In a message dated 12/26/00 3:55:31 PM EDT, kengano@mcleodusa.net writes:
> Andy:
>
> I am real curious as to where you come down personally on the "replica vs.
> original" argument...I am not asking
> which wins the concourse, but rather is recreating a historical automobile
> is a legitimate endeavor? I believe firmly that it is but I hear the
> argument of museums and vintage race events that the recreation should not
> compete with the original....If you build a replica, do you really have
> anything when your done?
>
> My $0.02 (for whomever asked the original question :)) is GO FOR IT. Even
a
> partial recreation would be cool.
OK, this is most certainly my own personal opinion. Keep in mind that this,
to many, is a bit like discussing religion or politics. ;-)
A number of years ago I remember reading that, in automotive terms, the term
"replica" should only be applied to copies (or near-copies) of a given
vehicle built by the original manufacturer. Examples might include a
Frazer-Nash LeMans Replica or certain earlier big Healeys (100S?) that
duplicate (or nearly so) and commemorate Works racing cars. A copy or
near-copy of such a car built later by a private individual or entity other
than the original manufacturer would more correctly be termed a reproduction.
And depending on whose dictionary you use, these terms work reasonably well
to describe the respective vehicles.
[Even more personal note: I very much dislike the term "replica" when applied
to something like the "MiGi" MG T-series fiberglass bodies stuck on old Type
1 VW pans, complete with rear-mounted, air-cooled engine. But back to the
main question.]
So long as a given vehicle is clearly billed as a replica, reproduction,
whatever, and NOT as an original, I have no problem with it at all. What
bothers me most is when such cars are passed off by their creators or current
owner/investor/reseller as an original. They are not. In almost all cases,
original chassis numbers are known for the "real thing."
But even here one can get into grey areas. For example, there are three
"works Rallye TR4s" that seem to be pretty much the genuine article. Then
there are, so I've heard, at least two other cars, both of which have some
legitimate claim and lineage to the fourth car. Are all five (or more?) to be
considered the original four cars? :-)
And let's not even talk about the AC/Shelby Cobra, of which there are
probably many times more "copies" of varying quality and pedigree than there
are originals. Further, let's not even talk about the fact that some people
firmly believe that Carroll Shelby's production of same in the last few years
are "replicas"; yes, I know that they carry serial numbers that continue the
original series, and they're titled as 1965 models or some such....
Should such cars be allowed in historic race competition? In my opinion,
sure! Why not? They're probably more "period" in some cases than are the
originals against which they compete. But then was is "original" for a
production-based race car? As it came down the line? As it appeared in its
first competitive outing? As it appeared in its LAST competitive outing? And
what happens when that "original" is badly damaged and rebuilt? THE Macau
Spitfire hasn't sported its original body since, I think, the late 1960s or
so. Oh, and it hasn't had its original "70X" eight-port 1147cc engine since
about 1966, when Kas Kastner got it and stuffed a 2 liter six in to try to
develop the "GT6"!
Bottom line (thank goodness, you say!): my only real concern is that
"replicas" become accepted as the real thing and often gain the monetary
value (if not the historic value) of an "original"; I don't feel that's right.
So build the best "replica" you can and/or that money can buy. I'll cheer it
on and drool both while it's on the track and while it's on the show field.
Just don't place an ad one month later in _Hemmings_ trying to recoup your
investment in "a meticulous restoration of THE original Webley-Vickers
Challenge Cup 7th place class winner by index of performance in 1952"
Thrashwell-Snailby SS!*
--Andy Mace
*Yet another reference/homage on this list to Dick O'Kane. Those who have
read THE BOOK will understand....
|