[mmastrac]

The South Sea company bubble in the 1700s (arguably a similar circumstance) was ~9 years in, if I'm correct in my math. Tulip bubble was ~40 years in.

[reginold]

Tulip Mania: the classic story of a Dutch financial bubble is mostly wrong: https://theconversation.com/tulip-mania-the-classic-story-of...

[mmastrac]

While the story itself might be inflated, it still shows that a bubble doesn't have to be at the start of the market.

And the South Sea company collapse far beyond its founding _definitely_ had ramifications.

[exdsq]

I don't know if you read that link or have read elsewhere on the topic but modern economists argue the tulip mania thing wasn't even a bubble and if it was, it was far smaller than you probably assume. Even the wikipedia page covers these topics quite nicely.

[kjksf]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania it was more like 3 years:

"contract prices for some bulbs of the recently introduced and fashionable tulip reached extraordinarily high levels, with the major acceleration starting in 1634 and then dramatically collapsing in February 1637"

[mmastrac]

From the same page -- the Tulip market didn't start at the time of the bubble.

   Their popularity and cultivation in the United Provinces (now the Netherlands)[32] is generally thought to have started in earnest around 1593 after the Southern Netherlandish botanist Carolus Clusius had taken up a post at the University of Leiden and established the hortus academicus

[lancemurdock]

the tulip bubble lasted like 8 months