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

[LMH]

Arizona assigns year for title based on the year stated on the MSO. That includes every manufacturer, Shelby, FFR, ERA Etc. My brothers FFR Coupe is titled as 1965 as was the roadster before it.
Larry

[fordracing65]

But not all with a CSX say Shelby, the 2 I saw did, not, I guess it varies state to state, my SPF did not say Shelby or SPF or Ford, my BMW says BMW on the title, with the year and model, would a CSX car with a 3000 number say SHELBY and FORD on the title..., is this a no??

[LMH]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

But not all with a CSX say Shelby, the 2 I saw did, not, I guess it varies state to state, my SPF did not say Shelby or SPF or Ford, my BMW says BMW on the title, with the year and model, would a CSX car with a 3000 number say SHELBY and FORD on the title..., is this a no??

I'm not sure. In the case of the originals, my guess is they said Shelby. I'll check next time I'm in PHX to work on CSX25XX.
Larry

[Got the Bug]

I wish I had time or interest to read this whole thread. As you were gentleman.

[cycleguy55]

I find it hilarious that some people on this thread seem to actually be putting weight into what is printed on the title, when that content is actually decided / administered in most cases by clerks who view automobiles as transportation appliances and who seem to decide on a whim what to use as descriptors. I doubt any court would decide this issue on the basis of what was printed on the title. While considering the title, the decision would depend upon other facts in evidence which would, arguably, carry far more weight.

As REAL 1 has previously stated, his car is a replica, along with other Continuation Cobras. It is also a genuine Shelby, as it was manufactured by Shelby American and, as Shelby has exclusive rights to the Cobra name, that makes it a genuine Shelby Cobra (replica) - though universally understood it is not an original. Some comments on this thread have implied some of these terms are mutually exclusive, when clearly they are not.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

I find it hilarious that some people on this thread seem to actually be putting weight into what is printed on the title, when that content is actually decided / administered in most cases by clerks who view automobiles as transportation appliances and who seem to decide on a whim what to use as descriptors. I doubt any court would decide this issue on the basis of what was printed on the title. While considering the title, the decision would depend upon other facts in evidence which would, arguably, carry far more weight.

As REAL 1 has previously stated, his car is a replica, along with other Continuation Cobras. It is also a genuine Shelby, as it was manufactured by Shelby American and, as Shelby has exclusive rights to the Cobra name, that makes it a genuine Shelby Cobra (replica) - though universally understood it is not an original. Some comments on this thread have implied some of these terms are mutually exclusive, when clearly they are not.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[REAL 1]

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.

Thanks for admitting your personal bias. It is patent. You say "copy", I say as does your Club and the Registry "Continuation" and genuine Cobra. Not an original series agreed 100% but a genuine Cobra none the less. Them there are the facts. No question the most coveted are the original series. Not arguing about that.

Hell, CSX 2001 was a copy of CSX 2000 and so forth and so on if we want to argue.

In fact I could make a very compelling argument that my CSX has more Shelby DNA than your COX.

[REAL 1]

The title on the previous page is clear erroneous. There is no way the car could have been titled first in 1965. Clearly. It should be corrected but dealing with DMV employees and "explaining" the anomaly in the CSX MSO would be a challenge at best.

So, now the insult of the day is "fruitcake".

Can't win with facts just hurl insults. 3 graders do it all the time.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

So, now the insult of the day is "fruitcake".

Everyone, let's not insult each other. We're adults who can debate the issue(s) without the nonsense. Thanks.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Everyone, let's not insult each other. We're adults who can debate the issue(s) without the nonsense. Thanks.

Well alright, already a self admitted "orange" so I didn't think it was that bad

Hi New Jersey DMV, I have a Shelby Continuation I would like to register here, how do I go about doing that?

It's pretty simple -
You call the NJ special titles division
You ask them to send you the "kit car package"
You follow the instructions
You trailer your car down to a specialty inspection station
You pass, you get registered

Cool! What will it be registered as?
It all depends on the clerk, it could be whatever you and the clerk decide. But our records will show it was registered using the kit car registration process.

AWESOME, thanks!

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Thanks for admitting your personal bias. It is patent. You say "copy", I say as does your Club and the Registry "Continuation".

Hell, CSX 2001 was a copy of CSX 2000 and so forth and so on if we want to argue.

In fact I could make a very compelling argument that my CSX has more Shelby DNA than your COX.

Evan, you persist in banging the same tired old drum. In a Cobra, Shelby DNA means nothing absent AC Cars DNA, other than to illustrate that the car must be a recreation. And the argument that anything following job #1 on an assembly line is a copy is hackneyed and trite. Surely you can do better. That your car is a copy is not being debated, but a copy of what? The recreation that preceded it.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

Evan, you persist in banging the same tired old drum. In a Cobra, Shelby DNA means nothing absent AC Cars DNA, other than to illustrate that the car must be a recreation. And the argument that anything following job #1 on an assembly line is a copy is hackneyed and trite. Surely you can do better. That your car is a copy is not being debated, but a copy of what? The recreation that preceded it.

Funny, the drum I am banging is the Registry drum published by your club and sold in the hundreds maybe "thousands"???. Your proposition holds true only for the original series Ned. Registry makes that crystal clear. No question my car copies the design and specification of the original series. It would have to to be a "Cobra" now wouldn't it and to continue the production in new series? It's not an original Ned. No debate there. No argument. Not arguing it is. Originals are still the most coveted and revered as they should be and I love the originals as without them and Carroll my second gen Shelby Cobra wouldn't exist. In fact neither would your COX. I am appreciative of that and as with most Continuation owners we revere the original cars and no one is trying to pass of Continuation Cobras as originals or muscle in on their territory. (well except maybe one guy in PA who is an aberration of Continuation owners) But give fair due and respect due that should be given. That respect is backed by the World Registry. That's all. The new Cobras help carry on the interest and love for the original series and make them more available to enthusiasts who can't afford the millions for an original series. I think this helps maintain values as it perpetuates interest in these cars.

Of course the illustration that anything following CSX2000 is a copy is hackneyed and trite. It was tongue and cheek there Ned.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

No question my car copies the design and specification of the original series. It would have to to be a "Cobra" now wouldn't it and to continue the production in new series?

Copy, clone, replica, imitation, reproduction, doesn't matter, but, it's NOT real, genuine or authentic. And WE ALL have Cobras, with a few exceptions like New York Guy.

If you want to use oxymorons like "true replica", "genuine replica", etc. then I'm OK with that. Doesn't make any logical sense, but whatever.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

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.

As jhv48 once said "The End."

[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

[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.