Replica, Recreation or Fake
Discussion
Guys
From a discussion i was having with some friends over the weekend:-
Why is it a replica or recreation and not a fake?
The point is this, we look and the kit cars based on the mr2 to make replica 355's as fakes, if someone said that had a ferrari or a 355 we'd see it and tell them no, you have a mr2 in a body kit, they're not the same thing. It's a fake rolex, not a replica rolex and although it does everything that a real rolex does and often better, it's not a rolex because it's not made by rolex.
Somehow fake is used when it's thought of as inferior even if inferior means just not made by the correct people and replica or recreation is used when it is exactly the same to the nth degree. You can't have a recreation that's different from the original.
So why aren't replica cars called fake cars? Why is it never a fake cobra. Even something like a kirkham which is perfect is still not a shelby cobra. I know this is not a good example as the ownership of the name cobra is complex, but you get the idea.
As an e-type owner, i consider the only e-types to be jaguar e-types, maybe this snobby, but things like the challenger e-type is just a car that looks like an e-type. Since people assume when you say you have an e-type that you have a jaguar genuine e-type, telling people you have an e-type and having a challenger car is misleading them, the same as if you had a mr2 355 and told people you had a ferrari 355, or told them you had a rolex and then show them a fake chinese model.
where does the line of fake and replica exist, surely if it's not the real thing, then it's a fake and just variations on how good a fake. I don't see how you can say a lynx c-type is any more or less of a c type then a grp kit using xj6 running gear, one maybe closer to the original specification but at best is only a lynx c-type, as the only cars that have the right to be called c-types are the handful of jaguar c-types.
The funny thing is that in the e-type world, if you make a lightweight e-type fake/replica/recreation no one would call it a lightweight, it's advertised as lightweight replica or lightweight spec or even semi lightweight spec.
As classic car fans we're very proud of the fact we're maintaining the history of motoring, this sometimes results in the cannibalism of some cars and often less popular cars to keep other rarer more popular cars on the road, we accept this as a necessary evil, despite the fact that car may have been restored and loved and being less popular may be rarer and more historic then then car it's parts are used for. The problem is does the production of replicas/fakes/recreations justify this sacrifice.
I really don't know the answer to this it was something we couldn't resolve by talking about it, in the same way do all the replica cobras, ss100s, c and d types devalue the originals, i'm always interested how the owners of the originals of these cars feel when they see the fakes.
i'd be interested to know what other people think
pk
From a discussion i was having with some friends over the weekend:-
Why is it a replica or recreation and not a fake?
The point is this, we look and the kit cars based on the mr2 to make replica 355's as fakes, if someone said that had a ferrari or a 355 we'd see it and tell them no, you have a mr2 in a body kit, they're not the same thing. It's a fake rolex, not a replica rolex and although it does everything that a real rolex does and often better, it's not a rolex because it's not made by rolex.
Somehow fake is used when it's thought of as inferior even if inferior means just not made by the correct people and replica or recreation is used when it is exactly the same to the nth degree. You can't have a recreation that's different from the original.
So why aren't replica cars called fake cars? Why is it never a fake cobra. Even something like a kirkham which is perfect is still not a shelby cobra. I know this is not a good example as the ownership of the name cobra is complex, but you get the idea.
As an e-type owner, i consider the only e-types to be jaguar e-types, maybe this snobby, but things like the challenger e-type is just a car that looks like an e-type. Since people assume when you say you have an e-type that you have a jaguar genuine e-type, telling people you have an e-type and having a challenger car is misleading them, the same as if you had a mr2 355 and told people you had a ferrari 355, or told them you had a rolex and then show them a fake chinese model.
where does the line of fake and replica exist, surely if it's not the real thing, then it's a fake and just variations on how good a fake. I don't see how you can say a lynx c-type is any more or less of a c type then a grp kit using xj6 running gear, one maybe closer to the original specification but at best is only a lynx c-type, as the only cars that have the right to be called c-types are the handful of jaguar c-types.
The funny thing is that in the e-type world, if you make a lightweight e-type fake/replica/recreation no one would call it a lightweight, it's advertised as lightweight replica or lightweight spec or even semi lightweight spec.
As classic car fans we're very proud of the fact we're maintaining the history of motoring, this sometimes results in the cannibalism of some cars and often less popular cars to keep other rarer more popular cars on the road, we accept this as a necessary evil, despite the fact that car may have been restored and loved and being less popular may be rarer and more historic then then car it's parts are used for. The problem is does the production of replicas/fakes/recreations justify this sacrifice.
