Hi group,
I must say I agree with Leslie. Of course, the guy selling the '57
Adventurer convertible was wrong in pretending it was a genuine one and it
is only right that he was exposed doing so. But the border between an
"original" and a "clone" is blurry at most. When some people only rescue a
chassis and a VIN tag, then proceed to thoroughly rebuild a one-of-a-kind
model and sell it for big $$$$, my applause is only half-hearted. But at the
same time, I acknowledge the fact that anybody trying to define exactly that
border will encounter as many definitions as there are restorers. What must
be the remaining percentage of the original car ? 80% ? 60% ? 50% ? Less
than that ? Does it absolutely have to include the engine ? or the interior
?
By the way, this question is not only restricted to a model : what if you
build more options into the car that it had when sold new ?
For all that matters, I think that the alien factor in that picture is
money. If you want to build a "clone" (whatever the definition is) because
you want that model so bad and that after completion you drive it until you
can't get enough of it because you ENJOY it, I say go ahead by all means and
build whatever you want. If it is solely on the purpose of building a more
expensive model to get more dough out of it, it becomes questionable ...
Just my 2 eurocents worth (we have to start using that euro currency ... if
we want to get ready for January 2002).
Vincent Van Humbeeck (France, 120 miles north of Paris, chilly at most but
no chances of snow)
'58 Plymouth Belvedere Sport Coupe
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Forward Look Mopar Discussion List
[mailto:L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]De la part de Exner Fan
Envoyé : lundi 26 février 2001 17:30
À : L-FORWARDLOOK@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [FWDLK] 57 Adventurer Cvt - Barrett-Jackson
On a slightly different note, I have to ask, at what
point does a car like an Adventurer convertible become
a clone?
Take a situation like this (this is strictly
theoretical):
A man purchases a 1958 Adventurer Convertible,
completely rusted out but still containing a solid
frame, VIN tag and cowl tag.
This man undergoes a massive restoration of the car's
body in his garage, replacing numerous parts from
other hardtops and convertibles to make it whole
again, this includes parting out a nice Adventurer
hardtop to get the wheel covers, air cleaners,
manifold, etc.
When it's done, he sells it at an auction for big
bucks.
Unsuspecting buyer purchases the car, based on the VIN
matching to Historical records, etc. The tag says
Adventurer convert. the cowl matches that and the
frame stamping matches as well.
Did the seller sell a "clone" car? After all, was it
not made up of parts from other cars that WEREN'T
Adventurers (and one that was, albeit a hardtop)?
So this begs the question, at what point does a
Historical documented and accurate car become a clone?
If the '57 Barrett Jackson Adventurer in question had
simply been a rusted out hulk with a matching VIN,
frame and cowl tag that someone had taken a clean '57
Fireflite convert. body shell to create the Adventurer
body again, would it still be a fake?
I am not trying to imply anything one way or the
other, but aren't the only "true" and "authentic" cars
the ones that were never in accidents and never
restored?
Isn't everything else just a clone?
At what point in the restoration does a car move from
authentic to clone?
How many parts can be replaced from other cars before
it is qualified as a clone?
It still comes down to a Buyer Beware philosophy, but
I am curious to know what other people think about
this.
Leslie Howard
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
|
|
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network