The official replica/re-creation thread

A good copy is NEVER better than an original! Not in cars, not in art and not in nature. Of course you may enjoy YOUR choice, but at the end originality wins.
The thing is I never saw a Picasso that was not nice and repainted to a nicer one. So taken a 250 GTE and make it a 250 SWB is like use the statue from say Botero and re sculpt this to a nicer non Botero. In this case sounds really silly, so why not for Ferrari???

I agree with others that beside the personal matters, owners do have a responsibility to their possessions. Dont make fakes, do show and use the real ones!! Owners of famous pieces of art commonly show these in exhibitions.
oscar

 

how ?

what rare spare parts ?
classiche are willing to make anything owners need and besides as already stated these arent complicated cars (in a modern sense) so pretty much everything could be fabricated by a good restorer/engineering firm.

thats somewhat selfish

 

yes, but you have missed the point of this discussion. By miles.

 

please tell me when i said that.

i dont recall using the word "just" - a word i might add that youve felt the need to highlight.
thing is the addition if that single word changes the tone of the statement somewhat.

id appreciate it if you didnt try and twist my words or in this case also "put words in my mouth"

to clarify (as you seem unable to understand a simple statement)
a ferrari is a car, its purpose therefore is transportation.
but its NOT "just a car"
its the sort of vehicle that gives pleasure to the driver (and passenger) a vehicle that will often be taken out simply for the purpose of said pleasure - some giving more pleasure than others.


there is also a problem with the art comparison that some desperate individuals seem to be perpetuating.
a painting has one purpose - to be looked at.
as such it simply stimulates one of the senses - the eyes.
a ferrari assaults our senses on many more levels - sight, hearing, touch, smell - eg four of the five recognises senses.
id also add another - seat of the pants




please note that monetary value is not one of the senses - LOL

 

Copies or recreationd can be better than originals. Cobras are one example of this.

There are many that are widely accepted to be better than the originals.

They have "improvements" over the originals.

 

I am not missing the point at all. YOU ARE!!


A RIGHT is not a WRONG.


But have heart. There is precedence for change. Even in the case of personal property rights.

Here in America and elsewhere there is some personal property that has been deemed to have such a value to the public that it gains public protection. As in the case of a historic properties like homes for instance.

So if you think that these cars are moving into this realm, enact change. Give them the protection they deserve.

A healthy debate is probably the begining of the change.


Until then. I will always defend my rights. That is my point. I am in no way missing MY point.

I am in no way missing others points either. Some are a crock and some have merit.

Its the ones that are a crock that I don't care for. I like the others.

And remember... you are preaching to the choir.

 

Maybe from a driveability standpoint but certainly not from a collectability standpoint.

 

First of all I am NOT desperate in explaining you. Just gave you my thoughts. And if you think art is only for the eyes you insult most artists.

And about money, cars from the 50-60 are not all expensive. Siata's and Cisitalia's are also beautifull. I am NOT talking about money, but about the way designers and artists where and are working. If you dont see the difference, buy a retro design! (like Mini, Beatle or even a new Morgan). Although I drove the new fiat 500 in Tuscany and was actually some fun........But only for 15 minutes.
oscar

 

I've been following this thread with interest for the past few weeks and thought I would add to the discussion. First, in regards to replicas, restorations or fakes as some call them, I have no feelings one way or the other except when these "cars" are not identified as such. If you have a GTE or PF dressed in TR or GTO or other exotic clothing and try and pass it off as an original, that gets me. I've been to many car shows where these "cars" are displayed and almost without exception they are not correctly identified. Some are blatently mis-identified. No one likes to be fooled and that's why these mis-identified "cars" bug me! The manufacture of the recreations will probably never stop in our lifetime and since Ferraris are constantly rising in value, those with the means will get what they want.
There seems to be a lot of emotion concerning "recreations, replicas or fakes" on this forum. My question to you is where do you draw the line? How many of the most valuable and rare Ferraris are rebodies? How many Ferraris are still in original configuration (ie, original paint, body work, engine etc.) How many of the GTO's are carrying a new body? Of the 36 made, how many are original?
In my opinion, Ferraris are not art simply because they weren't created as art. The factory made these cars as exclusive, expensive transportation in the case of road cars and machines to win races in the case of the racers. Don't get me wrong, I think Ferraris are beautiful to look at and listen to and ride in, but that doesn't elevate them to art status. Scaglietti, Pininfarina and the other body makers are wonderful artisan/craftsmen, but none were artists in the true sense as Michaelangelo or Leonardo were. That's not to say they couldn't have been great artists, but they chose to make utilitarian objects instead, beautiful utilitarian objects!

