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

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Since it's not original, it must be a replica. Only the original can be genuine or authentic. Anything built later will clone or replicate the original. You can call it a genuine replica or true replica, if you must, but it's an oxymoron.

Maybe if you would expand your vocabulary a little bit. Add Continuation to it.

The VIN sequence is meaningless, since even CSBI will producing the "competition" ("Resurrection") replicas with leftover CSX3000 numbers. These are replicas as well and the sequence will follow the original CSX3000 series cars. Also, modern cars use 17-digit VIN #'s, which weren't used in the mid-1960's.

So, how about those Jaguars? Go ahead, try to convince Jag that they are making "replicas". If it works here, it has to work there too.

Further the Shelby replica uses different components. So it's not an exact replica....

So how about those Jaguars?

[fordracing65]

So, how about those Jaguars? Go ahead, try to convince Jag that they are making "replicas". If it works here, it has to work there too.


So how about those Jaguars?[/quote]

I thought the reproduction E type was from the original run in which 6 cars were uncompleted and Jag vowed to finish which they did, I don't believe they got the bodies from Kirkham, I could be wrong...were the Jags not 6 cars from the original run ,like the original 900 Cobras???

[Jamo]

Interesting...

No...they did not find 6 original frames out behind a building. They are making new cars using the reserved chassis numbers from the ones that were never built.

But they are being built in-house...complete vehicles...replicating most, but not all of the original specs of the original Lightweights.

Like I said...interesting.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

So, how about those Jaguars? Go ahead, try to convince Jag that they are making "replicas". If it works here, it has to work there too.


So how about those Jaguars?

[some quoting imbalance adjusted]

I thought the reproduction E type was from the original run in which 6 cars were uncompleted and Jag vowed to finish which they did, I don't believe they got the bodies from Kirkham, I could be wrong...were the Jags not 6 cars from the original run ,like the original 900 Cobras???

Oh that's funny, but maybe that is all this is about.

So please explain, precisely and succintly, what that has to do with the price of tea in China? You may use long words if you choose.

I think if you uttered "reproduction" in the hypothetical meeting I mentioned above the results would be the same.

Does it reeally hurt that much to use the word "continuation". Come on, try it. You won't die.

[fordracing65]

I googled reproduction Jag and it tells the story of how Jag had 6 e-type cars from the original run of cars unfinished, so they went ahead and completed them, are you comparing these Jags as the same as Evans Cobra, LOL , come on man...

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by fordracing65

I googled reproduction Jag and it tells the story of how Jag had 6 e-type cars from the original run of cars unfinished, so they went ahead and completed them, are you comparing these Jags as the same as Evans Cobra, LOL , come on man...

You really don't get it and I'm no longer willing to try to explain. It has nothing to do with evans car and if you think this whole thing is about Evan then it's hopeless.

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by LMH

Got to love a guy who tells the worlds foremost expert on Cobras and their history how wrong he is! Go Evan!
Larry

This is simply pointing out the obvious, but all Evan has taught anyone is how to be obstinate, selective in one's statement of the facts, and twist reality to suit his agenda. Both the registry and the SAAC website clearly state the later Shelby-built Cobras are replicas of the 60's icon, but Evan focuses only on the club's decision to call them something else to help distinguish them from other replicas.

Face the facts: a car built to copy something built by a different company some 35 years earlier with different tooling and materials in a dissimilar manner on a different continent with an entirely different corporate structure, clearly can't be the same as the original. The story of Pinocchio was a fable, and even though a fairy princess turned a bundle of sticks into a "real, live, boy,"no fairy can turn a 2001 Shelby Cobra into a real 1965 AC-Shelby Cobra.

But if and when it happens, please let us know.

[Dimis]

Originally Posted by Jamo

Interesting...

No...they did not find 6 original frames out behind a building. They are making new cars using the reserved chassis numbers from the ones that were never built.

But they are being built in-house...complete vehicles...replicating most, but not all of the original specs of the original Lightweights.

Like I said...interesting.

Cool, how are they being delivered and by whom?
Complete car, or not?

