Think of the vintage market.
Gibson, Fender, and some other brands = desirable vintage, with mojo, and superior tone.
Similar age guitars from other brands = just an old guitar.
It's all just bullshit based on brand name value more than anything.
Let's not forget you could not give away 1970s Gibsons and Fenders in the 1990s because people considered them to be crap, but a few decades later people are trying to pass those off as good. The reality is that those had good and bad examples, but they certainly didn't have some "good old wood" going for them.
Yes, today you have guitars made of wood that hasn't had as long time to grow etc, but at the same time those guitars can be made with higher precision and more likely drying those woods is a more advanced process as well.
My oldest guitar is now around 44 years old, give or take. It's a great guitar, but it's in no way better or worse than guitars that are "only" 20-35 years old, or even compared to my guitars that are only a few years old.
The oldest guitar is not collectable. It's not something people bring up when they say how good those old vintage guitars are. It's just an old guitar.
Years ago I had a chance to try some real vintage guitars, like acoustics from the 1930s, old Gretsch holllowbody etc. They all had a cool vibe to them, but they all played worse than any of my own guitars and certainly didn't sound better. Keeping them original to retain their value actively hurts their usability as guitars. But I can appreciate the vibe they have, so I totally understand seeking out old guitars for that.
I think people need to be more honest about this and say that they like the vibe of vintage guitars and are willing to pay what it costs to get that, rather than try to hype up their likely overpriced purchase by saying how it's soooo much better than anything made today.