Replica or not? Thoughts on definition!

The fact that it is being re-built by the factory, does give it some authenticy over whoever else would re-built the car. Fact remains however, that it is a duplication of a car that now belongs to history. In the spectrum of "orginal - re-creation - replica" this car could perhaps be called an "original replica".

I would call it a re-creation when (chassis)parts of the orginal car are used to bring it back to life, allthough too much of it needs a complete re-built to qualify it as a restored original.

 

Martin, dear friend... with this post, you've just invited the 0846 wankers to wander into GFD!

All joking aside, I consider it "real". A cloned sheep is still a sheep, since it's made from all original parts. A Ferrari built by SpA, even if it's from an old design or NOS parts, is still a factory Ferrari (in my opinion).

-Daniel

 

But even Ferrari can´t insert racing-history into newly built cars. A car newly built to represent an older car is still a newly built car, without the history. The car itself will be totally original, but it will never share the identity of the car which it is supposed to represent. In that view, it is a replica of a historical artefact.

 

..and nor will a cloned sheep have the background, experiences, and memories of the original sheep. Nonetheless, it's still a sheep.

 

its not a replica or a recreation, its a continuation car, like Shelby's new Cobras

 

Shelby - what a whore. All he does is dilute the value of the historic cars he's built by continuing to peddle his name.

 

To me a replica and a re-creation are pretty much the same thing. 846 is a restoration, albeit an extensive one...

 

Shelby.... total whore!

To me a replica is something that is trying to be something it's not. For example a 240 ZX with a fiberglass 250 body, it's own engine, running gear, etc would be a 250 GTO replica... it's trying to "replicate" something other than itself. Likewise, if I ever get around to rebodying a GTB to look like a 288 GTO, it will be a 288 GTO "replica".

A "recreation" on the other hand would be a car (or anything for that matter) which is spot on "recreated" as what it is trying to be. For example, A 250 GTO made with an either an origianl or copy ferrari frame, ferrari eng/trans, ally body, all the right ferrari parts, etc... would be "reacreation".

That's my definition. I think a lot of people don't bother to take the time to make the semantic differentiation between the two words, replica simply covers it all.

Would I own a 240 ZX GTO.... NO Would I own a GTO recreation... YES

 

sure, but when Ferrari builts a car to fill in a void in their collection (since they are Ferrari and they can do that) one can -in my belief- still question the originality of the newly built car. It depends on it´s purpose. If it is meant to represent a one off historical car, it is on some level a replica. It doesn´t exist upon it´s own merits.

Ferrari could built another ´64 GTO tomorrow, but this car, even if it´s built (cloned as you will) to the exact technical data of the ´64 cars, will never be another ´64 GTO. It will always be a ´05 GTO built to ´64 data. To put it in other words, viewed upon the car itself, it is an original ´05 GTO. Viewed upon it´s purpose, it is a replica of a ´64 GTO built in 2005. IMHO.

 

Just call the car by what it really is, #90125.

Ferrari built it and numbered it accordingly.

 

So what about the 400th Enzo the factory decided to build to support the Tsunami relief? Production was only supposed to be 399.

I realize the example is absurd, but IMHO it adds the component of time to the issue at hand: How much time needs to pass until something is no longer a regular production car? Or is it about taking down the assembly line (which in the Enzo case never really existed)?

 

The 400th Enzo is the only ´05 Enzo in existence.

Same thing. If Enzo´s were labeled and limited to a specific year in which they were built (like a ´64 GTO), lets say 2003, and the 2005 Enzo was built to this data, it would´ve been a replica of a ´03 Enzo, but an original 2005 Enzo.

Also, the 400th Enzo doesn´t represent any other existing or historical Enzo. It is ´just´ another Enzo.

 

When the factory builds it, it is a replica.

When someone puts a fiberglass body kit on a Fiero, it's carbage.

 

I would, since both of these cars were built by the factory that originally produced them and assuming that they were built in an exacting fashion, call them continuations. No, the 125S does not enjoy the race history of the original, but it would be difficult for me to call it a recreation or replica unless it shares the same chassis number as the original.

Bill

 

Yes its still a sheep but a sheep born (or even cloned) in 1947 would be dead today. So it clearly isn't the same.

 

I find it hard to believe that the value of an original AC Cobra, would be diminished by the offering of Olds powered, sport-luxury cars. The continuation of the AC Cobras, IMO would have about the same effect as the cars that were built by AutoKraft or the ones that were(are?) being made in Poland?, which I do not think have affected prices in a discernable manner. They, of course are not originals or survivors, they are without history. And the value of the real cars continue to rise.

A good example of an AC Ace D2, is worth more than many of the replica/recreation cars.

 

Totally agree.

I'm certain the new Superformance Cobras don't dilute the value of the originals financially. They hurt the "image/recognition" of the original ones since nowadays every time you see a Cobra you automatically assume replica.

 

If the parts for the 400th Enzo were already made without the intentions to making the 400th Enzo, I say it's a continuation. I really doubt that Ferrari had to make all the parts specifically for the 400th Enzo. I'm sure they keep spare engines and spare chassis on hand (isn't there a US law about having to keep spare parts for 7 years?). Heck, even McLaren Cars has a spare chassis of the McLaren F1 with a chassis number and all. They have a few spare engines, too.

 

And the one you see today is different from the one you saw yesterday. What is the standard by which "Cobras" are being compared/manufactured?

 

I think we're taking the conversation off track, so apologies. A friend of mine has a Superformance Cobra and swears that the manufacturing etc is the same as the original ones were and hence he refuses to call it a replica, but insists on it being a continuation. We agreed to disagree on that one. However it does seem that the Superformance cars are very close to the originals, but what do I know about Cobras...

 

If Ferrari decided to build 328's or 355's again because there was a demand for them what would they be considered. They would still be 328's and 355's and not replica's or re-creations.

James

 

Aston did the same thing with a few 'numbered' unused DB4GT chassis lying around Newport Pagnell. The DB4GT Zagatos they built in the 90's on these chassis' they distinctly called Sanction II's to differentiate from the original 19 'real' cars. But they still had chassis numbers from the 60's.

Complicated

 

A replica implies imitation or copy of something, cant we agree that the car in question is a new car built to old specification? Its not trying to copy or imitate anything...therefore how can it be a replica?

 

Using that logic, wouldn't ALL the GTOs (or any restored classic) be clones / replicas as all of them have been re-built - at some point and to some extent - to the technical data from '64 - many with little if any of the original metalwork left intact and much of the underpinnings replaced with replacement parts?

It begs the question: How many pieces must be "original" to qualify?

What if Ferrari had a frame, motor, and ALL of the other bits and peices sitting in a back corner of the warehouse for the past 40 years - all original parts from '64 that had never before been assembled together? Would THAT be an ORIGINAL GTO? It would be more "original" than any other GTO from a %age standpoint.


Scottie
www.TheCarcierge.com