Vintage section Fake/Replica/Recreation/Rebody discussion

Good idea but just ask Marcel Marssini and others about the reproductions of originals that don't pass muster. Here we get into issue of "currently accepted" like 0808 or the "don't pass muster" repros. The "currently accepted" repros have been thoroughly researched and given the kiss of approval by the experts of the likes of Marcel or Classiche and need not be relegated to a repro category. The "don't pass muster" rebodies also have for the most part been well researched and doccumented but need their own category.This is particularly true when it comes to the 250 GTOs. Many of these reproductions are a lot more than just a rebody. If nothing else the market values of the "don't pass muster" repros don't come close to to those of the "currently accepted" cars. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

This car is a very good example of what I call an "officially accepted" rebody. The rebody was done in 1965. There seems to be some discussion of who did the 250 California type body. Was it Scaglietti or Drogo? What ever ,the rebody was done for Count Giovanni Laurani, a well respedted name in the period.The body is all alluminum with the same wheel base as a LWB 250 California and open headlights. The track is narrower than the California. It still has its original engine stamped 0147E. For a many years the car was actually referred to as a 250 California until Marcel Massini looked over the car at the Allegrette shop in 1992. and discovered it was not a California but 0147E. The car has been well rebuilt and restored with the California style body by Motion Products for Mike Sheehan who has owned the car and tried to sell it for many years and entered it in numerous events. Now if the car was basicly original with it original Vignale body things wouldn't be complicated. The rebody definitely effected its market value. However in my opinion the California type body is the "generally accepted" body for the car which should not be regulated to a repro category. If there is general agreement to this it can then be considered a guide line. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Does anyone have an idea "number wise" of all the modified cars that are made to look like a Ferrari, but different from what they originally were;
For example;
1) How many are based on Ferrari chassis's
2) How many based on another types chassis's

I am sure there is no concern for #2 above as they are out & out replicas or fakes.

Cars that have Ferrari parts in there construction are of interest and basically it comes down to the 3 major components, chassis, engine and body. Yes, if a 250GTO is re-bodied with a 250 GTO body it is surely called a re-body. If a 250 GTE is re-bodied with a GTO body it is NOT a replica. It is a re-body but not of the same essence as the GTO original car. We have established replicas being #2 above. What is it then, there are still a few words to describe it.

Ferrari's that have been re-manufactured with a different body, engine or chassis (re stamped more likely), by the factory, are obviously factory made cars. They are genuine cars made by the factory.

It is a word game of finding the correct term for the final product. I am not concerned about replicas or fakes, because I know exactly what they are.

 

Lurani

 

Why not? It was never a GTO and the body has been made to pretend it is, thus replicating another model Ferrari.

Thus I have to disagree with your view here, it very much is a replica. It does not matter what components are used to make a replica the end result is always a replica, whether Datsun or Ford, or GM or of course Ferrari parts are used the end result is a 250 GTO replica. The only difference is the registration documents for the car will say Ferrari instead of Datsun, etc.

Ferrari stamped that chassis with a number that corresponded with a 250 GTE. A GTO replica cannot be considered a rebody because the body shape is not unique but copying something ... the perfect definition of a replica.
Pete

 

Regarding this I fully understand that the new body made during the restoration is a replica, but as the original body has been lost or destroyed due to rust, etc. we cannot do anything better in the process of restoring the car. If the bodywork is as close as possible to the cars original form, the car has been restored necessitating a replica body being created.

If we did not allow this, then no restoration of any car would produce anything but replicas, even my restoration of my 1971 Alfa Romeo 1750 GTV as I have had to cut out rusty metal and make new panels and weld them in. The car is still an original Alfa Romeo as far as I am concerned, it has just been restored.

A rebody of a 250 GTE to a 250 GTO is not a restoration or a rebody, but a replica as the new body is not remotely attempting to restore the car to it's original form.

Full documentation of any restoration is required. That is the critical part of this debate. My Alfa Romeo, by many, will be worth less than an Alfa Romeo of the same model that did not need such an extensive restoration (my view is different because an Alfa Romeo of this model that does not need a restoration is like finding teeth in a hen ... I prefer the car that has had the way the car drives restored to original over anything else).
Pete

 

A "Ferrari" replica comes sometimes with no Ferrari parts at all in the final mixture. Other times it is based on quite a few Ferrari parts. What I am saying is that they are two entirely different results to produce possibly the same visual result. One of those results is fake or a replica. The other therefore can not be called the same as in part it is Ferrari. I am not saying I agree with the dissection of a once beautiful Ferrari, exactly the opposite in most cases.
Yes it is copying something but not everything.
Give me another name for the car that is part or mostly Ferrari.

 

I would take the lead of the American Muscle Car Scene and call them "Tributes".

 

One of the big problem with labeling these cars is that intent matters as much as does the physical manifestation.

 

I like these ideas. They seem to be headed, in my opinion, in the reight direction. A couple of issues that will need clarity. How do we judge what is "as good as possible" My suggestion here would be to first apply the "generally accepted" category. An example would be the Ferrari Abarth s/n 0262. The body on this car today is a meticulous reproduction of the original and is considered to be the "generally accepted" correct body on the car. Such a car as long as it also has it's original engine and all other parts being eather original or of the original type need not be included in a reproduction site. Others that don't meet the above could have a category let's say referred to as "well restored" or some such terminology. Now regarding the 250 GTE rebodied as a GTO if taken literally should not even considered as a reproduction. Any who fits a GTO looking body onto a stock 250 GTE rolling chassis.... I don't have polite words for this.Same goes for a GTO like body on a Fiero or Corvette chassis Most reproduction 250 GTOs are pretty nice and could be considered for a Class A Reproduction category. Finally your best suggestion is about doccumentation. This should be a requirement and the more detailed the better. Actual details of what constitutes "doccumentation" can be discussed at a another time. Thanks again for you great suggestions. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Impossible question to answer to everyone's satisfaction.How about using these two words, reproduction and replica for two different categories.Replica could apply to a car using only original period Ferrari parts or remanufactured period Ferrari parts but clearly defined as not being an original s/n Ferrari. Reproduction could apply to a "copy" of a defined quality of a particular original or type Ferrari. I know, what do I mean by "defined quality"?No question this will need clarification and may have to be broken down into several sub categories. This can wait for another day. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

I think that is heading in the right direction.

