Vintage section Fake/Replica/Recreation/Rebody discussion

That's why I wanted to get that clear, I think some of this discussion has led to talking around each other because each means something slightly different. I don't want to introduce my definitions as I'm not that involved in the vintage world, rather I read iwanna860monza's post and interpreted his definitions also partly based on what I've read so far. So I don't know whose definitions are most "accepted", yours or his.

 

I'm sure someone regards a Camry as art (not someone I'd want to meet, but that aside...) We can respectfully agree to call them idiots.**

I think it's a stretch to call any of the pre-'70s Ferraris "mass produced". Yes, the doors from one 275 GTB look like the doors on another, but try to swap them. (It doesn't even work on Porsche 356s, because those were also hand finished, leaded, etc., with serial-numbered panels to prevent mix-ups in the assembly line.)

At some point, Ferraris became mass produced, but nothing in the Vintage section here falls into that category. They really are art in metal. The later stuff, IMHO, is all pretty interchangeable.



** Alright, not totally respectfully.

 

Again, depends on your definition of art.

The 250GTO is certainly considered an 'object d'art'. There is no other way to explain it's marketvalue in relation to it's function.

What do you consider rare? Care we for the 330 America than for the 250 GTE? The similarities are undeniable, but yet the 330 America is far more rare. In fact, it is almost as rare as a 250 GTO. Yet, we care far less for the 330 America. Generally speaking.

 

Mr. JULIO BATISTA,

Please give serious consideration to staying here.
Fchat is by far the less in your absence.

I sincerely appreciate you starting this thread.
I look forward to adding my perspective and I would like you around to see it.
I also appreciate you making the effort to temper, clarify, rescind and/or apologize as the discussion has progressed.

Mr. ROB LAY,

I appreciate your efforts to respond throughout this thread.
I especially appreciate your comment, 'in regards to (sponsor) subforum I will try to fix the bug of their thread titles appearing on main page under most recent thread' amidst the heat of all the discussion taking place. Your tireless efforts to make and maintain the best site, at all times, are seen and appreciated by a great many including me.

At no point did I consider any of Mr. Batista's effort(s) to apologize insincere, so I appreciate you staying open to resolve this.

FerrariChat and specifically Vintage is a unique place that Mr. Rob Lay has created and all of us are extraordinarily fortunate to have the contributions of;
Mr. Edwin K. Niles, Mr. Marcel 'Massive' Massini, Mr. Boudewijn Berkhoff, Sir Bruno De Locksley, Mr. Kare Pietilla, Mr. Nathan Beehl, Mr. Doug C. Nye, Mr. Tom Roland/Monsieur AP, Mr. L Wayne Ausbrooks and the MODS(!), Mr. 'etienne', Mr. Nicolas Jeannier 'Arthobald'
Mr. Thomas Shaughnessy, Mr. Bryan Phillips, Yale, Mr. John Vardanian, Mr. Cliff Reuter
Mr. 'Mroz' and those like him who participate, albeit anonymously or through agent, Mr. James 'IceHouse' Glickenhaus (Napolis), Mr. Julio Batista, Mr. '275GTB6c' (Oscar), The Late Mr. Branko (RIP) and those kind enough to continue his efforts, Mr. Cris Bertschi, Mr. Mark McCracken, Mr. 'Wheels 1' (Grant).

This list is by no means comprehensive and all errors of omission are mine. Please accept my apologies, those of you who I have not named.

This is a great thread for its intent and for raising these issues and giving us a chance to have this discussion.

Please look at the above and realize what we (collectively) have.
Let's work this out Gentlemen.

Best Regards,
Dave Powers

 

ok, i'll have a go.

agreed

I would call a replica body on an original or modified chassis also a replica. And even a fake when it is passed off as something which it is not. But to me a 250GTO on the modified fundamentals of a GTE, is a replica 250GTO and a forever lost GTE.

To me a recreation is the return to the original specifications of the original car using non-original parts. For example s/n 0038M receiving a replica Touring Superleggera body, replacing the Vignale body.

 

In reading your definitions, I get the following differences between you and iwanna860monza.

