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

[mrmustang]

Let's face facts, unless your car has a providence such as the following, it's a replica




Might I add, that you'll notice how it is invoiced as an "AC ACE" chassis with the CSX2032 chassis ID.

[mrmustang]

As for watches, anything larger in physical size than a Tag Aqua



is just the owner of such watches making up for his "shortcomings"


Bill S.

[Blue66]

Originally Posted by NewYorkGuy

Lol
i am guessing "Doctor Bob" said no to you?
Gee wonder why

Why ??? Maybe because he is a dickhead ?? YES I am talking about an experience with him YEARS ago.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Buzz

Not totally and solely directed at you Evan. Many Cobra owners are a bit anal about defending their brands but you must admit you're THE major player in this game. Your car is a Shelby Cobra, no debate about that is possible. What causes the ongoing back-and-forth is your approach and the fact that many feel you denigrate other replicas by constantly casting your car as having a more pedigreed or elevated status than the others.

People who don't value the Shelby branding above the the car itself will never agree that yours is anything but a more expensive replica that came about because Shelby, surprised by the thriving Cobra replica industry and reckoning that he would enjoy a natural advantage, decided to readopt his long abandoned Cobra and jump into the replica game.

The various court rulings that came down as a result of his attempts to squeeze out the other replica manufacturers imply to most that the Cobra has become its own generic class of car based upon a certain set of distinct characteristics, primarily the shape and appearance of the body that no one entity can exclusively own.

From a branding and marketing point of view, however, Shelby owns the legal right to produce and market his product using the actual "Cobra" name, so while they're all essentially Cobras, only SAI can legally market theirs as such. Of course since they all replicate or imitate in varying degrees of faithfulness the original AC/Shelby Cobra of the 1960's, having that ability to brand theirs with that same Shelby Cobra name does imply a certain amount of cachet to enough people that they can sell at a higher price point.

No argument there and not at all difficult to understand, but one must also be able to understand the perspective that leads many to hold the opinion that a Shelby Continuation Cobra is just another (very nice, high quality) replica that happens to be sold and branded today by the current incarnation of the same company that used to make the original (read REal) Cobras back in the day. It's a sticking point that you (Evan) will never cotton to and others will never concede, so the arguing is pointless and all the animosity is just unnecessary.

If Ford and/or Shelby decided to manufacture and sell an actual, modern car based on the old Cobra name and heritage, it would be a real Shelby Cobra every bit as much as the new resurrected Camaros are real Chevy Camaros. The problem is that the Cobras made in the 60's can never again be manufactured and sold as automobiles again - by anyone - so all that remains of them now are the component/kit replicas of those cars, some of which are sold by Shelby - and they're damn nice ones that come with a lofty price premium because of the legal Cobra moniker.

You stepped up and coughed up the premium and yes, you can be technically correct when you say that you own a real Shelby Cobra. To most other people, regardless of marketing semantics and legal branding rights, the only real Cobras, which all of our cars replicate (again, with varying degrees of faithfulness), were made in the 60's and that to them is historical fact, unassailable and unchangeable; impervious to legal wrangling over the use of the brand name or the creative interpretation of such by someone in whose interest it is to establish otherwise in order to protect the perceived value of his investment.

I don't care much either way myself. I just love Cobras, and these are just my musings on this way too contentious subject. Have a great day all, and enjoy your Cobras Shelby or otherwise.

Buzz: Very well stated. However, understand, I am not trying to elevate my car or the continuation series above anything else (except when pushing back pointedly in admittedly a somewhat childless way to childish attacks). Just stating what they are. Many here take that "statement" as a statement of superiority. What is superior or better is subjective. Everyone's criteria as to what's "better" is different. As to pedigree, if you want a Shelby Cobra and Shelby pedigree your choices are limited. Period. Original or "extra crispy" Just kidding. Original or Continuation. Those are just the facts. Not derogatory. Just the facts. The replica and kit issue is irrelevant to me. A side show.

Personally, for my use and purpose my car fits my criteria better than an original. I would be more nervous then I am already driving a $1 million dollar car around than my car which is already expensive enough. I get the same enjoyment out of it and it meets my criteria. End of story.

I love all these cars and the hobby. As I said I have friends that have ERAs and FFR's and went on a FFR Cobra run in June. I have attended the DVSF in the past where all sorts of replicas by the hundreds were there. Even beat my old CC nemesis Turk in a well publicized CC drag race at the event. Dating myself here. In fact met a guy at a local cruise night the other week with a SPf and spent about 15 minutes talking to him about his car. Never even mentioned I have a Cobra. The discussion was about his car. I am the first guy to sing the praises of ERAs. I remain friends with Peter Portante' at ERA even today and speak with him occasionally. Peter has even advised on my decision of getting my Shelby years ago and to get the aluminum car. For a "blowhard" I seem to have no problem getting along and have even been invited back on the FFR run for this fall.

