Re: the sense of some words

Phil C. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:01:54 +0100, "John of Aix"
<j.murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

However
for 'antique', I have a vague memory that it was 103 years (or
perhaps 101) that brought qualification. It was the odd figure that
struck me when I heard it, a very long time ago so I may well be
wrong. Anybody?

<http://www.startups.co.uk/Antique_business.YeGTzcRoS63Ijg.html>
<<Ford "the definition was objects 100 years old or older or an
arbitrary dateline like 1756, at one point Antique fairs would prevent
dealers from exhibiting if they sold objects younger than an arbitrary
dateline you now no longer have datelines at antique fairs".>>

Thanks. I prefer this one. It was defintely at least a century among
ther 'real' antique dealers wehn I was young.


Looking more internationally. Wikipedia (so it must be true) suggests

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiques>
<<The definition of antique varies from source to source, product to
product and year to year. But, there are some time tested definitions
of antique for you to consider... An item which is at least 75 years
old and is collected or desirable due to rarity, condition, utility,
or some other unique feature. Cars for example are considered antiques
in the U.S. if they are older than 25 years...>>

So it looks rather vague.


I'll take the hundred (at least) arbitrary though it is. It gives a
certain gravitas to the thing. It's all tosh anyway really. You like it,
you want it, you buy it, thats fine, or think it is 'that old stuff' (as
a US American friend once described the priceless antiques in her
parents' home to me) that's fine too.


.