I know I’m going to regret asking this… but old does something have to be in order to be considered “Historic”?
I’m willing to bet this varies by item and country.
In some places, a house thats 100 years old is probably “historic”. In the UK its just a house, for example.
But something could be relevant for historical reasons inside of 100 years too I think. It depends on what it is I think, and how well the nomination makes a case for it
4 Likes
“famous or important in history, or potentially so.”
so it isn’t necessarily about the age, it is about the impact or significance
9 Likes
5 Likes
Hey @Glawhantojar and @cyndiepooh BlameJamal has entered the chat…
1 Like
In all seriousness, in the case of “Historic plaques”, I would think even a new plaque that is marking something important would fit this definition. For example, a time capsule plaque.
5 Likes
I 100% agree with this.
I asked because I came across a review where someone called a building from 1982 historic. It made me feel old… lol
8 Likes
Like the others have said, it’s all relative. My hometown wasn’t settled until 1914, so some of the buildings there that are officially registered as historic landmarks are from the 1940’s, which when compared to where I live now is almost absurd. If something holds significance to the local community (or the wider world) I would think it might have an argument to be historic. Even something in recent history could be argued to be of historic significance if there’s an important or widespread event or impact related to it. Surely there are monuments, plaques, memorial sites, etc. dedicated to people/events more recent than 50 years ago that qualify as historic. TL;DR there’s nuance to it, like everything 
4 Likes
Since George VI postboxes are ok and Elizabeth II postboxes are not the exact date is anything before 6th February 1952 is historic.
5 Likes
IMO history implies there is a story to be told, oldness is just aging. Something historic may occur today and that wouldn’t be considered old.
7 Likes
Historic ≠ old. The two probably shouldn’t be considered synonymous, even though it’s a mistake many do make without even realising it.
Lando Norris winning his first F1 race could be considered an historic occasion. It’s certainly one for the history books. It happened on Sunday.
Historical is more synonymous with old. How old is open to interpretation though.
10 Likes
History books in classroom are constantly updated with new versions that cover through the modern and immediately go out of date.
Might just ask “Is it something worth putting in a History Book” ((Though scale would be vastly different in a local history book vs state/province vs a country)). It is something that would at least get mentioned in an updated history book, then it’s historic.
3 Likes
While i agree that a random building from 1982 wouldn’t be historic, if it was the place where AIDS was identified in 1982, that would make it historic. (Just thinking of something that might have happened around that time - AIDS may have been identifed ina different year.)
10 Likes
Well, in the Netherlands we have the House of the Future’ that was build with all kinds of technological gadgets available at the time and imaginable at the time. This was the late eighties. It is now considered a historical site/landmark, even though some of the features are pretty common by now and it could be considered quite contemporary ;-).
It’s like the history of the future, really, and therefor historical.
2 Likes
Totally agree that historic doesn’t mean old, but it’s seems to be what we associated it with. At the same time, something that is old isn’t always seen as being historic.
History is happening every day, every where around the world. Some parts of history are minor, while others are major, and the major tend to be the ones in the news or possibly taught about (possibly, because not all historic events are taught).
I actually submitted an old water tower that has to be over 100 years old to be a Wayspot earlier this month. While I was unsure about it’s full history, the part of the town it was in is where many of the older homes are, especially the ones built in the late 1800s-early 1900s, as they have a Victorian style to them. The water tower was used in the early pioneer days, especially by the railroads, as it’s not far from some that aren’t used anymore, is next to the town’s newer public works buildings, and was quite aged.
It was rejected, with the reason being various, so I just have to guess that reviewers had varied opinions on it. I kind of felt it had a low chance of being approved, and a higher chance of rejection, and so I didn’t appeal it. If I’m back there, I may try to do some research on its history, but currently, the community doesn’t consider it to be historical.
It took me an appeal to get this approved (probably initially declined by ML), but despite the looks it IS a historical building, and the name is not just a -one of a kind- company, but primarily a historical society that preserves the railway history of this area (which was active up to 2007). The building is also a pretty significant landmark in the area.
With these types of nominations,links to informational websites are very helpfull.
