thoughts on the owner of a ,ay 250GTO or a 250SWB comp car that keeps the orginal motor as a spare and buys another motor to race in his car?
Completely misses the point. So the Mona Lisa is just paint and canvas, with 'a human projection of meaning' ? Perhaps that 'human projection of meaning' is what really matters. A car cannot possibly be worth millions of dollars just for its steel, aluminum, rubber and a bit of fine mechanical craftsmanship. The confusion and debate arise when these objects transition from physical collections of parts into cultural artifacts. There is always a conflicted relationship between economics and culture, which becomes particularly acute at certain points (like GTEs). But it's always morally wrong to debase the culture, which has been built through great human risk and endeavor, through fakes. If you happen to have a legitimate, irreplaceable fragment of the culture of a particular time and place (say, a 250 engine), the best alternative from a moral perspective would be to use it to make or maintain a larger legitimate artifact. If you don't want to do that, and an owner certain has that right, then at least use it in a creative and interpretive way that doesn't debase the culture. Tom Meade comes to mind.
I think you are spot on here. As for the Mona Lisa comparisons there are great differentiators between a one off painting, where even brush strokes are part of the unique appeal. Creating more GTOs is more like running more litho-graphs. To call a recreatiuon a fake is to say it is a poster, but the anology is more to a lithograph something almost exactly replicatable and maintaining all the features and essence of the period build without the "history or provenance" Frankly look at the warbird communty, they do not ostracise the new build Yak fighters, for all intents and purposes they are just new ww2 fighters. Once you strip away the arguement about destroyiong historic artifacts and talk new build recreations there are two schools here. One group just wants to be able to enjoy the thing for what it is, a great fun car, with certain looks and sounds etc, lets call them the essence of an enthusiast. The other group are also enthusiasts mostly, but they want to presrve financial value by limiting supply through provenance. I use this term(provenance) because I would say that many of the so called old cars are Washingtons axe anyway, not really the original Mona lisa. So we are arguing about whether it is Ok to increase the quantity of an item that exists. In closing our eyes apparently we have lost a number of Lussos and GTE's to make 100 or more "fakes" most of which are apparently bastardised cars neither faithfully replicating the original being copied while losing their historic integrity. Yes I do see that these originals are unique objects that have a special place, but they are also cars, series produced mechanical objects. And the enjoyment of them comes from the experience, viewing and driving, as well as theuir historic significance. A new build would lack historic significance, which would not debase an original it would enhance its stature through comparison. One thing is for sure, if the demmand is big enough these cars will be created. So if you want to preserve bits of original GTE's and avoid batstadised cars or whatever the best course would be to accept recreations and provide standards for their build, that way you avoid cutting up older material and ensure that we do not end up with sorta looks like a 250 based on a hacked up ferrari fakes. Instead the current view held by many will only lead to more lost GTe's and more half baked replicas, with a few great ones. Intyerestingly many recreations are owned by owners of orginals, they appreciate the value and art of the original, but also want to enjoy the driving experience fully, so they have a revreation built. Fact is they are out there and being built ewveryday, acceptance will lead to standards and control, it is not an evil or creating bad poor cars. What acceptance does is create more fun cars for entusiasts to enjoy in a manner that does not destroy old stock. The price being more of an item viewable ie more than 39 GTO's, but this is happening anyway.