 

I was thinking of baiting you guys and asking who would take up the cause. Nobody would because you all know how thankless that job would be. So....


Hear is a fresh idea of sorts. It comes from the desire to save that which otherwise is unsavable. In both of the instances that I am aware of the interest was in preserving land.

The first is the protection of our forests and wildlands that are being threatened by development and disapearing. Today these are being put into Conservation Easments so that they will never be developed. A tax bebefit goes with the irrevocable easment as an encentive to the owner to do the "right thing".

The second is also real estate oriented. Here where I live there is preassure on land owners to sell their farms to developers. Legislation was adopted that enables land owners to seperate the right to develop, which rund with the land, from the land. This right can be sold and transfered. When it is done the land gets a tax break and will no longer be threatened by development and the farmer gets a payday.

It is concievable that cars that are threatened get some favorable treatment that helps save them. The best ones of course need no protection just as the Mona Lisa needs no protection. At least until there is some upheaval and the mob burns her.

Ferrari has the Classiche program. Perhaps a preservation class can be created.


Don't look at me though. I'm just the idea guy.

 

Now there is something I'd like to hear about (rather than rehashing the same old same old pro and contra arguments):

Can you please tell us/describe what that felt like?

I have seen GTOs at Goodwood and read a lot about them, but would love to hear it first hand. Do they handle like trucks? Do they only come to live at speed? How does it compare to say a Daytona or - dare I say it - a 250 GTE?

You stated that the experience of a GTO replica can never replace the real thing. So how close is an unmolested 250 GTE to a 250 GTO? Where are the differences?

I'd really like to know. Honestly. It is so rare that anybody ever describes the ride of them and it is even more rare if not non existant that anybody compares them to better known quantities.

Thanks.

PS: I love to sample Ferraris. Have driven about a dozen by now (no vintage though) and can recall the feeling of what it was like at any time. I love to compare them.

 

Just read you own posts. Anyone who defends fakes and replica's obviously considers the real thing 'just' an object.

 

the mere fact that the created objects can be used for specific means, doesn't disqualify them as art. Would the buyer of a 10K+ 250 GTO really be interested in the fact that this car can bring him from point A to point B?

One could also debate that vintage Ferrari's are art on the simple observation that there is a market in fakes and replica's.

 

Yes you are. By miles. This isn't about the protection of property rights. Does who are opposed to fakes and replica's are in no way limiting the owners of such objects in their property rights. And not only aren't they in breach of any proporty right in expressing their view upon fakes and replica's, they should be able of expressing that view simply on the base of freedom of speech.

So, please, no more talk of property rights or any other fundamental humanright, since that isn't the topic here.

 

Nonsense. That would make a Rolex a piece of art too. It isn't. Just like the cars it is just an industrial product.

There are a few Ferraris that are actually of historic importance and a few that can be considered art (e.g. Alain Prost's F1 in the Moma NYC). But most Ferraris are just cars.

And please stop the stupid Mona Lisa comparisons: Apart from the fact that we're talking here about one of the most important paintings in the world that happens to be hundreds of years old, it is unique. A 250 GTE is not, but a mass produced vehicle.
Turning a 250 GTE into a replica is NOT the equivalent of adding a moustache to the Mona Lisa, but rather of adding a moustache to a poster of the Mona Lisa.

 

and still your trying to twist my views and words.
either try reading WHATS ACTUALLY BEEN SAID, or simply shut up and dont enter the debate - as all your doing is making yourself look the fool.


look im sure your an intelligent guy, but really please dont jump to conclusions that simply dont and cant be made from whats actually been said

 

We've already been here: by looking like ****.

Factory supplied spare parts are largely limited to parts of engine, gearbox and rear end.