Complete - Then undeniably Jaguars (don't care if Ford own them - or if people define Jags as just glorified Fords)

NOT complete - as in needing engine, etc... then any owner passing theirs off as original 60s Jags would be subject to the same ridicule as those passing off other cars with history that they don't share.

The kit/car/dog/horse/whatever is NOT relevant.
Its the purposely contrived half truth, misleading, disingenuous behaviour that is the point. No?

If I had one of these and tried to tell everyone it was a bona fide 1960s Jag... seriously, what would you say?

[fordracing65]

Just trying to use Evans car as an example, that it's not REAL...

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Uh, I don't post links. I post facts and info from the World Registry. . I've read it have you?

You might learn something and not have to rely on what your anti Shelby gang post which for the most part is hooey anyway.

No Evan, you post your own twisted interpretation of the Registry, and that's all you do. You have no verifiable facts outside of the registry you consistently misquote, no links to alternate sources to validate your statements, this is why your credibility is zero.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Maybe if you would expand your vocabulary a little bit. Add Continuation to it.


So, how about those Jaguars? Go ahead, try to convince Jag that they are making "replicas". If it works here, it has to work there too.


So how about those Jaguars?

If they're not one of the original Lightweights and built in the 1960's, built 50 years later, then they're a replica. A genuine or true replica, maybe, if you prefer an oxymoron. Seems like such an easy concept to understand. Cloning like Dolly The Sheep. Baaaa!

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

You are welcome to that opinion but I'm sure if you said that to one of those owners you would be excused from the meeting. The MSO from Jaguar will state otherwise. I'll bet your opinion would just break the heart of one of those 6 lucky people and make them turn into a babbling bowl of jelly and cause the to fall on a sword.

I would tell them that if you build something that approximates another something which was built 50 years earlier, then you're building a replica. If it's not original, then it's a replica.

The MSO isn't considered logic. Look at Shelby replica MSO's, they state 1965 and Ned has already said that's fraudulent, since they weren't built in 1965.

Logic says not original.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

If they're not one of the original Lightweights and built in the 1960's, built 50 years later, then they're a replica. A genuine or true replica, maybe, if you prefer an oxymoron. Seems like such an easy concept to understand. Cloning like Dolly The Sheep. Baaaa!

Go ahead play that distorted logic at jaguar. Let us know how it works out.

"Oh im trying sob to diminish and reduce sob Shelby continuation sob cobras to literal rubble sob and I have eliminated sob continuation from my terms and vocabulary sob please don't sob use that word any more sob."

I'd like to be on the conference call.

Let us know how that works out.

Isn't this fun?

[LMH]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

This is simply pointing out the obvious, but all Evan has taught anyone is how to be obstinate, selective in one's statement of the facts, and twist reality to suit his agenda. Both the registry and the SAAC website clearly state the later Shelby-built Cobras are replicas of the 60's icon, but Evan focuses only on the club's decision to call them something else to help distinguish them from other replicas.

Face the facts: a car built to copy something built by a different company some 35 years earlier with different tooling and materials in a dissimilar manner on a different continent with an entirely different corporate structure, clearly can't be the same as the original. The story of Pinocchio was a fable, and even though a fairy princess turned a bundle of sticks into a "real, live, boy,"no fairy can turn a 2001 Shelby Cobra into a real 1965 AC-Shelby Cobra.

But if and when it happens, please let us know.

I suspect his agenda is to raise the resale value of his car by blurring the line between originals and late CSX cars. Historical significance and facts don't matter. The silly part is, why would someone spend $200,000 plus on a car like his when you can buy a new one to this day for far less.
Larry

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Yeah, because there are no issues over there with guys suffering from sour grape syndrome knocking the continuation Cobras as mere replicas and not genuine Cobras.

That was easy.

No one has sour grapes over on the SAAC Forum, because you haven't unloaded the nonsense you subject us with. If you did, then you would say they have sour grapes.

You know they won't tolerate your nonsense over there, so you don't even go there.

That was even easier.

BTW, I thought you said you're not getting on my "merry-go-round from hell" again. What happened? You changed your mind again?

