REC ANTIQUES 65 RE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION
From: Ronnie McKinley (mckinley@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Fundamental Question
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:10:50 +0100


In rec.antiques Joe Schell <joecoin@no-spam> wrote:

>In article <bf4cc0$d72$1@no-spam>, jim@no-spam >says...
>> >> Joe Schell wrote in message ...
>> >In article <bf3290$kfp$1@no-spam>, jim@no-spam >> >says...
>> >>
>> >> Joe Schell wrote in message ...
>> >> >In article <bf1lst$jum$1@no-spam>, jim@no-spam >> >> >says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Joe Schell wrote in message ...
>> >> >> >What's the difference between an antique and an antiquity?
>> >> >> >--
>> >> >> >Copper is as copper does.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Joe,
>> >> >> A thousand or so years.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jim ( economic use of >> >> keyb )
>> >> >> : )
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Is ther a definitive cut off?
>> >> >--
>> >> >Copper is as copper does.
>> >> >
>> >> I dont think so, but stuff from 1000 A.D. and before would be an >> >> Antiquity, that is my opinion .
>> >> Cheers >> >> Jim ( Thin Air Antiques )
>> : )))
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >So the oldest antique would be just under 1 thousand years old, and the >> >newest antiquity would be (roughly) 1 thousand years old.
>> >--
>> >Copper is as copper does.
>> >
>> Absolutely !!!
>> >> >> >And in fifty years?

An antiquity could academically be regarded as the period before the Middle Ages. So in fifty years, it will still be the period *before* the Middle Ages. Just like a veteran car, is accepted as a car made before 1916, or (strictly) before 1905.

-- Ronnie