As a general comment on age grading, I would say that we should not take it too seriously.
Don't get me wrong - I think it is a great tool. I use age grading as a way of measuring myself against my younger self. Without it, I would feel pretty bad about running 80 seconds slower for a 5k than I did in my prime, and might lose interest in the sport altogether if I didn't somehow still feel competitive, and the health consequences that go along with that (including the consequences of all the additional eating and drinking that I would do) would be significant. So I definitely advocate plugging your performances into the calculator and seeing where you stand and the using that as a tool to motivate you to improve your performance and focus your training.
But don't fall into the trap of taking the data from an imperfect measuring tool too far. I think our competitive nature means that some of us might stat spouting off to the younger guys in races about how we are faster than them on an age graded basis, or how we are national or world class, etc. The reality is that the tool is a rough estimate of things, and like with most things in life, the data that comes out is dependent on the data that goes in. While my times as a masters runner are in line with my times as an open athlete, my finish in the masters divisions at major races is far higher than it ever would have been in the open division because so many of the top tier open athletes from my era simply stopped racing competitively. If all of the D1 national qualifiers and top foreign runners had stuck with competitive racing into their later years, I suspect the age group records, and thus each of our relative age graded performances, would be much different.
So enjoy it as a tool, use it to motivate yourself, but be sure to not take yourself too seriously. Regardless of what the calculators say, those young guys will recognize and respect us for what we are - the "fast old guys" - just as I recognized and respected the fast old guys from my younger years.