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

[Al G]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

I don't know that the HST vs HiTech build was indicated on the car. I'm sure that SAI would have the info if you wanted to know.

I was trying to find my posts for when they went out of business. I was in Vegas with my car and the clutch was leaking badly. I went over to SAI and Gary Patterson and I talked with Jean Jaime about which supplier they used for the cylinders and that was in Sept 2010. So I think they ceased operation in the first half of 2011.

It was September 2010. My partially completed.vehicle was brought to Las Vegas when Shelby seized all their assets from HST. Sometime on October Shelby decided they couldn't finish my car and we ordered another from HiTech.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

The idea for Kirkham Motorsports started in 1994 with the mission to build the finest replicas in the world.
About

How does one "un-replica" a replica?

Simple. 14 years after that according to SAAC they did it so well and their supply of bodies and chassis to Shelby American analogous to AC in the 60s they are considered "Cobras" by SAAC and registered as such in the Registry not merely "replicas or kits" as defined by SAAC. Hey, they are the world recognized authority not me. For me its "what they said". I'm good with that.

Kirkham still does refer to their cars as "kits" for business purposes based on existing federal regulations. I know this from direct personal discussions. If the Federal legislation Tony speaks of is passed their reference by Kirkham to their own cars (masterful works of art) will likely change.

[LMH]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Simple. 14 years after that according to SAAC they did it so well and their supply of bodies and chassis to Shelby American analogous to AC in the 60s they are considered "Cobras" by SAAC and registered as such in the Registry not merely "replicas or kits" as defined by SAAC. Hey, they are the world recognized authority not me. For me its "what they said". I'm good with that.

Kirkham still does refer to their cars as "kits" for business purposes based on existing federal regulations. I know this from direct personal discussions. If the Federal legislation Tony speaks of is passed their reference by Kirkham to their own cars (masterful works of art) will likely change.

Not the same, keep history accurate. We've been over this before.
AC Cars Ltd did not supply SAI with bodies and chassis. In general terms for the CSX series cars, AC Cars sent SAI complete cars less engine and transmission assemblies. The cars were set up and engineered for the drivetrain in England but installed at SAI in the states. Cars had suspension, steering, brakes, wiring, wheels, tires, paint, interior, etc.
While Kirkham may supply current SA with bodies and chassis that are built into current CSX cars, it's not the same or similar to how the original cars were built.
Continue.
Larry

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by LMH

Not the same, keep history accurate. We've been over this before.
AC Cars Ltd did not supply SAI with bodies and chassis. In general terms for the CSX series cars, AC Cars sent SAI complete cars less engine and transmission assemblies. The cars were set up and engineered for the drivetrain in England but installed at SAI in the states. Cars had suspension, steering, brakes, wiring, wheels, tires, paint, interior, etc.
While Kirkham may supply current SA with bodies and chassis that are built into current CSX cars, it's not the same or similar to how the original cars were built.
Continue.
Larry

Not looking to get in the minutia. I didn't say "exact". You did. I said analogous which it is.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by LMH

Not the same, keep history accurate. We've been over this before.
AC Cars Ltd did not supply SAI with bodies and chassis. In general terms for the CSX series cars, AC Cars sent SAI complete cars less engine and transmission assemblies. The cars were set up and engineered for the drivetrain in England but installed at SAI in the states. Cars had suspension, steering, brakes, wiring, wheels, tires, paint, interior, etc.
While Kirkham may supply current SA with bodies and chassis that are built into current CSX cars, it's not the same or similar to how the original cars were built.
Continue.
Larry

Sounds to me like the current CSX cars are true-replicas of the AC Cars exported to Shelby - right down to being complete cars less engine and transmission. It's a subtle distinction to make, but if one is going to be accurate, the current CSX cars do not replicate a "finished" Shelby Cobra, they replicate the nearly completed AC Cobras from England. Same general "assembly process", followed by a different company 30 years later, with a different body & chassis supplier, and where the "buyer" versus "Shelby" completes the car with engine and transmission.

Make sense?

Evan, know that your reply will go directly to the circular file, I'm looking for a credible response to this reasoning.

