Replica or a modern reproduction?

[Ralphy]

The starter, Real1 wants to give an unambiguous definition for his car, yes. But he started with an ambiguous definition to a replica, as replica/kit car. Check his first post #19, he also started the attacks on me. With a post I made as a joke that went clearly over his head. He drew first blood!

Now if you ever noticed when your using a computer the forward slash denotes a order of attachment. Example, Computer/Photos/Vacation, they're connected a drill down sequence. My response of his continuation of this is. A replica is not always a kit car. He finally offered some limited proof. But his typing of the real statement changed to, "replica or kit car", written as unconnected, not being of the same. Not replica/kit car. So he was wrong in his own first statement. I'm no English major but I do know the diff in this case. One of my responses to his, "it has to be right because the SAAC says so is?


"The SAAC may be an authority as to Cobras. But they did not coin nor do they have ownership of the word, "Kit". And as far as the English vocabulary goes, it doesn't revolve around or search guidance from the SAAC. The fact is if you order a Shelby in boxes, "It's A Kit." That's the real world! Not some 5,000 member site, but a multimillion people association spanning the globe."

Merriam Websters, Kit: "a set of parts to be assembled or worked up"
Kit - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So first off maybe he first needs to learn the real definition of kit car. Yes replicas can be a kit car, but they may not be. They can also be a manufacture built car.

Maybe REAL1 should be unambiguous of others cars?

Why this? Because over time I've seen terms used here and spoke of as a bashing tool, such as kit car. Plus confusion over the terminology. And IMO that is what Real1 set out to do. I find no offense to the term. Since there are some very nice kit cars here. Plus I give any owner many points for doing it themselves.

Ralphy

[jhv48]

Let me see if I've got this straight. The saac registry was created by (approved by) Shelby and company to identify and trace the vehicles the company produced. Right so far?

Then they added the continuation cars to the registry in order to further delineate them from the masses of clones out there.

The master of marketing strikes again. Unfortunately, I choose to view the registry as self serving. I give it no more credence than the Book of Mormon, although the history of the original cars is well researched and makes an interesting read.

For those of you that own continuation kit cars, good for you. To me they are the same as any of the other clones of the original 60's cars.

If you really want to own a real/original Shelby cobra, cough up the $$$$$ and buy one. Till then, all you own is a reproduction.

[fjrgary]

evan: if saac didn't exist would your car still be real?????

[buddyg]

Originally Posted by jhv48

let me see if i've got this straight. The saac registry was created by shelby to identify and trace the vehicles his company produced. Right so far?

Then he added the continuation cars to the registry in order to further delineate them from the masses of clones out there.

The master of marketing strikes again. Unfortunately, i choose to view the registry as self serving. I give it no more credence than the book of mormon.

For those of you that own continuation kit cars, good for you. To me they are the same as any of the other clones of the original 60's cars.

If you really want to own a real/original shelby cobra, cough up the $$$$$ and buy one. Till then, all you own is a reproduction.

exactly!

[AL427SBF]

Originally Posted by Al G

... After reading this thread it seems to me the CSX owners who have chimed in are more likely to give an unambiguous answer than some owners of other brands.

Seems to be the case, but then you CSX guys can give an answer much closer to expectations without false embellishment

[LMH]

Originally Posted by jhv48

Let me see if I've got this straight. The saac registry was created by Shelby to identify and trace the vehicles his company produced. Right so far?

Then he added the continuation cars to the registry in order to further delineate them from the masses of clones out there.

The master of marketing strikes again. Unfortunately, I choose to view the registry as self serving. I give it no more credence than the Book of Mormon.

For those of you that own continuation kit cars, good for you. To me they are the same as any of the other clones of the original 60's cars.

If you really want to own a real/original Shelby cobra, cough up the $$$$$ and buy one. Till then, all you own is a reproduction.

Actually, I think the registry wasn't created by Shelby but rather Bill Kemper and John Rimer.
And now, back to the show!
Larry

[AL427SBF]

Originally Posted by LMH

Actually, I think the registry wasn't created by Shelby but rather Bill Kemper and John Rimer.
And now, back to the show!
Larry

Yep, most of 'em shooting from the hip with BS now, desperate times call for desperate measures, same feeling they get when asked "is it real?" lol.

