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

[Joe's Garage]

Sometimes, it just comes down to what somebody else has posted.

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Let's face facts, unless your car has a providence such as the following, it's a replica




Might I add, that you'll notice how it is invoiced as an "AC ACE" chassis with the CSX2032 chassis ID.

[ERANJ]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Sometimes, it just comes down to what somebody else has posted.

Yes let the facts speak for themselves an original ID tag for CSX3279 not an invoice to the manfacturer.

Not sure how to post a photo however the attached link to Canepa has an original VIN tag stating SAI as the manufacturer.

1967 Shelby Cobra 427_5075

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by ERANJ

Yes let the facts speak for themselves an original ID tag for CSX3279 not an invoice to the manfacturer.

Not sure how to post a photo however the attached link to Canepa has an original VIN tag stating SAI as the manufacturer.

1967 Shelby Cobra 427_5075

I imagine CSX3279 came off the AC invoice, and also was stamped on the chassis somewhere. Shelby did what he does so well, badged it as his own to sell in the US. Remember, Shelby was no saint when it comes to marketing his cars ...

In 1993 the Los Angeles Times exposed a Carroll Shelby scheme to "Counterfeit" his own cars. With the price of an original 427 c.i. Cobra skyrocketing, Shelby had, by his own written declaration executed under penalty of perjury, caused the California Department of Motor Vehicles (the government agency responsible for titling vehicles and issuing operator permits) to utter forty-three "Duplicate Titles" for vehicles that did not officially exist in company records. A letter from AC Cars confirmed the fact that the chassis numbers Shelby had obtained titles for were never manufactured, at least by AC Cars. Only fifty-five 427 c.i. Cobras had been originally produced out of a block of serial numbers reserved for 100 vehicles. Shelby had taken advantage of a loophole in the California system that allowed one to obtain a duplicate title for a vehicle only on a written declaration, without the vehicle identification number appearing in the DMV's database or the declarant ever presenting an actual vehicle for inspection. Shelby later admitted that the chassis had been manufactured in 1991 and '92 by McCluskey Ltd, an engineering firm in Torrance, California, and were not authentic AC chassis.

I'll side with the facts that AC provided Shelby a near complete car less engine and transmission which Shelby installed. I'll also side with historians who say the Cobra resulted from a collaborative effort between Ford, AC Cars Ltd and Shelby - all being contributors.

Evan, you love to say "It was CS and SAI that directed and requested the vast majority of changes to the chassis to get to the "Cobra" chassis." Please post a link that documents that information, as you know your credibility is highly suspect and this would be a good opportunity to improve on that perception.

[ERANJ]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

I imagine CSX3279 came off the AC invoice, and also was stamped on the chassis somewhere. Shelby did what he does so well, badged it as his own to sell in the US. Remember, Shelby was no saint when it comes to marketing his cars ...

In 1993 the Los Angeles Times exposed a Carroll Shelby scheme to "Counterfeit" his own cars. With the price of an original 427 c.i. Cobra skyrocketing, Shelby had, by his own written declaration executed under penalty of perjury, caused the California Department of Motor Vehicles (the government agency responsible for titling vehicles and issuing operator permits) to utter forty-three "Duplicate Titles" for vehicles that did not officially exist in company records. A letter from AC Cars confirmed the fact that the chassis numbers Shelby had obtained titles for were never manufactured, at least by AC Cars. Only fifty-five 427 c.i. Cobras had been originally produced out of a block of serial numbers reserved for 100 vehicles. Shelby had taken advantage of a loophole in the California system that allowed one to obtain a duplicate title for a vehicle only on a written declaration, without the vehicle identification number appearing in the DMV's database or the declarant ever presenting an actual vehicle for inspection. Shelby later admitted that the chassis had been manufactured in 1991 and '92 by McCluskey Ltd, an engineering firm in Torrance, California, and were not authentic AC chassis.

