CSX 6000 at Barrett-Jackson

[REAL 1]

No problem I will send pics.

Thanks.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Rodknock: My point is simple. I believe that those that are into these cars and understand what the they are and have educated themselves and therefore are familar with SAAC and the Registry have come around to accepting the Continuation series as more then a replica. Thats the general public I'm referring to.

The general public that doesn't know Chit from shinola why should I be concerned about what they think. Explain it to me.

I understand your 1st point, but I don't understand why I have to explain to you why you should be concerned with the general public at large, the people who know absolutely nothing about SAAC or Shelby Cobras. I never brought it up, you did, and then you further defined your remark.

My point is/was that Mr. Comer is considered an expert on the marque for the following reasons:

1. he owns and has owned many Shelbys including, but not limited to, Mustangs and Cobras,
2. he wrote a book on Shelbys,
3. he vintage races Shelbys,
4. he has a longtime business that buys and sells Shelbys, as well as other sportscars and musclecars,
5. he writes for what I believe is the premier "auction results" magazine.

Thus, he would be on the ground, in the crowd, talking to these folks at these premier auction events around the country. These "auction buyers and sellers," THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, "have begun to clearly view CSX continuation Cobras as authentic Shelby Cobras and more then mere "replicas."

You stated this, as fact, when Mr. Comer, the expert and person who attends these events wrote an article that states w/o ambiguity that the CSX and Kirkham, along with every other Cobra manufacturer (non CSX2000 & CSX3000), are replicas.

I don't think your original statement is valid. There are those knowledgable people that think it is more than a mere replica and there are those knowledgable people that think that they are a replica.

EDIT: And please don't quote the SAAC Registry. I'm NOT talking about SAAC's definition.

[somedayaurora]

Don't want to get into this again , but was on the SAAC site , and had to laugh ; are favorite author and his car business is a SAAC sponsor. Lets move on .
SDR

[RodKnock]

All things considered, that's a beautiful car and color. Thank you for posting pics.

[RodKnock]

Sorry folks, my apologies to everyone for this OT discussion.

[RodKnock]

Evan, if you come to SAAC 35, drive your Ford GT across country, I'll buy you a Diet Coke and hot dog at the refreshment stand. I don't drink or eat either, but being from the East Coast, you may. (just kidding right coasters)

[Excaliber]

As it concerns Kirkhams it seems pretty clear they are in the registry to preclude the possibility that one day they might morph into a Shelby.

Actually, thats already happened, with the blessing of all involved so it's cool. What started life as a genuine Kirkham along the way became a genuine Shelby, complete with a CSX number. Some Shelbys have been owner built as well, by purchasing the various parts and pieces and doing the assembly, like a "kit" but through the back door. So even with the modern cars we already have some "stories" if not "storied" cars. It is easy to see that happening in the years to come, a Kirkham would be an excellent place to start.

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

As it concerns Kirkhams it seems pretty clear they are in the registry to preclude the possibility that one day they might morph into a Shelby.

Great point.

Now what's with the gay avatar, Ernie? You got something going on that we don't know about?

[Excaliber]

Well the MODEL is a 1965 and I don't have a problem with that. Hawaii and many other states recognize the term "1965" as being an accurate description for the car, which seem quite logical to me.

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Well the MODEL is a 1965 and I don't have a problem with that. Hawaii and many other states recognize the term "1965" as being an accurate description for the car, which seem quite logical to me.

If you use "1965" as a model (not year built) then I guess it makes sense. If you use the term "1965 Shelby Cobra" to describe the car, are you just describing the model? If I were to tell someone that my car is a 1965 Cobra, most are going the think it was built in 1965. If I tell them it is a replica of a 1965 Cobra, then I think it is less confusing. Maybe this is why California will not except 1965 as a valid description for our cars. If you are going with Evans opinion that these are not replicas, then I think they should be called what they are. For example if I bought a new CSX 6000 it would be a "2010 Shelby Cobra".

[Excaliber]

If I were to tell someone that my car is a 1965 Cobra, most are going the think it was built in 1965.

You make a valid point and hence the confusion that arises in trying to nail this down.

My avatar brings a little color in to brighten the room, don't you think? Care for more tea?

[somedayaurora]

Originally Posted by excaliber

my avatar brings a little color in to brighten the room, don't you think? Care for more tea?

