Quote:
Originally Posted by peterpjb
you must not be here for a decade or neither have a harvard degree to talk about that question and understand that problem
if rolex makes a new series of a 60th model it is an original rolex
if any other manufacturer makes a new series of that watch it is a replica
if shelby makes a new series of a 289 it is an original (for sure not a historic one)
i think its that simple
maybe we can philosophize about the authenticity level of the manufacturing way:
if ac heritage is hammering a new alubody on original tools at brooklands, ships that to las vegas where it is completetd by shelby with original drivetrain, that might be the most authentic way in manufacturing a continuation car  |
Here's a thread that went 64 pages and was setup as a sticky by Jamo The Moderator, but ultimately the thread was closed. I suggest you read it, because all the arguments for and against the Shelby being genuine or authentic or original have been made over and over and over again.
Why does every thread here devolve into a "Real" vs. "Replica" argument?
The new Shelby is clearly a replica in my mind and in the mind of Ned Scudder, the CSX2000 and CSX3000 Cobra Registrar for the SAAC Registry. And the value of a CSX8000 is roughly 1/10 of an original, so the market clearly sees them as replicas. The Registry refers to them as replicas and Cobra-like. The CSX4000/6000/8000 is a replica made by a company that bought out Shelby and took the company public and they have made the replicas with bodies, parts, etc. that aren't from the 1960's and that can't be sold as completed cars, since they do not meet modern safety and emission standards.
I could go on and on, but I know everyone here is tired of the discussion. Again, I'd suggest reading the recent thread that I posted above.
BTW, you quoted twobjshelbys, but I'm the one who said we've discussed this same argument for 10 years, not twobjshelbys.