Say it isn't so!!

You'll need about 30 minutes to record Evan's response, do your best to contain the laughter, thank you.

My recollection is that it went out of production in 2001. Owners were unable to pass the stringent new emissions regulations.
BTW - note that even though it's made by Shelby, the Old Man himself acknowledged that it was a kit - says so right on the label :CRY:

That is precisely why we have to have the conference. As one of our members, you are presenting only part of the data. The registry is a special-interest publication. It is written by and for a specific group with specific interests. We can hardly consider it as un-biased testimony on the matter.

We also have the court ruling, which you never mention. Three judges, having no interest whatsoever in the matter, clearly stated that the non-60's Shelby Cobras are kit cars.

I bought Shelby's Chili mix a few years ago and tried it. Lots of heat, decent but not spectacular flavour. IMO it was over-hyped, over-rated and over-priced for what it was, and there were better choices.

I'll leave it to others to draw analogies...

Please enlighten me as to what was funny with regard to anything I have said. I could use a good laugh. :rolleyes: Wait... Maybe it was the total debunking of your effort to totally minimize Shelby's primary role in the creation of the cobra and to elevate ACs work beyond what it actually was in the creation of the Cobra. That was actually funny.:LOL:

I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand and leads to so many arguments.

Fact: the Shelby American continuation cars are manufactured by Shelby and come with a Shelby MSO. No one else can use the name Shelby. Yes, much of the actual manufacturing is contracted out but that's the case with many products you buy.

Fact: Shelby resale values are higher than any other Cobra replica manufacurer. Check Cobra Country if you don't believe it.

Evan can get pretty passionate about this but I don't see anything untrue in what he has said.

Yes, the Registry is a special interest publication. Its purpose is set forth very clearly within the Registry. The Shelby American automobile club registry is not testimony. It is a compendium of facts, information and history from experts and authorities with regard to the history, manufacture and origin of The Shelby cobra and GT 40s and a catalog of Shelby cobras and GT 40s.

If you guys feel you can do it better and have an authoritative glossary of definitions like the Registry have at it. The intimation that your conference or panel or whatever you wish to call your fantasy gathering would be unbiased is laughable in the extreme.:LOL: As funny as the Iranians being able to have their own inspectors. LOL.

When you put together your catalog or whatever it is you would like to publish and when This publication or guide begins to be actually purchased and used as a reference by Shelby cobra owners then I will take time out of my day to take a look at it.

As to the "federal opinion" the reason why I do not reference it is because it is irrelevant to the issue being discussed now. Perhaps you should have your "star chamber" legal counsel explain to you the difference between "dicta" and the "holding" of a decision and opinion. ;)

Also if you were going to cite a court opinion please provide us with a copy of the opinion and page to which you were referring.

.........

Al: Thank you.

So Shelby is a Cobra replica manufacturer after all??%/

There are people in the vintage Corvette world who will pay an above average price for a car listed as "numbers matching" even when there is little evidence beyond the superficial appearance of the car to substantiate it. I suspect they do it because it makes them feel good to say, "It's a numbers matching car" on the forums and at the car shows. Any many of them will no doubt sell them at a premium price later to someone else also wants a "numbers matching" car but can't afford a well documented "numbers matching" car with true providence. It seems there will always be a market for cars that cost a little more than average and allow their owners to pass them off as the much more expensive cars they are not.

Correction: "providence" should have been "provenance".

And we're off again!

The authoritative definition or classification of the continuation series Shelby cobras are set forth in the SAAC registry not by Al's loose usage of the term. :rolleyes: Really, let's not be silly.

Everyone can establish their own definitions. Knock yourselves out. It's a free country. However I doubt many will give a rat's patuty about any personal definitions that are at odds with the World Registry and that would include me.

Really???? Tell us you don't know why or understand why numbers matching is significant. Sheesh,

:rolleyes:

Court Ruling
Judges Rogers, Walsh and Bergsman presiding -
Shelby continuation cobras are kit cars along with the rest of the non-60's Cobras.

Choke on it.

I know why Evan gets tired responding to this topic all the time. I'm tired as well.

I like what Ned Scudder, the SAAC Cobra Registrar had to say way back on 5/20/15:

"As for the inclusion of the new cars in the SAAC registry, I have yet to be advised exactly what is supposed to be happening. Some time ago it was decided (or so I thought) that SAAC would deal with the historic cars, and let Shelby American handle the replicas they have made. The DenBeste press release says their cars will be submitted to/ included in the SAAC registry, but that's as much as has been said. I can say with certainty that these cars will not appear with the cars from the 60's regardless of their chassis numbers or whatever they are eventually called."

http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/all-...ml#post1349265

Look at it? We need you to help us write it at the conference. The document will be nothing like the SAAC registry. It will not be a catalog. It is a guide to the non-60's Cobra owner as to how to respond to 'the question'. This threads' original intent was to discuss how to answer the question. Many owners have a lot angst about how to deal with the question. You clearly have a lot to contribute for those that own continuation Cobras.

Too much legal mumbo jumbo. I have no idea what you are trying to say. All I know is the judges said Shelby Cobras built after the 60's are kit cars. No, I can't present it as you well know the website that had the judgement or whatever you lawyers call it, took it down. But you probably have a copy of it and I know you are not willing to share it. You've said so in the past.

I keep forgetting that subtlety doesn't work for some folks. .. I was going to explain, but I suspect it's hopeless.

Yes, yes. Ned wrote that. Yes, Ned is the Registrar for the original cars (427 or 289, can't remember and very knowledgeable as to the history of the original cars) however that statement was made in the context of the new "completion cars" discussion and the personal statement made by him does not represent an official statement by the organization whose text and definitions are clear and expressly stated.

As to your first paragraph, Gee whiz, I'm flattered! Why didn't you just say so.:D. Gald to help where can. As to the "angst" many owners have that don't own real Cobras (original series or continuation series) my official recommendation is that in response to "the question" regardless of whether it's phrased "is it a kit", "is it real" or "is it a replica" the simple response is "it's a pretend Cobra" or "it's a tribute Cobra". Either will work.

As to continuation series owners, they don't need any help since they have no angst in dealing with "the question". At least I don't. The answer for us is rather simple..."Its a continuation series Shelby Cobra". Without fail people are in awe of the Shelby and ask about the car. Unfortunately the interest generated, the photos, videos etc usually cause delays in my excursions. In fact, just happened again today at DMV. The minute they learn it's a Shelby...sheesh.

Fortunately for you with your LA Exotics they don't generate such interest or awe causing such inconvenience. It can be such a pain:CRY:

As to the second paragraph, you mean you cite a court opinion as establishing or finding a particular fact but now you admit ignorance in understanding it as "mumbo jumbo"?:LOL: You know it is always better when you don't know or don't understand to keep quiet then to open your mouth and confirm your ignorance. Looks like not only do you have to be schooled on the issue which is the subject of this thread but on the legal "mumbo jumbo" you cited too. :rolleyes: I'll just let you figure it out for yourself.

Oh, almost forgot...where did I say I had a copy of the opinion? I actually don't have any of the opinions although I read them and know what the issues were and the holding on the issues. I would have thought that for someone citing the names of the Circuit judges themselves you had copy of the opinion in your back pocket.