It is an over the top statement, but to illustrate a point. I think the point is, once you own something, whether a Ferrari or a Yugo, It's yours to do with what you will. Some of these one offs and customs from back in the day are very nice and valuable, and came at the expense of an original car. It is freedom to do what you want that is best in the world today. I know Ferraris are special, but they are just a car, just a machine. Perry
Vandals destroy other peoples property, hardly the correct word to use in order to justify your beliefs.
Well, this is a translation from a French dictionary Vandal: people who destroy art, beautiful or useful things because of their stupidity ,ignorance or lack of taste. It looks like it perfectly fits... Barbarian works too.
I'm not sure why some of these comments are viewed as combative -- people are just posting their passionately held views. I'm glad to hear both sides. I suspect the political comments were a byproduct of language. Brian's posts I thought were a voice of reason that commented effectively on both sides. I don't think anyone is arguing this. In the early days, you could order coachbuilt cars. Ferrari provided the chassis and coachbuilders provided the bodies. I don't think any bodies were destroyed, the coachbuilt cars were simply born as a variation of the car the chassis was associated with. Those cars were unique and sanctioned by Ferrari. Somebody correct my if I'm wrong, but that is my (very limited) understanding of how it worked back in the day.
Thank you and I agree. The PC police have a real problem around here. I guess they have a greater problem with the English language than many of our guests from Europe. Too many assume some underlying hostility where none exists. It says a great deal about them.
I agree 100% with 635CSI in his post #100. Vandalism is the right word in this case. And some of us should read again post #2.
Oxford English Dictionary. Sanctimonious. adjective. def. making a show of being morally superior to other people. synonyms: self-righteous, holier-than-thou, pious, pietistic, moralising, unctuous, smug, superior, priggish, mealy-mouthed, hypocritical, insincere, for form's sake, to keep up appearances
Not you specifically, I would never be that rude and I appreciate your humour. What gets forgotten is that we all subscribe to this website because we share a passion for the marque and this passion is expressed in different ways by different owners. Personally, I do not understand why anyone would make any changes to their car (restoration or recreation) unless the result was an improvement but this is where the subjectivity comes in. I have seen some very bad and some very good examples of recreations, in my opinion, but its not for me to condem and apply these suggested and universal definitions on all the perpetrators. An interesting thought. They made only 147 of the 400i GT (much rarer than a GTE) but you can buy a good one for less than £30k. At that price they are in danger of sharing the same fate as their V12 predessors and for the same reason. The automotive and Ferrari circle of life ?
Given the deity status some posters seem to have given to these old cars I guess sacrilege is a better term for them to use about the conversions.
There is a world of difference between modifying a car and hacking one up to turn it into a fake. When owners decide to modify their cars, they are creating something unique and that is their right because they are not infringing on anyone else. Most customizations (not all of course) are reversible because most of the interior remains largely intact and often even many parts of the body remain unchanged. Most customizations look pretty bad, but it is still the owner’s right to make whatever changes they want. I recall one (and only one) owner customization on Fchat that actually looked better than original (I wish I could find the thread, but the comments on Fchat were almost universally positive). There is nothing wrong with customizing cars because nobody else is infringed upon (and most of those cars can be reversed if a subsequent owner wants to return it to stock so nothing is destroyed). To turn a vintage Ferrari into a fake, however, is not anything close to the same. Unlike customization, it isn’t really a victimless act because what they create is a disservice to the people that own the original cars. I don’t think real GTO owners lose a lot of sleep over fakes (and some may own a fake to have a facsimile car to beat around in), but it’s fair to say that they did pay a bit of a premium for their GTO’s because of the limited production and the fact that there are 300 (SWAG) “GTO’s” remaining out of 36 originally built tramples their rights. I never get excited when I see a GTO at a show because I automatically think it’s a fake. It’s easy to think that GTO owners have more money than God, so nothing bothers them, but I’m pretty sure they are humans with human emotions like everyone else. There also is no comparison on the impact to the car itself. Most customizations can be restored back to stock without defying the laws of gravity, but most cars that are turned into fakes are usually irreversibly destroyed and can’t (in practical terms) be put back to original. Whether anyone chooses to recognize it or not, fakes do infringe upon owners of the original cars. Even when you look at a far milder example, like Daytona Spyder conversions, the fakes do infringe significantly upon the owners of the original Spyders in a very quantifiable way. Every original Daytona Spyder would be worth significantly more today if there were no converted cars because there would be a larger group of buyers competing for a much smaller number of cars. I’m sure people will argue this point, but I don’t think it can be argued because it is a byproduct of the laws of supply and demand and isn’t really debatable. What may be legal (on a technicality) isn't the same as what is right. The creation of fakes is not victimless – not for the owners of the copied car, not for the converted car itself, and not for Ferrari heritage (which is doubly impacted). Other than that, they’re all good .
