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

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by ERANJ

I had not looked at the earlier post on the Challenger analogy but was looking at the parallels. As a hypothetical, if Dodge manufactured the chassis in 2015 (original manfactures, components, etc., is not relevant) and for argument sake offered the rolling car without the engine because they offered an OTC 426 Hemi for the customer to install it would be a kit or replica? I'm not disputing the warrantee, etc. but don't see how you can call it a replica based on the emission requirements. Who dictates that as a replica even more so with the MSO, Challenger VIN sequence? Based on your logic I see the Challenger and Shelby as geniune, authentic, whatever term you make like to state but not a replica. It's a product that was made by the manufacturer.

Since it's not original, it must be a replica. Only the original can be genuine or authentic. Anything built later will clone or replicate the original. You can call it a genuine replica or true replica, if you must, but it's an oxymoron.

The VIN sequence is meaningless, since even CSBI will producing the "competition" ("Resurrection") replicas with leftover CSX3000 numbers. These are replicas as well and the sequence will follow the original CSX3000 series cars. Also, modern cars use 17-digit VIN #'s, which weren't used in the mid-1960's.

Further the Shelby replica uses different components. So it's not an exact replica. As one example, the Shelby replica uses a thicker Kirkham body (0.059" vs. 0.500") and today's aluminum has a different metallurgical content than the mid-1960's. Also, Kirkham has automated the metal shaping and cutting process beyond even what they used to build my Kirkham in 2007.

Seriously, many pages ago, I summarized all the analogies used to prove the Shelby isn't a replica. We talked about Van Halen & Journey bands touring without their original lead singers, The Car Manufacturer Analogy (above), Watches (Rolexes), and several others.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Since it's not original, it must be a replica. Only the original can be genuine or authentic. Anything built later will clone or replicate the original. You can call it a genuine replica or true replica, if you must, but it's an oxymoron.

Maybe if you would expand your vocabulary a little bit. Add Continuation to it.

The VIN sequence is meaningless, since even CSBI will producing the "competition" ("Resurrection") replicas with leftover CSX3000 numbers. These are replicas as well and the sequence will follow the original CSX3000 series cars. Also, modern cars use 17-digit VIN #'s, which weren't used in the mid-1960's.

So, how about those Jaguars? Go ahead, try to convince Jag that they are making "replicas". If it works here, it has to work there too.

Further the Shelby replica uses different components. So it's not an exact replica....

So how about those Jaguars?

[fordracing65]

So, how about those Jaguars? Go ahead, try to convince Jag that they are making "replicas". If it works here, it has to work there too.


So how about those Jaguars?[/quote]

I thought the reproduction E type was from the original run in which 6 cars were uncompleted and Jag vowed to finish which they did, I don't believe they got the bodies from Kirkham, I could be wrong...were the Jags not 6 cars from the original run ,like the original 900 Cobras???

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

So, how about those Jaguars? Go ahead, try to convince Jag that they are making "replicas". If it works here, it has to work there too.


So how about those Jaguars?

[some quoting imbalance adjusted]

I thought the reproduction E type was from the original run in which 6 cars were uncompleted and Jag vowed to finish which they did, I don't believe they got the bodies from Kirkham, I could be wrong...were the Jags not 6 cars from the original run ,like the original 900 Cobras???

Oh that's funny, but maybe that is all this is about.

So please explain, precisely and succintly, what that has to do with the price of tea in China? You may use long words if you choose.

I think if you uttered "reproduction" in the hypothetical meeting I mentioned above the results would be the same.

Does it reeally hurt that much to use the word "continuation". Come on, try it. You won't die.

[fordracing65]

I googled reproduction Jag and it tells the story of how Jag had 6 e-type cars from the original run of cars unfinished, so they went ahead and completed them, are you comparing these Jags as the same as Evans Cobra, LOL , come on man...

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

I googled reproduction Jag and it tells the story of how Jag had 6 e-type cars from the original run of cars unfinished, so they went ahead and completed them, are you comparing these Jags as the same as Evans Cobra, LOL , come on man...

You really don't get it and I'm no longer willing to try to explain. It has nothing to do with evans car and if you think this whole thing is about Evan then it's hopeless.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Maybe if you would expand your vocabulary a little bit. Add Continuation to it.


So, how about those Jaguars? Go ahead, try to convince Jag that they are making "replicas". If it works here, it has to work there too.


So how about those Jaguars?

If they're not one of the original Lightweights and built in the 1960's, built 50 years later, then they're a replica. A genuine or true replica, maybe, if you prefer an oxymoron. Seems like such an easy concept to understand. Cloning like Dolly The Sheep. Baaaa!

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

If they're not one of the original Lightweights and built in the 1960's, built 50 years later, then they're a replica. A genuine or true replica, maybe, if you prefer an oxymoron. Seems like such an easy concept to understand. Cloning like Dolly The Sheep. Baaaa!

Go ahead play that distorted logic at jaguar. Let us know how it works out.

"Oh im trying sob to diminish and reduce sob Shelby continuation sob cobras to literal rubble sob and I have eliminated sob continuation from my terms and vocabulary sob please don't sob use that word any more sob."

I'd like to be on the conference call.

Let us know how that works out.

Isn't this fun?

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Go ahead play that distorted logic at jaguar. Let us know how it works out.

"Oh im trying sob to diminish and reduce sob Shelby continuation sob cobras to literal rubble sob and I have eliminated sob continuation from my terms and vocabulary sob please don't sob use that word any more sob."

I'd like to be on the conference call.

Let us know how that works out.

Isn't this fun?

Distorted logic? Puh-leeze. Stop. If you're copying something built 50 years earlier, then it's a replica. That is logic. No distortions. Like Dolly The Sheep. Baaa!

As for speaking with Jaguar, I'd tell them exactly that. It's a replica.

One quote that I try to live by. "Live. Fate loves the fearless."

[jhv48]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Maybe if you would expand your vocabulary a little bit. Add Continuation to it.


So, how about those Jaguars? Go ahead, try to convince Jag that they are making "replicas". If it works here, it has to work there too.


So how about those Jaguars?

According to Motor Trend Magazine, the remaining 6 Jaguars are constructed exactly as the originals. Same welds, same frame, same parts, same factory, same rivets. Every detail is an exact copy of the originals. So a comparison to the modern Shelby cobra is a moot point.
And, the remaining 6 are referred to as continuation cars. Not originals, continuations.
Now, as to how the owners of one of these continuation cars refers to his car remains to be seen. It is an EXACT copy of the original, indistinguishable from an original.