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

[Dangerous Doug]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Putting aside that fact that a Shelby fiberglass replica body is not aluminum and is further away from the 998, I'll add that the Kirkham/CSX aluminum bodies have thicker aluminum, the steel used in chassis is different, the brakes and suspension aren't OEM, no orignal Halibrand magnesium wheels, exhaust, interior materials, etc. are all facsimiles, engines and transmissions but for a very select few aren't properly date coded, etc. Kirkham builds them, not AC or Shelby (who cares about the subcontractor parallels), maybe some OEM wiring and switches might be used, so what. In reality none of us own anything even that close to the 998.

So it more than just the gap of 30-50 years, it's that the materials aren't OEM/NOS or even real close reproductions in nearly all cases.

Salient point. The materials are not even the same in an absolute sense. So, there are material core differences between the "real" and replica/continuation Cobras.

That being said, I am mighty proud of my ERA 289 FIA Cobra. I would be equally proud of a Kirkham, or a Shelby continuation. If I had a Shelby continuation I would think it was pretty damn cool to have a small part of the Shelby legacy---and I would have paid dearly for it. The cat's meow, though, would be to own a Vintage Cobra from the Cobra's 60's heyday.

People look at vintage cars of any make differently than other cars. Perhaps it's because they are looking at a survivor of time, or perhaps it's the history that the vintage car represents. Either way, there is something extraordinary about "vintage".

So, call your continuation Cobra's real if you want---just don't misrepresent them as vintage.
DD