Why does every thread here devolve into a "Real" vs. "Replica" argument?

[trularin]

I second that!

[Nedsel]

It would be a reasonable bet that everyone on the CC website has their personal preferences with respect to what type, brand, version, and/or build-date is their favorite. And none of us should begrudge anyone else their choices.

It probably should not be surprising that my preference happens to be the original cars that were built in the 60's. They're the ones I know best, as they're the ones I followed in the process of attempting to grow up, and they are the ones that I have studied over the decades. But the fact that these represent the ultimate to me does not mean I lack an appreciation for other cars that are identified as Cobras. Yes, some examples are more faithful to the original design, specs, and personality than others, and anyone who appreciates the brand could easily make up their own list of the ones they like in a descending order of qualities they either possess or lack. But that's not my call nor my purpose.

I appreciate a faithful copy of the original cars as much as the next guy. I do, however, pay particular attention to the manner in which the cars are described. It should not surprise anyone who reads this forum that I am not a subscriber to the popular belief, supported by SEMA and others, that a car should be identified as "the car it most closely resembles." Nope. If you have constructed a replica of a '32 Deuce Coupe, tell us that. Don't say it's a 1932 Ford if literally nothing on the car was built by FoMoCo. And it's the same with Cobras. If you have a perfect alloy-bodied, round-chassis tubed Cobra that was built in 2007, please do not tell us that it is a 1965 Cobra. It is NOT. It is a 2007 clone, copy, recreation, replica or whatever of a 1965 Cobra.

Is this so unreasonable?

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

If you have a perfect alloy-bodied, round-chassis tubed Cobra that was built in 2007, please do not tell us that it is a 1965 Cobra. It is NOT. It is a 2007 clone, copy, recreation, replica or whatever of a 1965 Cobra.

Is this so unreasonable?

Well, certainly not unreasonable to me, obviously.

However, to summarize the thesis of Evan, and other modern Shelby Cobra replica owners, because the new entity of Shelby American built their Shelby Cobra, whether in 1965 or 2007, it is indeed a genuine and/or real Shelby Cobra. Evan's license plate is "REAL ONE."

Of course, that's not the case. The modern Shelby Cobra, or 2nd Gen as Evan called it , cannot be genuine, real, authentic or otherwise, since it copies the 1960's original(s).

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

It would be a reasonable bet that everyone on the CC website has their personal preferences with respect to what type, brand, version, and/or build-date is their favorite. And none of us should begrudge anyone else their choices.

It probably should not be surprising that my preference happens to be the original cars that were built in the 60's. They're the ones I know best, as they're the ones I followed in the process of attempting to grow up, and they are the ones that I have studied over the decades. But the fact that these represent the ultimate to me does not mean I lack an appreciation for other cars that are identified as Cobras. Yes, some examples are more faithful to the original design, specs, and personality than others, and anyone who appreciates the brand could easily make up their own list of the ones they like in a descending order of qualities they either possess or lack. But that's not my call nor my purpose.

I appreciate a faithful copy of the original cars as much as the next guy. I do, however, pay particular attention to the manner in which the cars are described. It should not surprise anyone who reads this forum that I am not a subscriber to the popular belief, supported by SEMA and others, that a car should be identified as "the car it most closely resembles." Nope. If you have constructed a replica of a '32 Deuce Coupe, tell us that. Don't say it's a 1932 Ford if literally nothing on the car was built by FoMoCo. And it's the same with Cobras. If you have a perfect alloy-bodied, round-chassis tubed Cobra that was built in 2007, please do not tell us that it is a 1965 Cobra. It is NOT. It is a 2007 clone, copy, recreation, replica or whatever of a 1965 Cobra.

Is this so unreasonable?

No, its not unreasonable. Like you I have an appreciation for the original cars too. I also have an appreciation for the current production Cobras.

Yes, if you have anything other than a 1962 to 1968 Shelby Cobra don't say you have a "196_ Cobra" agreed. Exceptions, 196_ AC Cobras. Ironically, the harshest attackers of the Continuation Series Cobras don't own Shelbys but own cars that are pretend Shelby Cobras many of which at the same time bear license plates like "66COBRA".

However, if you have a current Production Cobra you have a current production "Cobra" from Shelby American. A genuine authentic Cobra based on fact, law and as recognized by the World Registry. Of course, as a continuation of the production it must "replicate" the original in design to continue the production. The current production Cobras are not like a "replica of a '32 Ford which has nothing to do with Ford". The latter cars are in the realm of the ERA's, SPF, FFRs, Back Drafts etc....They according to the Registry are kit cars and "replicas" as that word defined and used by the World Registry as a PC way of saying pretend Cobras.

