[Nedsel]

It would be a reasonable bet that everyone on the CC website has their personal preferences with respect to what type, brand, version, and/or build-date is their favorite. And none of us should begrudge anyone else their choices.

It probably should not be surprising that my preference happens to be the original cars that were built in the 60's. They're the ones I know best, as they're the ones I followed in the process of attempting to grow up, and they are the ones that I have studied over the decades. But the fact that these represent the ultimate to me does not mean I lack an appreciation for other cars that are identified as Cobras. Yes, some examples are more faithful to the original design, specs, and personality than others, and anyone who appreciates the brand could easily make up their own list of the ones they like in a descending order of qualities they either possess or lack. But that's not my call nor my purpose.

I appreciate a faithful copy of the original cars as much as the next guy. I do, however, pay particular attention to the manner in which the cars are described. It should not surprise anyone who reads this forum that I am not a subscriber to the popular belief, supported by SEMA and others, that a car should be identified as "the car it most closely resembles." Nope. If you have constructed a replica of a '32 Deuce Coupe, tell us that. Don't say it's a 1932 Ford if literally nothing on the car was built by FoMoCo. And it's the same with Cobras. If you have a perfect alloy-bodied, round-chassis tubed Cobra that was built in 2007, please do not tell us that it is a 1965 Cobra. It is NOT. It is a 2007 clone, copy, recreation, replica or whatever of a 1965 Cobra.

Is this so unreasonable?