I just wrote this article for my hockey card blog [
http://blogforhockeycards.blogspot.com], and I wouldn't mind getting some discussion on it. The article concerns what actually defines vintage hockey cards.
I like vintage. I like vintage more than modern, although that isn't to say that I don't like modern at all. Both have different qualities that make each attractive, but I like the attractive qualities of vintage more. So what are the attractive qualities of vintage? And what is defined as vintage anyway?
Let's answer the second question first. I think in the world of hockey cards the popular definition of vintage is anything prior to the 1990-91 brand explosion. Collectors who deal in pre-war cards will probably place the date of vintage much earlier, maybe even in the pre-war era. I don't agree with such a radical definition of vintage, because I believe everything up to at least the early 1970s qualifies as vintage.
It makes sense that there are different eras of vintage, but to get collectors as an entirety to agree on the borders of these eras would be difficult. I would argue that there are probably four distinct eras of card collecting, three of them vintage: first, the pre-war era of 1910 to 1939; second, the post-war Parkhurst era of 1951 to 1967; third, the O-Pee-Chee era from 1968 to 1989; and fourth, the modern era, from 1990 to current.
These definitions are clearly problematic. I think the most clear cut of the four are the first and last. Pre-war cards mean everything printed before the Second World War. 1910-11 is just the earliest season for hockey cards that I'm aware of, although any cards printed before that would be considered in that category. For the fourth category, modern, it's the same, but in reverse: anything printed after 1990 is modern. Someone might make the argument that there is a new era of memorabilia cards that began around the turn of the new century, but I think that's just an extension of the insert craze of the 1990s, thus fitting cards from the last ten years in the continuous 1990-to-present category.
The second category, the post-war Parkhurst era of 1951 to 1967, is fairly clear cut, but is not without it's problems. The biggest problem is with the era of 1939 to 1951. I doubt there were any cards printed at this time, but if it turned out there was even one small food set printed somewhere during this period, it would throw this category out of whack. Any cards printed around World War II would probably fit into the post-war category, but it is problematic if cards like this actually exist.
A second problem with the Parkhurst category is that Parkhurst stopped printing cards after the 1963-64 set. I've extended the era to 1967 because the first year O-Pee-Chee printed cards after World War II under the OPC brand name was in 1968, and I see the third era as being defined by the existence and popularity of OPC. The third era could begin in 1964 rather than 1968, which makes sense because it was the end of Parkhurst and only Topps cards, printed by OPC in Canada, were made until OPC had their own brand again for the 1968-69 season. On the other hand, if you refer to the third era in name as only the post-war era, that Parkhurst stopped printing cards in 1963 is moot, although Parkhurst cards would remain the salient feature of the era.
The third category is the most problematic. First, because of the reasons I've already outlined with regards to when the post-war era ends and the OPC era begins. Second, because OPC produced cards dating back to 1933, and the Topps cards printed in 1954-55 until 1968-69 were actually made by OPC, so referring to the third category as the OPC era may be a misnomer. However, the names of the categories are used only for labeling. The specific name of the era makes no different as to what is actually in that era of cards, so whatever anyone decides to call these various eras doesn't matter.
Another problem is that OPC continued to print cards until, I believe, 92-93, although with the introduction of OPC Premier in 1990-91 I would argue that OPC entered into the modern era, and there is no blur between the OPC era and the modern era, as 1990 is the distinct border between the two. Some would also argue that the third era begins with the introduction of the Topps USA Test set in 1966-67, as that would be the introduction of hockey cards to the U.S. market. The problem with this definition is that OPC did not begin it's own brand until 1968-69, so the 1967-68 Topps set would end up as an extraneous part at the tail end of the second era, or the early beginning of the third era.
These complicated definitions of eras are how I look at vintage cards. Why do I like vintage so much? None of it is junk. There's a lot of junk in the modern era. Maybe most modern cards are junk. I like modern cards, but the appeal of having something special when owning a modern card is not the same as the appeal with vintage. There are no rare modern cards, there is only artificially induced rarity via serial-numbering. A pristine Bobby Orr rookie is rare, not because Topps limited it to ninety-nine copies, but because it's hard to find that card in top notch condition. It's rarity isn't artificial, it's genuine.
There's also an innocence with old cards that does not exist with modern. I dislike people who buy modern cards thinking they are going to make money. If all they care about is money, why not just invest it in mutual funds? If you're main goal is to make money, why are you even buying hockey cards? And if you really believe that hockey cards are a better investment than any other financial vehicle, why not sink your lifesavings into unopened packs of The Cup? No one does that, though, because it's silly.
Of course, there are people who invest in vintage cards as well, but at least that seems more practical because vintage holds its value over the course of time. That still doesn't mean it's a good investment, but I think that it means at the very least you'll get most of your money back if you decide to sell your collection. Overall, I think vintage has more long-lasting appeal than modern issues, just because there's too many modern cards available, and rarity of modern cards is merely artificial.