First fallacy: These cars are not perfectly replicable, and each actually is unique. The lithography analogy is amusingly inapt; unless you're Salvador Dali or his facilitators, the prints are all made at one time and then the plates are destroyed so that no more can be made. Second fallacy: Without the history and provenance, the original cars would be something else entirely, something much less culturally important and much less valuable. And less faked. Third fallacy: Is a GTO (or TR, etc.) so particular, so superior, that the destruction of other lesser-value artifacts to recreate the 'the experience, viewing and driving' justified ? Well, a C-type recreation using commonly available parts is arguably a better drive, and dozens of modern cars will outperform any fake GTO. In a few years it will likely be possible to achieve a similar level of veracity by accessorizing a Nintendo console. The experience can be replicated in less culturally destructive ways. Fourth fallacy: An 'enthusiast' worthy of the name could not possibly sanction the destruction of lesser-value artifacts (and at this age, GTEs are indeed artifacts) of the marque just for his own hedonistic pleasure. The recurrent argument that those who dislike fakes "want to preserve financial value by limiting supply through provenance", the inference being that the wealthy owners of these unique cars (and their lackeys) are selfish. In fact exactly the opposite is true. Fakes are simply one person asserting that his personal gratification, on coarse and uncritical terms, stands above cultural history and authenticity.
I think if you had understood my point accepting recreations would allow for control, and this control would prevent torching old cars for "fakes" Yes in a Lithograph the plates are supposedly destroyed. Here though we are talking about metal machines, I was making an anology that the end result would be close enough to be the same as to replicate. As you say none of these cars is exactly alike therefore replication should not offend. The expreince of driving some of these older cars is a form of time travel, experiencing as people did way back then, that is part of thr desire. Another is that there are no equivalent modern experiences. Moderns are far less viceral if street cars and far harder if track cars, and modern machines lack the inefficiencies which so give the older design character. that is why today we have so many new build wooden boats, and woioden boat lovers are not snobs about this, they like the idea that there are nmore about and more peoiple to enjoy the experience. Enzo never saw his cars as such high culture he trashed the old race cars. It is the ferraistas who now see these as objects created by heaven. Lets loot at this anology, Recreating does not destroy something culturaly authentic, just a printing a book in multiples does not destroy the message. Both are mechanical acts which spread the joy and experince further afeild. Of course there werte those who objected to the printing press. Perhaps it is like house design. A new post and beam house built well, does not have the age and patina of an old farmhouse but it has its appeal as a living enviroment. Yes I know about all the ugly Mcmansions, but one can still have classic designs that are well excecuted and beautiful. No they are not exact copies but they copy the spirit and essence, plus no two structures are exactly alike. So a recreation allows for the same effect. None of these anologies is an exact fit, because a car is not exactly comporable to other forms or art and design for one thing it is motive and emotive in different ways. Cars may have their artistic merits. But they are automotive or mechanical art, exact anaologies and theories do not apply, not least of which is their original purpose for being created. It is interesting that my original premise holds true though. Once you strip away the arguement that old cars will be destroyed to make "fakes" by saying lets replicate theb whole thing, a whole new breed of objection and passionate hate comes out of the shadows. I guess if you feel a game consol can ever replicate the real thing then you are quite clearly missing the true driving experience. Think of this anology. The printing press, now many people can read and experience works of art, it does not affect or damage culture, it expands it. Yet so many people objected to the printing press because it threatened. Bottom line, cars are going to get recreated, we can accept this and these cars, allowing control of the practice, or reject it and see old cars torched, and real survivors ground to dust throug attrition on the track, these are not static exibits.
ya... we can see how 30,000 plus shelby cobra replicas have devalued the original cars... ohh wait... that hasnt happened.... if anything it has advertised the car and made the originals that much more special by raising awareness of the cars etc... Lets be honest... anyone who is in the market of a real GTO 15million and up... would never consider a GTO replica unless it was to go along with the collection. Perhaps they would use the replica on the track, or actually drive it on the streets etc... I am a HUGE fan of GTOs and my office is covered with GTO posters, diecasts, and other parifinalia and I will never forget going for my first ride in GTO. I love these cars as much or more than anyone... and yet I don't find the Replica offensive. But thats just my opinon. Everyone is entitled etc... I think it is completely offensive to pass off a replica as the real deal and those that do should be brutally executed as should the people who make CRAPPY replicas PERIOD. I feel horribly made GTO replicas hurt more than perfect replicas. Just one mans $.02
It's utter nonsense to say that a fake should not offend because originals varied amongst one another. You are completely missing the concept and value of an artifact. It is the product of a particular time and place and people. Your analogies are consistently off the mark. No one is tearing apart old illuminated manuscripts of less than top quality to create new printed books. You keep talking about standards and regulation, so I'll propose one for you: the vehicle should be consistent with the materials and technologies commonly utilized at its time of manufacture, and should be fabricated by the people and institutions who created and sustain the qualities and history associated with the badge it wears. "Passionate hate" ? Not me. Just a bit of dismay about how the higher achievements of our civilization are cheapened and diminished by the notion that everyone should be able to have their own. Isn't a Mcmansion the perfect place to garage a fake GTO ?
