Why does every thread here devolve into a "Real" vs. "Replica" argument?

[REAL 1]

Keep trying.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Keep trying.

Ditto.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Ditto.

You haven't grasped this yet. I don't need to try to "establish" or prove anything The facts, law and the Registry do that for me.

You guys are spinning so much to trying prove your ridiculous points you make Whirling Dervishes look like they are standing still.

Carry on.

P.S. the only reason I respond to you is that you at least have the decency not to personally attack like a juvenile child. Kudos to you for that at least. The others, I don't even read their posts any longer. Waste of time.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

... The facts, law and the Registry do that for me ...

The Facts: All 50 states require special provisions for DMV registration. All 50 states classify them as specialty constructed vehicles/component cars/kit cars/replicas.

The Law: Trade Dress ruling per Judge Walsh, the Shelby continuations hold no distinction over the other replicas. Mr. Shelby identified the replicas of the Cobra 427 S/C with the designation CSX 4000.

The Registry: Continuations are very cobra like and true replicas.

The Facts, The Law, The Registry.

Bada Bing, Bada Boom, Done!

[jhv48]

Wanna bet?

[fordracing65]

[quote=Joe's Garage;1366796]The Facts: All 50 states require special provisions for DMV registration. All 50 states classify them as specialty constructed vehicles/component cars/kit cars/replicas.

The Law: Trade Dress ruling per Judge Walsh, the Shelby continuations hold no distinction over the other replicas. Mr. Shelby identified the replicas of the Cobra 427 S/C with the designation CSX 4000.

The Registry: Continuations are very cobra like and true replicas.

The Facts, The Law, The Registry.

Bada Bing, Bada Boom, Done![/QUO

If you have a replica CSX what does your title actually say, does it say 1965 or 66 Shelby cobra, I would love to see... The 2 cars that were both CSX cars in AZ for sale, neither had that on the title, SHEBY or FORD, nor did it have the year 1965-66

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

The Facts: All 50 states require special provisions for DMV registration. All 50 states classify them as specialty constructed vehicles/component cars/kit cars/replicas.



Bada Bing, Bada Boom, Done!

Wrong. My Cobra was registered as a 1965 Shelby Cobra. Would you like to see a copy of the title?

Subtract bada bing.

[CSX4815]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

If you have a replica CSX what does your title actually say, does it say 1965 or 66 Shelby cobra, I would love to see... The 2 cars that were both CSX cars in AZ for sale, neither had that on the title, SHEBY or FORD, nor did it have the year 1965-66

Well... here's my AZ title...

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

You haven't grasped this yet. I don't need to try to "establish" or prove anything The facts, law and the Registry do that for me.

You guys are spinning so much to trying prove your ridiculous points you make Whirling Dervishes look like they are standing still.

Carry on.

P.S. the only reason I respond to you is that you at least have the decency not to personally attack like a juvenile child. Kudos to you for that at least. The others, I don't even read their posts any longer. Waste of time.

Absolutely I don't want to personally attack anyone. That's not me and not my area of expertise.

And the law is not my area of expertise, so I don't cite or interpret decisions, suits, claims, redress, what judges said or meant, etc. I'm not a lawyer. But as I've said a 100 times, and many have already concluded, the modern Shelby Cobra is replica. And replicas can't be genuine, real or authentic. Additionally, I'll rest my hat, as it were, on the references to the car as a replica in the Registry plus Ned Scudder, one of the leading historians of the marque stating its a replica.

The facts, the Registry, Ned, and most of all, logic.

[LMH]

Arizona assigns year for title based on the year stated on the MSO. That includes every manufacturer, Shelby, FFR, ERA Etc. My brothers FFR Coupe is titled as 1965 as was the roadster before it.
Larry

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by CSX4815

Well... here's my AZ title...

And in CA, that would considered fraud and if more info is needed in this area, I believe it was the CA Assistant AG (Attorney General), "Mortgester" who used to post here and warn CA Cobra owners about falsifying titles to say a Cobra replica was produced in 1965. Obviously they're not.

In CA, they're all called SPCNS or specially constructed vehicle.

[fordracing65]

But not all with a CSX say Shelby, the 2 I saw did, not, I guess it varies state to state, my SPF did not say Shelby or SPF or Ford, my BMW says BMW on the title, with the year and model, would a CSX car with a 3000 number say SHELBY and FORD on the title..., is this a no??

