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

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by LMH

Not the same, keep history accurate. We've been over this before.
AC Cars Ltd did not supply SAI with bodies and chassis. In general terms for the CSX series cars, AC Cars sent SAI complete cars less engine and transmission assemblies. The cars were set up and engineered for the drivetrain in England but installed at SAI in the states. Cars had suspension, steering, brakes, wiring, wheels, tires, paint, interior, etc.
While Kirkham may supply current SA with bodies and chassis that are built into current CSX cars, it's not the same or similar to how the original cars were built.
Continue.
Larry

Not looking to get in the minutia. I didn't say "exact". You did. I said analogous which it is.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Obviously took it to mean a reference to a particular Joe that is involved in these discussions, so if you're going to refer to a generic person, pick another name..."Evan Blow" for example.

Nah, can't use "Evan Blow". He knows too much.

I'll use Joe Public or John Q Public or even Joe Average.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

And no matter how hard you may try to connect the original Cobras with your later replica, it can't be done. The originals were sold as complete cars through Ford dealers, not as component or kit cars. Imagining what might have happened if Shelby had continued production past 1968 is a meaningless exercise, but one that lawyers have become quite adept at.

He just writes these grand dissertations and hopes people believe his line of BS. I hope others don't fall for his make-believe world.

Originally Posted by REAL 1

-SAAC issues statement sometime near and prior to 2004 stating their position. LONG before litigation SAAC has with Shelby in 2008. Statement makes clear that second series are genuine Cobras but not part of original series. Only difference between original Shelby and current production is years of manufacture. They are not considered "replicas" by SAAC as that term has now been misused and now commonly understood.
-SAAC 4th Edition of World Registry carries that statement position forward in 2008/9 and further explains common misuse of term "replica" as defined by Websters. SAAC acknowledges the widespread misuse and incorrect meaning now commonly used but says can't put the "toothpaste back in the tube". Point being non Shelbys are not "replicas" but merely cars that look like Cobras but really not. A "bootleg" to use a euphemism. SAAC notes that technically only the continuation Cobras are "replicas" i.e. true replicas as defined by Websters, i.e. an item or work reissued by the original artist or maker.

There are no facts, other than your car is not 1 of the 998. You're just dazzling everyone with BS. Pure supposition about the events of a decade ago. You weren't there and Ned was. And Ned said "certain liberties were taken" with the Registry. He contributed to writing it and you didn't.

The point is not what happened a decade ago, even though you're making S up, but what's happening today. And today, the SAAC website has been revised to eliminate any words like genuine, real, or authentic as it relates to the Shelby replica. You can live in the past, but SAAC will revise/delete the Shelby replicas from the 5th Edition of the World Registry. I can't wait.

And the current Registry also calls the Shelby replica "Cobra like" and a "true replica." It's all there in black and white.

You have a genuine Shelby REPLICA.

BTW, I love the line where you say, and I'm paraphrasing, "if the genuine 998 weren't built today, then they would be kits cars." Hey, instead, why not say "if the AMC Gremlin were built today, then it would be a kit car." Wow, that's got to be one of the funniest BS you've ever spewed out here on the forum.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Buzz

If Shelby had continued Cobra production much beyond 1968, the cars would have evolved into something quite different from the originals, in order to meet changing federal standards. Quite likely, they would have morphed into something like the Series1 or the first generation Viper, which - like it or not - sort of fit with Shelby's vision of what a "modern day" Cobra would look like. They would have been called Shelby Cobras, but there would probably still be people wanting to build replicas of the original 60's cars.

Well, you likely are right. However, I was speaking hypothetically. Further, Shelby was known to have said he wanted to get out of the car business at that time because he did not want to compromise based on federal regulations. Very simply at some point we know he decided to in fact continue production of the Cobra as it was. What if he made the decision not to stop the 3000 series in 1968? His cars would have been "kits" at some point in order to circumvent federal regs.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

He just writes these grand dissertations and hopes people believe his line of BS. I hope others don't fall for his make-believe world.



