In-period vs. Non-period Rebodies

IMHO within 10 years of construction seems reasonable.

 

At the very most three years. Thereafter the vast majority have passed their competitive age and are merely converted for vanity reasons.

Paul

 

Plus those converted within a three year time frame will have a degree of historical significance and more than likely will have had the modifications carried out by a recognised carrozzeria.

Paul

 

Who designed the original California?
That should answer your own question....

Paul

 

I generally agree with El Wayne.I doubt there will ever be a 250TR rebodied and then thrown out of vintage section. Then there is the case of 0262 the Abarth Ferrari or the rebodied SWB Berlinettas and 250 GTOs with largely recreated but original looking bodies. Then of course there is the issue what other parts are or are not original.There can never be a hard and final solution for this issue. There is the FOC judging rules to consider as well as the good old market place opinion. I would suggest when there are ???? about an individual car the thread be placed in both categories and see what the results are. In this day and age the final bottom line seems to be largely in $$$/Euros/BPS in the market place. Can't you just wait till some of the "fat cats" in China get into this market place. I can see it now. I bid 25% in Swiss franks, 36% in Russian rubbles 29% in Mexican pessos and the balance in Chinese government bonds. tongascrew

 

There is a point there. Putting a car back in its original specification, if it had been transformed in period or out of period should not disqualify this car.
And where do we stop knowing that a large number of race Ferrari don't have anymore their original body or most of their original body panels.
When an early Ferrari barchetta had later a coupe body, then reverted to the original type of body barchetta, is it a replica or an original car? And when the original body was destroyed in an accident, is it acceptable to reconstruct a new one,,or should the car remain as a wreck?

Here we are talking of treating separately cars which were never at any time what they pretend to be. Would it be acceptable to put back the bread van to an original SWB configuration and a GTO 64 transformed to the original 62 GTO body??
But this is totally different from creating out of period a look alike GTO.
In period is of course another thing. What about the PF S1 spyder rebodied as a LWB California and Boano reputed rebodied as California at Scaglietti? Should they revert to their original forms out of period to be more authentic?

No an easy thing, but I would rather have a car with all it's original components being rebodied to look as it was originally , even if for some times it had a different body, than a full car being built using just an original chassis which was discovered recently.

But this is matter of taste as I want to see some elements of the original craftsmanship...

 

For me the exact date when a car was rebodied is not very relevant, the only thing that matters are the intentions behind the rebody. A rebodied car becomes a replica when it pretends to be something that it is clearly not.

A 250 GTE rebodied and presented as a 250 GTO or 250 TR therefore is a replica; the Breadvan is a rebody.

For me, the Felber cars therefore are (admittedly: ugly) rebodies.

 

Interesting thought.

Does that make GTO s/n 4675GT a replica as the intention behind the rebody was to make it a series two ?

My own view would be period up to five years, based upon a car becoming uncompetitive or mechanically outdated thereafter

 

As a general rule that makes sense but there will be exceptions.

 

According to barchetta, GTO 4675GT had an accident at the 1963 Tour de France. I don't know if it needed rebodying but it may have been updated to '64 specification to keep the car as competitive as possible as may have been the case with other S1 cars that were rebodied? 4 were updated to '64 style.

http://www.barchetta.cc/english/all.ferraris/detail/4675gt.250gto.htm

 

Agreed. I was being a little controversial

Indeed the series two modifications improved high speed handling and the rebody was completed by Scaglietti

 

i fully agree with you!

 

looking at the poll results 66,67% agree with you!

 

i think every rebody done by Ferrari should be out of question!
built by Ferrari and rebodied by Ferrari still makes a genuine Ferrari!

 

Out of curiousity where do people stand on Daytona Spyder conversions? Many were done in the late seventies so could be argued to be in period although equally some were done in the 80s and be classified as out of period?

There are also clearly changing a Ferrari into another model even if it is not a full rebody like a GTE to GTO conversion?

 

For me a rebodied car becomes a replica when it pretends to be something that it is clearly not. So i.m.h.o. a chopped Daytona presented as a Spyder is a replica Spyder.
The only genuine Spyders are factory built.

 

I think we should stick with Rob Lay's definition.

Recreations - car started its life as a Ferrari, still contains major parts (chassis/engine), but has been recreated into something it wasn't originally.

Replicas by definition are off site

 

So, would this qualify all Daytona (or C/4, 275 NART, etc...) Spyder conversions as recreations (but not necessarily replicas) and therefor should be moved to "Recreations and non-period rebodies" ?
Just curious.

 

Maybe it has nothing to do with this "re-body" poll, but I was just trying to get a definition since "RECREATIONS and Non-Period Rebodies" are lumped together.
And there's the poll choice which I find a bit confusing (but that's probably just me): Allow discussion of all rebodied cars that are not replicas or "recreations" of other models

Are (Spyder) conversions considered recreations or not ? Just curious.