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

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

You don't have post it. We all know they exist and existed. Not new news. Early replicas of various types, including Cobras, got through the DMV and they've been hunting them ever since. Those cars titled as 1965's that weren't actually built in 1965 are considered illegal in CA. And that includes other cars like Porsche Speedster replicas too.

When is early? Give me a date. The only valid response has 4 digits

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

Hmmm. Evan seems to think he has "shown me the door." Well, I guess he must have. He was astute enough to point out that I seem to have a bias towards the CSX 3000 cars over the CSX 4000 models. I confess, he is right: I prefer the historic Cobras of the 60's to the more modern copies. Guess I must be crazy.

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.

Ned, you forgot to tell me where to send your payment.

[Dangerous Doug]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

An original manufacturer doesn't replicate his own work.

Interesting point: An artist has one original work, and then may release imprints or prints (1/500, 1/25...).

The original "art" in this case, is the original Cobras from the 60's. The imprints are the continuation Cobras. Replicas are copies of the original work for the pure enjoyment of the original artwork---unless someone is trying to pass off the copy as an original piece of art. This holds true for imprints, as well.

Someone who views a painting and is told it's "the real thing" but then finds they are "merely" viewing an imprint or a copy would be sorely disappointed.

Worth pondering.
DD

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

When is early? Give me a date. The only valid response has 4 digits

The only valid response is 4 digits? ooooooh I'm so afraid of you Tony.

Date of what? When they started prosecuting people for illegal 1965 registrations? Look up the posts here from Morgester, from the CA AG's Office. If you still want to challenge me just because your old CSX had a 1965 registration then go ahead and I'll post the CA state law from the DMV website and CA Civil code along with Morgester's postings.

Your title from CA proves zippo to me. It's not the law, but that doesn't mean that don't get things wrong occasionally either. Post yours, let's see it. You can't register it today in CA without committing fraud or a DMV clerk making a big mistake.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Dangerous Doug

Interesting point: An artist has one original work, and then may release imprints or prints (1/500, 1/25...).

The original "art" in this case, is the original Cobras from the 60's. The imprints are the continuation Cobras. Replicas are copies of the original work for the pure enjoyment of the original artwork---unless someone is trying to pass off the copy as an original piece of art. This holds true for imprints, as well.

Someone who views a painting and is told it's "the real thing" but then finds they are "merely" viewing an imprint or a copy would be sorely disappointed.

Worth pondering.
DD

Ansel adams did it all the time.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

The only valid response is 4 digits? ooooooh I'm so afraid of you Tony.

Date of what? When they started prosecuting people for illegal 1965 registrations? Look up the posts here from Morgester, from the CA AG's Office. If you still want to challenge me just because your old CSX had a 1965 registration then go ahead and I'll post the CA state law from the DMV website and CA Civil code along with Morgester's postings.

Your title from CA proves zippo to me. It's not the law, but that doesn't mean that don't get things wrong occasionally either. Post yours, let's see it. You can't register it today in CA without committing fraud or a DMV clerk making a big mistake.

Blah blah blah. What year did they start hunting them down? I'm betting mine is after that since it was very recent

[RodKnock]

Post or don't post the title, don't care. Makes no difference to me. REPLICA!

Titles that state "1965 Shelby Cobra" when the car was actually built in 1995, 2005 or 2015 doesn't make the Shelby anything but a replica and ILLEGAL in CA.

Here's the amnesty program, for illegal titles, thread by the CA AG:
California: Amnesty Passes

[RodKnock]

CA: New criminal cases filed

Originally Posted by Morgester

As this forum is aware, a kit car or replica vehicle can only be registered in California as a Specially Constructed Vehicle (SPCN). A kit car or replica vehicle that has been titled as the year that it replicates (i.e. 1965 Ford) is considered to be fraudulently titled and the individual submitting the title documents to DMV has committed fraud and perjury by misrepresenting the year of manufacture.

