Well, I was thinking we could use the wide spread appearance of the mullet in the 70s as a sort of dividing point between vintage diving and poodle jacket diving?
N
N
Convert Yoke to DIN
- Thread starter rileymartin
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
captain
Contributor
Maybe the beginning of disco could be the end of the vintage era.
I kinda like the idea of a "vintage mullet divers forum". Could be some interesting topics on that one. Great discussions like " Hey, pass me that doublehose, hold my beer, and watch this!"
Eric Sedletzky
Contributor
Hey I was wondering, now that the rules for vintage have changed can I consider my 11 year old MK 20 G200B vintage? The reason I ask is because I broke the plastic faceplate/Purge and the dive shop told me they can't get that part anymore because it's too old.
Does it qualify as vintage then?
I got one from Scuba Cowboy because he had one in a box of old vintage stuff.
Does it qualify as vintage then?
I got one from Scuba Cowboy because he had one in a box of old vintage stuff.
Eric Sedletzky
Contributor
When exactly did the first poodle jacket make it's appearance?
I think the Stab Jacket came out in 73 or 74 or around that time. People fixate on the end of the US Divers double hose, but also poodle jackets came in, horsecollar with power inflators and spgs were everywhere but alas, it matters not.
Yeah, I think your G250 is vintage now following the "New Vintage" equation of:
Today - 6 weeks = New Vintage
I think you are in like Flint. I on the other hand, am off the reservation and running wild with my new found vintage freedom of choice. It is a state of mind
.N
James, you're losing it, buddy. We were all asked, polled, and got to toss around a new name, description, and even place for this forum.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/vintage-equipment-diving/253020-whats-name.html
I hope you're not resigning NAVED
Leadership by example, you know? That new stuff will kill you!
James, you're losing it, buddy. We were all asked, polled, and got to toss around a new name, description, and even place for this forum.
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/vintage-equipment-diving/253020-whats-name.html
I hope you're not resigning NAVED
I am being serious here, I don't care. If vintage is poodle jackets and other brand new equipment, I am out.
N
Texfrazer
Guest
I think the real issue is a distinction between vintage and antique.
Vintage would probably be considered a subset of antique, based upon the general consensus of a 1973 cutoff date. Vintage is diving without a bc. Vintage is diving with a double hose regulator. Vintage is .... (Nemrod, Captain, Sam Miller, etc. can fill in the blank).
Antique is a much looser term. Heck, for cars, it's anything over 25 years old. That means that a 1985 Ford Escort is an antique
.
"Them's fightin' words" comes to my mind, as I'm sure it does to Nemrod's on the premise that some dive computers would now be considered "vintage" if vintage is defined like antique.
Therefore, I propose that vintage should be considered a defined subset of dive equipment and divers who love that equipment, whereas all other "older" equipment be shunted to the term "antique".
Vintage would probably be considered a subset of antique, based upon the general consensus of a 1973 cutoff date. Vintage is diving without a bc. Vintage is diving with a double hose regulator. Vintage is .... (Nemrod, Captain, Sam Miller, etc. can fill in the blank).
Antique is a much looser term. Heck, for cars, it's anything over 25 years old. That means that a 1985 Ford Escort is an antique
. "Them's fightin' words" comes to my mind, as I'm sure it does to Nemrod's on the premise that some dive computers would now be considered "vintage" if vintage is defined like antique.
Therefore, I propose that vintage should be considered a defined subset of dive equipment and divers who love that equipment, whereas all other "older" equipment be shunted to the term "antique".
Last edited:
David Wilson
Contributor
The term "antique" is certainly used in the context of diving gear and it's quite common on Japanese websites featuring vintage gear. However, if you Google with "antique" and "diving" you're more likely to find yourself in the setting of surface air supplied brass helmets as worn by standard divers of yore in bulky canvas suits and lead-soled shoes.