I'll side with the facts that AC provided Shelby a near complete car less engine and transmission which Shelby installed. I'll also side with historians who say the Cobra resulted from a collaborative effort between Ford, AC Cars Ltd and Shelby - all being contributors.

Evan, you love to say "It was CS and SAI that directed and requested the vast majority of changes to the chassis to get to the "Cobra" chassis." Please post a link that documents that information, as you know your credibility is highly suspect and this would be a good opportunity to improve on that perception.

I'll side with the facts that AC provided Shelby a near complete car less engine and transmission which Shelby installed. I'll also side with historians who say the Cobra resulted from a collaborative effort between Ford, AC Cars Ltd and Shelby - all being contributors.

Joe, to your logic underlined, you can draw the comparison between AC Cars (supplied/"manufactured" rollers to Shelby to install engine and trans to a dealer Shelby then to the customer. What is the distinction between SIA (supplying/manufacture) the near complete car to Bendeste for example. Does that make the CSX 3000 cars something different other than what the manfacture states it is, a kit to start and assembled by SAI? SAI manfactured the CSX4000/6000 which I see as a near car minus drive train based on emissions, etc. Aplogizes if this has already been covred in earlier threads.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

I imagine CSX3279 came off the AC invoice, and also was stamped on the chassis somewhere. Shelby did what he does so well, badged it as his own to sell in the US. Remember, Shelby was no saint when it comes to marketing his cars ...

In 1993 the Los Angeles Times exposed a Carroll Shelby scheme to "Counterfeit" his own cars. With the price of an original 427 c.i. Cobra skyrocketing, Shelby had, by his own written declaration executed under penalty of perjury, caused the California Department of Motor Vehicles (the government agency responsible for titling vehicles and issuing operator permits) to utter forty-three "Duplicate Titles" for vehicles that did not officially exist in company records. A letter from AC Cars confirmed the fact that the chassis numbers Shelby had obtained titles for were never manufactured, at least by AC Cars. Only fifty-five 427 c.i. Cobras had been originally produced out of a block of serial numbers reserved for 100 vehicles. Shelby had taken advantage of a loophole in the California system that allowed one to obtain a duplicate title for a vehicle only on a written declaration, without the vehicle identification number appearing in the DMV's database or the declarant ever presenting an actual vehicle for inspection. Shelby later admitted that the chassis had been manufactured in 1991 and '92 by McCluskey Ltd, an engineering firm in Torrance, California, and were not authentic AC chassis.

I'll side with the facts that AC provided Shelby a near complete car less engine and transmission which Shelby installed. I'll also side with historians who say the Cobra resulted from a collaborative effort between Ford, AC Cars Ltd and Shelby - all being contributors.

Evan, you love to say "It was CS and SAI that directed and requested the vast majority of changes to the chassis to get to the "Cobra" chassis." Please post a link that documents that information, as you know your credibility is highly suspect and this would be a good opportunity to improve on that perception.

Uh, I don't post links. I post facts and info from the World Registry. . I've read it have you?

You might learn something and not have to rely on what your anti Shelby gang post which for the most part is hooey anyway.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Uh, I don't post links. I post facts and info from the World Registry. . I've read it have you?

You might learn something and not have to rely on what your anti Shelby gang post which for the most part is hooey anyway.

No Evan, you post your own twisted interpretation of the Registry, and that's all you do. You have no verifiable facts outside of the registry you consistently misquote, no links to alternate sources to validate your statements, this is why your credibility is zero.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Sometimes, it just comes down to what somebody else has posted.

Yes, AC applied the Shelby VIN to their supplied component. So what is your point? It would be illegal for them to have applied anything else.

I'll bet when Multimatic makes the new Ford GT carbon fiber tubs for Ford they have a Ford VIN stamped in them too.

[Jamo]

Interesting...

No...they did not find 6 original frames out behind a building. They are making new cars using the reserved chassis numbers from the ones that were never built.

But they are being built in-house...complete vehicles...replicating most, but not all of the original specs of the original Lightweights.

