According to The Classic Car Club Of America, a "classic" car is between twenty and forty-five years old, over forty-five years is an "antique." But this dis-includes some of the great cars of the fifties (not to mention the forties and thirties), so how can that be right?
What does it take for a toy train to be considered "classic?"
Pete
"You can’t study the darkness by flooding it with light." - Edward Abbey -
According to the state of Texas, a car at least 25 years old may be either a classic or an antique or neither, according to how the owner registers it. A classic car must pass the safety inspection applicable to a car of its age, has either a distinctive modern "classic" license plate or a plate that was legal for it in the year it was made, and may be driven without any special restrictions. An antique car is the same, except that it need not be inspected but can be driven only to shows and for testing.
As for toy trains, if appearance in Classic Toy Trains means anything, all toy trains are classics!
Bob Nelson
Generally it's used to describe toy trains thru the end of the "postwar" era of Lionel, ending when Lionel production was taken over by MPC/Fundimensions around 1969 or 70.
It is whatever Kalmbach chooses to include and market in that category. (Been in the hobby since 1953 and have never heard the term applied to toy trains outside the mag).
While I am sure they (rightfully so) have the title of the magazine copyrighted it would be interesting to know whether they also have the term "classic toy trains" copyrighted for general public use ... like the names Xerox, Lionel or American Flyer?
The term that gets me you see antique toy train set then read further made in the 70's well I guess it is but I never thought of it that way growing up in the 60's and 70's ( grad HS 74) then I look well they are 30-40 years old so guess they are. I always thought post war and prewar as antiques but gess we now need to add the mpc era to it
Man I hate getting old lol
Life's hard, even harder if your stupid John Wayne
http://rtssite.shutterfly.com/
As another noted, there is a disconnect between the magazine title and the contents, which, in reality and a pragmatic matter attempts to be all things to a wide audience. I think it promotes the hobby more so than competitors and you have a lot of "selling" of the hobby, newbie articles, and as a result there is a lot of redundant material and a relatively parsed amount of focus on classics. I think it's simply a demographic thing, that is based on you can't turn a profit and have a wide subscriber base by focusing on classics despite the title.
As a matter of common sense, I don't believe every toy train is a classic, just as not every car is a classic..there are some Yugos and Edsels in toys as well. I should know, I have some real bench warmers in my collection. I like the hobby ( for over fifty years) but a little discernment goes a long way. Frankly, I read the newest issue in about twenty minutes, recreation room sized layouts, hi-rail, etc, large format pictures, etc,
I cant place blame on the editors on giving people what they want although there are certainly enough of them when I read who did what..I think that if a magazine is what it is..however if someone began an on line formatted magazine solely devoted to classics.. 25+ year old toys..I would subscribe.I have purchased every issue and I really enjoyed the first years, but then again, of course, this is not the only magazine I read, and I enjoy reading..
I think there is a psychological reluctance to call a toy a toy, hence Model Railroader ( read HO) versus Classic Toy Trains (O,S)...when the most realistic layout conceivable is a toy. Some of this is driven when you have subscribers themselves write the majority of the written material, which is certainly cost effective. I have had to do a lot of research to find basic information for my Marx layout, which I have in addition to a garden road and a hi-rail..The truly classic trains still require a lot of research and digging..despite "everything" being considered a classic.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
rtraincollectorMan I hate getting old lol
Yeah, getting old isn't for sissies, but it beats the alternative
wyomingscout
For me a classic does not have to be very old. For me it ussally is how well a item was liked by the masses or how well it was or is made.
I drive a 1989 Caprice 'Classic' Sedan so I guess I have a classic 'Classic'.
I'm thinking that a "Classic Toy Train" would be one that is no longer made, is recognized as representative of an era, could act as a prototype for current or future issues and is one that, whenever seen, touched or mentioned brings back fond memories of joyous times.
OK...enough of that......time to go play with the trains. (Classics or not)
wallyworld... I think it's simply a demographic thing, that is based on you can't turn a profit and have a wide subscriber base by focusing on classics despite the title...
... I think it's simply a demographic thing, that is based on you can't turn a profit and have a wide subscriber base by focusing on classics despite the title...
Their subscriber base was a heck of a lot wider when they actually DID focus on the classic trains. There is no getting around that fact.
But back to the original question: What Means "Classic" ? There are a lot of ways to define "Classic" trains, but I'll say this: If a locomotive contains a microprocessor, it sure isn't a classic to my way of thinking. Not even close.
Articles about near-perfect scale hi-rail layouts filled with trains full of computer chips belong in MR magazine, not CTT, IMO -- and that's why I and many others no longer subscribe to CTT.
I saw a similar thread to this on another forum lately. I was surprised by how strong the reactions were to CTT using the term "classic" and covering a significant (predominant?) amount of modern trains. It does seem a little incongruous, but the depth of hostile emotion people express on the issue also seems out of wack!
Personally, I read the magazine because it DOES cover a lot of modern trains regardless of what it is named. I occasionally read about the pre/post war trains, but my personal focus is on the modern stuff.
Regarding the original question: ESPN Classic runs some sports games the day after they are played and calls them "Instant Classics". The idea behind this is that some games are so good (or meaningful to the sport) that ESPN believes they are destined to become classics. In another example, there are times when I recall my friends commenting that a joke or an action was "a classic" even though it obviously just happened. Again, while the term was overused, the intention was that the joke or action was so good or smooth that it would be remembered for years to come.
Undoubtedly, some of the trains covered by CTT will become classics, at least remembered as "classic" when looking back at the present era.
The 2010 Dodge Challenger is an instant classic.
Scarlet Johanson is a classic beauty.
The World Series is called the Fall Classic.
All contemporary uses of the term classic.
As to our beloved CTT, I see Andy and Roger steering the publication back towards a balance of old and new trains.
To me you would be talking "Classic Design". Heavy die-cast locomotives, all metal construction, and the "classic" series wound, three pole, AC/DC motor.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month