notbob wrote:
>
> On 2009-12-29, brooklyn1 > wrote:
>
> > Then the correct term is "vintage"; of a particular period but not an
> > antique. Few stores claiming to sell antiques actually do....
>
> Agree with all you say, Shel, but what's the point. Yes, I've seen
> true "antiques" like a 14th century French armoire or a 24 place table
> where all chair and table legs were hand-carved busts of great
> Amercians and cost $400K (a 19th century CA gov's). The fact is, most
> stuff is, like you say, "vintage". Still, it's miles above the crap
> now being sold to Americans. With exception of a few items like tv's
> and food processors, most of it is total crap. Better to go and buy a
> "vintage" real (but used!) cherry wood bed frame than the compressed
> sawdust crap pushed by most retail outlets. Quality lasts. Long
> after you die, your progeny can use, or sell, that same furniture to
> someone else. Good stuff is like land. It will last long after we
> are gone.
>
> nb

This is it. There is a formal definition for 'antique' and most
'antique' shops don't seem to know that.

A university library next door to where I used to work had a great
collection of folklore/folktale books. However, when a book hit 100
years old, it was removed from circulation and became reference only.
More than once, managed to take a book out a day or two before it hit
that 'birthday' LOL.