-
Notes: 38 / 11 months ago
An open letter to vintage editors
[considering this post of mine that was ‘featured in vintage’]
I’m just curious, do you ever take a second [or two or ten] to stop and think if something that was tagged as vintage [and this post certainly wasn’t] is really vintage?
I don’t want to sound ungrateful but if something is from 1970s or even 1960s then it’s not vintage [at least not where I come from] but plain old retro….I appreciate your effords to keep track of all vintage posts that are out there, but some of them are just not vintage enough….Hope you get my point! Another issue is plethora of uncredited and unlabeled posts also featured in vintage, but that’s not topic of this message….don’t let me start on that one;]
Wondering what rest of you think about this? Should they pay attention more closely to dates or not?
Thank you all in advance for your feedback!
billy
[ p.s. and nope, 20 years is simply not enough for me - or for hoodoothatvoodoo & tuesday-johnson;]
Notes
-
slang-king said:
technically the 70’s might be vintage, but for someone my age vintage is 1930’s or before
-
vintagesonia liked this
-
extranuance liked this
-
thetranscendentalmodernist said:
Ya, to me vintage is 40s and before, whereas 50s and above is retro. Though, I have a tendency to not tag any of my 1940s posts as “vintage”, but tag the ones that are 1930s and before. 20s years isn’t enough for me either :)
-
cottonm reblogged this from billyjane and added:
A quick search on the term reveals...the popular use of the term vintage is definitely NOT...
-
thetranscendentalmodernist liked this
-
tear-for-two liked this
-
novocainelipstick liked this
-
valentinovamp liked this
-
numbereight said:
25+ years is vintage
75+ years is antique
-
adventures-of-the-blackgang liked this
-
jbe200 liked this
-
themediocre liked this
-
leanonstephen liked this
-
billyjane liked this
-
mudwerks reblogged this from billyjane and added:
[couldn’t agree more - although everyone apparently has their own idea...what constitutes...
-
rerylikes liked this
-
mudwerks liked this
-
mollypeck liked this
-
chagalov liked this
-
frenchtwist liked this
-
siobhansterling said:
I agree with you in that I don’t see those decades as really *vintage* yet. However, the 1970s were 40 years ago now, which with the generally accepted terms of vintage being 20-75 years & antique being 75-100+… the editors are technically correct.
-
wocsurvivalkit liked this
-
lushlight said:
Total agreement- I posted a concert imagine of Prince recently- 1998- found it reposted and tagged ‘vintage’ - and as to credits!! If someone is chosen to curate our images they should have some understanding as they have a ‘covert’ authority-
-
wastrelle liked this
-
hoodoothatvoodoo said:
Oh I totally agree. 20 years is not long enough to have become vintage, that is just crazy!
-
theloudestvoice said:
Explore is just a disaster from start to finish, as far as I’m concerned. The more people who speak up about it the better. Thank you for this!
-
wealllookforheaven liked this
-
veareflejos liked this
-
tuesday-johnson said:
I definitely agree with you. However, I’ve been smugly told that 20 years is the cut off, as well. My biggest issue is the sourcing, or lack thereof.
-
steampunkanachronism said:
I’ve noticed this too, and not only in the ‘vintage’ tag. Another thing I see, if none of those editors follow you, you will never be listed, even though it might be properly tagged, no one will ever “explore” your blog. A new form of censorship?
-
tuesday-johnson liked this
-
hoodoothatvoodoo liked this
-
steampunkanachronism liked this
-
billyjane posted this
blog comments powered by Disqus
-
