Since the USS Constitution was built as a warship and the lifetime of a wooden warship would be different from a merchantman, I'll stick to warships as the basis of the discussion.

There are some examples such as the HMS Victory (1765), HMS Trincomalee (1817) and her sister HMS Unicorn (1823). Of those examples (close or near to 200 years) HMS Victory is really the only good example. Trincomalee and Unicorn didn't see much active use and they were laid up in ordinary or in reserve, which would be relatively easy on the wooden hull.

HMS Victory saw a very storied and rarely long service life for a ship of the line. She was completed in 1765 but wasn't actively commissioned for another 13 years as there was no real use for her. She fought in multiple major campaigns and in 5 major battles. For a ship to not only survive that but be decorated enough to justify the cost of upkeep is very rare. By 1922, Victory could barely keep afloat and was laid up in a drydock for the next 30 years. Her connection to Admiral Nelson and the triumph at Trafalgar was the only justification for the expense at her upkeep.

Most ships did not live out the lifetime of the Victory or the Constitution. A ship like the HMS Temeaire is a good example of the lifetime of a warship in the Age of Sail. She was classified as a First Rate Ship of the Line, roughly equivalent in size and capability to the Victory. She was commissioned in 1798 and fought in two major campaigns including, like the Victory, the Battle of Trafalgar. She only made 15 years active service as a warship before being reclassified as a prison ship in 1813, where she remained for 6 years. For the next 19 years she bounced around as a receiving ship (ship used for new sailors awaiting assignment) and a guard ship (harbor station in defense, not active deepwater navy) before being broken up in 1838. This was common for larger ships that could justify their size as pulling double, triple and quadruple duties. Eventually, their upkeep outweighed their contribution and they'd be broken up.

Most of the time, ships fell susceptible to shipworm or other biological damage or effects warfare created deteriorating factors. To combat shipworm and fight biologics, copper sheathing was installed below the waterline on the hull but this was an expensive process and often not worth the cost.

Especially if they were built in a time where they needed to be pressed into service their hulls would not fully season which could lead to integrity problems and an early retirement.

Other fates could include being a hospital ship, training ship or being sold and converted as a merchantman.

However, with the age of steam, most wind-based sailing ships were simply scrapped as they had little use.

I wrote about this awhile ago, and the short answer is that 15-30 years seems to have been a good rule of thumb without major refits or rebuilds. We don't know exactly how long ships would last in e.g. Tudor England, because they were often broken up and repurposed into building material for new ships under the guise of a "great rebuild," keeping the same name, but once we hit the mid-1600s or so we start to see better reports and better records of who did what to repair ships when. But this is a very rough rule of thumb; differences in construction among different navies meant that, for example, British-built ships tended to last longer than Spanish or French, but also that ships built overseas of "exotic" hardwoods like teak often had extremely long service lives.