"so I'll propose one for you: the vehicle should be consistent with the materials and technologies commonly utilized at its time of manufacture, and should be fabricated by the people and institutions who created and sustain the qualities and history associated with the badge it wears." Seems reasonable to me, so we do not object to recreations per se, just who does them and how. This is pretty much what the FIA does. BTW allegreti who are responsible for the "best" GTO reps are pretty much the same craftsmen who built the originals. So what we need, is to move to a system where creation of these cars does not destroy something originaly made in period. Basicaly by your standard as long as Calssiche makes it that is fine, like a santion2 DB4 zagato. Our only difference is that I would accept these cars made by a number of people proivided the materials and standars are met, and nothing original was torched.. If you had read all my posts you would see that I too opose cutting up old cars, that is why accepting recreations protects old cars because it regulates how recreations are going to be done and accepted. The Mcmansion analogy is probably comparable to a fiberglass GTO or one built on a 240z. My point about houses is no one says a new house cant be built in a classic style or a style previously used. We object to cheap cardboard knokoffs of some imagined style where the house has no symetry with the land or neighbourhood, ie a fiberglass GTO. We are not as far apart as you may suggest. I just accept that these cars will be built so lets do it in a way that works, and yes i like them because to me they are the same just new build. Like you I obbect to destroying something to do it, I do not onject to the thin itself.
Perhaps not, except that history and provenance apparently mean nothing to you while for me they are integral to my appreciation for the vehicle. I am very skeptical that any regulatory system could ensure only quality reproductions and that lesser artifacts are no longer sacrificed. It hasn't happened thus far because the weight of money (backed by tolerance for fakes and for stripping existing cars) is against it.
A collector in Australia in out top 10 wealthest people,big car collector,owned plenty of vintage Ferrari cars,has a perfect GTO ,could afford the proper car,but does not see the value in it when he can have his replicar for 300k.Mind you a lot think it is the real car,due to his wealth.
+1. I also wonder if a 100% sorted 250GTE drives that much different to a 100% sorted 250GTO ... yes the GTO will be better balanced and be lighter and have a bit more poke, but otherwise they are pretty similar. Hardly worth destroying one over the other just so you can look at an almost GTO. Blackjag, And yes I do agree with Kare that there are many other cheaper cars out there worth a look if you cannot afford a GTO, TR, etc. ... Jaguars are one of them, and Alfa Romeos, etc. I will never be able to afford a 60's Ferrari, or even probably a 70's one ... such is life. My automotive interest started with Alfa Romeo for some reason and I'm perfectly happy that 105 series models are in my reach ... bit sad that I'll never be able to purchase a 20's to 50's Alfa, but I'm not going to ruin something so I can have an almost. Pete
Wait a minute... A GTO is a very different car than a GTE.... The GTO weighs about 400 pounds less, has 50 more horsepower, sits on a shorter wheelbase and has the engine moved significantly rearward to get better weight distribution. It takes a huge amount of reworking to make a GTE into a GTO. While there are a lot of common parts, a GTE is a pretty pedestrian car. It has a zero to sixty time of about 8 seconds, while the GTO does it in less than 5... And finally the GTO body is pure sex, it is, IMHO the best looking Ferrrari ever built (except for maybe the P4, but that is a matter of debate and personal opinion). That is why everyone in the world wants one and that's why real ones sell for millions. No matter how much tuning you did on a GTE, it isn't going to drive or handle anything like a GTO. The reason that many have been cut up to make replicas is that they weren't that great a car in the first place and they were relatively plentiful and therefore not expensive, and because there was a lot of common hardware, so it made a great starting place for a replica. I'm not saying that a GTE isn't a nice car, but really, it was much more of a grand touring car than a serious sporting machine. When I was in high school in the late 1960's there were lots of them around, and, quite frankly, they weren't considered rare, valuable or even a serious future classic. I hope that doesn't burst anyones bubble, but a GTE in sorry, rusted out shape, isn't worth restoring simply because it will cost far more to restore it than you could ever sell it for. IF the car is a hulk, then I'd rather see it made into a replica than let it sit in a yard rusting to oblivion. Just my personal opinion, and qualified as such.