 

The term "continuation" (continuazione) in relation to a car the factory has developed over the years seems appropriate. Continuazione being not as the car first was manufactured, but as it last left the factory.

 

I was wondering how long it would take to drag #0147E into this thread.

A few clearifications and then my somewhat biased perspective.

The car has been in the USA since 1973, owned by Dr. R. Boniface until Sept. 2005 when it was transfered to M. Sheehan for sale. I purchased 0147E in April 2007. All mechanical restoration was completed by Motion Products at my direction 2007-2011. “ Listed for sale for many years????”

The car body was fabricated by Drogo in 1963-65. This much is certain. (Not Scaglietti) Mr. Massini found photographs of the partially assembled #0147E taken in Drogo’s courtyard. These photos were discovered in Allegrette’s shop (former panal beater for Drogo) in 1992. It was commissioned by Lurani to be rebodied in the style of a California Spyder.

Pete (PSK), I know you have an axe to grind with 0147E. …So be it.

Is it a replica? In what way? Have you ever seen it? In the metal? Do you know what a Cal Spyder looks like? Mostly rhetorical questions but still pertinent. Yes it is in the style of a Cal Spyder but is not even close in any aspect, except wheel base and open head lights which would include most every street car Ferrari made at that time. Left hand drive, 5 speed trans, interior?????. At no point was 0147E built to “replicate” a California Spyder. In the “style” yes as were most cars of the day "in the style" of something else. How many styling cues make a replica? Me thinks you split too many hairs.

It is what it is. It can't go back to the Vignale Coupe it was born as. To strip the Drogo body would further distance it from what it is, imperfect yes but still a strong testament of its time. Don't try and force your reality on real history.........

-M

 

I have no axe to grind but it meets the criteria of a replica perfectly. As you say it was rebodied in the style of a California Spyder.

There was nothing horrible about doing that at the time because 0147E was not a historic car back then, so this car is definitely not like a 250 GTE being cut up to make a replica of a TR or GTO, or even California Spyder, but it was made to replicate or look like a California Spyder.

If the accuracy of the replication of the body was the criteria of determining if a car is a replica, then there have been NO 250GTO replicas ever built . Seriously most of them are not even close.

Thus the accuracy of the body is not an important criteria in deciding if a replica has been built at all.

BTW: If I was lucky enough to purchase 0147E I would not change a thing. The car has perfect continuous history and I would only want to maintain that. If I was able to purchase a 250 GTE that had been converted into a 250 GTO, I would try and purchase a 250 GTE body and return the car to the GTE format. Yes it might not end up with matching numbers, but it will have continuous history and will once again be as close as I could to how the GTE left the factory ... and one saved. 0147E does not need saving .
Pete

 

I have appreciated your expertise over the years. Thanks much. If you and others would like to expand on the "right direction" please do.I should not be the only one out there. just one man's opinion topngascrew

 

Many good points. Yes I have seen two 250 Californias in Italy. I also maintain files on each one and have the Carrick and Nowak books as part of a library. I also have built a reproductio 250 California with a number of period parts. However it is clear to the trined eye that this is a replica. Now I agree there has been no indication that Laurani intent to replicate a 250 California.He unboubtedly as you said liked the style. You are absolutely correct 0147E should never be rebodied again. The Drogo body is what I call a "generally accepted" correct body for the car. _Please understand my eforts here are to promote some kind of organization for all the replica type Ferraris out these.The more support and input received the better. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

)147E is a perfect example of what I refer to as the correct "generally accepted" condition of this car and probably need not be regulated to a replica or reproduction site. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

Bob Lay agrees completely with you. There will be no Classiche or Ferrari replica site in Ferrari Chat.There seems to be considerable interest in some kind of space for the subject and my intention to to help direct this towards some kind of organised format. suggestiond for this format are most welcome. just one man's opinion tongascrew

 

I agree. The definition isn't all that complicated.

Agreed. Preserving the original as best we can is quite different than using the original as basis to create something else.

 

A few years back I had a few email messages from a man in the midwest that had the body molds for a 1970 512M. I am wondering if he is still around?

 

Where are these cars? Looks like a semi-curent photo? Very nice.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355179

 

Not nice at all!


Onno

 

When this was posted, I hadn't realized that this replica had won the "People's Choice Award" at the Desert Concours???!?

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20120309/CARNEWS01/120309829?utm_source=DailyDrive20120309&utm_medium=enewsletter&utm_term=article4&utm_content=20120309-1963_Ferrari_Super_America_wins_Best_of_Show_at_Desert_Classic_concours&utm_campaign=awdailydrive

Autoweek notes that it is a replica and was displayed as such. But I am surprised that a reputable show like the Desert Concours would allow a replica to be eligible for a prize. Being allowed on the field for "display only" is one thing, but a major award? This sends all the wrong messages, in my opinion, and simply increases the demand for fakes and therefore the rate of destruction of real Ferraris.