I really don't know the answer to this it was something we couldn't resolve by talking about it, in the same way do all the replica cobras, ss100s, c and d types devalue the originals, i'm always interested how the owners of the originals of these cars feel when they see the fakes.
i'd be interested to know what other people think
pk
Its an interesting debate.
I would consider that the genuine article is built in period, by the people building then at that time, driven by the test drivers and chronicled in detail many years later....
Pursang Bugatti? Not in my book.
Lynx Jag? Not in my book either.
Lovely lovely cars but not the real thing, I think the term 'recreation' is a little less uncomfortable for the owners than 'fake'.
But some cases are even more difficult to detail, how about ERA, one or two of those racing are made of parts that came out of the ERA works but never came out as complete cars at the time....
The Esders roadster I beleive is built from Bugatti parts, but its not a Royale built by Ettore.
I would consider that the genuine article is built in period, by the people building then at that time, driven by the test drivers and chronicled in detail many years later....
Pursang Bugatti? Not in my book.
Lynx Jag? Not in my book either.
Lovely lovely cars but not the real thing, I think the term 'recreation' is a little less uncomfortable for the owners than 'fake'.
But some cases are even more difficult to detail, how about ERA, one or two of those racing are made of parts that came out of the ERA works but never came out as complete cars at the time....
The Esders roadster I beleive is built from Bugatti parts, but its not a Royale built by Ettore.
Edited by Huntsman on Monday 31st December 17:33
Edited by Huntsman on Monday 31st December 17:34
An MR2 Ferrari 355 lookalike is neither a fake, replica, copy, recreation or whatever other moniker you want to ascribe to it. It's just an MR2 with a bodykit.
I would reserve the term Replica, recreation, fake or copy for far more seriously accomplished machines, real or not. And it needn't be a derogative term, you've got to call a nice machine something, despite it not being an original.
Take a new GT40 or Cobra for example, they aren't original, but they are still real ones. Continuation is the term IIRC.
I would reserve the term Replica, recreation, fake or copy for far more seriously accomplished machines, real or not. And it needn't be a derogative term, you've got to call a nice machine something, despite it not being an original.
Take a new GT40 or Cobra for example, they aren't original, but they are still real ones. Continuation is the term IIRC.
Very interesting and contentious subject!
The word replica was sometimes used in period by the orignal manufacturers e.g.Frazer Nash Le Mans replica etc.
Therefore would it be reasonable to call an exact modern facsimile of the same car a recreation?
For not so exact modern copies I suggest that the term applied is directly proportional to the value of the car. Hence a Lynx would never be called a fake even though, for example, it has quite different suspension from the original .Conversely a fibreglass bodied, ford engined kit may be deemed a fake.
It must irk the owner of original cars, especially cobras, when they are frequently asked "is it real" and I hope that Jaguar models aren't going to be cloned to the same extent.
The word replica was sometimes used in period by the orignal manufacturers e.g.Frazer Nash Le Mans replica etc.
Therefore would it be reasonable to call an exact modern facsimile of the same car a recreation?
For not so exact modern copies I suggest that the term applied is directly proportional to the value of the car. Hence a Lynx would never be called a fake even though, for example, it has quite different suspension from the original .Conversely a fibreglass bodied, ford engined kit may be deemed a fake.
It must irk the owner of original cars, especially cobras, when they are frequently asked "is it real" and I hope that Jaguar models aren't going to be cloned to the same extent.
Huntsman said:
Its an interesting debate.
I would consider that the genuine article is built in period, by the people building then at that time, driven by the test drivers and chronicled in detail many years later....
Pursang Bugatti? Not in my book.
Lynx Jag? Not in my book either.
Lovely lovely cars but not the real thing, I think the term 'recreation' is a little less uncomfortable for the owners than 'fake'.
But some cases are even more difficult to detail, how about ERA, one or two of those racing are made of parts that came out of the ERA works but never came out as complete cars at the time....
The Esders roadster I beleive is built from Bugatti parts, but its not a Royale built by Ettore.
I owned two Lynx D types and still have one and agree - they are a pastiche, but with real D types at £1.5 million and up it's the best I can afford. With E type rear suspension it handles better than the original too and in my case is more powerful and has more torque but will never be allowed to race with the real cars since it is not sorrect.I would consider that the genuine article is built in period, by the people building then at that time, driven by the test drivers and chronicled in detail many years later....