Your Fake and Replica are essentially the same, except for the intent of the owner/seller in how they represent the car. Your Recreation is iwanna860monza's Replica. Does that sum it up?

 

I'm a designer and I don't think car design is art at all. There's too many restrictions and engineering involved for it to truly be "art". Beautifully designed science is a better description. But not art.

Like I said, a 308 was a mass produced good looking object. If you put a body kit on it and make it look like a 288 GTO (which I think most of us would agree is better looking), the 308 was not art in the first place and the new fake GTO is not art now.

It's just a former 308.

Your analogy doesn't hold water just because they were hand built. They were still mass produced. If every object out there that was designed and produced in only a few thousand pieces was considered "art", the museums would be full of "as seen on TV" failures fetching thousand of dollars.

Some of you like to pick and choose models and say "well, this is art -- but this isn't". You can't do that. You need a unified theory that falls over everything or you're just making your own likes and dislikes rule your opinion in this matter.

 

To complicate the Ferrari/Art comparison, particularly with regard to "subcontracting", it is well known that most painters and sculptors mentored other artists, who often painted some/all of the paintings from instructions/drawings of the Master. Or the Master touched up the apprentices' work. Attribution was not always clear. Although it rarely impacts what you actually see, the value of a painting depends a whole lot on who actually held the brush.

I don't want to see kit-car Ferraris here - something I think 99%+ of us agree on.

I do want to see GTEs made into faux-GTOs on here; I benefit from the discussion, and those that hate it don't have to read it. Do people really read EVERY SINGLE THREAD anyway? If it has significant Ferrari parts/motor/chassis/body, I'd like to know.

I would cry if I didn't get to see the Typo 156 recreation - a huge service to the Ferrari community in my opinion, and clearly a labor of love from a dedicated enthusiast. I definitely want to see that here.

At heart of the discussion - it appears to me - is less what has already happened to cars, and more how non-factory spec cars are discussed, marketed for sale, or presented publicly. While we - as a community - can't control things outside the forum, we CAN control how things are handled on the forum, and I think the Title/First Post should make the position clear.

 

As such, would you say;

Faux-rraris [Non-Ferrari replicas] should be in General Automotive Discussion. Constructive as Legos.
Modificado/Recreation Ferraris in homage of Other Ferraris should be in "Other Italian" with other etceterini. Destructive, yet instructive.
Official Period Coachbuilder Rebodies should be in Vintage. Constructive, and instructive.

 

Now, if I may be so bold, having decided what the definitions are of replica, and recreation;

The car in question, in the for sale sub-forum, does it belong in the replica, rebody, or recreation section? I think we can all agree that based on the formula from Rob it is not a fake(although some would vocally disagree with the definition). It is not a rebody, where it left the factory as a GTO, and some/many of the body panels were hammered into submission.

 

Art is defined as:

"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, TYPICALLY in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"

Works produced by such skill and imagination."

In a world where Mapplethorpe can take a photo of himself shoving a whip up his a$$ and it is considered Art or where somebody can make a collage of scrap metal and call it art, I believe the Testatossa rises above.

The Mona Lisa is art, does the fact that they subsequently reprinted it a million times take away from its intrinsic value? I think not.

When we speak of Ferrari, they all began with one...one car and an artistic vision--whether singular or collaborative, regardless of how many they ultimately produced.

I'm sorry, but I don't care if they made a million of them or just one, but the lines of a 1961 Jaguar E-type is one of the greatest applications of human creative skill and imagination in a visual form since man first started doodling in a cave.

It's art.

If its not, than quite frankly I don't care to share your definition.

 

It is a sisyphian task trying to differentiate between whether a car with 'original' pieces, rebodied etc constitutes a real car. It also seems pedantic going at it from a legal perspective. What i find upsetting is that these cars were build, and then went through a junk phase, from which they were 'saved' - i.e someone recognised their importance, their worth, regardless of financials. I suppose for the love? How what - gutted, and used for a cheap thrill, which will be a !GREAT! investment - super returns on capital, and you can use it! This sums it up for me.

