Talk:Antique

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Comments[edit]

"Just about any object can become an antique if it survives long enough, but snob appeal or social acceptance only can ensure that it is actually worth something in the market place."

This sentence is immature, subjective, uninformative, and vague. Do something about it or I'll delete it. Gcolive 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

An item which is at least 100 years old and is collected or desirable due to rarity, condition, utility, or some other unique feature.

Why does an item have to be 100 years or older? A telephone from the 1920s could be called an antique couldn't it? Johhny-turbo 04:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

because that is the legal definition in the u.s., as determined by the customs service. the customs service has jurisdiction because the issue most commonly comes up when an item is being imported. under section 9706, title 97, harmonized tariff schedule of the united states, an item must be 100 years old at the time of importation to qualify as an antique. (as you might expect from the government, it's not actually that simple. but that is the overriding definition.)Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

link[edit]

Does anyone have any problem if we add www.newel.com to the external section of antiques?

Newel is the largest antique collection in the world under one roof and the entire collection is all top end with fantastic examples of fine antiques. The other links really do nothing to give antique examples.

Thanks, Rick

response[edit]

Johnny Turbo you are in fact correct. Cars for example are considered antiques in the US if they are over 25 years of age. The definition of antique is poorly described here.

Typically if an item has history and thus has value and it is also considered an antique. Antiques do not have to be rare, but rarity certainly increases its value.

Rick

I have altered "cars" to "motor vehicles" to allow such items as trucks and motorcycles, and have suggested that some electronic gadgets, including old radios and televisions, and perhapse even stereo equipment, might be antiques if they have special merit due to their design.

--Paul from Michigan 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Newell link[edit]

(copied from an email)

Hi Jamie,
IF I can ask you a question. I emailed Tyler back and forth and he said it was ok to add the link. He said if I follow the guidelines, it would be ok. SO I thought I was following the guidelines and I asked in the discussion if anyone had a problem with the link, no one complained, I emailed him again and asked if it would be ok, he said it was.
Yeah, feel free to add it now. Tyler
So I added it. According to you is it acceptable or not?
I dont want to break the rules, on the contrary, I would like to be a great contributor. Rickbrown55 (talk · contribs)

Response When someone tries to add the same commercial link to an article multiple times, I assume (usually correctly) that it is an attempt to advertise or promote the site in question. Antique-related articles get a lot of link spam, so I watch a few of them. On your most recent addition of this link (to a commercial entity that sells antiques), you not only re-added the same link, but you replaced a museum link with a commercial link.

On the other hand, I do appreciate your efforts to be "a great contributor." Unlike 99% of commercial link adders, you've also added some helpful content to talk pages. I see that you also asked for input on adding the link at the Antiques article, which I had not seen until today. Whether or not a link is appropriate is certainly a gray area, though I feel fairly confident that the majority of editors would agree with me that this particular link does not add much to the article, and is more of an advertisement than anything else. Can you provide proof of the assertion that "Newel is the largest antique collection"? If Newell was a household name like Christie's, that would be a different story.

As I'm not the ultimate authority on this (or anything Wikipedia related; only Jimbo has that power); if you'd like to gather additional opinions, you're free to post a message to the spam project and ask. The members of that project have pretty high standards for what is an appropriate external link, so be sure to prepare a good case. OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jamie,

Thanks for the response. Newel is in fact the largest antique dealer on the planet. You mentioned Christies, Christies has a great reputation but is not in fact a dealer, nor is Sothebys. They are both auction houses. Newel's collection is the largst by far more than any other dealer, more than 20,000 unique items in one location. THe second largest dealer has aout 5,000 items the last time I checked. What's interesting to note about the antique business is that unlike other businesses it is very fragmented. On other words, there are many dealers in the world but the majority are small and lucky to have 1,000 pieces in inventory. Yes, Newel would be a commercial link, but the site is refernced many times for its vast collection as there is historical value in many of the pieces in inventory and thus reference. The other links presented do not give much value at all in my opinion.

Anyway, I really appreciate you taking the time to educate me on what I was doing wrong in the past. I enjoy contributing to the project and certainly want to do it correctly. IF you note some of my past entries, I was not trying to simply add external links but reference Newel since they have the largest collection. Many of the pieces at Newel have been rented by many famous production houses and they can be seen in films such as "The Godfather."

Cheers,

Rick

Jamie,

Recent external link additions[edit]

NOw I am really confused, why is this site allowed and not considered a spam link? Partridge Antiques Online - An example of an Antique Dealer online —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.98.14.130 (talkcontribs).

Hadn't caught those yet; thanks for pointing them out (several have been removed). I don't think it's fair to put an "example" of any dealer in the external links, unless that dealer is extremely notable (Sotheby's would be a highly notable example of an auction house). I'm not sure that there are any highly notable dealers, so the external link section should be restricted to information-only/educational sites. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

the introduction is way too long, it looks sloppy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grk1011 (talkcontribs) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Why are the links removed? And when they were here, why allow some, but not others?[edit]

I had added my site, www.antiqueshoppingguide.com to the external links. It was removed 3 times while Kovels guide to antiques (Talk about a real commercial website?) was allowed to remain on the site. Is wikipedia now a boxing ring between site owners who are just adding and deleting other sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.153.236 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Vejector Juice Machine[edit]

I have this old juicer that my Great Aunt had before her passing I would hate to toss it in the trash it is worth something. Could anyone direct me to the right person or web site. The name of this juicer is Vejector Juice machine #724 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.84.103 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced quotes removed[edit]

I've removed some unsourced quotations. The quotes have been tagged since 2009. All direct quotes must have citations, if those weren't really direct quotes ... well too bad. Feel free to re-add the info with reliable sources. Vsmith (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What my dad tells me...[edit]

"Antiques are anything above 99 years old." Not 25 or 45, even if it was a car or anything, antiques are 100+.

108.249.202.186 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dad's always right ... now where did he publish this info? In what reliable source? Vsmith (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Origin of "antique"[edit]

Greetings. It's not certain that the word "antique" comes from the Latin adjective "antiquus" (an-tee-kwoos). Maybe it comes from French. If anybody is able, please add source to it. -- VitaAeterna (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC).

Your hypothesis seems correct. There's no dobut that the word derives originally from Latin "antiquus." However, Etymology Online suggests that "antique" (noun) was introduced in 1771, based on "antique" (adj.), introduced in the 1530's based on French "antique." I agree that it should be changed to reflect the French route of introduction into English, possibly also saying it derived originally from Latin. See http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=antique&searchmode=none. Also "Word Origin and History" here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antique?s=t . Omc (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"Pejoratively"[edit]

Does the Purpose / Pejoratively section really need to be so prominent?? This is the very first section in the main body of the article. The fact that "antique" is occasionally used pejoratively does not deserve to be the very first thing that an article says about this topic. If this fact is included at all, it ought to be moved to the very end of the article? Omc (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)