I don't believe that fake GTO's diminish the value of the real ones at all. They are well known and documented, and will always be sought after. The replica phenomenon is nothing new. It will likely continue. I believe many people don't like the Ferrari aspect as they believe the cars to be somewhat sacred. Not so, they are machines. I do admire them, and if I had a valuable vintage Ferrari would be a good custodian and keep it in it's original shape as much, but would make some personal modifications to my taste.
In the case of the GTO, I agree that there is zero impact on value because all GTO's are so well known and so well documented, but there are still other forms of impact to the owners of the original cars. If you bought a vintage Ferrari of which there were very few made, and you paid a huge premium because of that rarity, and then there were 5 times as many of that model in circulation due to fakes -- don't you think you would find that pretty disturbing (even it it didn't affect valuation)? Would the fact that they were good fakes that were indistinguishable from your car make you feel any better? I'm guessing the indistinguishable fakes would make you feel even worse. In the case of the Daytona Spyder, there is real financial impact. Is that ok? Legal and "right" are two different things.
I do not agree with your Daytona Spider analogy either. The price difference between the cut coupes and the genuine Spiders is very significant. I have a very hard time believing more than a very small handful, if any have opted for the cut cars due to availability and not affordability.
You are making a very unfair comparison. Only late 2nd series and the 3rd series were built in greater numbers than that (production numbers being close to 300 for each). All earlier versions are much rarer, including a few unique vehicles all of which have been destroyed or modified beyond recognition, as far as I know.
You are right Kare, I was being a little selective to emphasise a point on undervalued and rare Ferraris that are in danger of going the same way as the GTE Correction - £45k will buy you 1 of only 28 RHD 400GT's out of a total production of 147. 1979 Ferrari 400GT Manual RHD For Sale on Car And Classic UK [C663082] If you are after something cheaper, £30k will buy you one of the more plentiful 2nd series manual 400 GT i's and they made 422 of those However, even if you add on the 270 412 GT's, in total, it is still rarer than a GTE
I agree that there a big difference between cut and originals already, and I agree that many bought cut cars for price, but that kind of proves the point. Some obviously bought a cut car because their budgets were limited. Others had no budget restrictions, but the fact that there is a much cheaper alternative available can't help but put a ceiling on how much of an additional premium each buyer will pay to have an original. Some buyers will pay whatever it takes, but others will fall off at some price point to settle for a cut car simply because they can't justify the premium in their own mind. This thinning of buyers reduces the ultimate price level for originals. The number of Daytona Spyder buyers is fixed, if the total number of cars is reduced from whatever it is now with cut cars to 122, that same number of buyers that need a Spyder will be fighting for far fewer cars and the price will go up, probably a lot.
Seems like a great vintage Ferrari bargain. These are the last days that Ferrari cars looked genuinely Italian and the passage of time is going to make these cars increasingly attractive. john
I agree but they were also a milestone as being the first of the V12's to be fitted with automatic transmission. Another example of sacrilege ? .....but this time perpetrated by the factory