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

[JoeT]

Originally Posted by Thor maine

Real-1, 1/3 for all to ponder. If Harley-Davidson went out of business and forty years later a member of the Davidson family started a motorcycle company and made a almost exact copy of a bike that was made forty years ago, would you say that motorcycle is a authentic, real, genuine Harley Davidson??? Or would you say that it was 1/2 a authentic, real, genuine Harley Davidson???

Indian is a great example of this. 1901-1953 Indians are the Indian motorcycles people think of when they are talking about the brand

In '55 they became Royal Enfields with an Indian name tag

in the late 60's to late 70's Clymer was importing them, mostly mini bikes

some guy owned the name from late 70's - late 90's. I'm not sure if they ever produced a bike for market

in 99-'03 CMC was producing Harley knock offs with an indian nametag

05?-11 an English company was making more Harley knock offs

Almost (I'm sure someone owns one and thinks differently)no one thinks of bikes made from 55-'11 as "real Indians"

Jump ahead to 2013 and Indian is owned by Polaris, and they're making GREAT Bikes under that brand name.

But to side with Real1, these Polaris built Indians seem to be considered "real" but they are certainly not being considered original. I wonder if somewhere on an Indian Forum people are having this same debate