I am sure that there is a standard in the collector car hobby in the US,
similar to the Veteran, Vintage, and Classic categories which Eric mentioned
are used in Australia (which also apply in the UK, I believe). For some
purposes, I have seen "Classic" strictly defined as the great marque cars of
the 1920s and '30s (Packard, Pierce Arrow, Cadillac, Stutz, Marmon,
Duesenberg, Lincoln, Hispano-Suiza, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Mercedes, Delage,
Delahaye, Bugatti, Isotta Fraschini, Alfa Romeo, etc), with the last
accepted vehicle being the '41 Lincoln Continental. Lesser marques of the
same era would not qualify (Ford, Austin, Renault, Opel, and probably MG).
In this way the definition of "Classic" is different than the definition of
Veteran or Vintage, which refer to specific eras in the history of
automotive development. A mass-produced car (or car for the masses) would
never be a "Classic" by this definition, regardless of whether or how far
you extended the age limitation.
A definition of "classic" based purely on age (25 years old) seems ludicrous
-- is a 1965 Corona a classic? A '73 Gremlin? A '76 B versus a '79 B? But
for purposes of collector car insurance and specialty license plates,
obviously some arbitrary, objective definition is required (however silly).
The DMV doesn't want to get in a quibble over the relative merits and
collectible values of a '64 Falcon Sprint versus a '64 Valiant Signet.
on 6/3/01 7:47 PM, Eric at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Pointparty@aol.com wrote:
>> However, in my mind, the question remains unanswered as far as a
>> universally recognized definition of a classic car.
> Hmmm, I really thought that the 'universal' definition (in most
> regulations and eligibility codes that I read) *is* 25 years?
> '68MGB MkII
> Adelaide, South Australia
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
/// email@example.com mailing list
/// (If they are dupes, this trailer may also catch them.)