There are no facts, other than your car is not 1 of the 998. You're just dazzling everyone with BS. Pure supposition about the events of a decade ago. You weren't there and Ned was. And Ned said "certain liberties were taken" with the Registry. He contributed to writing it and you didn't.

The point is not what happened a decade ago, even though you're making S up, but what's happening today. And today, the SAAC website has been revised to eliminate any words like genuine, real, or authentic as it relates to the Shelby replica. You can live in the past, but SAAC will revise/delete the Shelby replicas from the 5th Edition of the World Registry. I can't wait.

And the current Registry also calls the Shelby replica "Cobra like" and a "true replica." It's all there in black and white.

You have a genuine Shelby REPLICA.

BTW, I love the line where you say, and I'm paraphrasing, "if the genuine 998 weren't built today, then they would be kits cars." Hey, instead, why not say "if the AMC Gremlin were built today, then it would be a kit car." Wow, that's got to be one of the funniest BS you've ever spewed out here on the forum.

Yes, we know your position. I'm not getting on your merry go round from hell.

You again have not read or comprehended what I have said. Can't waste my time responding to you. It's futile.

[jhv48]

I think Evan took his ball and went home.

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

So the truth again slips out. You don't want the Continuation Cobra connected to the originals. That was patently clear from you in the past and now. However, not you or anyone can take away the connection that does exist. Unfortunately for you they are connected, i.e. same manufacturer/company issuing a Shelby Cobra for sale separated by a period of years. Fact. In fact, not you or even your club can change that fact. Your club's Registry connects them to the extent they are connected and appropriately so. Deal with it. The facts are changing on that score.

You again run your colors up the mast by referring to my "replica" when your club's registry doesn't consider my car a "replica". In fact some aluminum Continuation values are not far off from your "COB's". Further, Continuation Cobras have more Shelby DNA and are more "genuine" Cobras than some rebodied originals and especially some "reconstructed" Originals. That must really irk you.


I would think a registrar for SAAC would back his club's Registry viewed as a world wide authoritative text and the Club's statements instead of grinding his own personal axe to protect his own turf.

Evan, I don't link the current Cobras to the originals because, apart from their appearance and their use of the Shelby name, they aren't connected. AC Cars did not build them and they are far from exact copies. You say they are from the same manufacturer, and I ask - do you really understand what the F you are talking about? It's the same in name only, with different players, different manufacturing methods, and a different corporate structure. Same manufacturer? Only a fool would argue that. But if the shoe fits ...

As for my referring to your car as a replica, you read the definitions on one page, but fail to comprehend the bigger picture on the other pages that specifically deal with the CSX 4xxx cars. Such as SAAC's note on page 707 that explained how Shelby would compete with the other replica manufacturers directly "by building and selling a Cobra replica of his own." Charitably, SAAC decided to label the new Shelby cars as something other than replicas simply to differentiate them from other recreations that were already referred to as replicas, since Shelby was building them. Note that they also state the 4000-series cars were "built to more or less original 427 Cobra S/C standards." Still want to insist they are connected?

And don't make me laugh by mistaking exactly who is "grinding his own personal axe to protect his turf." All of us know that refers to YOU.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by jhv48

I think Evan took his ball and went home.

Evan must be like Tom Cruise in court. Dazzle the jury with BS and hope he picks up a few believers. I just hope no one here is buying the load of BS, with the possible exception of his other "two amigos."

He tries to recreate history, and he simply wasn't there. Ned was there. He wasn't. But somehow, according to Evan, Ned doesn't know what happened, or forgot, but Ned helped write the Registry. Unbelievable.

Facts, Fraud, Ned The Registry Writer, Oops! The SAAC Website Has Been Revised, Logic (if it's a replica, then it can't be genuine), Forget About Today, And Let's Recreate The Past.

[jhv48]

He will keep stomping his feet and waving his arms as long as someone will listen.

Reminds me of my son when he was two.

[PatBuckley]

I'm pretty sure that the only reason he so zealously clings to his position on this issue is to inflate the value of his replica.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by PatBuckley

I'm pretty sure that the only reason he so zealously clings to his position on this issue is to inflate the value of his replica.

