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

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by ERANJ

RK thank you for the comment firstly.

You actually missed one though What about the restoration parts that are manufactured by new suppliers other than GM labeled on the box as Genuine GM parts. The point being it's all about licensing which Shelby holds? I sincerely believe that if we are simply stating that CSX4000s are a Shelby Cobra (forget about all the terms in between) than Evan car is a real Shelby Cobra and the license term is accurate. Whatelse is a CSX4000 car a real....replica?

Well, you know where my vote goes. To me, the only real, genuine or authentic Shelby Cobras are the 998. Everything after that is a copy. And for the most part, they're not even that authentic, since the most parts are different.

Even the next generation of the CSX3000 series cars, called "Competition Series" (and I call the "Resurrection Series"), which will use nearly all OEM and some reproduction parts, along with Fran Kress' (not OEM Halibrand) magnesium wheels, are copies of the genuine 998. The 6 LW Jaguars are just copies of the 1960's series.

The debate will rage on forever.

[jhv48]

Originally Posted by ERANJ

No one is saying they are 1965 Cobra nor making the claim they are the same.

Actually, re read post #875 and you'll see, word for word, how Evan misrepresented his continuation replica to the general public in a "for sale" ad as an "ORIGINAL SHELBY AMERICAN COBRA."

Personally, I think he was duped by the master when he originally bought his replica into thinking his car would forever be labeled as an original. And when he found out his "original" was subsequently reclassified as a "continuation", he couldn't bring himself to admit he had consumed the kool aid.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by Al G

I prefer to stick with the definition, not the synonyms. They are there for those who can't comprehend the definition.

My car is built by a company called Shelby. The MSO says the model is Cobra. It is what the MSO claims it to be. That seems to match the definitions of genuine, real and authentic. Of course it is not an original 1965 Cobra and I never claim it to be. The so-called Cobra replicas manufactered by a number of companies all fail the genuine, real and authentic definitions if they claim to be Shelby Cobras.

Carroll Shelby refers to the CSX4000/6000 series cars as Component Cobras. Why isn't "Component Cobra" in your vocabulary?

[ERANJ]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Carroll Shelby refers to the CSX4000/6000 series cars as Component Cobras. Why isn't "Component Cobra" in your vocabulary?

Al Gs comment is spot on exactly what others have said this morning. You seem to be making the case of alignment for the Real argument all on your own thank you. Think we're well past this point.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by jhv48

Actually, re read post #875 and you'll see, word for word, how Evan misrepresented his continuation replica to the general public in a "for sale" ad as an "ORIGINAL SHELBY AMERICAN COBRA."

Personally, I think he was duped by the master when he originally bought his replica into thinking his car would forever be labeled as an original. And when he found out his "original" was subsequently reclassified as a "continuation", he couldn't bring himself to admit he had consumed the kool aid.

I think you just cracked the code on the "add error"

[John McMahon]

Have not been on CC in some time and I was surprised to see that this thread from 2004 is still active....wow!

Talk about legs!

[Al G]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Carroll Shelby refers to the CSX4000/6000 series cars as Component Cobras. Why isn't "Component Cobra" in your vocabulary?

It is. I was responding to your definitions of genuine, real and authentic.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by Al G

... The MSO says the model is Cobra. It is what the MSO claims it to be ...

Does the MSO say the model is a Cobra or Component Cobra?
Is Component Cobra listed anywhere on the MSO, or is there any indication that what was purchased was an incomplete car?

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

Evan, as I have said repeatedly, I have nothing against the current crop of Shelby Cobras. I simply prefer the historic cars to the newer replicas. That is my right. Now, if you desire to start up the argument over how biased I am, go ahead. Forgive me if I don't respond.

Ned no problem. That is certainly your right. Just so that you know, I have nothing against the original historic Cobras. . And of course I understand your use of the word "replica" as defined by Webster's as recounted in the Registry.

If so, I think you and I are good.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by John McMahon

Have not been on CC in some time and I was surprised to see that this thread from 2004 is still active....wow!

Talk about legs!

John you ol' rascal you.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Does the MSO say the model is a Cobra or Component Cobra?
Is Component Cobra listed anywhere on the MSO, or is there any indication that what was purchased was an incomplete car?

Yes, I believe "CSX6000 Component Series" is on the Shelby MSO. CSX owners please correct, if I'm wrong.

[Trevor Legate]

Just scanned the last couple of pages as I enjoy suffering. Two points: Tis true that replicas/fakes/clones etc are common at the Revival and we ain't just talking Cobras! Plus the new-build E-types use bodywork and engines made by outside contractors and were assembled at Jaguar. On my planet, this makes them even less 'original' - even Lord March takes the line that they will not be receiving invites to race at the Revival as "we do not permit replicas"!! Such fun.....