[Nedsel]

So, fifty pages later, it boils down to the definition of "replica" in the dictionary - "an exact copy or model of something" - versus a paragraph in the 2008 SAAC Registry explaining that many different copies of the "Cobra" had been built that were really nothing like the original, yet they were still considered "replicas" in peoples' minds. So, as stated in the registry: "This left the true replicas - like Shelby's CSX 4000s - to come up with another name to describe themselves. Because he did not want his cars devalued by using the term 'replica,' Shelby chose "Component Cobra." And the MSO - Manufacturer's Statement of Origin - for a CSX 4xxx-series car states that is is sold without an engine or transmission, so in fact it is a component car, i.e. sold incomplete.

It would appear to me that each of these factors suggests the real argument should be "Why does every thread devolve into a Component vs. Replica argument?"

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

So, fifty pages later, it boils down to the definition of "replica" in the dictionary - "an exact copy or model of something" - versus a paragraph in the 2008 SAAC Registry explaining that many different copies of the "Cobra" had been built that were really nothing like the original, yet they were still considered "replicas" in peoples' minds. So, as stated in the registry: "This left the true replicas - like Shelby's CSX 4000s - to come up with another name to describe themselves. Because he did not want his cars devalued by using the term 'replica,' Shelby chose "Component Cobra." And the MSO - Manufacturer's Statement of Origin - for a CSX 4xxx-series car states that is is sold without an engine or transmission, so in fact it is a component car, i.e. sold incomplete.

It would appear to me that each of these factors suggests the real argument should be "Why does every thread devolve into a Component vs. Replica argument?"

Cute. Again someone taking quotes out of context and in this case statements that only partially state what the Registry says. From a Registrar no less. I think you need to read more closely and maybe stick with classifying originals as "original", "original restored", "reconstructed" etc...and stick with the "Websters" deifinition of "replica" as used in your Clubs Registry. Perhaps your not familiar with the Webster's definition they utilized? See page 30 of the Registry. I'm sure you have one. There are numerous references in your club's Registry that make it clear the Continuation Cobras are not "replicas" and considered authentic Cobras.

Oh, btw, luckily Shelby's didn't continue production from 1968 onward or the "continued" production of 3000 cars would be "kits" under most DMV definitions and dictionary definitions. Imagine that.

Carroll chose the word "component" as it was needed to adhere to all the current Federal safety regulations and but of that need would not have used or chosen that term. See page 708 if you need help.

I'm good with "Current production Cobras" as defined in the Registry.

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Cute. Again someone taking quotes out of context and in this case statements that only partially state what the Registry says. From a Registrar no less. I think you need to read more closely and maybe stick with classifying originals as "original", "original restored", "reconstructed" etc...and stick with the "Websters" deifinition of "replica" as used in your Clubs Registry. Perhaps your not familiar with the Webster's definition they utilized? See page 30 of the Registry. I'm sure you have one. There are numerous references in your club's Registry that make it clear the Continuation Cobras are not "replicas" and considered authentic Cobras.

Oh, btw, luckily Shelby's didn't continue production from 1968 onward or the "continued" production of 3000 cars would be "kits" under most DMV definitions and dictionary definitions. Imagine that.

Carroll chose the word "component" as it was needed to adhere to all the current Federal safety regulations and but of that need would not have used or chosen that term. See page 708 if you need help.

I'm good with "Current production Cobras" as defined in the Registry.

I'm taking nothing out of context nor giving partial statements. Go read the CSX 4000 Component car paragraph on page 708 again, which explains the CSX 4xxx series cars and why the registry chooses to refer to them as component cars. It's clear as it can be. Quote: "He did not want his cars devalued by using the term replica." Calling them component cars "suited his need to explain (mostly to various dmv authorities) that these cars were only components of a completed car - not the completed car itself, which would be required to adhere to all sorts of current stringent governmental safety regulations." So the choice was made to circumvent the dmv regulations.

And no matter how hard you may try to connect the original Cobras with your later replica, it can't be done. The originals were sold as complete cars through Ford dealers, not as component or kit cars. Imagining what might have happened if Shelby had continued production past 1968 is a meaningless exercise, but one that lawyers have become quite adept at.