Pursang Bugatti? Not in my book.
Lynx Jag? Not in my book either.
Lovely lovely cars but not the real thing, I think the term 'recreation' is a little less uncomfortable for the owners than 'fake'.
But some cases are even more difficult to detail, how about ERA, one or two of those racing are made of parts that came out of the ERA works but never came out as complete cars at the time....
The Esders roadster I beleive is built from Bugatti parts, but its not a Royale built by Ettore.
Edited by Huntsman on Monday 31st December 17:33
Edited by Huntsman on Monday 31st December 17:34
On the other hand I am now building a C type and this will be correct down to the last detail including 56 spoke alloy rimmed wheels, not 60 spoke XK wheels. It will have the correct 4' 3" rear track with unequal length half shafts not like the 4' 7" of most copies that use a Mk 2 rear axle for economy plus the early JH series close ratio XK gearbox with square output flange. I could go on but you get the point.
So, I'll have a replica and a copy in my garage next year. The difference? One will have FIA papers and can race, the other won't and never will have. It's the FIA papers that are the tell tale; if it can have them it is more properly called a tool room copy, not a replica.
Most lightweight E type replicas use a steel tub, not an alloy one, Challengers are GRP, and these are not "real" cars but built in the main by enthusiasts who, like me with my Lynx, don't have the money to buy a real car but they have fun with them nevertheless. I don't deride them for it and am just grateful that Lynx and Brian Wingfield built great D types we can enjoy.
Edited by lowdrag on Tuesday 1st January 16:25
The Corvette on my profile is a reproduction/replica/whatever - for me the term is just shorthand for "not original," and it's one I'm happy to use as I don't have £10m for the original. It's got a Vette chassis and running gear, so is it a genuine Corvette, albeit not one that's 50 years old?
Personally I'm not bothered what anyone calls it as it wasn't built to fool anyone and performs as the original, and therein lies the difference between replicas and fakes - replica cars are built because the originals are either unobtainable or too expensive, fake cars are built because people think they would look better in a plastic Ferrari as opposed to a perfectly good MR2.
A parallel debate is what constitutes a "genuine" car, and how many parts need to be replaced before it ceases to be genuine. And is it better that historic cars are locked away, thus preserving originality, or should they be out on the roads?
Personally I'm not bothered what anyone calls it as it wasn't built to fool anyone and performs as the original, and therein lies the difference between replicas and fakes - replica cars are built because the originals are either unobtainable or too expensive, fake cars are built because people think they would look better in a plastic Ferrari as opposed to a perfectly good MR2.
A parallel debate is what constitutes a "genuine" car, and how many parts need to be replaced before it ceases to be genuine. And is it better that historic cars are locked away, thus preserving originality, or should they be out on the roads?
lowdrag said:
Huntsman said:
Its an interesting debate.
I would consider that the genuine article is built in period, by the people building then at that time, driven by the test drivers and chronicled in detail many years later....
Pursang Bugatti? Not in my book.
Lynx Jag? Not in my book either.
Lovely lovely cars but not the real thing, I think the term 'recreation' is a little less uncomfortable for the owners than 'fake'.
But some cases are even more difficult to detail, how about ERA, one or two of those racing are made of parts that came out of the ERA works but never came out as complete cars at the time....
The Esders roadster I beleive is built from Bugatti parts, but its not a Royale built by Ettore.
I owned two Lynx D types and still have one and agree - they are a pastiche, but with real D types at £1.5 million and up it's the best I can afford. With E type rear suspension it handles better than the original too and in my case is more powerful and has more torque but will never be allowed to race with the real cars since it is not sorrect.I would consider that the genuine article is built in period, by the people building then at that time, driven by the test drivers and chronicled in detail many years later....
Pursang Bugatti? Not in my book.
Lynx Jag? Not in my book either.
Lovely lovely cars but not the real thing, I think the term 'recreation' is a little less uncomfortable for the owners than 'fake'.
But some cases are even more difficult to detail, how about ERA, one or two of those racing are made of parts that came out of the ERA works but never came out as complete cars at the time....
The Esders roadster I beleive is built from Bugatti parts, but its not a Royale built by Ettore.
Edited by Huntsman on Monday 31st December 17:33
Edited by Huntsman on Monday 31st December 17:34
On the other hand I am now building a C type and this will be correct down to the last detail including 56 spoke alloy rimmed wheels, not 60 spoke XK wheels. It will have the correct 4' 3" rear track with unequal length half shafts not like the 4' 7" of most copies that use a Mk 2 rear axle for economy plus the early JH series close ratio XK gearbox with square output flange. I could go on but you get the point.