I know that, but my point was has anybody bothered to drive a good GTE first before casting them aside as rubbish. Of course not, they have driven a worn out old car and based their opinions on that. No it is not the looks that made the GTO into the most wanted, it is their history ... no replica has that history. But it might be a good fun drive. A GTE was more expensive that a 275GTB when new ... Exactly what it was designed to be. Why do Ferrari enthusiasts always come down to cost and selling price to drive a decision? ... other people restore cars because they like cars. I'd restore a GTE happily and couldn't care less about it's selling price, just like I am with my 1750GTV. Pete
I have wondered the same for many many years. I think it is because so many real car guys can't afford a Ferrari and so many are affected to the marque mainly because they can afford one. As the latter rarely are no real experts on these - or any cars, they consult people in the business for an opinion and these - surprice surprice - are always very aware of the cost and selling price so a biased view is what they get. This also may explain why replicas are not seen very much; the people who buy them rarely are real car guys and they are not really interested in the car, they are interested in the experience and once they think they know how a GTO drives, they are largely done and move on to fullfil other dreams their childish mind has generated. Maybe I should add a smiley here...? Maybe not.
They don't. That is your perception based on what you read on this site, which is not at all representative of all Ferrari owners. There are many examples of beautifully restored GTE's, 330 and 365 GT's here in Australia, that were done with no regard for resale, but simply out of enthusiasm and respect for the marque. Just come to one of our concours events. I ask you to take the time to learn about real cars and owners before you join the chorus of armchair critics here.
Speaking to a friend whom has owned many Ferrari cars including TDF,Daytona's,275s ect .Comment you could not compare them in both performance and handling. From my own experience with my old Porsche's a RS is far lighter and better to drive then the standard heavier car. My E-type with its alloy panels different and far better then a standard E-type.
but, I've never know a one marque car club to talk more about the value of their cars and how well they have done,IMO its very crass and nouvea.Not all but many are like this IMO. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Based on your own personal experience? Certainly not mine or the numerous other Ferrari owners I know. That might be a reflection on "club" rather than Ferrari people
Your whole perspective is based your very limited experience of the owners club in one city, where you are not even a member for goodness sake. You've never owned a vintage Ferrari, yet you feel qualified to make sweeping and offensive criticism of other owners. You are a better person than this.
I will listen to various people over the weekend as to what their conversation entails. Vintage Ferrari,my understanding of a vintage car was any car pre 1930. At heart I know you are not a car snob ,having met you and enjoyed your company.
i agree I bought my Boxer,because it was the only Ferrari that was a 12 cylinder rear engine car on carbs that was road driveable.I drove a Daytona the same day and loved he feel/challenge of drivig a BB hard/fast.The Daytona was to vintage (pre 1930) for me.
Am glad. I used to know a guy, through my father, that owned a 246 and he was the real deal. This site though ... hmmm. Pete