[fordracing65]

Originally Posted by CSX4815

Well... here's my AZ title...

Why is their no model type on the title, like COBRA...

[LMH]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

But not all with a CSX say Shelby, the 2 I saw did, not, I guess it varies state to state, my SPF did not say Shelby or SPF or Ford, my BMW says BMW on the title, with the year and model, would a CSX car with a 3000 number say SHELBY and FORD on the title..., is this a no??

I'm not sure. In the case of the originals, my guess is they said Shelby. I'll check next time I'm in PHX to work on CSX25XX.
Larry

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

And in CA, that would considered fraud and if more info is needed in this area, I believe it was the CA Assistant AG (Attorney General), "Mortgester" who used to post here and warn CA Cobra owners about falsifying titles to say a Cobra replica was produced in 1965. Obviously they're not.

In CA, they're all called SPCNS or specially constructed vehicle.

Double whammy. My car was originally titled in CA as a 1965 Shelby Cobra. Maybe tomorrow I'll try to cut out the pieces and parts like above without giving too much personal info.

[Got the Bug]

I wish I had time or interest to read this whole thread. As you were gentleman.

[cycleguy55]

I find it hilarious that some people on this thread seem to actually be putting weight into what is printed on the title, when that content is actually decided / administered in most cases by clerks who view automobiles as transportation appliances and who seem to decide on a whim what to use as descriptors. I doubt any court would decide this issue on the basis of what was printed on the title. While considering the title, the decision would depend upon other facts in evidence which would, arguably, carry far more weight.

As REAL 1 has previously stated, his car is a replica, along with other Continuation Cobras. It is also a genuine Shelby, as it was manufactured by Shelby American and, as Shelby has exclusive rights to the Cobra name, that makes it a genuine Shelby Cobra (replica) - though universally understood it is not an original. Some comments on this thread have implied some of these terms are mutually exclusive, when clearly they are not.

[Nedsel]

Hmmm. Evan seems to think he has "shown me the door." Well, I guess he must have. He was astute enough to point out that I seem to have a bias towards the CSX 3000 cars over the CSX 4000 models. I confess, he is right: I prefer the historic Cobras of the 60's to the more modern copies. Guess I must be crazy.

The facts remain as follows: The cars that created the Cobra mystique - the 998 Cobras referred to as genuine, original, and legitimate - were built in the 1960's by the mutual partnership of AC Cars and Shelby American. Everything that followed was a copy in one form or another. Go down the list and name your brand, from Arntz to Butler to Contemporary, etc - they are all facsimiles of the original, and were marketed as such. Some are pretty good copies while some are less so. Regardless, if your Cobra-like automobile wasn't built in the 60's, it is not one of the 998 original cars, hence it must be something else. Such as a replica of one of the original Cobras. It simply can not be anything else, no matter how many different ways you attempt to spin it.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Double whammy. My car was originally titled in CA as a 1965 Shelby Cobra. Maybe tomorrow I'll try to cut out the pieces and parts like above without giving too much personal info.

You don't have post it. We all know they exist and existed. Not new news. Early replicas of various types, including Cobras, got through the DMV and they've been hunting them ever since. Those cars titled as 1965's that weren't actually built in 1965 are considered illegal in CA. And that includes other cars like Porsche Speedster replicas too.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

I find it hilarious that some people on this thread seem to actually be putting weight into what is printed on the title, when that content is actually decided / administered in most cases by clerks who view automobiles as transportation appliances and who seem to decide on a whim what to use as descriptors. I doubt any court would decide this issue on the basis of what was printed on the title. While considering the title, the decision would depend upon other facts in evidence which would, arguably, carry far more weight.

As REAL 1 has previously stated, his car is a replica, along with other Continuation Cobras. It is also a genuine Shelby, as it was manufactured by Shelby American and, as Shelby has exclusive rights to the Cobra name, that makes it a genuine Shelby Cobra (replica) - though universally understood it is not an original. Some comments on this thread have implied some of these terms are mutually exclusive, when clearly they are not.

Replica and genuine are mutually exclusive in my world. Logic would tell me that a replica cannot be genuine. So clearly, to me, a modern Shelby Cobra is NOT genuine but a replica.