So, I'll have a replica and a copy in my garage next year. The difference? One will have FIA papers and can race, the other won't and never will have. It's the FIA papers that are the tell tale; if it can have them it is more properly called a tool room copy, not a replica.
Most lightweight E type replicas use a steel tub, not an alloy one, Challengers are GRP, and these are not "real" cars but built in the main by enthusiasts who, like me with my Lynx, don't have the money to buy a real car but they have fun with them nevertheless. I don't deride them for it and am just grateful that Lynx and Brian Wingfield built great D types we can enjoy.
Edited by lowdrag on Tuesday 1st January 16:25
Real, fake or ..... ? Surely as long as the car does not purport to be an original, ie a C Type, then copy should suffice.
Edited by Freddie von Rost on Tuesday 1st January 17:58
crankedup said:
To me replication is the production of any original item which faithfully follows all design,form and materials of the original. Whereas an reproduction seems to offer a look a like effort in the areas and a fake is wholly inferior in all ways to the original.
Interesting comment in view of Chris Rea's Ferrari 156 F1 'replica'. Spotted as a 'fake' by Phil Hill (who, of all people, should know as he won his world Championship in the real one) because, QUOTE "the welding is far too good to be a Ferrari".CanAm said:
crankedup said:
To me replication is the production of any original item which faithfully follows all design,form and materials of the original. Whereas an reproduction seems to offer a look a like effort in the areas and a fake is wholly inferior in all ways to the original.
Interesting comment in view of Chris Rea's Ferrari 156 F1 'replica'. Spotted as a 'fake' by Phil Hill (who, of all people, should know as he won his world Championship in the real one) because, QUOTE "the welding is far too good to be a Ferrari".Where is my coat?
Well, we are getting in deep aren't we! Chris Rea's car didn't have the correct engine but I must confess that a conversation with him years back gave me the inspiration to do what I am now doing. Here's a photo of Chris's car at Silverstone:-
A Lynx is, under the skin, nothing like a real D type at all although the external dimensions are faithfully reproduced the chassis is a cut down E type frame and all the mechanicals are E type so in no way is a Lynx a replica at all, but I love it just the same. Recreating a true copy of a car is a mind numbing job. Finding a C type steering wheel is almost impossible so we will have to use a modern replica but it is exactly the right size so will do. I won't go further on this subject since I have been awarded the Jaguar Anoraks Prize 2007!
Passing a copy off as a true car though is fraud as well as being something we are all taught to be aware of. Mini Coopers and Lotus Cortinas are examples of such cars. On the subject of what is an original and not a copy the usual definition is "a car with continuous history". I have recently been involved in correspondence over XKD 604 which is now in California but which, according to all records, was written off by Desmond Titterington in 1956. Parts of the car were found in the 1980's amongst the Ecurie Ecosse stock and a new car built by Jim Tester, mostly of correct parts, around it. However, like XKD 505 which has but a front sub frame from the original, it will never be considered by historians to be anything but a copy since the originals were destroyed or dismantled. Now an interesting conundrum; look at the photos underneath taken at Le Mans 2004
Now take a look at this photo taken in 2006:-
Despite rolling several times and being 95% destroyed, this C type is still an "original" since it has continuous history. Strange world isn't it.
A Lynx is, under the skin, nothing like a real D type at all although the external dimensions are faithfully reproduced the chassis is a cut down E type frame and all the mechanicals are E type so in no way is a Lynx a replica at all, but I love it just the same. Recreating a true copy of a car is a mind numbing job. Finding a C type steering wheel is almost impossible so we will have to use a modern replica but it is exactly the right size so will do. I won't go further on this subject since I have been awarded the Jaguar Anoraks Prize 2007!
Passing a copy off as a true car though is fraud as well as being something we are all taught to be aware of. Mini Coopers and Lotus Cortinas are examples of such cars. On the subject of what is an original and not a copy the usual definition is "a car with continuous history". I have recently been involved in correspondence over XKD 604 which is now in California but which, according to all records, was written off by Desmond Titterington in 1956. Parts of the car were found in the 1980's amongst the Ecurie Ecosse stock and a new car built by Jim Tester, mostly of correct parts, around it. However, like XKD 505 which has but a front sub frame from the original, it will never be considered by historians to be anything but a copy since the originals were destroyed or dismantled. Now an interesting conundrum; look at the photos underneath taken at Le Mans 2004
Now take a look at this photo taken in 2006:-
Despite rolling several times and being 95% destroyed, this C type is still an "original" since it has continuous history. Strange world isn't it.