Now - back to the twilight zone

Ned - 6107 is still racking up the miles as a near-daily driver. I bumped into car & owner at Hawk Cars recently and the battery decided to die. I guess if your 289 Sports fails, it did it at the right place. Great timing.

[rodneym]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Yes, I believe "CSX6000 Component Series" is on the Shelby MSO. CSX owners please correct, if I'm wrong.

RK, you're 99% correct.
"CSX6000 SERIES COMPONENT VEHICLE" is written 2x on the MSO.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Yes, I believe "CSX6000 Component Series" is on the Shelby MSO. CSX owners please correct, if I'm wrong.

You are quite correct RodKnock, the MSO is quite clear that these are component vehicles. Seems Al G and others are "taking liberties" with what the MSO says, no surprise.

Originally Posted by Al G

I prefer to stick with the definition, not the synonyms. They are there for those who can't comprehend the definition.

My car is built by a company called Shelby. The MSO says the model is Cobra. It is what the MSO claims it to be. That seems to match the definitions of genuine, real and authentic. Of course it is not an original 1965 Cobra and I never claim it to be. The so-called Cobra replicas manufactered by a number of companies all fail the genuine, real and authentic definitions if they claim to be Shelby Cobras.

What the MSO actually looks like -

"STATEMENT OF ORIGIN FOR A CSX4000 SERIES COMPONENT VEHICLE"

Trade Name: Shelby Cobra 427
Series: CSX4000
Model Year: 1965

"The CSX4000 Series Component Vehicle is sold by Shelby American, Inc. without engine or transmission"



The point is obvious, if you are going to quote your MSO then quote it, you own a CSX4000 Series or CSX6000 Series Component Vehicle.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by rodneym

RK, you're 99% correct.
"CSX6000 SERIES COMPONENT VEHICLE" is written 2x on the MSO.

Well, it was from memory. And I knew we had qualified people here to correct me, if necessary.

What's funny to me is the 1965 model year and the story in the Registry when CS was questioned about it by authorities, he answered that "1965" represented the model number. If that story is true, then that tells you a little about the man, the myth, the legend.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

Well, it was from memory. And I knew we had qualified people here to correct me, if necessary.

What's funny to me is the 1965 model year and the story in the Registry when CS was questioned about it by authorities, he answered that "1965" represented the model number. If that story is true, then that tells you a little about the man, the myth, the legend.

You have to sell the Kool-Aid any way you can.

[RodKnock]

I'm looking at my Kirkham "Certificate of Origin" and I don't get it. My CO states that I bought a new "1965 Replica Roadster." No where does it say "Cobra" and then it has that word "replica" in its description.

I'm confused. How come my Kirkham "1965 Replica Roadster" is listed as a Kirkham Cobra in the SAAC World Registry. The SAAC World Registry contains replicas? Really?

And nearly every alloy CSX 4000/6000 built has, at a minimum, a Kirkham "1965 Replica Roadster" body and chassis and, in the case of the CSX 50th Anniversary models, the "whole kit (pun intended) and caboodle" is Kirkham.

Huh.

[Al G]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

You are quite correct RodKnock, the MSO is quite clear that these are component vehicles. Seems Al G and others are "taking liberties" with what the MSO says, no surprise.



What the MSO actually looks like -

"STATEMENT OF ORIGIN FOR A CSX4000 SERIES COMPONENT VEHICLE"

Trade Name: Shelby Cobra 427
Series: CSX4000
Model Year: 1965

"The CSX4000 Series Component Vehicle is sold by Shelby American, Inc. without engine or transmission"



The point is obvious, if you are going to quote your MSO then quote it, you own a CSX4000 Series or CSX6000 Series Component Vehicle.

I was also working from memory. It still says "Shelby Cobra." Are you going to argue with that? My take on the definitions still stands. I never claimed it was not a component vehicle. Nor did I ever claim it came from Shelby with a drivetrain. So what is your point.

[Al G]

I actually think this entire thread is about the wrong question. We should be discussing this one.

Why do owners of cars not built by Shelby Anerican refer to their cars as Cobras?

I see it all the time here. I see it at car shows where owners fill out the information card identifying their car as a Cobra. Very rarely do I see the word "replica" in those cases. Some owners even have audicity to use the word "Shelby."

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I'm looking at my Kirkham "Certificate of Origin" and I don't get it. My CO states that I bought a new "1965 Replica Roadster." No where does it say "Cobra" and then it has that word "replica" in its description.

I'm confused. How come my Kirkham "1965 Replica Roadster" is listed as a Kirkham Cobra in the SAAC World Registry. The SAAC World Registry contains replicas? Really?

And nearly every alloy CSX 4000/6000 built has, at a minimum, a Kirkham "1965 Replica Roadster" body and chassis and, in the case of the CSX 50th Anniversary models, the "whole kit (pun intended) and caboodle" is Kirkham.

Huh.

Yep, my comment earlier - "how do you un-replica a replica" meaning Kirkhams delivered to SAI