Saying what my car is factually and legally does not equate to putting others down. I see it the exactly opposite, I see others having to tear down to make themselves feel better.

Is the glass half full or half empty?

[Joe's Garage]

Interesting observation, countless posts separating the continuation from being a "kit car" or "replica" but a genuine Shelby Cobra. Now they are nothing more than "red herrings" and of no importance

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Jamo

All that being said, with the creation of this sticky, I am not going to allow a free-for-all with name calling, etc. This applies to everyone concerned.

Proceed with care...

And with this being said, please don't allow this thread to become a Watch Talk Forum either. Watches are superfluous and boring.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Not saying I own a real Shelby Cobra or anything but just addressing the trade dress issue as opposed to the trade mark issue.

Am I understanding this statement correctly? Are you admitting to the fact that you don't own a real Shelby Cobra? If so, then welcome back to sanity.

And change your license plate while you're at it.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

The truth is, AC Cars Ltd. were the creators of the 289 and 427 bodies, not Shelby. If AC Cars Ltd. got wind that Shelby was bringing a law suit against replica builders on the shape of the 427 (back then), a simple FAX from across the pond would have squashed Shelby and his bumbling legal team who thought they had sole rights to the cobra shape. Who knows what AC Cars Ltd. would have done back then, but when Shelby brought the case to court some 40 years later, they probably knew it was a no-win and just let the court dispense with Shelby and his frivolous suit accordingly.

OK, well, I guess I'll call BS on this. Are you in possession of any facts from AC that state this? Else it's just speculation and "gee it would have been nice if it had turned out that way". But it didn't. "Just the facts, m'am" [which Jack Webb never said], and any sentence with the word "probably" in it is not a fact.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

OK, well, I guess I'll call BS on this. Are you in possession of any facts from AC that state this? Else it's just speculation and "gee it would have been nice if it had turned out that way". But it didn't. "Just the facts, m'am" [which Jack Webb never said], and any sentence with the word "probably" in it is not a fact.

Part I
The 289 is all AC, the 427 was AC with some Ford input, it's all out there on the internet.

Production proved to be easy, since AC had already made most of the modifications needed for the small-block V8 when they installed the 2.6 L Ford Zephyr engine, including the extensive rework of the AC Ace's front end bodywork. The most important modification was the fitting of a stronger rear differential to handle the increased engine power. A Salisbury 4HU unit with inboard disc brakes to reduce unsprung weight was chosen instead of the old ENV unit. It was the same unit used on the Jaguar E-Type. On the production version, the inboard brakes were moved outboard to reduce cost. The only modification of the front end of the first Cobra from that of the AC Ace 2.6 was the steering box, which had to be moved outward to clear the wider V8 engine.

AC exported completed, painted and trimmed cars (less engine and gearbox) to Shelby who then finished the cars in his workshop in Los Angeles by installing the engine and gearbox and correcting any bodywork flaws caused by the car's passage by sea.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Interesting observation, countless posts separating the continuation from being a "kit car" or "replica" but a genuine Shelby Cobra. Now they are nothing more than "red herrings" and of no importance

Correctamundo.

The key to understanding the difference and the issue is in my posts.

You can also buy a World Registry and read it.

[Igofastr]

I like "red herrings"...developed a taste for them while in Sweden years ago. They are especially tasty pickled. On the other hand, do not eat "surstromming." Trust me on this.

Now back to your outdated timepieces...er, kitcars, replicas and such.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Correctamundo.

The key to understanding the difference and the issue is in my posts.

You can also buy a World Registry and read it.

We understand that "kit car" and "replica" are red herrings to you, but not for others.

The World Registry also contains a story that the CSX4000's were considered "true replicas", and "component" cars, but for marketing purposes, they decided to call them continuations.

[REAL 1]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

We understand that "kit car" and "replica" are red herrings to you, but not for others.

The World Registry also contains a story that the CSX4000's were considered "true replicas", and "component" cars, but for marketing purposes, they decided to call them continuations.

Not entirely accurate. Shelby didn't want to refer to them as Kits. Component cars was more palatable to him. But I get your drift. Yes, yes. True. true.

But again, any car that is going to be sold without meeting todays safety regulations and emissions regulations would have to be sold in "kit" fashion. Even the original Cobras today if production never stopped would have to be sold in kit fashion.

To me its a "so what".

But the Registry also says other things too... Dare I go there? Keep reading.

BTW I love pickled herring in the white cream sauce. Yummy.

[dallas_]

Going back to the original question, maybe it's because these threads get more views and posts these days than any other topic.

(unless it's in the Aussie sub-forum, those guys still seem to talk about cars)

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

OK, well, I guess I'll call BS on this. Are you in possession of any facts from AC that state this? Else it's just speculation and "gee it would have been nice if it had turned out that way". But it didn't. "Just the facts, m'am" [which Jack Webb never said], and any sentence with the word "probably" in it is not a fact.

