Ken Gano wrote:
>I am real curious as to where you come down
>personally on the "replica vs. original"
>argument.
[snip]
You may have noticed that a recently fabricated "Cobra Daytona Coupe" was an
entrant at the last Monterrey event, using the simple expedient of calling
it a "Daytona R" ("R" for "Replica"). It's also my understanding that Shelby
himself is building a run of several "Daytona Coupes" - if they're made
under the aegis of the original manufacturer, are they replicas?
You realize, of course, that this argument has no end satisfactory to all.
There are some who take the position that any car that has been
substantially restored is no longer "original". On the other hand, there was
much hand-wringing when S. Moss trashed a good part of an Aston Martin racer
a couple of years ago - although it later developed that the car had already
totally rebodied at least twice before.
And if this thread continues, someone will surely mention the infamous Lotus
Mark ??, of which just 20 were built - only 63 of which survive today.
>is recreating a historical automobile
>a legitimate endeavor?
I agree with those who've already said "Yes - as long as it's not passed off
as an original", but my opinion holds no more weight than any other.
Jim Hill
Madison WI
|