And I thought you left this place at least a couple times already and you're back with more dazzling BS. A man of his word. NOT!

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I would tell them that if you build something that approximates another something which was built 50 years earlier, then you're building a replica. If it's not original, then it's a replica.

The MSO isn't considered logic. Look at Shelby replica MSO's, they state 1965 and Ned has already said that's fraudulent, since they weren't built in 1965.

Logic says not original.

The word is continuation. Repeat after me con-tin-u-a-shun

How is that fradulent? Quote me chapter and verse and make a charge in any ( federal, district,state or even small claims) court. Come on ned. And rod. Put up or shut up. No 10 word discussion response here show me a specific section of the us code that is being violated. Note such a claim would also have to apply to the superformance gt40 continuations among others. Where is the charge? Surely the fbi wouldn't let such fraud continue unchecked.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Go ahead play that distorted logic at jaguar. Let us know how it works out.

"Oh im trying sob to diminish and reduce sob Shelby continuation sob cobras to literal rubble sob and I have eliminated sob continuation from my terms and vocabulary sob please don't sob use that word any more sob."

I'd like to be on the conference call.

Let us know how that works out.

Isn't this fun?

Distorted logic? Puh-leeze. Stop. If you're copying something built 50 years earlier, then it's a replica. That is logic. No distortions. Like Dolly The Sheep. Baaa!

As for speaking with Jaguar, I'd tell them exactly that. It's a replica.

One quote that I try to live by. "Live. Fate loves the fearless."

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

The word is continuation. Repeat after me con-tin-u-a-shun

How is that fradulent? Quote me chapter and verse and make a charge in any ( federal, district,state or even small claims) court. Come on ned. And rod. Put up or shut up. No 10 word discussion response here show me a specific section of the us code that is being violated. Note such a claim would also have to apply to the superformance gt40 continuations among others. Where is the charge? Surely the fbi wouldn't let such fraud continue unchecked.

You must have selective amnesia. I may have to put YOU on my version of Evan's "I'm not going on that merry-go-round from hell again" list.

Tony, we've had this discussion already in this thread. I posted at least a couple threads from Robert Morgester, at that time, the Assistant CA AG. He was prosecuting criminal cases where folks tried to register their cars as 1965's. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself over and over again and then have you bring up the same discussion 20-30 pages later. It is ILLEGAL in CA to register a modern replica, like my Kirkham Cobra, as a model year 1965. That's why they have the 500 SPCNS exemptions each year. In CA, you register by the year manufactured, which in my case was 2007.

Seriously, no one cares about your Mexican-built Green Bay Packer Edition CSX that you used to own many years ago. If your car was not made in 1965, then it would be illegal or FRAUDULENT in CA to register it TODAY as a 1965. And that is a fact. But if you prefer selective amnesia, then that's fine.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

This is simply pointing out the obvious, but all Evan has taught anyone is how to be obstinate, selective in one's statement of the facts, and twist reality to suit his agenda. Both the registry and the SAAC website clearly state the later Shelby-built Cobras are replicas of the 60's icon, but Evan focuses only on the club's decision to call them something else to help distinguish them from other replicas.

Face the facts: a car built to copy something built by a different company some 35 years earlier with different tooling and materials in a dissimilar manner on a different continent with an entirely different corporate structure, clearly can't be the same as the original. The story of Pinocchio was a fable, and even though a fairy princess turned a bundle of sticks into a "real, live, boy,"no fairy can turn a 2001 Shelby Cobra into a real 1965 AC-Shelby Cobra.

But if and when it happens, please let us know.

Beautiful.

And can you PLEASE include Tony (twobjshelbys) in your next post here? He's replicating Evan now.

[twobjshelbys]

Then why does the MSO say 1965 Shelby cobra? I could give a rats ass about the people's Republic of california. If they had just said tax that blasted emissions hog and ypu could call it what you want.

I'm still waiting for a code violation citation for the issuance of a vin and mso.

Oh and you still haven't explained how my cobra had a title for 1965 Shelby cobra after Morgester's edict came down. Oh well.