Really? The value of his car is not influenced whatsoever by this forum. Less than 1% of Shelby CSX owners (and future ones) participate here.

It is an interesting mental masturbation exercise though.

[jhv48]

Originally Posted by PatBuckley

I'm pretty sure that the only reason he so zealously clings to his position on this issue is to inflate the value of his replica.

He's a legend in his own mind.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Unfortunately for you they are connected, i.e. same manufacturer/company issuing a Shelby Cobra for sale separated by a period of years. Fact.

The Registry is very very clear.

Yes, the Registry is clear. And you're wrong again. You obviously haven't read the Registry and then you have the audacity to tell others, like Ned and I, that we haven't.

The company isn't the same as the company in the 1960's. In the late 1990's, Shelby American experienced difficulties, aka, cash flow problems. A company called Venture Industries purchased 75% (A MAJORITY STAKE) of Shelby American. Shelby retained 25% and was able to continue production of the CSX4000 replicas. The new company name was Shelby Automobiles. The cash infusion also helped the Series 1 production. And around 2003, the new company went public as CSBI, Carroll Shelby International.

So STOP saying it's the same company. It's not. Read page 710. And the gap in production was from roughly 1965-1995 or 30 years.

Different materials, different companies, 30-year gap and they're sold as kits, not complete legal and register-able cars like in 1965. Not genuine, not authentic, not a real Shelby. REPLICA!

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Really? The value of his car is not influenced whatsoever by this forum. Less than 1% of Shelby CSX owners (and future ones) participate here.

It is an interesting mental masturbation exercise though.

The value is determined by far more than just the 10-ish CSX replica owners, assuming your 1% figure of 1,000 CSX replicas have been built and sold, though admittedly, I'm not sure.

There are 170,000 members of this forum, so the reach is much larger than the discussions between 10 existing CSX replica owners here.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Yes, the Registry is clear. And you're wrong again. You obviously haven't read the Registry and then you have the audacity to tell others, like Ned and I, that we haven't.

The company isn't the same as the company in the 1960's. In the late 1990's, Shelby American experienced difficulties, aka, cash flow problems. A company called Venture Industries purchased 75% (A MAJORITY STAKE) of Shelby American. Shelby retained 25% and was able to continue production of the CSX4000 replicas. The new company name was Shelby Automobiles. The cash infusion also helped the Series 1 production. And around 2003, the new company went public as CSBI, Carroll Shelby International.

So STOP saying it's the same company. It's not. Read page 710. And the gap in production was from roughly 1965-1995 or 30 years.

Different materials, different companies, 30-year gap and they're sold as kits, not complete legal and register-able cars like in 1965. Not genuine, not authentic, not a real Shelby. REPLICA!

Bzzzt. Shelby has operated and fontinues to operate under the same manufacturers license. Same company.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Bzzzt. Shelby has operated and fontinues to operate under the same manufacturers license. Same company.

I'll be Evan for one second. Read the Registry. Page 710. Ownership has changed at least twice. Shelby gave up majority ownership. Different company.

[RodKnock]

Registry doesn't discuss the "manufacturing license." Thus unimportant to Cobra history.

Shelby sold 75% of his company and then a few years later went public. Different ownership.

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Now that a fair number of you have beat each other up...everyone STFU for awhile.

...or folks will simply start disappearing with no notice.

RK - good to have you back... I thought something bad happened
Sorry, just finished watching the Godfather series...

Originally Posted by REAL 1

No, actually that's not being honest. You as others want to apply the general definition of "kit car" that applies to an entire range of cars such as Gazelles, Meyer Manx Dune buggies, Beck Spyders etc...The general definition of Kit Car applies to all those cars whose manufacturer does not complete the manufacture of the car, sells the uncompleted car to and leaves the completion to a third party.

So, seeming we can use the dictionary definition when it suits you, but not when it doesn't?

Which do you want to use? Pick ONE and be consistent please. Then the "merry go round from hell" as you put it will stop

Have you read Shakespear's "A Man for All Seasons"?

