What fallacy is the opposite of the appeal to novelty fallacy?

With this type of fallacy, (aka chronological snobbery) there appears to be a built-in assumption that something new (or novel) is better than something old or something done in the past.  Marketers resort to it a lot when selling their products, ("Buy our new product, which offers a novel solution to this old problem") as do politicians when promoting some new social policy.

I invite readers to refer to the article:   The Appeal to Novelty Fallacy: Why New Isn’t Necessarily Better in order to flesh out the fallacy a bit more. 

As Bo correctly points out, its opposite would be an argument from age in which it is assumed that "that previous generations had superior wisdom to modern man, thus conclusions that rely on this wisdom are seen accepted as true or more true than they actually are."

The appeal to antiquity is generally synonymous with the appeal to tradition . This can be the opposite of the appeal to novelty especially when referring to the "old" thing being an idea or practice. But it is not a polar (exact) opposite, neither is the argument from age . The appeal to novelty is more generic in that simply being "new" is associated with "better." With the appeal to tradition/antiquity, the focus is on practices and ideas of the past. With the argument from age, the focus is more general as in anything in the past because it is a result of our ancestors (who are fallaciously seen as wiser). At least that is the way I see it. From my earlier research, the most common uses of "appeal to antiquity" literally refer to practices or wisdom of antiquity — times before the middle ages. Of course, these fallacies evolve but given how it was named, that seems to make the most sense.