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

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Very simply the current Registry is accurate and correct in it's analysis and definitions.

Sure page 30 separates the definition of a "Kit Car or Replica" from the Shelby and Kirkham, but the definition of "Kit Car or Replica" actually fits the Shelby and Kirkham replicas quite well, the definition being "Any car with a body which approximates the original Cobra shape..."

The Kirkham and Shelby replicas fit this definition nicely too.

But, there's more...

Page 708 states "This left true replicas-like Shelby's CSX4000's-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'. This separated his cars from all the rest, the riff-raff..."

Or how about page 23 "...presently there are more Cobra-like vehicles being built, some built by Carroll Shelby himself..."

And later on the same page (page 23): "Any type of Cobra-like vehicle, from CSX3000 completion cars to the CSX 4000/7000/8000 component Cobras, to AC MKIVs. to Kirkham Cobras..."

There, I'll quote chapter and verse, since you NEVER do. Skewed my a$$. There's enough references to Shelby and his replicas or Cobra-like cars than you care to admit.

Originally Posted by REAL 1

In the end, my title clearly says what it is and so does my id chassis plate. I don't need anyone else or any other club or organization to tell me what it is.

Originally Posted by REAL 1

As far as how California or any state claaaifys any of these cars is completely valueless to the issue.

I only mentioned title classifications, because seemed to get some level of satisfaction that your state classifies your car as a Shelby Cobra. WhoopDeeDoo! Shelby Cobra replicas owners in CA gets their cars classified as SPCNS. WhoopDeeDoo! States can call them chimpanzees, if all I care, doesn't make it anything but a replica.