[Xack]

Evan, is your argument that technically you have an 'original' or 'real' because its made as a continuation from the originals, or is it a legal argument that because its a continuation that you have the legal right to call it 'real'? Then it can be simplified by your choice of word, being 'original' or 'real' and the legal or technical definition that word. Please decide so we can evaluate your position and conclude the dilemma. I can offer that you must decide because your car is not an 'original', because those are from the original production years 1964-1967 which your car is obviously not in that category.

Looking sharply at the facts, you may claim a technical or legal right. But since your car is a continuation, you cannot claim all of the above and be true to logic. In other words, you need to qualify your statements to have them be truthful. An example, "Technically my car is a 'real' cobra since it is a continuation" could be a true statement. "Legally I have a 'real' Cobra since Shelby America built the frame and body". The hard facts that you have a reproduction vehicle cannot be escaped. Furthermore, the only reason Shelby continued them was to capitalize on the growing reproduction market inspired by kit makers. Or... Just because I want to believe in Santa Clause does not produce reindeer poo on the roof.