:lol::lol:
Sdr

[REAL 1]

Oinie: Nice Avatar. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Ron: Silly? Uh, not really, each successive Cobra is an exact copy of the previous. If you want to apply the dictionary definition literally you can certainly make it fit to each original series Cobra being an exact copy or reproduction of its predecessor made by the original artist or maker. Of course in common usage today most understand "replica" to designate something that looks like what it really isn't. A SPF, ERA, FFR, Unique look like Cobras but are not Cobras, they are faux Cobras. Hence in common parlance as the term replica is used and understood of course its "silly" to refer an original Cobra as replica because its exactly like its predecessors. But if you want to apply the term literally it can fit.

My point is that SAAC recognizes that the term replica has been misapplied in common usage as noted in the Registry. SAAC recognizes the Continuation series/CSX 4000 series as current production Cobras. Period. End of story.

The Continuation series therefore by its very nature in being a current production Cobra as defined by SAAC, which yes, I repeat, is clearly the most widely accepted definitive authority, cannot therefore be a "replica" as that term is commonly used and understood today...i.e. a fake of what it appears to be.

This is a simple point and easy to grasp. Those that continue to conjure ways and go through all kinds of machinations to paint the Continuation Cobras as a "replica" as that term is commonly understood and used today ie. "fake" clearly have their own separate agenda.

Its easy. Current production Cobras can't be replicas of a Cobra if the are a Cobra in their own right. This is easy stuff really.

But for those of you that want to continue to find ways and excuses to call them replicas, carry on...knock yourself out because in the end what you think is really of no importance. SAAC has spoken.

[computerworks]

And...clearly, if this minutia completes your fantasy, you are also entitled to it....everyone is entitled to their own.

Knock your self out, as you say.

What you said about consecutive s/n being replicas still stands on its own as silly.

[twobjshelbys]

So maybe what a CSX4000 series car is a "2007 1965 Shelby Cobra 427".


Ooops, sorry, off topic.

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

You make a valid point and hence the confusion that arises in trying to nail this down.

My avatar brings a little color in to brighten the room, don't you think? Care for more tea?

Yeah I noticed that, it fits you well.

[RodKnock]

I've posted this before here. A quote authored by Rick Kopec, a SAAC Board member, taken from the SAAC Forum dated 7/15/2009:

"It's all a matter of semantics. To quote a great American, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." We use labels as shorthand to identify a particular type of car. When someone says "original Cobra" there is no question they are referring to a CSX2000 or a CSX3000 car. It’s easier than trotting out a laundry list of characteristics that a car has to have to be considered an original Cobra (e.g. built between 1961 and 1967 by AC Cars Ltd. under a contract by Shelby American, completed by the factory or one of its authorized representatives, and sold in that time frame by the factory or a franchised dealer). It’s like shorthand.

Where the rub comes in is, who decides which labels are accurate? Anyone can call a car anything they want. This is why Cobra replicas are often referred to differently (replica, kit car, clone, fake, reproduction, knock-off, copy-cat, etc.). Some people (owners mostly, who have a dog in the hunt) prefer some descriptions more than others and feel some labels may be disparaging or prejudicial to their car. They are entitled to their feelings, but just "feeling" doesn't make anyone else right or wrong. Mostly this is determined by common usage. For fiberglass-bodied cars like the ERA, Contemporary, Factory 5, etc. Cobra replica or replica Cobra seems to have become the coin on the realm.

But when you move on to aluminum-bodied cars with the same tube frame and sub-framing as the originals (Autokraft MK IV, Kirkham, CSX4000, etc) Cobra replica doesn’t seem to fit as precisely. This is mostly because that terfm has been used so often to refer to fiberglass bodied “kit cars.” So it becomes less accurate when referring to these cars, which are more closely made to original specifications. Naturally, in the name of accuracy, people want to use something else. But what, exactly? It’s a good question. And it probably has many answers. Mostly, whether you like it or not, it will come down to what the common usage is.

Personally, I subscribe to the “Kill’ em all and let God sort ‘em out” philosophy. I call them all Cobra because that’s what they look like. Then to differentiate between them I attach an adjective. Kind of like a genus and species in zoology. Original needs no explanation; when you say “original Cobra” there is no question what you are talking about. And Replica has come to describe the fiberglass bodied kit car genre. CSX4000, Kirkham and AC MK IV are all pretty descriptive when added to “Cobra” so I don’t see the need to find some kind of catch-all term that will fit them all. You can’t do it with one word anyway.

The question of semantics is an interesting one but you can get too wrapped up in it and pretty soon you’re debating how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin."

I'll let everyone out there on Club Cobra decide what there own semantics might be. Not so definitive to me. Both Ron and Mr. Kopec both own Shelbys so their opinions may be biased.

[Excaliber]

This is how all your threads end.

I'm SO jealous. I wish my threads could end so peacefully.