Afternoon Gents. OK, so it isn't a red car but I thought some of you here may be interested to see progress so far. Getting closer to the first shakedown drive .... "The Gathering" Sand Casting XJ13 Bellhousings Then and Now ... Engine Startup - Full Video of the Event I couldn't resist a second start of the engine ... More stuff here - A quest to build and race an exact replica of the 1966 Jaguar XJ13.
Very cool project. I had a Jaguar book in the 80's with a chapter on the XJ13. Always wanted one from that. Bought a classic car magazine, had an article on someone else, who built a replica. Forget what magazine, it was about four or five years ago. I bought the magazine for the XJ13 article.
Awesome project. And one car well worth replicating. What I do not understand is they say it is an exact replica and yet the door hinge photo comparisons (original versus replica) look very different to me ... ?? Pete
Yes - I agree Pete. The photo is quite misleading. The doors are open to different extents which does make them look quite different and there is still quite a bit of detail finishing to do. I have removed that image to save confusion. Rest assured, the aim is to exactly replicate the car and I am afraid I have become quite "sad" in that aim. This is perhaps one of the main reason the build has taken the best part of five years so far Neville
Interesting comment Sean. I must admit, I do struggle with these various definitions. However ... If someone makes an entity it is "created". If the entity is damaged and is rebuilt it can then be "recreated" and can be described as a "recreation". You can't recreate something that hasn't already been created. Agreed? OK. If someone decides to make a copy of that entity, it can only be described as a replica/facsimile/clone/whatever. If it is subsequently damaged, it can be recreated. It may then be described as a "recreation". The term "recreation" perhaps should not be used to describe something created to look like something else. Do you get my logic? The whole thing becomes a bit of a minefield when people throw in words such as evocation, continuation, tool room copy, clone etc. Maybe we should stick with the late Denis Jenkinson's definitions from his 1987 book “Directory of Historic Racing Cars.” "Original Almost impossible to find anything in this category. It would have to have been put in store the moment it was completed. Possibly the Trossi-Monaco special in the Biscaretti Museum comes as close to an original racing car as it is possible to get. The “old-car” industry frequently uses degrees of originality, such as “nearly original”, “almost original”, even “completely original”, but all such descriptions are meaningless as they cannot be quantified. A racing car that has only had a new set of tyres and a change of sparking plugs since it was completed is no longer “original”. Many components have remained “original”, such as gearboxes, cylinder heads, axles and so on, and reproduction parts are made to “original drawings” and “original material specification”, but this does not make them “original” parts, nor does a complete car built from such components qualify as “original”, regardless of what the constructor or owner might think. Such a car is nothing more than a “reproduction” or “facsimile”. Genuine This is a much more practical description for an old or historic car and can be applied to most racing cars that have had active and continuous lives, with no occasions when they “disappeared into limbo” or changed their character in any way. Most E.R.A.s come into this category as they have been raced continuously, which has meant the replacing of numerous components as they wore out, but the car itself has never been lost from view, nor has its basic character and purpose been altered over the years. Even such a well-known E.R.A. as “Romulus” is not “original”, as it has been repainted, reupholstered, new tyres have been fitted and new components have been used to rebuild the engine; but it is unquestionably “Genuine”. Authentic This term is used to describe a racing car that has led a chequered career, through no fault of its own, but has never disappeared from view. The “Entity”, which is best described as the sum of the parts, has always been around in some form or other, but has now been put back to the specification that it was in, either when it was first built, or some subsequent known point in its history. An example would be an old Grand Prix car that was converted into a road-going sports car when its useful racing life was over, over the years having the racing engine replaced by a touring version, and eventually being allowed to deteriorate. It is then rescued and rebuilt as the Grand Prix car, with its racing engine replaced, but with new radiator, fuel tank and oil tank, new wheels made, new bodywork, instrument panel, seat, upholstery and so on, all of which were missing. The “Entity” that started life as the Grand Prix car never actually disappeared, so the end result of all the labours can justifiably be described as “Authentic”. There is no question of it being “Original”, and to describe it as genuine would be unfair to its sister cars that remained Grand Prix cars all their lives, even though such things as radiator, fuel tank, seat and so on had to be replaced due to the ravages of time and use. Resurrection Some racing cars, when