[Thor maine]

Originally Posted by AL427SBF

The Shelby American CSX series has direct lineage to the original, no other "cobra variant" can make that claim, hence the proper SAAC distinction.

You may not like it, but the fact remains your kit car replica does not equal a CSX in the eyes of SAAC, nor should it. If that bothers you then you should have bought a CSX.

I ask this question again, I have read a couple more articles on them. AC Cars LTD has sold/ leased / licensed the rights to the name plus intellectual property. So the new company is called AC Heritage and they are making continuation Cobras. I guess they have revived the COB 4XXXX serial numbering system and they made a deal with GM for LS-7 engines. So they also have a "Direct Line of Lineage" from AC (Like the company who bought the right to the INDIAN motorcycle ) . So are these on the same level as the continuation CSX series cars.

[Ralphy]

This is to funny, just damn! I'm reading the CSX4000 cars were not built by Shelby? But were farmed out to a company named McCluskey Ltd? Another small bite off of a fantasy.

Reminds me of my canned answer to the boss. When he asks what's the easiest way to machine this part? I tell him, job it out!

Why it's a McCluskey! Tell me it ain't so, really?

Ralphy

[REAL 1]

Now this is getting fun!

I deal with each one of you at one at a time. Some of you are potentially reachable some are irretrievably lost in space.

Ralphy: I'll begin with you. First, no..you cannot buy an "exact copy" of a Continuation Cobra for 1/3 the price. If you think you can please enlighten us as to where this "exact copy" can be purchased for 1/3 the price. You clearly are talking out your ......well any way please get back to us with that info..Ok?

Further, even if such an car existed it would not be a Cobra but a replica of one. What you can't seem to grasp is that being a Cobra is in many ways more than just a sum of parts. It is a name, mark and heritage in addition to its parts. It is the combination of the tangible and intangibles that can only be derived from from or through Carrol Shelby and SAI. Only those cars that are part of or close enough to the Shelby lineage and heritage are brought into the fold of "Cobras".

The Registry lays out the definition of "Replica/Kit Car". They are lumped together with the same definition. If you read the Registry or even owned one we hopefully wouldn't have been dragged through your inept english/computer lesson. Did I use the slash correctly there? You clearly aren't an english major. At least you admitted it.

I didn't start with an ambiguous definition of "Replica/Kit Car". I quoted the Reigistry's definition. It is very clear and unambigous except to you apparently.

You weren't even mentioned in my post #19 yet you believe it was directed at you. Guilty conscience? Well, guess what, at least you're right about somethng. It was directed at you. Your post #14 was clearly a shot at the Continuation Series Cobras. Please don't make it worse by denying it. So, In actuality since 14 comes before 19 it was you who picked the quarrel. Moreover your "clever" little post which was admittedly designed to leave the theoretical questioner "scratching their head" clearly was "contorted" just for that purpose. You really do seem to have a problem with truth and accuracy.

Your iittle diatribe on the whole "kit" thing really hurts my head. How do you do it? Making such a ill conceived argument is such a limited amount of words?

Likely many here own at least one dictionary. I own many. I'll take your word on the definition of "kit". Sounds right. But once again you lose sight of (1) they are not my definitions (2) the issue is not method of purchase or acquisition but the classifying and defining the end product. To an extreme all cars are a Kit at one point or another as they are a set of parts to be assembled and worked up. This is the definition you provided.

"Replicas and Kit Cars" are defined by SAAC. They are defining the end result. I provided you the definition. I understand you don't like it or agree with it. Thats cool.

I've been very unambiguous. You just lack the capacity to grasp the issues apparently.

Finally, I do agree with your statement that terms are used here as a bashing tool such as the word "kit" and "replica", fakey doo (way before your time here) and others. In fact, wait a minute... a very recent example of using these terms as a bashing tool is in post #14 right on this very thread. What a jerk, right?