Like I said...interesting.

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Interesting...

No...they did not find 6 original frames out behind a building. They are making new cars using the reserved chassis numbers from the ones that were never built.

But they are being built in-house...complete vehicles...replicating most, but not all of the original specs of the original Lightweights.

Like I said...interesting.

Cool, how are they being delivered and by whom?
Complete car, or not?

Complete - Then undeniably Jaguars (don't care if Ford own them - or if people define Jags as just glorified Fords)

NOT complete - as in needing engine, etc... then any owner passing theirs off as original 60s Jags would be subject to the same ridicule as those passing off other cars with history that they don't share.

The kit/car/dog/horse/whatever is NOT relevant.
Its the purposely contrived half truth, misleading, disingenuous behaviour that is the point. No?

If I had one of these and tried to tell everyone it was a bona fide 1960s Jag... seriously, what would you say?

[fordracing65]

Just trying to use Evans car as an example, that it's not REAL...

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Dimis

Cool, how are they being delivered and by whom?
Complete car, or not?

Complete - Then undeniably Jaguars (don't care if Ford own them - or if people define Jags as just glorified Fords)

NOT complete - as in needing engine, etc... then any owner passing theirs off as original 60s Jags would be subject to the same ridicule as those passing off other cars with history that they don't share.

The kit/car/dog/horse/whatever is NOT relevant.
Its the purposely contrived half truth, misleading, disingenuous behaviour that is the point. No?

If I had one of these and tried to tell everyone it was a bona fide 1960s Jag... seriously, what would you say?

Like I said...built in-house as complete vehicles (all running gear).

Guess the mail boat hasn't arrived down there yet...Ford hasn't owned Jaguar for more than a few years now.

Not sure what the six owners will receive in terms of pedigree and valuation. I recall a bit of a fuss when folks put down money for XJ220s and got a few cylinders less than what they bargained for.

Here's where I have difficulty...

Jaguar is building those six lovelies to nearly (but not completely) the same specs as the original Lightweights, and they will all be built the same way.

CSXs are completed by a variety of different folks, each lending their own take on the subject, whether they are dealer-"related" shops or even the end users themselves. Engine choice, while typically more common (427 SOs, but some are original iron while many are modern Shelby arruminum motors, or other arruminum engine mfgs, etc.) than other makes, still aren't standardized. then you have the matter of glass vs arruminum bodies, etc. and you start realizing that modern Shelby Cobras are somewhere between a blank canvass and a partial completed painting, while the Jags are completed paintings that are very close to the original masterworks, albeit on new canvas and using new paint applied by new brushes.

Let's compare the situation to watches (hehehe...). There are original Rolex Daytonas like the Paul Newmans, and then you have modern Daytonas with evolved movements and complications, and cases in precious metals rather than stainless steel, albeit still within the Rolex realm. Same with Heuer Monacos and the modern TAG Heuer Monacos with completely different movements.

Can you compare a modern Daytona with an original from the 60s? Closer to Shelby, given the different ownership/corporate entities, can you compare a modern Monaco with an original one like McQueen wore?

I personally don't think so, and the marketplace bears that out. Now, what do you call the modern versions?

Beats the sh** out of me. I know one thing...I own an original Kirkham of sufficient provenance to establish that it was the first widely-known customer BNL, and the first to have an arruminum scoop (rather than glass) to be used in an unpainted finish, and assolutely the very first with fat-ass interior modification pkg to fit my fat ass in it...akin to a Gurney bubble in my mind.

...and was test driven up Squaw's Peak by some crazy Polish-speaking Mormon kid while I was holding on for dear life looking over the cliff.

In other words, that's my Cobra...and if you love yours as much as I do mine, than you get it. But mine's better because it's mine.

[rodneym]

Originally Posted by Jamo

... and assolutely the very first with fat-ass interior modification pkg to fit my fat ass in it...akin to a Gurney bubble in my mind.