As a lifelong snorkeller, never a scuba diver, I agree with the chronological division between the pre-modern and the modern era as being around the mid-1970s. For me the arrival of "modern times" was signalled by the adoption of silicone-skirted masks by people with no allergies and by the first appearance of "composite" fins with their thermoplastic foot pockets and plastic blades. For me, it's a question of materials: vintage fins and masks must be made from natural or neoprene rubber and never oil derivatives.
I have a feeling we'll end up sticking with the cover-all term "vintage". There is a long thread in the snorkelling/freediving forum where alternatives to the term "snorkelling" are discussed. I think the final consensus there was that a change of name would probably find little currency within or outside the snorkelling community. I think the same would be true of the word "vintage", which is in the title of several diving forums and has the added benefit, through its association with the world of wine, of suggesting quality and good taste in precisely dated and located artefacts. Personally, I'd be much more interested in the identification of historical periods within the "vintage era" of diving. My own special interest lies in the 1950s, the decade when snorkelling and diving grew from a pursuit for the few into a popular pursuit for the many, including the family. I love the simplicity of the gear during the 1950s, the willingness to improvise and to innovate at a time when war-weary nations with little money to spare were eager to embrace the concept of leisure for the masses. I'm not just a historian of a bygone age, however. I'm also a keen geographer researching the diving equipment manufacturers in today's world which still make fins, masks and suits the way they used to be made during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The oldest diving mask in the world, Cressi's "Pinocchio", is still in production almost a half-century since its first appearance on the market. Such "classics" are still with us because there are still a few people around who appreciate timeless designs. I may collect fins and masks from the vintage era, but I prefer snorkelling with fins and masks made in 2010 to pre-1973 specifications. I get the best of both worlds and I don't know whether that makes me vintage or non-vintage. All I know is that I would never go snorkelling with a pair of plastic-bladed fins or a low-volume silicone-skirted mask even if you paid me. I've managed to avoid such modern aberrations for almost four decades now and I have no plans to change.
As a lifelong snorkeller, never a scuba diver, I agree with the chronological division between the pre-modern and the modern era as being around the mid-1970s. For me the arrival of "modern times" was signalled by the adoption of silicone-skirted masks by people with no allergies and by the first appearance of "composite" fins with their thermoplastic foot pockets and plastic blades. For me, it's a question of materials: vintage fins and masks must be made from natural or neoprene rubber and never oil derivatives.
I have a feeling we'll end up sticking with the cover-all term "vintage". There is a long thread in the snorkelling/freediving forum where alternatives to the term "snorkelling" are discussed. I think the final consensus there was that a change of name would probably find little currency within or outside the snorkelling community. I think the same would be true of the word "vintage", which is in the title of several diving forums and has the added benefit, through its association with the world of wine, of suggesting quality and good taste in precisely dated and located artefacts. Personally, I'd be much more interested in the identification of historical periods within the "vintage era" of diving. My own special interest lies in the 1950s, the decade when snorkelling and diving grew from a pursuit for the few into a popular pursuit for the many, including the family. I love the simplicity of the gear during the 1950s, the willingness to improvise and to innovate at a time when war-weary nations with little money to spare were eager to embrace the concept of leisure for the masses. I'm not just a historian of a bygone age, however. I'm also a keen geographer researching the diving equipment manufacturers in today's world which still make fins, masks and suits the way they used to be made during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. The oldest diving mask in the world, Cressi's "Pinocchio", is still in production almost a half-century since its first appearance on the market. Such "classics" are still with us because there are still a few people around who appreciate timeless designs. I may collect fins and masks from the vintage era, but I prefer snorkelling with fins and masks made in 2010 to pre-1973 specifications. I get the best of both worlds and I don't know whether that makes me vintage or non-vintage. All I know is that I would never go snorkelling with a pair of plastic-bladed fins or a low-volume silicone-skirted mask even if you paid me. I've managed to avoid such modern aberrations for almost four decades now and I have no plans to change.
Similar threads
