Rick Kopec's "What's Your Beef?"

[RodKnock]

Since Mr. Kopec doesn't post over here, I thought I would add it to this thread for all on Club Cobra to read.

Mr. Kopec was responding to the following question:

Question: "So would you consider using the term replica for any non-original Cobra?

Could any of these be considered a replica?
- A Brian Angliss reconstructed car, like the Cosby twin paxton car?
- A CSX30xx completion car?
- A really accurate copy made from a Kirkham or an Aluminum CSX4000 with original suspension, girling brakes, etc."

Mr. Kopec's answer follows:

"It's all a matter of semantics. To quote a great American, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." We use labels as shorthand to identify a particular type of car. When someone says "original Cobra" there is no question they are referring to a CSX2000 or a CSX3000 car. It’s easier than trotting out a laundry list of characteristics that a car has to have to be considered an original Cobra (e.g. built between 1961 and 1967 by AC Cars Ltd. under a contract by Shelby American, completed by the factory or one of its authorized representatives, and sold in that time frame by the factory or a franchised dealer). It’s like shorthand.

Where the rub comes in is, who decides which labels are accurate? Anyone can call a car anything they want. This is why Cobra replicas are often referred to differently (replica, kit car, clone, fake, reproduction, knock-off, copy-cat, etc.). Some people (owners mostly, who have a dog in the hunt) prefer some descriptions more than others and feel some labels may be disparaging or prejudicial to their car. They are entitled to their feelings, but just "feeling" doesn't make anyone else right or wrong. Mostly this is determined by common usage. For fiberglass-bodied cars like the ERA, Contemporary, Factory 5, etc. Cobra replica or replica Cobra seems to have become the coin on the realm.

But when you move on to aluminum-bodied cars with the same tube frame and sub-framing as the originals (Autokraft MK IV, Kirkham, CSX4000, etc) Cobra replica doesn’t seem to fit as precisely. This is mostly because that terfm has been used so often to refer to fiberglass bodied “kit cars.” So it becomes less accurate when referring to these cars, which are more closely made to original specifications. Naturally, in the name of accuracy, people want to use something else. But what, exactly? It’s a good question. And it probably has many answers. Mostly, whether you like it or not, it will come down to what the common usage is.

Personally, I subscribe to the “Kill’ em all and let God sort ‘em out” philosophy. I call them all Cobra because that’s what they look like. Then to differentiate between them I attach an adjective. Kind of like a genus and species in zoology. Original needs no explanation; when you say “original Cobra” there is no question what you are talking about. And Replica has come to describe the fiberglass bodied kit car genre. CSX4000, Kirkham and AC MK IV are all pretty descriptive when added to “Cobra” so I don’t see the need to find some kind of catch-all term that will fit them all. You can’t do it with one word anyway.

The question of semantics is an interesting one but you can get too wrapped up in it and pretty soon you’re debating how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin."

One of my favorite lines of all time from our former President. Great line.

Does he address fiberglass CSX4000's? Does it matter?