Part II
The AC Cobra 427 is a convertible/cabriolet designed by John Tojeiro with 2 doors and a front mounted engine which transmits its power to the rear wheels.

After being paid a fee for the first 100 Aces sold John Tojeiro and AC more or less went their separate ways. Tojeiro continued to manufacture one-off racing specials in a wide variety until well in the 1960s and was even commissioned to build a special racing version of the Ace by AC in 1958, which finished second in its class at the Le Mans race that year. In later years Tojeiro switched to running a plastics business and it wasn't until the 1980s and the Cobra replica and kit-car boom that he really came to regret his naive deal with AC, which dissociated the creator from his creation that became an automotive icon and obscured his rightful place in car history.

Education over.

[fasterpatrick]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Not entirely accurate. Shelby didn't want to refer to them as Kits. Component cars was more palatable to him. But I get your drift. Yes, yes. True. true.

But again, any car that is going to be sold without meeting todays safety regulations and emissions regulations would have to be sold in "kit" fashion. Even the original Cobras today if production never stopped would have to be sold in kit fashion.

To me its a "so what".

But the Registry also says other things too... Dare I go there? Keep reading.

BTW I love pickled herring in the white cream sauce. Yummy.

I don't say much here, well because I usually don't give it much thought when these "P" Matches start. I get the feeling all that matters to you is that your car is in the "book".

Be happy it is and it probably cost you a lot to make sure it got in there, for me I don't care about if my car is authentic or not it sure is fun and a lot of people say it is beautiful. Now my car is no where near looking real and I get asked all the time if it is, my reply is I don't have the check book for a real one. Now I could care less what you paid to make sure your car was "in the Book" but I know what I have for less than 20K and five years of the satisfaction of building the car I wanted "From Scratch no less", It's stupid fast handles like it's on rails and I can get parts to keep it on the road at NAPA. Does that make my car better than anyone else, HELL NO.

I'll go back and sit in my corner with all the replica owners now and watch.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Not entirely accurate. Shelby didn't want to refer to them as Kits. Component cars was more palatable to him. But I get your drift. Yes, yes. True. true.

But again, any car that is going to be sold without meeting todays safety regulations and emissions regulations would have to be sold in "kit" fashion. Even the original Cobras today if production never stopped would have to be sold in kit fashion.

To me its a "so what".

But the Registry also says other things too... Dare I go there? Keep reading.

BTW I love pickled herring in the white cream sauce. Yummy.

And the SAAC Cobra Registrar, a leading expert in this area, states for the record something else. Dare I go there?

As far as I'm concerned the SAAC Registry is full of human input, which is subject to change over time. The next version of human input may (hopefully) change.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

And the SAAC Cobra Registrar, a leading expert in this area, states for the record something else. Dare I go there?

As far as I'm concerned the SAAC Registry is full of human input, which is subject to change over time. The next version of human input may (hopefully) change.

Although a nice thought, I have no confidence that anything will change. When you can sell them @ $150 a pop, it's not in your best interest to bite the hand that feeds you, the broader the buying base the better. The SAAC Registry could care less about following any standards for inclusion, it's all about making money.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Although a nice thought, I have no confidence that anything will change. When you can sell them @ $150 a pop, it's not in your best interest to bite the hand that feeds you, the broader the buying base the better. The SAAC Registry could care less about following any standards for inclusion, it's all about making money.

Here are a few of Ned's (the SAAC Cobra Registrar) previous comments on this subject:

Originally Posted by Nedsel

It's easy. Read the registry. If the car isn't listed under the section covering cars built in the 60's, it belongs elsewhere.

"Elsewhere" is not defined.

Originally Posted by Nedsel

Or, we could limit the SAAC registry to cars from the 60's that were actually built then, too.

Sounds like the SAAC Cobra Registrar is considering or has considered limiting the Registry to just the genuine (1960's) Shelby Cobras.

Originally Posted by Nedsel

As for the inclusion of the new cars in the SAAC registry, I have yet to be advised exactly what is supposed to be happening. Some time ago it was decided (or so I thought) that SAAC would deal with the historic cars, and let Shelby American handle the replicas they have made. The DenBeste press release says their cars will be submitted to/ included in the SAAC registry, but that's as much as has been said. I can say with certainty that these cars will not appear with the cars from the 60's regardless of their chassis numbers or whatever they are eventually called.

This statement by Ned was made on 5/20/2015. Sounds like there may be a separation of the genuine 1960's Shelby Cobras and the modern replicas, including the Kirkhams, coming sooner than we think. Changes could be afoot as we speak.

[trularin]

I confess - I have not read every response to this thread.

However I speculate the following:

Other than the humor and satisfaction at poking member(s) who feel they are better than others ( please note I have not put ANY names in this statement ), the idea of having something remarkable/special/unique and "any other word that fills the bill" excites that person to defend their possession and decision to own that item.

Just an idea - the statement is in no way a position to be implied.

Tru