In the book Mundane Astrology by Michael Baigent there's a chapter about the start of the Age of Aquarius where you can find a list of dates which range from the year 1762 all the way thru the year 3000. With Lahiri Ayanamsa it would be around the year 2400, with Raman Ayanamsa around the year 2500 and with Revati Ayanamsa around the the year 2700 according to that book.Muchaco, with the Ayanamsa you use, and the VEP as the Age-Indicator, has it reached Sidereal Aquarius yet? Most Siderealists using equal Signs have the Aquarius Sign-boundary set so that the VEP won't reach it until around 2400 or even much later, in which case the Sidereal Age of Aquarius, as it's conventionally determined, hasn't even started, and won't begin for several centuries.
The way I see it, this topic of correctly dating the astrological ages is a highly controversial one for two main reasons, one has to do with astrology, the other with historiography:
1) There's no agreement among astrologers on what is the correct starting point of the zodiac and so Ayanamsas may differ up to 4 degrees from each other. There's also no standard rate of precession so far. The actual rate of precession is changing over time. It is not a constant. So the dates I just mentioned are based on an assumed average rate of preseccion of 50.25'' per year. Which means those dates are only ballpark figures at best. And so it's difficult to create a correct timeline of the ages. But it gets even more complicated.
2) In recent years, historians have found reasons to doubt our current chronology, the phenomenon of so-called 'phantom time' and 'duplicates' or 'phantom copies'. What those historians are basically suggesting is that there have been a few hundred years added to our chronology that never actually happened. If that's true, then we cannot fully rely on recorded history for our timeline of the ages.
In short, it's quite a mess.