Originally Posted by REAL 1

This process exists primarily because of Federal safety and emission regulations and standards that creeped up on the motoring public in the late 60's. Even Carroll Shelby was noted to have remarked he could not continue production as he did and could not continue to build what he wanted to build as a result of growing restrictive Federal Regulations. .

I agree on this point, but sorry totally irrelevant...

Originally Posted by REAL 1

If you apply the generic "Kit Car" definition as used by dictionaries and generally by various states DMV for registration purposes [i]in fact, and I hate to break it to the gang here but the original Cobra today would be a "Kit Car" applying the dictionary or DMV definitions. It would follow the same and have to follow the same process as a Superformance for example in order for SAI to continue

Yes! So What? If your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle.
History SAYS this never happened... Correct?
Perhaps, maybe, would've, could've, should've, but DIDN'T! True?

Originally Posted by REAL 1

So by todays standards the original 2000 and 3000 series cars would have to be "Kit Cars" in order to continue to be produced and sold. Irrefutable.

Again Yes! So What? It never happened!
They were delivered with engines by the factory. COMPLETE!
NOT in parts, and NOT missing pieces for whatever reason. True?

Originally Posted by REAL 1

I and the vast majority of other Shelby Cobra owners apply and go by the SAAC definitions of "Kit Car and Replica" since this definition applies specifically and germanely to this hobby and these cars and style cars. It is the definition that applies to our world of Cobras. Not a generic definition that applies to everything from Gazelles to Dune Buggies for registration purposes and as noted to original series cars today if SAI was still popping them out uninterrupted. Shelby Cobras original series or Continuation series do NOT fall in the SAAC definition of "Kit Car or Replica". I know you are all disappointed.

No VESTED INTEREST there hey?
You continue to protest bias against SHELBY Continuation cars, but dear sir, you realise there are two sides to this coin... and I for one don't see it any bias to the cars themselves, quite the opposite, the cars are revered - In my humble experience, just raised eyebrows to those who aren't honest about what they have.
Seemingly some CSX continuation guys have a larger problem with this than most, but the same disdain is placed upon Kirkham or SPF or FF5 guys trying to pass theirs off as something other than...

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Joe Blow generally uses the term "kit and replica" to ask is that a fake.

Earlier in this thread - You were quite hostile in your description to point out that you couldn't give a chit, nor cared, nor presumed, what the inquirer was supposing, when they asked the question. Now you ARE supposing correct?
...and perhaps supposing INCORRECTLY, what they "mean"?

Originally Posted by REAL 1

When asked if my car is a "replica or a kit" I say "no, its a genuine Shelby Cobra. A continuation series Cobra." Its not a fake Shelby Cobra nor is it a replica of a Shelby Cobra. It is a Shelby Cobra. If asked if its an "original car/Cobra", I say no. I tell them its a Continuation Series Shelby Cobra. My answers are based on the World Registry not DMV. Very simple, honest, direct and easy actually.

See if you answered like that to a COBRA guy... they would know what you mean (even if they didn't agree).
BUT If you answer like that to John Citizen and his wife and kids, in the presence of a COBRA guy, that cobra guy would KNOW you're misleading them!
...and therefore conclude - you were telling a half truth and therefore being DISHONEST. Apologies to break it to you!

Originally Posted by REAL 1

I'm sure you guys will "keep "twisting" things in order to jam a square peg into a round hole.

Have at it. I've got my Registry right here on my desk.

Hello pot, my name is kettle.

Kind regards,

[xb-60]

Sheesh! I think you've got up Mr. Dimis' nose on this one, and I agree with his reason for irritation. I'm reasonably certain this in not the way Dangerous Doug intended this thread to go.
Are you guys going for a record number of posts in one thread....or what?

That's my one and only comment.

Goodbye.
Glen

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Good...fair and complete non-aggressive statement of your opinions and interpretations.

Or you could say dazzle them with BS. It's almost like Evan gets paid by the word.

As Ned said, let's call a spade a spade. It's not one of the 998, so it must be a replica, which of course Evan has admitted too at least half dozen times now.

Are you clicking your glass shoes together faster now? Where are you Auntie Em?