It is apparent that if someone were to point out that your car is black, you would argue that it is charcoal; you twist things to suit your purpose. Call a CSX 4xxx a "current production Cobra" all you like. Just don't lump it in with the originals.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

I'm taking nothing out of context nor giving partial statements. Go read the CSX 4000 Component car paragraph on page 708 again, which explains the CSX 4xxx series cars and why the registry chooses to refer to them as component cars. It's clear as it can be. Quote: "He did not want his cars devalued by using the term replica." Calling them component cars "suited his need to explain (mostly to various dmv authorities) that these cars were only components of a completed car - not the completed car itself, which would be required to adhere to all sorts of current stringent governmental safety regulations." So the choice was made to circumvent the dmv regulations.

And no matter how hard you may try to connect the original Cobras with your later replica, it can't be done. The originals were sold as complete cars through Ford dealers, not as component or kit cars. Imagining what might have happened if Shelby had continued production past 1968 is a meaningless exercise, but one that lawyers have become quite adept at.

It is apparent that if someone were to point out that your car is black, you would argue that it is charcoal; you twist things to suit your purpose. Call a CSX 4xxx a "current production Cobra" all you like. Just don't lump it in with the originals.

So the truth again slips out. You don't want the Continuation Cobra connected to the originals. That was patently clear from you in the past and now. However, not you or anyone can take away the connection that does exist. Unfortunately for you they are connected, i.e. same manufacturer/company issuing a Shelby Cobra for sale separated by a period of years. Fact. In fact, not you or even your club can change that fact. Your club's Registry connects them to the extent they are connected and appropriately so. Deal with it. The facts are changing on that score.

You again run your colors up the mast by referring to my "replica" when your club's registry doesn't consider my car a "replica". In fact some aluminum Continuation values are not far off from your "COB's". Further, Continuation Cobras have more Shelby DNA and are more "genuine" Cobras than some rebodied originals and especially some "reconstructed" Originals. That must really irk you.

I've read page 708. Yes, CS had to describe them as "component" cars to circumvent federal regulations in order to sell a genuine spec Cobra. No way to manufacture or sell such a car today. Tell me you don't understand that. Now you go read page 29-31 to start.

I have twisted nothing. The Registry is very very clear. You are the one "twisting" to suit your purpose. You know damn well what the Registry says in multiple places regarding the fact the Continuation series are not considered replicas or kit cars and are in fact considered authentic Shelby Cobras. You just don't like it. Oh, well. Sit with your buddies on the committee and re-do it to say what you want it to say. No problem. Re-write it. Won't change the facts. Retracting logical, rational and factually correct statements and positions should do wonders for SAAC's credibility. However, it should make you feel better personally.

Oh, BTW your club took the position that the continuation Cobras were genuine Cobras just as the originals except separated by date of manufacture at least as early as 2004 a good 4 years before the litigation you claim occurred between CS and SAAC resulting in SAAC "taking liberties". What a bunch of hooey.

Don't worry about me "lumping" Continuation Cobras in with Originals. I stick to the facts. Why don't you stop lumping Continuation Cobras as "replicas" and stick to the Registry. I would think a registrar for SAAC would back his club's Registry viewed as a world wide authoritative text and the Club's statements instead of grinding his own personal axe to protect his own turf.

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

So the truth again slips out. You don't want the Continuation Cobra connected to the originals. That was patently clear from you in the past and now. However, not you or anyone can take away the connection that does exist. Unfortunately for you they are connected, i.e. same manufacturer/company issuing a Shelby Cobra for sale separated by a period of years. Fact. In fact, not you or even your club can change that fact. Your club's Registry connects them to the extent they are connected and appropriately so. Deal with it. The facts are changing on that score.

You again run your colors up the mast by referring to my "replica" when your club's registry doesn't consider my car a "replica". In fact some aluminum Continuation values are not far off from your "COB's". Further, Continuation Cobras have more Shelby DNA and are more "genuine" Cobras than some rebodied originals and especially some "reconstructed" Originals. That must really irk you.


I would think a registrar for SAAC would back his club's Registry viewed as a world wide authoritative text and the Club's statements instead of grinding his own personal axe to protect his own turf.