Not at all as selfish as scrapping rare cars to make yet another lousy fake in order to make few lousy bucks in the process.

 

Well, explain this to me then:

How does the statement that it is ok ro built and use fakes and replica's correlate to the statement that you consider the original NOT just a car. If you consider the original anything more than a utilatarian object, how can you respect fakes and replica's as well? A connaisseur of the work of Michellangelo wouldn't be interested in a reprint of the Mona Lisa, allthough they both present the exact same image. A connaisseur (and enthusiast) of Ferrari's wouldn't be interested in a replica of a pontoon fendered 250 TR, no matter how much it resembles the original. So how does that work in your point of view?

 

There are different levels of interest for Ferraris. It is clear that replicas don't do it for you and other purists, but they bring a lot of joy to a lot of other folks.

You can post here all day long, none of it will have an affect on the replica market.

 

It is not the definitive factor in answering the question whether or not an object can be considered art, but it is surely a factor.

And why is Alain Prosts Ferrari art? Simply because it is parked in a museum? If a museum buys and displays it, then it becomes art? What if the museum sells the car to some milionaire who decides to use it for the purpose it was once built? It stops being art?

It is not the 250 GTE that I compare with the Mona Lisa, it is the 250 GTO or 250 TR that I compare with the Mona Lisa. However, turning a 250 GTE into a replica is still destroying an original Ferrari to make it look like something is not. I have much lesser problems with rebodying a certain Ferrari into something that actually is original. I can even see some historic sicnificance in the Drogo-bodied 330 GT 2+2 even if it is one of the ugliest motorcars ever built. To me it is an addition to the history of Ferrari. Not so if the owner wanted the 330 GT 2+2 to look like an existing Ferrari, for in that case we swap an original Ferrari for a replica and that is anything but an addition.

 

I wasn't under the illusion that it did...

 

It is art because the directors of the MOMA decided to put it on display. Even if they remove it and somebody would take the car to the track it will remain a piece of art.

Whether that makes sense or not is another question. The art world has its own rules and they rarely let a car in.

Fact is, that compared to the art world, Ferraris (or any other cars) are merely "toys". They might be important to us, but they're not in the scheme of things. Which is also reflected in the price. Even a 250 GTO selling at 20 million doesn't reach what a Van Gogh can fetch. Therein lies the difference between something made by an artist and something "mass" produced.

 

some do, some look gr8

if a restorer can make anew body for a real gto/tr then they can sure as hell do the same for a rebodied car too

so what parts are you referring to

ive already stated probably half a dozen times in the last week alone that i only condone it being done to a wrecked example - and you know that because you quoted it in one of your replies.

turning a wrecked car destined for "the great scrapyard in the sky" into a good recreation of a pontoon tr or a gto is not in any way selfish in my eyes, and you so far havent said why it is - except with platitudes and very vague comments about spare parts

 

again the use of the word "just" a word i did NOT use

its because i respect the original that id love a proper copy of a gto/tr - it could be considered by some to be almost the ultimate homage to a wonderful car

well no, being as how the Mona Lisa was a DaVinci work

however a DaVinci fan might well have a high quality copy to study

why then were several of these gto/tr copies actually comissioned by the owners of the real thing ?

why was one owned by a man who was chosen by ferrari to buy an Enzo

id dearly love to own a gto/tr/cali spyder,swb etc
i cant afford one, let alone all of them.

why would i want them ???
well its not because they worth so much ££££ thats for sure.
its not so i can take them to sit in a field for other ppl to look at either.

its because theyre superb cars and id want to drive them as far, as fast and as much as possible.
i want to experience what scarfiotti, bandini, hill, sears, parkes, piper, bonnier, moss etc experienced, the same sights, the sounds, the smells, the feeling through the seat of my pants as i drift through a corner. oh and i love the looks too.

now as i cant afford one of those cars and i sure as hell cant get those experiences in a smashed up (or scrapped) 250 gte then whats wrong with making a proper recreation from a beyond salvage 250 gte or 330gt - or buying one already made ?

 

They don't seem to be able to do that. It is all about $$$.

Ferrari spare parts. If you need more info, ask the factory. I did.