Cobra: CSX2009

[jeffy]

Originally Posted by RACER X #99

NFN Jeffy but you are NOT an expert on Cobra restorations.
For one thing you didn't even build your own replica, you paid others to do the work while you try to pass yourself off as the Cobra guru. ( excuse me replica guru)

Most of the guys you are disputing here are REAL Cobra experts (me excluded) recognized in the industry for their expertise.

OK so you have one or two ERA owners on your side but they are not experts either.
Your comments are just your opinions but the experts have shown that they are not valid.
People who are interested in buying 2009 will just dismiss you as a disgruntled replica owner.

There used to be a guy on this board with an attitude similar to yours but he embarrassed himself( not to mention wearing out his welcome) so many time that he rarely ever posts here.

Can't you just accept the fact that you have a nice replica (maybe one of the nicest) and leave it at that?

I don't want to be your friend because I think you are a know it all, but do you want to alienate everybody on this board?

R X #99-

The fact that I own a replica is totally irrelevant. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Anyone with a pair of eyes and access to the internet can verify that every critique I have made of the CSX2009 rebuild is true. The experts' opinions on what the car might sell for don't change these facts one way or another.

Jeff

[jeffy]

Originally Posted by RACER X #99

This guy has no idea who he is sparing with (not me, the experts)

R X #99-

I could not care less who I'm "sparring" with (two "r"s, btw). First, the facts are the facts and, second, I'm entitled to my opinion. If in Shelby-world this car can bring over a $1million, that is a very nice windfall for Erik and his family. That doesn't change the facts or my opinion.

Jeff

[RACER X #99]

I told Bill I would take the high road and I am.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by jeffy

Bill-

The "unwarranted personal attack" you edited out was simply this (to the best of my recollection):

So why am I here? An SAAC member that calls himself RACER X #99 is riled up by my opinions, and had this to say on another forum:

"You have some nerve critiquing somebody's real Cobra when all you own is a replica."

Apparently RACER X #99 doesn't believe the First Amendment applies to replica owners.

He also said this:

"I would like to see Jeffy (have you ever heard an adult call himself Jeffy?) discuss his feelings on CSX 2009 over here,The Official SAAC Forum - Index"

I am more than happy to oblige.

Jeff

Help me out, Bill, which parts are the "unwarranted personal attacks" by me (the two by RACER X #99 are self-evident)? Or did I forget something?

Jeff

Jeff,

I believe that when you cross post an argument from one forum to another that it is in bad taste. All it does is bring bad blood from one web site to another and does nothing but bring both sites down. On Clubhotrod.com (which I also moderate),the sister site of clubcobra, I have a pretty heavy hand when it comes to head games like this. As such I freely admit I was a bit heavy handed with your post at the SAACforum, again, the post above shows why, if you can't see the real reason why it was removed I'm sorry, perhaps when your emotions calm down you will. Inclosing, while I do understand your emotionally charged response to a point, I honestly believe you need to also take a step back, a deep breath,and also take the high road and let this argument disappear into the archives.Again, agree to disagree and leave it at that, you'll be the better man for it...

Sincerely,

Bill S.

PS: Don't take it personal, don't make it personal, that is how I try to roll these days, wish everyone else would as well.

[jeffy]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Jeff,

I believe that when you cross post an argument from one forum to another that it is in bad taste. All it does is bring bad blood from one web site to another and does nothing but bring both sites down. On Clubhotrod.com (which I also moderate),the sister site of clubcobra, I have a pretty heavy hand when it comes to head games like this. As such I freely admit I was a bit heavy handed with your post at the SAACforum, again, the post above shows why, if you can't see the real reason why it was removed I'm sorry, perhaps when your emotions calm down you will. Inclosing, while I do understand your emotionally charged response to a point, I honestly believe you need to also take a step back, a deep breath,and also take the high road and let this argument disappear into the archives.Again, agree to disagree and leave it at that, you'll be the better man for it...

Sincerely,

Bill S.

PS: Don't take it personal, don't make it personal, that is how I try to roll these days, wish everyone else would as well.

Bill-

So, in other words, there was no "unwarranted personal attack" by me. Thought so.

Jeff

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by jeffy

Bill-

So, in other words, there was no "unwarranted personal attack" by me. Thought so.

Jeff

Jeff,

Your whole cross posted post to the saacforum was unwarranted as was the attempts to stir the pot. Your continued "venom" toward anyone who does not agree with you is apparent, as such, I am now taking my own advice.

Here is wishing you well.

Bill S.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by John McMahon

But I think we all know that this car has provenance...who cares how many times its been rebuilt...many of these original cars were hacked up from the get go. I still like to shake that hands of the guys that still drive them...or race them.

Jeff, I think John expresses my thoughts the best.

