s going to have a different definition as to when vintage turned modern. I’ll leave that up to the moderator to decide and enforce (moving threads to their appropriate category). Some will say only pre-WWII is vintage, others will say pre-70’s. Some days I lean one way, other days I lean the other.

Even without a consensus definition, some recent threads in the vintage category are clearly modern. Some examples are:

Rawlings HOH Catchers Mitt Wrist Guard
Best 13” Glove for Baseball
A Disorder?
Rawlings HOH Made in the USA

Just to name a few from the past few days…

[jwoody]

CENTERFIELD IS CORRECT....I THINK VINTAGE,TO BE FAIR SHOULD BE 1969 AND BELOW....

[vintagebrett]

I posted about this a couple weeks ago and was hoping people would be more aware when posting. If we can agree on pre-1969 going in the vintage section, that is fine with me.

I will move the threads that need to be moved and hopefully posters will be more dilligent in their choice when selecting a section to post in.

Thanks!

[Chicago Red Sox Fan]

I'm not sure I like the 1969 cut-off, that means that I'm vintage!

[quaz95]

i understand what you guys are saying. Some times its new people that just post a thread here. I think that it is a honest mistake, i just dont think its worth getting bent out of shape about? If you dont like the topic dont read it. i understand thats why there's categories and all but not worth losing sleep over.

john

[vintagebrett]

I've changed the descriptions of catergories so hopefully that will make it eaiser for people to identify the proper place to post.

Working in a library, I like to have things orderly and in their proper place so people can easily find what they need when they are looking for it. Same thing with the forum, if someone comes looking for something, they will have a better chance of finding it if their is more organization.

And modern glove people, don't take this as an attack on your collecting preference. The original and main purpose of this forum is for vintage glove collecting (hence the name of the forum ) but when people started discussing modern gloves, I was happy to create a section for that purpose.

[Cowboy7130]

I think it's great to have this resource as a glover. Some days I like the vintage glove sections, others, I like the modern gloves. Thanks, Brett, for working with both sides of me!

[Number9]

As a vintage-only collector, I personally don't consider anything made after WWII to be vintage. To keep it simple I would suggest a pre and post war organization of threads rather than a stylistic organization. Just my two cents.

[spedrunr]

you got my vote #9, good cut off for me too

[Centerfield]

Please don't get me wrong, I wasn't bent out of shape at all when I first began this thread. But like Brett said, this is a great resource, so proper categorization simply means easier use for all of us.

[vintagebrett]

Well, the dictionary was no help in determining the exact definition of vintage so I'm going to stick with what I said this morning - anything pre-1970 can go into the Vintage category, everything else should go modern. Sound good?

[Mike_2007]

Sounds good to me

[offsidewing]

So, in 20 years, what do we do?