they reached the end of their useful life, were abandoned and gradually dismantled as useful bits were taken off to use on other cars. Eventually insufficient of the car remained to form an acceptable entity, even though most of the components were still scattered about. There have been numerous cases where such components that still existed were gathered up to form the basis of a new car; a new chassis frame and new body were required and, from the bare bones of the ashes or the original, another one appears. It cannot claim to be the original car, and certainly not a genuine car, nor an authentic car. At best it is a “Resurrection” from the dead, or from the graveyard. Re-construction This can stem from a single original component, or a collection of components from a variety of cars, but usually there is very little left of the original racing car, except its history and its character. From these small particles a complete new car is built, its only connection with the original car being a few components and the last-known pile of rust left over when decomposition set in. Facsimile Purely and simply a racing car that now exists when there never was an original. If a factory built four examples of a particular Grand Prix model, for instance, and there are now five in existence, then the fifth can only be a facsimile, fake, clone, copy or reproduction. If the fifth car was built by the same people or factory who built the four original cars, then at best it could be a “Replica” of the four original cars, but such a situation is very unlikely. There are many reasons for building a facsimile, from sheer enthusiasm for a particular model to simple avarice, and it is remarkable how many facsimiles have been given a small piece of genuine history in order to try to authenticate the fake, and thus raise its value. Facsimiles have been built of just about everything from Austin to Wolseley, some being so well made that it is difficult to tell them from the originals. Some owners have been known to remain strangely silent about the origins of their cars when they have been mistaken for the real thing. Other facsimiles have been declared openly and honestly by the constructors, such as the facsimile that has been built of an A/B-type E.R.A., or the series of facsimiles of 250F Maseratis that have been built. The trouble usually starts when the cars are sold to less scrupulous owners, who first convince themselves they have bought a genuine car, and then try to convince the rest of the sporting world. The disease is very prevalent in the world of museums, on the assumption that the paying public are gullible. Special This name applies to one-off cars that are the product of the fertile brain of the constructor. It is probably true to say that no special has ever been finished! It may be finished sufficiently to allow it to race, but inevitably the constructor will be planning further modifications while he is still racing it. If the special builder ever says his car is finished, it will usually indicate that it is now obsolete and he is starting on a new one. The rebuilding or restoring of a special to use as an Historic racing car, by someone who is not the original constructor, can mean either that the car is rebuilt to a known point in time that appeals to the new owner, or he can continue the process of development where the originator left off. The nice thing about specials is that they are a law unto themselves and do not need to be put into any sort of category. A special can be totally accepted as “Genuine, authentic, reconstructed or facsimile”. Duplication This is a disease which started many years ago within the ranks of the lovers of Bugatti cars. Unscrupulous people dismantled a Grand Prix Bugatti into its component parts and with the right hand sold an incomplete car as a “basket case” and with the left hand sold another incomplete car as a “box of bits”. The two buyers eventually found suitable second-hand components to replace the missing parts, or had new bits made, and we ended up with two Grand Prix Bugattis where there has only been one. Naturally each owner claims “authenticity” for his complete car. The Bugatti Owners Club – and the majority of its members – strongly disapprove of this practice. Unfortunately the disease has spread to many other makes, especially those that were built in large numbers. At best this whole business borders on fraud. Destroyed A simple enough word that applies to a racing car that has been involved in an accident or fire in which no tangible components are left in recognizable shape or form. Scrapped This usually applies to a car that is taken out of service by a factory team and either deliberately destroyed so that nothing is left, or useful components are removed and put into store and the rest is thrown on the scrap heap for crushing or melting down. There have been cases of a chassis frame being rescued from the scrap heap and used to re-create a new car. In no way can the new car be described as genuine. If the factory scrapped a car and removed its number from their records, than that car has gone for ever, and a nebulous collection of old and new components can hardly justify the claiming of the scrapped number. Broken up Similarly, if a factory records that a car has been broken up, it should mean exactly that. It has gone for good. Converted There have been examples of a Type A model being converted by the factory into a Type B and then a Type C. The particular car as an entity never disappeared, though it might be difficult to recognize that the Type C was once a Type A. It is virtually impossible to re-convert such a car back to a Type A, no matter how desirable it may be. The perfect example is the E.R.A. that started life as R4B in 1936, was converted to R4C in 1937, and then into R4D in 1938 and was much modified again in 1948. The car still exists as R4D, with a well-documented continuous history, and is as genuine as they come but it can never revert back to R4B." Neville