The Continuation Cobras are in fact a product of Shelby American Inc., a company that according to the World Registry has been in existence since 1968. The current production Cobras stand on their own as genuine authentic Cobras of the second generation of production. (notwithstanding the meaningless comments from the peanut gallery of non Shelby owners). Every current production Cobra is in fact a "Shelby Cobra" which non Shelbys pretend to be. In fact ERA's, Back Drafts, FFRs etc..are not really "Cobras" at all. We just refer to them as Cobras as part of the hobby as they are commonly referred to. I'm ok with that as part of the hobby. Nothing wrong or insulting about that its just the facts. In practice I still refer to such cars as Cobras and enjoy seeing them and talking to their owners. In fact I am friendly with Peter Portante of ERA and many others who own non Shelbys.

To my knowledge SEMA is not the barometer of Cobras and what is and is not an authentic Cobra. The facts, law which the World Registry explains and outlines does.

Owners of current production Cobras can fairly and honestly say they own authentic Cobras of the Continuation series. They in fact are genuine authentic Cobras.

This is not so unreasonable is it? (peanut Sour Grape gallery comments will be ignored, not read or responded to so knock yourselves out )

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

No, its not unreasonable. Like you I have an appreciation for the original cars too. I also have an appreciation for the current production Cobras.

Yes, if you have anything other than a 1962 to 1968 Shelby Cobra don't say you have a "196_ Cobra" agreed. Exceptions, 196_ AC Cobras.

However, if you have a current Production Cobra you have a current production "Cobra" from Shelby American. A genuine authentic Cobra based on fact, law and as recognized by the World Registry. Of course, as a continuation of the production it must "replicate" the original in design to continue the production. The current production Cobras are not like a "replica of a '32 Ford which has nothing to do with Ford". The latter cars are in the realm of the ERA's, SPF, FFRs, Back Drafts etc....They according to the Registry are kit cars and "replicas" as that word defined and used by the World Registry as a PC way of saying pretend Cobras.

The Continuation Cobras are in fact a product of Shelby American Inc., a company that according to the World Registry has been in existence since 1968. The current production Cobras stand on their own as genuine authentic Cobras of the second generation of production. (notwithstanding the meaningless comments from the peanut gallery of non Shelby owners). Every current production Cobra is in fact a "Shelby Cobra" which non Shelbys pretend to be. In fact they are not really "Cobras" at all. We just refer to them as Cobras as part of the hobby and as they are commonly referred to. Nothing wrong or insulting about that its just the facts. In practice I still refer to such cars as Cobras and enjoy seeing them and talking to their owners. In fact I am friendly with Peter Portante of ERA and others who own non Shelbys.

To my knowledge SEMA is not the barometer of Cobras and what is and is not an authentic Cobra. The facts, law which the World Registry explains and outlines does.

Owners of current production Cobras can fairly and honestly say they own authentic Cobras of the Continuation series. They in fact are Cobras.

This is not so unreasonable is it?

If they REPLICATE an original, then they cannot be genuine or authentic. And saying your car is a REAL AUTHENTIC Shelby Cobra is insulting to the owners of the 1960's originals.

The Registry will be updated soon enough, but until then, the Registry does reference the modern Shelby Cobras as Cobra-like and true replicas.

BTW, the company is a public company and traded under the symbol CSBI or Carroll Shelby International.

You writings here remind me of a hamster going round and round on a hamster wheel, but not getting anywhere.

Facts, logic, Registry, Ned, oh, and publicly-traded company.

Signed, Yours Truly,
The Peanut Gallery

[Al G]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

The Registry will be updated soon enough, but until then, the Registry does reference the modern Shelby Cobras as Cobra-like and true replicas.

Signed, Yours Truly,
The Peanut Gallery

It also references them as genuine. Why do you always leave that part out?

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Al G

It also references them as genuine. Why do you always leave that part out?

Excellent question. Here are my reasons:

1. I know the word "authentic" is used once, one time, when referring to the modern CSX replicas, but I can't remember "genuine" specifically being used, but I could be wrong.

2. Evan does a fantastic job of telling everyone that the modern CSX replicas are real genuine Shelby Cobras. But he never mentions the references in the Registry to "true replica" or "Cobra-like." So I feel the other references must be presented from Registry.

3. "Genuine replica" is an oxymoron, similar to the old joke "military intelligence." So, logically I disagree with the word "genuine" being used when referring to the modern CSX replicas, because logically a replica cannot be genuine.