It is very strange indeed. The issue of originalitry has been covered in the classic magazines a lot in the past. A few interesting things spring to mind:
one visit during the late 80s saw a very well known restorer proudly displaying three Bresica Bugatti chassis. When asked how you obtain three, he was told:
"the front third of that one is original, the middle third of that one is original and the final third of that one is original"
The cars were destined for three of the four corners of the world, so when they were discovered, it will be too late and too difficult to determine which is the original one.
And of course, there's the old adage that there are more Bugatti T35 around now then were ever built
Also, continuous history has shown to be the key: Also during the 80s, a Bentley (I think) which was well known and raced all of its life had, subsequently been repaired to such an extent that very little, if any of the components on the car were ever fitted to that car when new at Cricklewood. The original body had aso been replaced, but not destroyed. Someone got hold of this old, discarded body and built a "new" car around it. They then claimed to have the original car- afterall, their car had more of the original car's bits on it then the original car did, but the original car was well known and it was decided that this would be the "originl" one.
A similar, but more complicated case was very recent with (I think) a Lola
As for replica, recreation or fake, my own personal view is this:
A recreation is made by the factory or approved by the factory, but not made at the same time as the originals. Example: the "Sanction 2" Aston DB4 GT Zagatos, which were made by Zagato and an Aston specialist in the UK, with the factories blessing, and were allowed to have Aston chassis numbers. But the factory didnt build them- they wre 100% new, and built 30 years after the originals. They are recognised as Astons, although not built by them
A replica is someone designing and building a car which looks the same, but is happy to say its not. A MR2 355 would be here, as would all the Cobra copies, GT40 and Lynx/ Proteus. I'm not saying you can compare a MR2 355 replica with the latter but they are both, in my books replicas. And why not, when you can get 100% of the enjoyment and pleasure without 100% of the cost?
The latter is the nasty end: a fake, in my book is a car built delibreatly to decieve, usually for financial gains. The examples I gave above ae examples of this, as would the optermistic ebay adverts which say things as "orignal D-type- believed to be experimental, it is the only one fitted with a 2.9 litre XJ6 engine and was so secret they used an XJ40 bodyshell or somefink..."
As always, buyer beware, but there is nothing wrong with a replica or a recreation is they are sold as such.
one visit during the late 80s saw a very well known restorer proudly displaying three Bresica Bugatti chassis. When asked how you obtain three, he was told:
"the front third of that one is original, the middle third of that one is original and the final third of that one is original"
The cars were destined for three of the four corners of the world, so when they were discovered, it will be too late and too difficult to determine which is the original one.
And of course, there's the old adage that there are more Bugatti T35 around now then were ever built
Also, continuous history has shown to be the key: Also during the 80s, a Bentley (I think) which was well known and raced all of its life had, subsequently been repaired to such an extent that very little, if any of the components on the car were ever fitted to that car when new at Cricklewood. The original body had aso been replaced, but not destroyed. Someone got hold of this old, discarded body and built a "new" car around it. They then claimed to have the original car- afterall, their car had more of the original car's bits on it then the original car did, but the original car was well known and it was decided that this would be the "originl" one.
A similar, but more complicated case was very recent with (I think) a Lola
As for replica, recreation or fake, my own personal view is this:
A recreation is made by the factory or approved by the factory, but not made at the same time as the originals. Example: the "Sanction 2" Aston DB4 GT Zagatos, which were made by Zagato and an Aston specialist in the UK, with the factories blessing, and were allowed to have Aston chassis numbers. But the factory didnt build them- they wre 100% new, and built 30 years after the originals. They are recognised as Astons, although not built by them
A replica is someone designing and building a car which looks the same, but is happy to say its not. A MR2 355 would be here, as would all the Cobra copies, GT40 and Lynx/ Proteus. I'm not saying you can compare a MR2 355 replica with the latter but they are both, in my books replicas. And why not, when you can get 100% of the enjoyment and pleasure without 100% of the cost?
The latter is the nasty end: a fake, in my book is a car built delibreatly to decieve, usually for financial gains. The examples I gave above ae examples of this, as would the optermistic ebay adverts which say things as "orignal D-type- believed to be experimental, it is the only one fitted with a 2.9 litre XJ6 engine and was so secret they used an XJ40 bodyshell or somefink..."