Neville I like your Jeks definitons. They are perhaps focussed on old racing cars. The world in which we live today needs definitions to describe various "old" type cars, replicas. To me the term replica is too borad and encompases everythign from toolroom copies to plastic fantastic. The XJ13 as an example is in some ways more authentic than the one jaguar now owns but not origional. We live in an era of "kit cars" lets call these cars that have the silouette of some older car but not much more, although some betetr ones may have similar drivetrains and feel. These too might currently be called replicas, but they are very different from the xj13. Lets look at Cobras as an example. A Kirkham is probably as close in terms of build to a 60s cobra as you can get, but its kirkham. is it also a cobra. Then there are Shelbys some with alumnum bodies they carry CSx numbers. Then there are some fiberglass ones with same chasis etc but glass bodies And then there are silhouttes. What standards are applied to different definitions. Somewhere I belive we need a classification system. More and more old racing cars are going to be "replicated" some sanctioned by origional type holders othrs not but even more authentic to detail. There are many detractors who call any car not built in period a "fake" yet most old racing cars are really just replicas with epriod datta plate provenance. Clearly a period data plate adds huge value which is fine, but does thta automaticaly exclude an otherwise identical car without a period datta plate, or can one car considered a period build and the other same car a new build. No one like msirepresentation, perhaos a classification system for all will eliminate this issue. I think the Xj13 project is wonderful as are pur sang bugattis(not as accurate but closeish) and some Gt40s. Instead of grinding up pirceless artifacts we get to see the "real thing" just not period built in action, we need not fear destrying somethign in shunt. Pretty soon we may get to see thta great what if, a GT40 P3 and XJ13 on track. This makes the sport and hobby far wealthier for drivers and spectators. The danger comes when a plastic Xj13 starts mixing it up with a P3 running a 400I motor etc. So to me standards and defintions are key. That way we can have cars of a certain standrd and spec competeing, We woudl also easily know what those cars are, and the partly origional survivors can be saved for posterity. Whats seems to hold things back, particularily in the USA is a snobbery, one I suspect driven by owners and dealers who have a vested stake in ever escalating values of limited stock, and some anorak spectators. The other danger of not having standards and classification is one of desecration. Too many v12 ferraris got chopped into GTO replicas. The most egregious example was when the period survivor can am car got chopped into a P4. Howevr one looks at it and the cars period origins an intact period artifact was lost, driven by value. Standards and acceptance means instead a new build P4 could have been constructed and the owner use it for what it is. These days with every part is replicable. More and more of these cars are being built, for want of better current definition lets define them as authentic just not peroiod built. So Nuvolari didnt fart in that seat, but the car to drive see and experience is the same, to me more than provanance/value that is what its all about. In the end these machines may be considered art, but they are industrial art, most built in series all to some type of blueprint, by defintion replicable. In that sense they are like lithographs where a later run is made. Maybe the term period and new build suffices, Think ahead 100 years, if old cars are racing they are most likely to be new builds, lets try work soem definitions to keep the hobby alive and growing, what exists now is chaos, a cahaos open to misrepresentation and achaos that leads to desecration of surving pices eitehr though racing or rebuilds for value? Once things are dfined the market can assign $$ value, but the hobby or sport shoudl assign use value/aceptance.
Hats off to you Neville for this attention to detail. I personally think it is the best looking car every built! Pete
If you make something that is indistingusgable from an original in every aspect, I think the correct term is a toolroom copy. Best, Jack.
@Neville Do you know how many recreations are existing currently? I've seen a XJ13 (replica/recreation) at a local racing event a few times. It belongs to the German Jag club afaik. The car had a crash three years ago. I remember it, because I was standing right behind the car and I was shocked when it crashed into the Lola F1 car. Sent from my spaceship via Tapatalk.