You mean the "Jamo bubbles"?
What does that do to the value?

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by rodneym

You mean the "Jamo bubbles"?
What does that do to the value?

Increases the hell out of it...I venture to say far beyond any increase derived from Evan's rivets, for example.

[twobjshelbys]

Then why does the MSO say 1965 Shelby cobra? I could give a rats ass about the people's Republic of california. If they had just said tax that blasted emissions hog and ypu could call it what you want.

I'm still waiting for a code violation citation for the issuance of a vin and mso.

Oh and you still haven't explained how my cobra had a title for 1965 Shelby cobra after Morgester's edict came down. Oh well.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Then why does the MSO say 1965 Shelby cobra? I could give a rats ass about the people's Republic of california. If they had just said tax that blasted emissions hog and ypu could call it what you want.

I'm still waiting for a code violation citation for the issuance of a vin and mso.

Oh and you still haven't explained how my cobra had a title for 1965 Shelby cobra after Morgester's edict came down. Oh well.

I'll let Ned speak to your question and let you do your own research. I'm not getting on your Merry-Go-Round From Hell" again :

Originally Posted by Nedsel

Regrettably, it is the Shelby organization that committed the fraud, not the buyers of their product. One has to wonder about marketing tactics that beg the law to look the other way so cars could be sold as something they clearly were not. And this is not a case of not being able to say nice things about my old friend Carroll - it's simply stating the facts.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I'll let Ned speak to your question and let you do your own research. I'm not getting on your Merry-Go-Round From Hell" again :

"let you do your own research" is an anachronism for "the answer doesn't fit my response tree and would disprove my claim" so unless and until you answer the question I will assume it would destroy your case. (I already know the answer, and it does).

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

"let you do your own research" is an anachronism for "the answer doesn't fit my response tree and would disprove my claim" so unless and until you answer the question I will assume it would destroy your case. (I already know the answer, and it does).

You can't seem to do any of your own research. I call that lazy. At least Evan does research, though he comes to the wrong conclusions.

Post your 10+/- year old CA title from your Mexican-built CSX that you no longer own. We haven't seen it yet.

If you can do it before you go to the Red Lobster buffet that would be great. Thanks.

[ERANJ]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

You can't seem to do any of your own research. I call that lazy. At least Evan does research, though he comes to the wrong conclusions.

Post your 10+/- year old CA title from your Mexican-built CSX that you no longer own. We haven't seen it yet.

If you can do it before you go to the Red Lobster buffet that would be great. Thanks.

Didn't think anyone on the site was anointed to claim someone is making the wrong conclusions. Difference in view/opinion but not wrong.

What does a CA title have to do with the discussion at hand and why not stick to the topic?

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Oh and you still haven't explained how my cobra had a title for 1965 Shelby cobra after Morgester's edict came down. Oh well.

No one cares about a car you sold 8 years ago Tony. You speak about it in the present tense, but you no longer own it. Let it go.

Read the Registry and go back 20-40 pages and look at Mr. Morgester's 2007 threads, which I posted for you. And anyway, you never even posted that infamous CA title that you claim to still have 8 years after you sold your CSX replica and registered it in another state.

I haven't explained how your old CSX replica got an illegal CA title? Seriously, I have to explain that to you? Oh, I don't know, maybe the CA owner committed fraud or maybe the DMV clerk made mistake. They've been known to make a few mistakes, including me in 2008 when registering my Kirkham. Does that work for you?

All of this off topic. As Ned said, "let's call a spade a spade." It's a replica!

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I haven't explained how your old CSX replica got an illegal CA title? Seriously, I have to explain that to you? Oh, I don't know, maybe the CA owner committed fraud or maybe the DMV clerk made mistake. They've been known to make a few mistakes, including me in 2008 when registering my Kirkham. Does that work for you?

None of the above. The title was issued AFTER the magic date, and the internal checks and balances would have prevented it had it been so. I checked before I bought it just to be sure. So once again. Bzzzzt.