4. Ned Scudder, the one of the leading historians of the genuine Shelby Cobras and the SAAC Cobra Registrar, has said for some time now, not just in this thread (see above), but in a much older thread, that the modern CSX Cobras are replicas. So, the word "genuine" when referring to the modern CSX replicas, is not correct.

5. The next Registry may change the terminology around the modern CSX replicas, since according to Ned, the "sensitivities" between SAAC and SA/CSBI no longer exist as they did back in the mid-2000's when the Registry was being written. Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like the language used for the modern CSX replicas in the Registry was neutered. I believe Ned words were that SAAC couldn't call "a spade a spade."

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Al G

It also references them as genuine. Why do you always leave that part out?

Because he must to "win" his point. The Registry discusses and explains the term "replica" as defined by Websters and juxtaposes it's common misused meaning by the common public. It's all explained in the World Registry.

If Leonardo Da Vinci built one of his great inventions or painted the Mona Lisa and years later built and or painted another one just like the first the second would be replicas of the first but genuine authentic Da Vincis. Not hard stuff.

However if FFR, BDR, Unique, ERA, Street Beasts produced, built or painted the item it would be a fake of the Da Vinci.

Kapesh?

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Al G

It also references them as genuine. Why do you always leave that part out?

Because it would neuter his agenda.

[jhv48]

WISH-IT-WAS-REAL-1, no matter how you try to spin it, you own a replica, kit car, continuation, fakey-doo, (or other wording of your choice) of the original 60's icon. And the only reason people on this forum are climbing all over you is because we feel you are intentionally trying to glom onto the fame and mystique of the 998 originals with your UN-ORIGINAL-1.

We accept what you have, a modern day clone. But it ain't original and never will be in the same league as the originals. Yours is the red-headed-stepchild. You intentionally mislead the unknowing public even while you tell them the truth. We agree you are telling the truth. No argument there. But we find your "truths" to be misleading in order to impress or inflate your status. As you well know, anyone can produce facts to support their claims. Doesn't make it right.
You may think you're a verry clever wordsmith, but we find it intolerable and will continue to call BS on your choice of license plate.

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

It would be a reasonable bet that everyone on the CC website has their personal preferences with respect to what type, brand, version, and/or build-date is their favorite. And none of us should begrudge anyone else their choices.

It probably should not be surprising that my preference happens to be the original cars that were built in the 60's. They're the ones I know best, as they're the ones I followed in the process of attempting to grow up, and they are the ones that I have studied over the decades. But the fact that these represent the ultimate to me does not mean I lack an appreciation for other cars that are identified as Cobras. Yes, some examples are more faithful to the original design, specs, and personality than others, and anyone who appreciates the brand could easily make up their own list of the ones they like in a descending order of qualities they either possess or lack. But that's not my call nor my purpose.

I appreciate a faithful copy of the original cars as much as the next guy. I do, however, pay particular attention to the manner in which the cars are described. It should not surprise anyone who reads this forum that I am not a subscriber to the popular belief, supported by SEMA and others, that a car should be identified as "the car it most closely resembles." Nope. If you have constructed a replica of a '32 Deuce Coupe, tell us that. Don't say it's a 1932 Ford if literally nothing on the car was built by FoMoCo. And it's the same with Cobras. If you have a perfect alloy-bodied, round-chassis tubed Cobra that was built in 2007, please do not tell us that it is a 1965 Cobra. It is NOT. It is a 2007 clone, copy, recreation, replica or whatever of a 1965 Cobra.

Is this so unreasonable?

Evidently YES!
Who have thought?

[RodKnock]

To reiterate the REAL FACTS:

Originally Posted by Nedsel

The facts remain as follows: The cars that created the Cobra mystique - the 998 Cobras referred to as genuine, original, and legitimate - were built in the 1960's by the mutual partnership of AC Cars and Shelby American. Everything that followed was a copy in one form or another. Go down the list and name your brand, from Arntz to Butler to Contemporary, etc - they are all facsimiles of the original, and were marketed as such. Some are pretty good copies while some are less so. Regardless, if your Cobra-like automobile wasn't built in the 60's, it is not one of the 998 original cars, hence it must be something else. Such as a replica of one of the original Cobras. It simply can not be anything else, no matter how many different ways you attempt to spin it.

[razerwire]

I think most here would like to have a 60's cobra but because of scarcity or cost do what they can to get as close to a original as they can. The paint, with stripes or without, wheels, ford motor, dash, side exhaust or not, some down to the smallest details. why rain one someones parade because they went to more expense or trouble than you did? Or if they only had limited funds or had to do all work for themselves. IMO I like to talk and look at cars that was done by owners, they have a wealth of knowledge to share. Why should I have to apologize for having csx4163? I'm going to get my Bennett car back on road as quick as I can so I will be accepted again. LOL. I guess there is no answer so why get upset. Most original cars have a lexan sign with just the csx number on it by their cars, so I think I will do the same and just tape my mouth shut and stay back 50 feet so I don't upset anyone.

