CSX 6000 at Barrett-Jackson

[SP01715]

How can BJ list that CSX6000 series as a "1965" on the board? Those in the know understand it was not built in 1965, but I think that is a little deceptive. My.02

[computerworks]

That's pretty much convention when talking about any replica....using the year it replicates.
You see it all the time with fiberglas street rods listed as "'32 Ford," etc.

[REAL 1]

Candidly I don't care what Mr. Comer says. He is one author. There are many others with a variety of differing opinions. Maybe we should watch was each "expert" has to say and change with the wind everytime writes an article.

In my mind and I believe in the majority of minds who are knowledgable SAAC is the definitive source and word on these cars.

You want to adopt Comers view point go right ahead if that makes you feel better. You were with Comer? You saw him talking to people at these events? What did they say? Who did he talk to? How many people did he talk to? He owns original Shelbys? In my mind that creates a question of bias as to how he looks at and writes about Continuation Series Cobras.

And these people on the ground that you assume he is talking to and seem to know what they are saying are plunking down near and over $100K for Shelbys when they could buy based on your view another "replica" for 1/3 to 1/2 that. That tells me something. Maybe it doesn't say anything to you but it does to me.

I am talking about the SAAC definition because as far as I am concerned the Registry is the Bible on these cars and defines what they are. You want to rest on Comers article on "replicas" go right ahead and if you think he sets the standard...by all means...think what you want.

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by computerworks

That's pretty much convention when talking about any replica....using the year it replicates.
You see it all the time with fiberglas street rods listed as "'32 Ford," etc.

When people ask me what year my car is I tell them it is a Cobra replica built in 04. I feel like it would be dishonest to say 1965, when it was not built in 65.

So if they list a CSX 6000 as a 1965 because it replicates a 1965 Cobra does that mean it's a Replica...

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by SP01715

So if they list a CSX 6000 as a 1965 because it replicates a 1965 Cobra does that mean it's a Replica...

...of course it does. It certainly wasn't made in 1965... it replicates the car that was made back then.

[REAL 1]

Yeah. And CSX 3003 is a replica of CSX 3002 and so on and so on .....

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Yeah. And CSX 3003 is a replica of CSX 3002 and so on and so on .....

If not a replica, then IMO they should be titled/sold as the actual year they were built. I know here in California they could not be titled as a 65, but calling them a 65 Cobra is deceptive. My.02

[somedayaurora]

Here Here make them like Autokraft but you know faster . I feel this may have gotten in the woods abit and I agree with both sides It is a genuine shelby , just not an original Shelby cobra . The same but different , a 66 mustang is a ford mustang as is a '11 mustang is mustang . Maybe if we call it a '06 Shelby Cobra 427 eveybody might relent a bit . Hey it could be worse , we could be here *****ing about corvette's instead of you know -best car ever-!
SDR

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Yeah. And CSX 3003 is a replica of CSX 3002 and so on and so on .....

of course not. That's just a silly statement.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by computerworks

...of course it does. It certainly wasn't made in 1965... it replicates the car that was made back then.

I agree with that statement, BTW, Ron is a SAAC board member.

But that's not my point. Evan, you use absolute terms where there are no absolutes. You hang you hat on the SAAC definition, I don't.

I've been a member of SAAC, continuous and uninterupted, I'm fairly sure, since 1979. I feel I'm reasonably Shelby knowledgeable, I own a registry, no expert by any stretch, I attend auctions, I'm one of those buyers and sellers you speak of as the "general public", and I disagree with you.

I think Mr. Comer is spot on and while I'm sure it will never happen, I bet if you poll the SAAC membership, they would say any Cobra not made in the 1960's (CSX2000's and CSX3000's) is a replica. Pure conjecture, but that's a wager I would take.

There are many factors and forces as to why continuation CSX's and Kirkhams are listed in the SAAC Registry and the definition is the definition.

My objection here is your use of absolutes when there is none, at least to me. SAAC has an expert opinion and they wrote a book, the SAAC Registry, while others like Mr. Comer, have their expert opinions and they write books too.

You can find expert opinions on both sides of an issue, but as an attorney, you already know that.

[computerworks]

... I might add that the terms "replica" and "genuine Shelby" are not mutually exclusive, either.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by computerworks

... I might add that the terms "replica" and "genuine Shelby" are not mutually exclusive, either.

A "genuine Shelby replica" works great for me. Can we coin this term for future use?

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by SP01715

How can BJ list that CSX6000 series as a "1965" on the board? Those in the know understand it was not built in 1965, but I think that is a little deceptive. My.02

Actually, if you go and look at NADA under 1965 Shelby American, they list it as a 1965 Cobra as well (that's what the DC DMV uses to assign tax to cars, so that's how I found out about it). We all know it's really not a '65, but I think Carroll convinced some folks that he issued all the VINs for these cars and they have been work in progress ever since:

http://www.nadaguides.com/default.as...a=1&y=1965&da1