CSX 6000 at Barrett-Jackson

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by computerworks

That's pretty much convention when talking about any replica....using the year it replicates.
You see it all the time with fiberglas street rods listed as "'32 Ford," etc.

When people ask me what year my car is I tell them it is a Cobra replica built in 04. I feel like it would be dishonest to say 1965, when it was not built in 65.

So if they list a CSX 6000 as a 1965 because it replicates a 1965 Cobra does that mean it's a Replica...

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by SP01715

So if they list a CSX 6000 as a 1965 because it replicates a 1965 Cobra does that mean it's a Replica...

...of course it does. It certainly wasn't made in 1965... it replicates the car that was made back then.

[REAL 1]

Yeah. And CSX 3003 is a replica of CSX 3002 and so on and so on .....

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by computerworks

...of course it does. It certainly wasn't made in 1965... it replicates the car that was made back then.

I agree with that statement, BTW, Ron is a SAAC board member.

But that's not my point. Evan, you use absolute terms where there are no absolutes. You hang you hat on the SAAC definition, I don't.

I've been a member of SAAC, continuous and uninterupted, I'm fairly sure, since 1979. I feel I'm reasonably Shelby knowledgeable, I own a registry, no expert by any stretch, I attend auctions, I'm one of those buyers and sellers you speak of as the "general public", and I disagree with you.

I think Mr. Comer is spot on and while I'm sure it will never happen, I bet if you poll the SAAC membership, they would say any Cobra not made in the 1960's (CSX2000's and CSX3000's) is a replica. Pure conjecture, but that's a wager I would take.

There are many factors and forces as to why continuation CSX's and Kirkhams are listed in the SAAC Registry and the definition is the definition.

My objection here is your use of absolutes when there is none, at least to me. SAAC has an expert opinion and they wrote a book, the SAAC Registry, while others like Mr. Comer, have their expert opinions and they write books too.

You can find expert opinions on both sides of an issue, but as an attorney, you already know that.

[RodKnock]

Sorry folks, my apologies to everyone for this OT discussion.

[RodKnock]

Evan, if you come to SAAC 35, drive your Ford GT across country, I'll buy you a Diet Coke and hot dog at the refreshment stand. I don't drink or eat either, but being from the East Coast, you may. (just kidding right coasters)

[computerworks]

... I might add that the terms "replica" and "genuine Shelby" are not mutually exclusive, either.

[Excaliber]

As it concerns Kirkhams it seems pretty clear they are in the registry to preclude the possibility that one day they might morph into a Shelby.

Actually, thats already happened, with the blessing of all involved so it's cool. What started life as a genuine Kirkham along the way became a genuine Shelby, complete with a CSX number. Some Shelbys have been owner built as well, by purchasing the various parts and pieces and doing the assembly, like a "kit" but through the back door. So even with the modern cars we already have some "stories" if not "storied" cars. It is easy to see that happening in the years to come, a Kirkham would be an excellent place to start.

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Yeah. And CSX 3003 is a replica of CSX 3002 and so on and so on .....

If not a replica, then IMO they should be titled/sold as the actual year they were built. I know here in California they could not be titled as a 65, but calling them a 65 Cobra is deceptive. My.02

[Excaliber]

Well the MODEL is a 1965 and I don't have a problem with that. Hawaii and many other states recognize the term "1965" as being an accurate description for the car, which seem quite logical to me.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by computerworks

... I might add that the terms "replica" and "genuine Shelby" are not mutually exclusive, either.

A "genuine Shelby replica" works great for me. Can we coin this term for future use?

[dcdoug]

Originally Posted by SP01715

How can BJ list that CSX6000 series as a "1965" on the board? Those in the know understand it was not built in 1965, but I think that is a little deceptive. My.02

Actually, if you go and look at NADA under 1965 Shelby American, they list it as a 1965 Cobra as well (that's what the DC DMV uses to assign tax to cars, so that's how I found out about it). We all know it's really not a '65, but I think Carroll convinced some folks that he issued all the VINs for these cars and they have been work in progress ever since:

http://www.nadaguides.com/default.as...a=1&y=1965&da1

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

As it concerns Kirkhams it seems pretty clear they are in the registry to preclude the possibility that one day they might morph into a Shelby.

Great point.

Now what's with the gay avatar, Ernie? You got something going on that we don't know about?

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Yeah. And CSX 3003 is a replica of CSX 3002 and so on and so on .....

of course not. That's just a silly statement.

[SP01715]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Well the MODEL is a 1965 and I don't have a problem with that. Hawaii and many other states recognize the term "1965" as being an accurate description for the car, which seem quite logical to me.

If you use "1965" as a model (not year built) then I guess it makes sense. If you use the term "1965 Shelby Cobra" to describe the car, are you just describing the model? If I were to tell someone that my car is a 1965 Cobra, most are going the think it was built in 1965. If I tell them it is a replica of a 1965 Cobra, then I think it is less confusing. Maybe this is why California will not except 1965 as a valid description for our cars. If you are going with Evans opinion that these are not replicas, then I think they should be called what they are. For example if I bought a new CSX 6000 it would be a "2010 Shelby Cobra".

[somedayaurora]

Here Here make them like Autokraft but you know faster . I feel this may have gotten in the woods abit and I agree with both sides It is a genuine shelby , just not an original Shelby cobra . The same but different , a 66 mustang is a ford mustang as is a '11 mustang is mustang . Maybe if we call it a '06 Shelby Cobra 427 eveybody might relent a bit . Hey it could be worse , we could be here *****ing about corvette's instead of you know -best car ever-!
SDR

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by somedayaurora

...a 66 mustang is a ford mustang as is a '11 mustang is mustang

Copied body lines...I wouldn't be so sure. Maybe the new Mustangs are actually "continuation series" of the originals?
Same for the '69/'10 Camaro.

[Excaliber]

If I were to tell someone that my car is a 1965 Cobra, most are going the think it was built in 1965.

You make a valid point and hence the confusion that arises in trying to nail this down.

My avatar brings a little color in to brighten the room, don't you think? Care for more tea?

[somedayaurora]

Originally Posted by excaliber

my avatar brings a little color in to brighten the room, don't you think? Care for more tea?

:lol::lol:
Sdr

[RodKnock]

I've posted this before here. A quote authored by Rick Kopec, a SAAC Board member, taken from the SAAC Forum dated 7/15/2009:

"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."

I'll let everyone out there on Club Cobra decide what there own semantics might be. Not so definitive to me. Both Ron and Mr. Kopec both own Shelbys so their opinions may be biased.