2009's history is recorded, in detail, in the SAAC archives. So, whoever owns 2009 next may decide to restore it again, according to his or her tastes, which may in fact mirror your personal taste.

It's only about time and money.

[jeffy]

Originally Posted by mrmustang

Jeff,

Your whole cross posted post to the saacforum was unwarranted as was the attempts to stir the pot. Your continued "venom" toward anyone who does not agree with you is apparent, as such, I am now taking my own advice.

Here is wishing you well.

Bill S.

Bill-

It's OK if you want to change your story, but don't act like I'm the bad guy for calling you out. I did not make an "unwanted personal attack" on RACER X #99 and you should not have said that I did.

Jeff

[jeffy]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Jeff, I think John expresses my thoughts the best.

2009's history is recorded, in detail, in the SAAC archives. So, whoever owns 2009 next may decide to restore it again, according to his or her tastes, which may in fact mirror your personal taste.

It's only about time and money.

Rod-

A point none of the "experts" has raised is that CSX2557 sold for $1.6mm and did not have the race history of this car. If it didn't matter how the current owner chose to rebuild CSX2009, then why doesn't it command at least that amount and more?

BTW, my personal taste has nothing to do with it. The car is simply an inauthentic replica of a 1964 competition car with bits of a 1963 competition car thrown in. Those are facts, not opinion.

Jeff

[John McMahon]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Jeff, I think John expresses my thoughts the best.

2009's history is recorded, in detail, in the SAAC archives. So, whoever owns 2009 next may decide to restore it again, according to his or her tastes, which may in fact mirror your personal taste.

It's only about time and money.

correct! Its a race car...regardless of its history...it was still raced...it was still wrecked...it was modified over and over...at what point in time do you then say..."THIS" is how CSX2009 should look??? it was used, abused, tossed away and then brought back from the dead.

Fact of the matter is...the current owner could sell this car with a steaming turd on the hood and it will still have some most of us will never have....this:

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by jeffy

Rod-

A point none of the "experts" has raised is that CSX2557 sold for $1.6mm and did not have the race history of this car. If it didn't matter how the current owner chose to rebuild CSX2009, then why doesn't it command at least that amount and more?

BTW, my personal taste has nothing to do with it. The car is simply an inauthentic replica of a 1964 competition car with bits of a 1963 competition car thrown in. Those are facts, not opinion.

Jeff

I have no clue about what 2557 and 2009 have sold for, will sell for or about the their value at all. I'm not an expert.

But we all know that auction prices may vary due to time, place, people, etc. So, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on auction prices to form a complete valuation of each car myself. Just reading Keith Martin's Sports Car Market auction magazine, the variables at auctions are numerous including alcohol consumption.

Having said that, 2557 may just be a better and more faithfully original CSX, and I gather that from your statements on the matter. BUT, to say that 2009 doesn’t exist anymore, is a fantasy recreation or that your ERA is more real is just NOT correct IMHO.

[jeffy]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Having said that, 2557 may just be a better and more faithfully original CSX, and I gather that from your statements on the matter. BUT, to say that 2009 doesn’t exist anymore, is a fantasy recreation or that your ERA is more real is just NOT correct IMHO.

Rod-

It is fair to say that CSX2557 is an unmolested 1964 competition car.

BTW, I did not say my car was "more real". However, visually, it is a more authentic reproduction of a 1964 competition car than CSX2009, at least in my opinion. If anyone disagrees, please be specific.

With respect to these experts' opinions, I'm really not buying it. With each telling, it gets less credible. Just look at CSX2009 as it now exists: you are trying to tell me that is a "rebuilt race car" that just happened to wind up looking this way? It is obvious that it is a poorly conceived hodge-podge of CSX2002 and someone's idea of a 1964 competition car, that was built to be a trailer queen first and a racer a very distant second, if at all (there is no roll-cage, no race seat, no race mirrors, on and on). Obviously, that is why its value is significantly lower than CSX2557.

Jeff

[csx4910]

Me thinks Jeffy suffers from CSX envy. If not why dedicate so much time to bashing it and trying to defend your position? Grow up and move on

[jeffy]

Originally Posted by csx4910

Me thinks Jeffy suffers from CSX envy. If not why dedicate so much time to bashing it and trying to defend your position? Grow up and move on

CSX4910-

First, I don't think I'm "bashing" CSX2009: I think I am dispassionately describing what it is. There is no intent to "bash" or "promote" (as others are quite clearly trying to do): just get at the facts. Really, whats the big deal? It is obvious what CSX2009 is and isn't. I'm not the one trying to bend the truth. Why should I? Makes no difference to me.

On your second point, I don't roll over. So long as there are posters that want to engage with me, bring it on. I'm game.

Jeff

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by jeffy

So long as there are posters that want to engage with me, bring it on. I'm game.

Game over.