The frontier between ''vintage'' and ''junk'' ?

Almarg, your reference is interesting but my hard copy Webster's New
Collegiate Dictionary goes further with an additional definition -

"of old, recognized, and enduring interest, importance, or
quality".

I read that to mean it requires more than age.

Cheers!

In the Realm of Audiophiledom, I believe the proper usage should be when referencing a piece that even by today's standards would be viable. Rogers LS3/5A speakers are vintage and quite viable. GAS Grandson amplifiers drive as well and better today than many products available. Linn tables spin vinyl well today and compete against newer designs. Much new product is quite ghastly.

The majority of audio products made after about 1990 and all home theatre components should be considered "junk", and will never achieve "vintage" status, regardless of their age or condition.

Cheers,

Aiwa tape deck 25 years old, listed for MORE than it cost new. A common cassette deck, at 25 years old or more, I would definitely classify it as just plain old junk and not "vintage", nor classic. I pity the fool who would buy it. When did AudiogoN become an eBay clone?

The use of "vintage" is arbitraily applied to good stuff and bad. The question is, does old garbage qualify for recognition just because it survived? I agree with those that say old junk, is still junk, and probably worse for wear.