Today the California Attorney General’s office has filed two criminal complaints. The first complaint alleges that Billy Blair / B2 Design Group sold replica 1932 Ford roadsters and provided fraudulent and untruthful registration documents to the California Department of Motor Vehicles in order to procure ownership titles for vehicles without legitimate documentation and allowing these vehicles to evade the vehicle requirements for smog testing by misrepresenting the year of manufacture. The complaint alleges felony violations of Vehicle Code sections 10752 (sale of counterfeit VIN) and 4463(A) (offering false instruments) and Penal Code section 115 (perjury by declaration).

The second complaint alleges that Armand Caprio / California Cobras with the assistance of Elauna Daire Rhea Boren provided fraudulent and untruthful registration documents to the California Department of Motor Vehicles in order to procure ownership titles for replica cobras without legitimate documentation allowing these vehicles to evade the vehicle requirements for smog testing. Elauna Daire Rhea Boren also embezzled pre-paid registration and vehicle fees by significantly understating the true value of the vehicle. The complaint alleges felony violations of Vehicle Code sections 4463(A) (offering false instruments) and Penal Code sections 118 (perjury by declaration) and 530.5 (identity theft).

DMV is in the process of examining and cancelling fraudulently issued title of vehicles that relate to the above investigations.

Law enforcements goal has always been to shut down the illegal registration services. In addition to providing fraudulent registration for kit car or replica vehicles, these services wash title for lemon, salvaged, and stolen vehicles.

Even given the sometimes volatile nature of this forum, I have always tried to be open and candid regarding our investigations and prosecutions. My recommendation today is the same as it was when I first posted to this forum. You are better off correcting the registration sooner rather then later.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Post or don't post the title, don't care. Makes no difference to me. REPLICA!

Titles that state "1965 Shelby Cobra" when the car was actually built in 1995, 2005 or 2015 doesn't make the Shelby anything but a replica and ILLEGAL in CA.

Here's the amnesty program, for illegal titles, thread by the CA AG:
California: Amnesty Passes

Why do ypu have to be so evasive. I just want to know the date ca stopped issuing titles with 1965 Shelby cobra for a csx4000 car. That can't be too hard. If you won't provide a direct answer because you want to prove some silly and insipid point maybe some else who has this simple factoid will.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Why do ypu have to be so evasive. I just want to know the date ca stopped issuing titles with 1965 Shelby cobra for a csx4000 car. That can't be too hard.

I don't know. I've posted two relevant AG threads. Read them and weep. And do your own homework. Evasive? Puh-leeze.

Am I being evasive or are you being a lazy and not doing your own searches? Hmmm.

Let me know when they became illegal, but it's certainly not relevant to the discussion of a Shelby Cobra being a replica. And I've proven that 1965 Shelby Cobra titles, unless you own an original from 1965, are illegal in CA.

How your "Green Bay Packer Edition" Shelby Cobra replica was titled here in CA, if it truly was at all, is superfluous to any discussion here. Illegal and replica.

[Nedsel]

It is interesting to note that the title illustrated on the previous page purports to show the car was first registered in August of 1965. But by August '65, the only 427 Cobras up and running were full comp cars. And they weren't registered. There were 4 street cars in prototype stage, but they, too, weren't registered by 8/65. Lying on a title is one thing; making up dates that can be proven fraudulent is another entirely. And you still claim these as 1965 vehicles? Get real.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Why do ypu have to be so evasive. I just want to know the date ca stopped issuing titles with 1965 Shelby cobra for a csx4000 car. That can't be too hard. If you won't provide a direct answer because you want to prove some silly and insipid point maybe some else who has this simple factoid will.

The actual date they became illegal is irrelevant. They are illegal in CA and the modern Shelby is a replica. Just read the CA AG threads. Have you read the CA AG threads?

As for the "silly and insipid" comment about me, when folks resort to insults, they've run of things to say that have any meaning. And then there's that "sticks and stones" thing. Doesn't bother me a bit. Keep the insults coming, your true self is revealed.

[fordracing65]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

It is interesting to note that the title illustrated on the previous page purports to show the car was first registered in August of 1965. But by August '65, the only 427 Cobras up and running were full comp cars. And they weren't registered. There were 4 street cars in prototype stage, but they, too, weren't registered by 8/65. Lying on a title is one thing; making up dates that can be proven fraudulent is another entirely. And you still claim these as 1965 vehicles? Get real.

very good point, I love this forum...