Dimis: Gee, I thought you were done with the thread. Couldn't stay away eh?
If 500 years on I'm still going..then no I obviously didn't need saving.
Difference between Gallieao and SAAC is that Gallieao was speculating. SAAC has all the facts it needs.

Please enlighten us on SAAC's vested interest and conflict of interest. Would love to know. Apparently you know something many do not. Please spill the beans.

Jhv48: Wrong. You obviously haven't done your homework either.

buddyg: The blind following the blind. Nuff said.

Cheers.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Ralphy

This is to funny, just damn! I'm reading the CSX4000 cars were not built by Shelby? But were farmed out to a company named McCluskey Ltd? Another small bite off of a fantasy.

Reminds me of my canned answer to the boss. When he asks what's the easiest way to machine this part? I tell him, job it out!

Why it's a McCluskey! Tell me it ain't so, really?

Ralphy

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

[LMH]

Further, even if such an car existed it would not be a Cobra but a replica of one. What you can't seem to grasp is that being a Cobra is in many ways more than just a sum of parts. It is a name, mark and heritage in addition to its parts. It is the combination of the tangible and intangibles that can only be derived from from or through Carrol Shelby and SAI. Only those cars that are part of or close enough to the Shelby lineage and heritage are brought into the fold of "Cobras".

What about the COX/COB cars? I'm sure Ned would be interested to find out that he really doesn't own a Cobra after all.
Larry

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by LMH

Actually, I think the registry wasn't created by Shelby but rather Bill Kemper and John Rimer.

Larry

Larry, in fact, the first (1973) registry was a function of the Cobra Club in Michigan. Bill and John became the first two people to be asked to collate data for it.

And folks, to be clear, let's acknowledge a couple of simple truths:

1. The 60's-built Cobras were not replicas of the prototype, any more than any production car would be considered a replica of the engineering study that led to its production.

and

2. Irrespective of the terminology in the registry used to distinguish among different brands of Cobras, the cars built by a reconstituted Shelby American long after the 60's are, indeed, replicas of the originals, and follow the definition of the term as found in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: "a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision." To argue that a given car is a replica but definitely not a Replica is silly.

[LMH]

I stand correct, thanks Ned! It's been a while since I read the registry.
Larry

[Shootnride]

I've really been enjoying reading this thread and was about to make an attempt at matching witts, but realized quickly that I'm not nearly smart enough to do that. So, I think I'll just pop open a good IPA and go out and fire up the ol' flat tappet Side Oiler in my replica/kit/fake/reproduction/plastic hot rod and see how long it takes to get the grin off my face !
Ted

[buddyg]

Real1 however you want to justify overpaying for a Cobra replica is up to you. You don't have any better replica than my SPF but keep telling yourself that ok.

Talk about the blind following the blind! LOL!

[maxwell]

Originally Posted by buddyg

Real1 however you want to justify overpaying for a Cobra replica is up to you. You don't have any better replica than my SPF but keep telling yourself that ok.

Talk about the blind following the blind! LOL!

IMHO , he has the ultimate replica!

Who wouldn't want a CSX aluminium bodied car over a glass car !

Max.

[Ralphy]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself.

How is that? Me as most here I think, are more interested in what happened in the sixties, The continuation era is a less interesting time, IMO.

I've read my fair share about the history. However this is something either I never paid attenion to or probably never saw. So McCluskey was the builder of the fake Originals or the chassis of? Later to be titled as Continuation CSX4000's. If your going to claim to have found old frames? Best to not have manufacturing equipment, jigs and such in your shop. I guess I always assumed Shelby American built, whole. I would think they had some role in the build?

Man, I went to Shelby American almost 2 years ago to the day. Being about 1 month before he passed. He supposedly was released from the hospital and doing much better. That's what I was told then there. I never got the full tour since you needed to be in earlier, wish I did. 11:00 AM rings a bell. Never saw the shop area. Gotta admire the guy, he was a do-er, he got things done.

Ralphy

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

Larry, in fact, the first (1973) registry was a function of the Cobra Club in Michigan. Bill and John became the first two people to be asked to collate data for it.