Evan, I don't link the current Cobras to the originals because, apart from their appearance and their use of the Shelby name, they aren't connected. AC Cars did not build them and they are far from exact copies. You say they are from the same manufacturer, and I ask - do you really understand what the F you are talking about? It's the same in name only, with different players, different manufacturing methods, and a different corporate structure. Same manufacturer? Only a fool would argue that. But if the shoe fits ...

As for my referring to your car as a replica, you read the definitions on one page, but fail to comprehend the bigger picture on the other pages that specifically deal with the CSX 4xxx cars. Such as SAAC's note on page 707 that explained how Shelby would compete with the other replica manufacturers directly "by building and selling a Cobra replica of his own." Charitably, SAAC decided to label the new Shelby cars as something other than replicas simply to differentiate them from other recreations that were already referred to as replicas, since Shelby was building them. Note that they also state the 4000-series cars were "built to more or less original 427 Cobra S/C standards." Still want to insist they are connected?

And don't make me laugh by mistaking exactly who is "grinding his own personal axe to protect his turf." All of us know that refers to YOU.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Unfortunately for you they are connected, i.e. same manufacturer/company issuing a Shelby Cobra for sale separated by a period of years. Fact.

The Registry is very very clear.

Yes, the Registry is clear. And you're wrong again. You obviously haven't read the Registry and then you have the audacity to tell others, like Ned and I, that we haven't.

The company isn't the same as the company in the 1960's. In the late 1990's, Shelby American experienced difficulties, aka, cash flow problems. A company called Venture Industries purchased 75% (A MAJORITY STAKE) of Shelby American. Shelby retained 25% and was able to continue production of the CSX4000 replicas. The new company name was Shelby Automobiles. The cash infusion also helped the Series 1 production. And around 2003, the new company went public as CSBI, Carroll Shelby International.

So STOP saying it's the same company. It's not. Read page 710. And the gap in production was from roughly 1965-1995 or 30 years.

Different materials, different companies, 30-year gap and they're sold as kits, not complete legal and register-able cars like in 1965. Not genuine, not authentic, not a real Shelby. REPLICA!

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

And no matter how hard you may try to connect the original Cobras with your later replica, it can't be done. The originals were sold as complete cars through Ford dealers, not as component or kit cars. Imagining what might have happened if Shelby had continued production past 1968 is a meaningless exercise, but one that lawyers have become quite adept at.

He just writes these grand dissertations and hopes people believe his line of BS. I hope others don't fall for his make-believe world.

Originally Posted by REAL 1

-SAAC issues statement sometime near and prior to 2004 stating their position. LONG before litigation SAAC has with Shelby in 2008. Statement makes clear that second series are genuine Cobras but not part of original series. Only difference between original Shelby and current production is years of manufacture. They are not considered "replicas" by SAAC as that term has now been misused and now commonly understood.
-SAAC 4th Edition of World Registry carries that statement position forward in 2008/9 and further explains common misuse of term "replica" as defined by Websters. SAAC acknowledges the widespread misuse and incorrect meaning now commonly used but says can't put the "toothpaste back in the tube". Point being non Shelbys are not "replicas" but merely cars that look like Cobras but really not. A "bootleg" to use a euphemism. SAAC notes that technically only the continuation Cobras are "replicas" i.e. true replicas as defined by Websters, i.e. an item or work reissued by the original artist or maker.

There are no facts, other than your car is not 1 of the 998. You're just dazzling everyone with BS. Pure supposition about the events of a decade ago. You weren't there and Ned was. And Ned said "certain liberties were taken" with the Registry. He contributed to writing it and you didn't.

The point is not what happened a decade ago, even though you're making S up, but what's happening today. And today, the SAAC website has been revised to eliminate any words like genuine, real, or authentic as it relates to the Shelby replica. You can live in the past, but SAAC will revise/delete the Shelby replicas from the 5th Edition of the World Registry. I can't wait.

And the current Registry also calls the Shelby replica "Cobra like" and a "true replica." It's all there in black and white.

You have a genuine Shelby REPLICA.

BTW, I love the line where you say, and I'm paraphrasing, "if the genuine 998 weren't built today, then they would be kits cars." Hey, instead, why not say "if the AMC Gremlin were built today, then it would be a kit car." Wow, that's got to be one of the funniest BS you've ever spewed out here on the forum.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

He just writes these grand dissertations and hopes people believe his line of BS. I hope others don't fall for his make-believe world.