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Why do ypu have to be so evasive. I just want to know the date ca stopped issuing titles with 1965 Shelby cobra for a csx4000 car. That can't be too hard. If you won't provide a direct answer because you want to prove some silly and insipid point maybe some else who has this simple factoid will.

Why is the specifc date that those "1965 Shelby Cobra" titles became fraudulent for Cobra replicas (Porsche Speedster and other replicas were affected too) relevant to the discussion? Let's assume your old Cobra replica was registered as a "1965 Shelby Cobra", it's still illegal TODAY and it's still a REPLICA.

Are you being evasive?

[RodKnock]

According to Robert Morgester:

"Today the California Attorney General’s office has filed two criminal complaints."

Date of post was November 2, 2007.

[fordracing65]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Why is the specifc date that those "1965 Shelby Cobra" titles became fraudulent for Cobra replicas (Porsche Speedster and other replicas were affected too) relevant to the discussion? Let's assume your old Cobra replica was registered as a "1965 Shelby Cobra", it's still illegal TODAY and it's still a REPLICA.

Are you being evasive?

I really like those Speedster replicas...

[Al G]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Replica and genuine are mutually exclusive in my world. Logic would tell me that a replica cannot be genuine. So clearly, to me, a modern Shelby Cobra is NOT genuine but a replica.

Have you actually looked at the definition of "genuine"? It does not exclude the possibility of a genuine replica.

[CSX4815]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

It is interesting to note that the title illustrated on the previous page purports to show the car was first registered in August of 1965. But by August '65, the only 427 Cobras up and running were full comp cars. And they weren't registered. There were 4 street cars in prototype stage, but they, too, weren't registered by 8/65. Lying on a title is one thing; making up dates that can be proven fraudulent is another entirely. And you still claim these as 1965 vehicles? Get real.

I wondered about that date too but who am I to question a Arizona state ADOT inspector. Also notice the value listed, $92,500 which was what he came up with as the final cost to finish when new in 2006. The car was inspected by an ADOT vehicle compliance inspector and he knew exactly what it was... a CSX 4000 Shelby continuation Cobra produced in the mid 2000's by Shelby Autos in Las Vegas. Very familiar with the Shelby brand and Shelby Cobras. He produced the paperwork that was used by the MVD office personnel that did the final paperwork. Never once claimed 4815 was produced other than in 2006. NEVER! No fraud here... just the way things are done in AZ.

All I did was show a copy of my AZ title as ask by a previous poster. I thought I would possibly get ripped by others on this forum and I have... Sometimes I really wonder about you guys here! Who are you to question and criticize how the state of Arizona does things compared to other states? I think you guys need to get real!

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Al G

Have you actually looked at the definition of "genuine"? It does not exclude the possibility of a genuine replica.

The Registry uses "true replica" too. But if you prefer "actual replica", "real replica" or "genuine replica" that's fine by me. It's still a copy or clone of the original and sounds to me like an oxymoron. But that's just my opinion.

[LMH]

Originally Posted by CSX4815

I wondered about that date too but who am I to question a Arizona state ADOT inspector. Also notice the value listed, $92,500 which was what he came up with as the final cost to finish when new in 2006. The car was inspected by an ADOT vehicle compliance inspector and he knew exactly what it was... a CSX 4000 Shelby continuation Cobra produced in the mid 2000's by Shelby Autos in Las Vegas. Very familiar with the Shelby brand and Shelby Cobras. He produced the paperwork that was used by the MVD office personnel that did the final paperwork. Never once claimed 4815 was produced other than in 2006. NEVER! No fraud here... just the way things are done in AZ.

All I did was show a copy of my AZ title as ask by a previous poster. I thought I would possibly get ripped by others on this forum and I have... Sometimes I really wonder about you guys here! Who are you to question and criticize how the state of Arizona does things compared to other states? I think you guys need to get real!

I agree. I've had owners from other states tell me that's fraud and my response is to have them call the AZ governor's office and tell them about it.
It really doesn't mean much outside the state as another state is still going to register a replica bought here as their rules apply. It also has to do with emissions standards for AZ. One thing that is bad about that is an original with a 67 model year has to pass emissions to be registered here. Not easy for a big block.
Larry