[Joe's Garage]

The problem with that analogy is Da Vinci died and his great grandson coped his granfather's work using better materials and a modernized design. These creations are called Da Vinci copies from the grandson, not real or genuine Da Vinci's.

Kapesh?

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

The problem with that analogy is Da Vinci died and his great grandson coped his granfather's work using better materials and a modernized design. These creations are called Da Vinci copies from the grandson, not real or genuine Da Vinci's.

Kapesh?

Your response to use a phrase is "hackneyed and trite". Da Vinci didn't have a company producing his items. If he did my analogy would still be applicable. Then I guess since Enzo is dead new Ferraris are not genuine Ferraris nor would a continuation of the original Testarosa be a genuine Ferrari Testarosa if Ferrari chose to build them again.

It's all in the World registry. Quite simple really.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Then I guess since Enzo is dead new Ferraris are not genuine Ferraris nor would a continuation of the original Testarosa be a genuine Ferrari Testarosa if Ferrari chose to build them again.

Actually, Evan, Ferrari did build both a 1st Gen and 2nd Gen GTO and they do look very similar.



And I'll get those 1st Gen and Gen Testarossa pics up too.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

The problem with that analogy is Da Vinci died and his great grandson coped his granfather's work using better materials and a modernized design. These creations are called Da Vinci copies from the grandson, not real or genuine Da Vinci's.

Kapesh?

And to keep this tortured analogy going further, the curators at the Lourve and/or Metropolitan in NY (Ned and other board members) say it's a copy, a REPLICA. And not genuine. In fact, the owner of the "Mona Lisa" copy, Evan, admits it's a replica.

Ferrari doesn't make copies of their 1960's cars and they don't sell kits. Ferrari's have evolved, like the Porsche 911 and Corvette and become entirely LEGAL & REGISTER-ABLE cars. The modern Shelby Cobra replica cannot. Oh well.

As for the Registry, a) it's going to change and b) they ALSO use words like Cobra-like and true replica.

[fordracing65]

Ferrari doesn't make copies of their 1960's cars and they don't sell kits. Ferrari's have evolved, like the Porsche 911 and Corvette and become entirely LEGAL & REGISTER-ABLE cars. The modern Shelby Cobra replica cannot. Oh well.

Exactly what I was thinking when I read that, probably the worst comparison I have heard to defend his car is real...

[RodKnock]

Speaking of neutering, or as Ned called it, "certain liberties" were taken in the last Registry, with respect to the Shelby Cobra replicas. So, now, let's just call "a spade a spade."

Originally Posted by Nedsel

One aspect of what was published in the 2008 SAAC registry that many people fail to consider is that SAAC was smack in the middle of a legal battle with Carroll Shelby when the registry was being written. Given the delicacy of the proceedings, great care was taken not to antagonize Shelby or his attorneys, and certain liberties were taken with respect to what might otherwise have been seen as calling a spade a spade. At the time, it was PC to call it a shovel instead. Otherwise, one might have pointed out that out was AC Cars, Ltd. that created the AEX, BEX, COX, COB, and CSX chassis numbers (among others), which were simply a series of alterations in specification to the original AC Ace designated by A, B, and C to highlight the changes. The original Cobras were the result of a joint effort by both AC Cars and Shelby American, but neither would have produced the same car absent the willingness of the other to cooperate in their production. Hence, the later "Cobras" built exclusively by Shelby used VINs to which Shelby had dubious legitimate claim and were never approved by AC Cars nor its successor entity, AK. Read up on the legal battle between Shelby and Brian Angliss of AK, and note that Angliss built a number of cars using a CSX 3xxx VIN, using the theory, "if Shelby can appropriate what was AC's, AC can do the same to what was Shelby's."

The bottom line is that the newer Cobras, whether built by Shelby in the U.S. or AK in the U.K., lack the cooperative Anglo-American production model used in the construction of the 60's versions, and are therefore fundamentally different even if their specifications are similar.

[RodKnock]

I may have to start a poll as to which analogy is the most appropriate:

a) The present-day auto manufacturer (Challenger, Ferrari, etc.) Analogy
b) The Mona Lisa by da Vinci Analogy
c) The Rolex Watch Analogy
d) The Dolly The Sheep Cloning Analogy (Dolly was born in 1996, the Shelby Cobra replica was born 1995)

I'm voting "d."