And folks, to be clear, let's acknowledge a couple of simple truths:

1. The 60's-built Cobras were not replicas of the prototype, any more than any production car would be considered a replica of the engineering study that led to its production.

and

2. Irrespective of the terminology in the registry used to distinguish among different brands of Cobras, the cars built by a reconstituted Shelby American long after the 60's are, indeed, replicas of the originals, and follow the definition of the term as found in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: "a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision." To argue that a given car is a replica but definitely not a Replica is silly.

Larry: Before you start popping Champaign bottles.....

Ned is certainly correct from a technical dictionary standpoint. The Registry deals with and explains that issue which I won't waste my time with. My effort would clearly be futile here. To those that have an interest in learning and understanding I highly recommend the Registry. But of course if we use and if you insist on staying with Webster's definition then what you guys own don't even rise to the level of a "replica" and best described as Carroll described them...Fake counterfeit cars. Technically he was 100% correct. I'll go with that if you insist on going with technical definitions....... However...

I think SAAC's and the Registry approach, analysis and position is sound and fair.

But I digress. The central issue is the fact that the Continuation Shelbys are genuine Cobras legally, factually, definitionally. Their descriptive status as Current production or continuation series correctly distinguishes them from original series Cobras. Your use (and others here, please see post #14) of the term "replica" to describe the current production Cobras (please see post #14) is not a an effort to technically describe them,(since you clearly had no grasp of Webster's technical definition and for that matter neither did the guy responsible for post #14) but an effort to lump them in the same pot with every other Fake Counterfeit car (lets use the phrase "fakeydoo" for short shall we?)....just staying technical here you understand. No doubt most continue use the term "replica" as directed toward the Continuation/Current production Cobra for this purpose based on sour grapes (another shining example of which is buddyg's most recent post above...its so transparent its actually funny) yet have the temerity to run around this site and no doubt around their towns at gas stations, donut shops and car hops referring to their "fakeydoos" (just staying technical again) as "Cobras". How disingenuous is that!!? Ain't that a laugh.

Larry, your comment that Ned would be interested to know he doesn't own a Cobra would normally be breathtaking in it's ignorance and incorrectness. You are still incorrect but you are so demonstratively ignorant (not saying stupid....grab your dictionary) on the subject of Cobras it's not breathtaking anymore. You and your friends have so consistently demonstrated a staggering lack of knowledge and understanding as to repeatedly embarrass yourselves.

Ralphy: hint..your getting warmer.

Maxwell: Technically, again if you are using Webster's definition ..thank you for the compliment! If your not then we'll just put you in the sour grapes wood pile with the rest.

Buddyg: No,no,no. sorry. Can't have it both ways there "Bud". If we want to stay technical you don't even have a "replica". What you have sir is a "fakeydoo" that just looks like a Cobra. So my "replica" trumps your "fakeydoo".

At least if you go with SAAC's analysis and definitions and the Registry's your "fakeydoo" rises to the level of "replica" and thats better than being defined as a "fakeydoo". The Continuation Shelbys are still genuine Cobras either way trumping your SPF (since it's you that's now slipping into what's "better" lets go there) but at least its a step up for your car. If I were your attorney I would recommend that offer. It's the best your gonna get.

Cheers.

Time to go enjoy my Cobra. Beautiful day. You guys should get out there and enjoy your fakeydoos,...I'm sorry or is that "replicas"? Anyway, go enjoy the day.

[Al G]

Originally Posted by Ralphy

Now if you ever noticed when your using a computer the forward slash denotes a order of attachment. Example, Computer/Photos/Vacation, they're connected a drill down sequence. My response of his continuation of this is. A replica is not always a kit car. He finally offered some limited proof. But his typing of the real statement changed to, "replica or kit car", written as unconnected, not being of the same. Not replica/kit car. So he was wrong in his own first statement. I'm no English major but I do know the diff in this case. One of my responses to his, "it has to be right because the SAAC

Ralphy

A slash can have other meanings. What about and/or, owner/operator or he/she? Try applying your definition to those.