I read this forum regularly. I do not have a Ferrari, and have undertaken no research of substance which i can contribute. Within this forum, there are certain people whose posts i pay particular attention to; to generalise, the uniting feature seems to be long term involvement within the hobby, and moreover a recognition of the inherent worth of vintage Ferrari, regardless of how the 'market' perceives desirability. The true, long term enthusiasts, those whose contributions i feel carry the most value.

Interestingly, this group all appears to be united behind Julio.

Disclaimer - I realise this is all subjective.

 

Surely there is a difference between something that has an original chassis and one that has a brand new chassis. They might both have newly built GTO style bodies on them but they cannot be classed the same.

Then it just becomes a matter of the words we use to describe them. I, and many that I know, tend to use the word "recreation" to describe something built using an original Ferrari chassis and mechanicals (all or some), and something that is based on a newly built chassis (whether or not it includes some original Ferrari mechanical parts) as a replica.

So I think that means I go along with Rob's descriptions.

As I said - the argument about how desirable it is for any of them to exist, or where they should be discussed is a different matter. At least let us come to an agreement on the words used to describe them. That makes no difference to the cars themselves, just to how we communicate what we mean to each other. An agreement on that, even though it might mean some having to change their word usage, will if nothing else mean we can talk the same language.

 

The world isn't that rosey. Cold steel, cold investment for quite a few.

Simple investment. It goes up, it goes down, and so on...

It's not that long ago that real art was widely used as a tax free currency- 80's Japan.

 

It's looking like the result of all this will be to remain as we were... which is no bad thing.

 

and they are not. One is a complete fake and the other one is a replica.

Nah. A GTO based on a GTE-chassis can never be a recreation in my mind. The word 'recreation' implies a return to a previous specification (creating backwards so to speak). Therefor, the replica Touring Superleggera-body on s/n 0038M to me constitutes as a recreation. It harks back to what that specific car originally was. GTO's on a GTE-chassis can't fulfill that condition.

 

Perhaps, but the fact that a painting and a vintage competitioncar both have value as investmentobjects, doesn't mean they can't be considered art at the same time. And I think we all can agree that the market for vintage Ferrari's has more in common with the art-market than with the market for used cars.

 

When I wrote my post, I was not using concrete definitions, more trying to make a point, and that is - having a "religious" type definition of what is and isnt wont work, lets face it, some posters will agree that the 250 TR sold at Gooding Pebble Beach in 2011 for $16 mil. was an amazing car, others will claim that it was "damaged goods" since it caught fire twice, but everyone agrees it is what it is, now on the other hand what about Chinetti's 250P #0812, now owned by a poster on this fine site.

Some would say that what is left in this car is the fair mortal remains of the old rebuilt by italian craftsmen in the noughties, and it is simply representing what it began as. Now OTOH a lot of posters may quite rightly point out that considering the cars history, what original components are left in the car, and that is a question that I dont have an answer for. At the very least it has a new body, and maybe more, much more ?, I dont know enough to say. What I can be sure of though is that some would say this car is not original, and others will call for it to be posted in "recreations" if not "replicas".

I personally believe that you could open a can of worms by doing anything other than a simple classification of original Ferrari chassis from prior 1971 goes in Vintage, non Ferrari chassis goes in "Other discussion" because if you had various sub - forums it would get very complicated, very quickly. For example, who makes the decision of what goes where, and how would that process be constructive and fair ?. What would stop a "troll" getting involved ?.

Further and more scary for the people that like this site I would be VERY interested to know what legal ramifications there would be if you were to damage a cars value by putting the thread in the replica/ rebuild/ recreation section, certainly if there was any doubt. And on that note what about posters personal liability, I dont know much about American law but would slander be an issue ?

This could potentially get VERY complicated.

BUT this is one of the most enjoyable threads I have ever read on here.

 

And to further suss this out, a 308 made into a 288 GTO is lame. But a 308 turned into a race car by say Micheletto is cool. It's something different from what rolled out of the factory but it's not pretending to be something it's not.

-F

 

I got the beer, looks like Tex has the popcorn.
Image Unavailable, Please Login