There are no facts, other than your car is not 1 of the 998. You're just dazzling everyone with BS. Pure supposition about the events of a decade ago. You weren't there and Ned was. And Ned said "certain liberties were taken" with the Registry. He contributed to writing it and you didn't.

The point is not what happened a decade ago, even though you're making S up, but what's happening today. And today, the SAAC website has been revised to eliminate any words like genuine, real, or authentic as it relates to the Shelby replica. You can live in the past, but SAAC will revise/delete the Shelby replicas from the 5th Edition of the World Registry. I can't wait.

And the current Registry also calls the Shelby replica "Cobra like" and a "true replica." It's all there in black and white.

You have a genuine Shelby REPLICA.

BTW, I love the line where you say, and I'm paraphrasing, "if the genuine 998 weren't built today, then they would be kits cars." Hey, instead, why not say "if the AMC Gremlin were built today, then it would be a kit car." Wow, that's got to be one of the funniest BS you've ever spewed out here on the forum.

Yes, we know your position. I'm not getting on your merry go round from hell.

You again have not read or comprehended what I have said. Can't waste my time responding to you. It's futile.

[Joe's Garage]

I'm good with Component Cobra, let the Shelby's be Component Cobras.
I'm also good with Kirkham building the finest Cobra replicas in the world

[JBCOBRA]

.....but the majority of your car was built in an old MIG factory. This is correct?
Hey they have Serious skills....

[Xack]

Evan, is your argument that technically you have an 'original' or 'real' because its made as a continuation from the originals, or is it a legal argument that because its a continuation that you have the legal right to call it 'real'? Then it can be simplified by your choice of word, being 'original' or 'real' and the legal or technical definition that word. Please decide so we can evaluate your position and conclude the dilemma. I can offer that you must decide because your car is not an 'original', because those are from the original production years 1964-1967 which your car is obviously not in that category.

Looking sharply at the facts, you may claim a technical or legal right. But since your car is a continuation, you cannot claim all of the above and be true to logic. In other words, you need to qualify your statements to have them be truthful. An example, "Technically my car is a 'real' cobra since it is a continuation" could be a true statement. "Legally I have a 'real' Cobra since Shelby America built the frame and body". The hard facts that you have a reproduction vehicle cannot be escaped. Furthermore, the only reason Shelby continued them was to capitalize on the growing reproduction market inspired by kit makers. Or... Just because I want to believe in Santa Clause does not produce reindeer poo on the roof.

[Joe's Garage]

Shelby chose "Component Cobra" to describe the CSX4000 cars and this is documented in the SAAC World Registry - considered to be the definitive authority on the Shelby Cobra.

There is no mystery on how we should refer to these cars now. Do not call them "replicas", there is proper etiquette to be followed. If you see a CSX4000/6000 series car you really like, by all means tell the owner they have a beautiful Shelby Component Cobra.

[Joe's Garage]

Thanks Jamo, no offense taken, Joe Pedestrian also thanks you

[Buzz]

If Shelby had continued Cobra production much beyond 1968, the cars would have evolved into something quite different from the originals, in order to meet changing federal standards. Quite likely, they would have morphed into something like the Series1 or the first generation Viper, which - like it or not - sort of fit with Shelby's vision of what a "modern day" Cobra would look like. They would have been called Shelby Cobras, but there would probably still be people wanting to build replicas of the original 60's cars.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Buzz

If Shelby had continued Cobra production much beyond 1968, the cars would have evolved into something quite different from the originals, in order to meet changing federal standards. Quite likely, they would have morphed into something like the Series1 or the first generation Viper, which - like it or not - sort of fit with Shelby's vision of what a "modern day" Cobra would look like. They would have been called Shelby Cobras, but there would probably still be people wanting to build replicas of the original 60's cars.

Well, you likely are right. However, I was speaking hypothetically. Further, Shelby was known to have said he wanted to get out of the car business at that time because he did not want to compromise based on federal regulations. Very simply at some point we know he decided to in fact continue production of the Cobra as it was. What if he made the decision not to stop the 3000 series in 1968? His cars would have been "kits" at some point in order to circumvent federal regs.