As always, buyer beware, but there is nothing wrong with a replica or a recreation is they are sold as such.
Edited by williamp on Wednesday 2nd January 11:36
CanAm said:
crankedup said:
To me replication is the production of any original item which faithfully follows all design,form and materials of the original. Whereas an reproduction seems to offer a look a like effort in the areas and a fake is wholly inferior in all ways to the original.
Interesting comment in view of Chris Rea's Ferrari 156 F1 'replica'. Spotted as a 'fake' by Phil Hill (who, of all people, should know as he won his world Championship in the real one) because, QUOTE "the welding is far too good to be a Ferrari".Freddie von Rost said:
CanAm said:
crankedup said:
To me replication is the production of any original item which faithfully follows all design,form and materials of the original. Whereas an reproduction seems to offer a look a like effort in the areas and a fake is wholly inferior in all ways to the original.
Interesting comment in view of Chris Rea's Ferrari 156 F1 'replica'. Spotted as a 'fake' by Phil Hill (who, of all people, should know as he won his world Championship in the real one) because, QUOTE "the welding is far too good to be a Ferrari".Where is my coat?
lowdrag said:
Despite rolling several times and being 95% destroyed, this C type is still an "original" since it has continuous history. Strange world isn't it.
I wonder how many of the panels are in fact the original ones, or at least the pre-accident ones? Looking at the Octane issue about "Jim Clarke's" D-Type a couple of months ago. The lengths that were gone too to restore the bonnet that had be wrecked 50 plus years ago and had been hanging around ever since (and known to have been hanging around). I suspect that many of the C's destroyed panels could be repaired.I guess that unless you get a C hot enough to actually make the metal burn, it's probably not possible to write off a C in the current market.
a8hex said:
lowdrag said:
Despite rolling several times and being 95% destroyed, this C type is still an "original" since it has continuous history. Strange world isn't it.
I wonder how many of the panels are in fact the original ones, or at least the pre-accident ones? Looking at the Octane issue about "Jim Clarke's" D-Type a couple of months ago. The lengths that were gone too to restore the bonnet that had be wrecked 50 plus years ago and had been hanging around ever since (and known to have been hanging around). I suspect that many of the C's destroyed panels could be repaired.I guess that unless you get a C hot enough to actually make the metal burn, it's probably not possible to write off a C in the current market.
I would place a fairly large bet (by my standards) that most of what you saw in the C-type photos have been replaced during the rebuild. I suspect they have been kept, just in case they fall into unscrupulous hands...
It's an interesting debate; as some of you may know I'd been looking to buy a classic for the last year or so and recently acquired a splendid Aston Martin DB MK III. Along the way (if you read back through my posts) I was tempted to go older and get a 30's/40's Aston or Lagonda but the car I most love from that era is the (Jaguar) SS100. Not being able to afford the £120-£150k for a real Swallow Sidecars (i.e. Jaguar) SS100 I was tempted by the Suffolk SS100 replicas, but try as I may I just couldn't get over knowing that the beautiful swept front wings are fibre glass and the friction dampers are simply cosmetic. In the end I chose the Aston and I know I'll never get asked "Is it real mate?" 
That was my personal choice of what I wanted, regards Lynx D types etc. they are fantastic recreations, they usually have a few at Racing Green where I get my Griff looked after and sitting them really does get the juices flowing so I can see why people love them! Regards MR2s kitted out to look like Ferraris, well it's just kids, let them get on with it, they could be doing far worse things in their spare time. Replica, Fake, Body Kit? It's all a case of degrees, as long as the owner doesn't try to actually cash in on a forgery (like in the art world) then it's not really doing any harm, if on the other hand someone does pass off a C-type replica as being, say, Sterling Moss's Spa 24 hours winning car then lock-em' up I say! Rich...
That was my personal choice of what I wanted, regards Lynx D types etc. they are fantastic recreations, they usually have a few at Racing Green where I get my Griff looked after and sitting them really does get the juices flowing so I can see why people love them! Regards MR2s kitted out to look like Ferraris, well it's just kids, let them get on with it, they could be doing far worse things in their spare time. Replica, Fake, Body Kit? It's all a case of degrees, as long as the owner doesn't try to actually cash in on a forgery (like in the art world) then it's not really doing any harm, if on the other hand someone does pass off a C-type replica as being, say, Sterling Moss's Spa 24 hours winning car then lock-em' up I say! Rich... Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff