| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Brian Watson
United Kingdom
189 Posts |
 Posted - 20/08/2019 : 13:18:04
|
I think Graham is absolutely correct: the rest of the world uses "replica". We are tying ourselves in knots because of a handful of genuine factory built replicas. Colin's suggestion covers off the issue of the "12/12 Replica" using the description "12/12 Replica replica" - it's cumbersome but only in this one instance and there are so few examples of this particular replica that it seems ridiculous to ignore the obvious - a bit like King Canute on the beach... We have this debate every few years and it never leads anywhere that would change the understanding of the rest of the world. Just imagine what all this must look like to an outsider....
Brian |
Edited by - Brian Watson on 20/08/2019 13:19:41 |
 |
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3240 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 14:00:26
|
And so the debate rumbles on, as the saying goes “you can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.” This matter has taken up much discussion in Committee over the years.
To my mind replica implies an exact copy, which could apply to Richard’s very
accurately built car but not to the many cars that are “in the style of” but lacking in the finer detail of the genuine article I.e. not replicas.
As has been pointed out there are Fraser Nash Le Mans replicas, these were works built cars to meet the demand from potential owners/racers following the success of the original car at Le Mans. As noted in this discussion MG used the same approach when producing the M type 12/12 replicas.
George
Ex-Committee member.
|
Edited by - George Eagle on 20/08/2019 14:21:09 |
|
|
|
Cathelijne
Netherlands
744 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 14:49:37
|
I've been using 'lookalike' for a while which seems to work for me. It's an easy enough word and if I mention something to be a 'K3 Lookalike' (sometimes I elaborate a bit and call a K1 a 'K3 Lookalike K1' or a C-type lookalike D-type for instance) it opens up room for conversation and explanation to those perhaps less 'in the know'.
If a car has been chopped about a bit (like the J2 at the start of this topic or Robin Gordon's lovely old M-type currently up for sale on here), I go with 'Special'. This same term works for cars sporting racing bodies that do not imply to be anything but specials (the two Orange Clogs, the Baynton Jones created KN single seater, etc.) and in a way also for period specials such as the Parnell K3 and the Bellevue Special. |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3240 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 15:04:15
|
Just a further comment, the word replica has in many instances been wrongly used when applied to cars which are not even close to being replicas; good examples are a P type with Q style body, an N type with straightened chassis and K3 style body (either slab tanked or pointed tail) and a J type with doorless body and outside exhaust.
I used to describe my own PB with Lightweight Q style pointed tail body as a PB Special.
George
Ex PB0642
|
Edited by - George Eagle on 20/08/2019 15:05:39 |
|
|
|
Brian Watson
United Kingdom
189 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 16:07:50
|
In the olden days "Special" was the description stated in the rules to be used for any non-standard car and, to my mind, correctly described George's car. Unfortunately, "Special" seems to have become a dirty word - one of the reasons we keep having this debate - but I think it still works for any car that hasn't been rebuilt in the style of another model.
Brian
|
Edited by - Brian Watson on 20/08/2019 16:09:57 |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
2010 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 17:40:47
|
Hello, Forum.
I am in agreement with Graham and Brian in that it seems the term ‘ Replica ‘ is disqualified as a means of reference by the Committee simply because the MG Company named the 12/12 M types as such.
I suspect there is an underlying prejudice against so- called replicas among certain Members which in my opinion is very regrettable particularly to someone like myself. I am a lifelong MMM MG enthusiast who has devoted a considerable amount of time effort and money to build a K3 copy. My current example is my third attempt extending from the early 70s to the present. I maintain that my commitment and enthusiasm for the MMM cars is as great as anyone else.
When disparaging comments are made against cars like mine I find it extremely hurtful and can only assume they have very little understanding of what it takes to achieve the end result. Speaking for myself I have gone to unimaginable lengths in an attempt to achieve what I hope is as near perfection and accuracy as is humanly possible.
To the Committee I would hope you would take my comments into consideration.
To some,the term ‘replica’ may not hold much gravitas but it means everything to those of us who have been involved with them.
Many years ago when I wrote to F. Wilson McComb regarding his K3 Profile Publications (No.15) published in 1966, he told me how difficult it would be to obtain an original car. (I still have his letter ) It was shortly afterwards I determined to make one come what may. I am still at it !
Regards to all fellow enthusiasts,
Chris
|
|
|
|
kimber
United Kingdom
1529 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 19:33:52
|
| Re-classify the original 12/12s as "Works" replicas. Job done. |
|
|
|
Westbury
United Kingdom
2010 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 19:37:59
|
Absolutely !!
Chris |
|
|
|
George Eagle
United Kingdom
3240 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 22:02:32
|
The description “works” replicas does not address the full issue - how does this address the problem of describing a “K3” built on an N chassis for example? A replica it certainly is not and never can be.
Perhaps only completely accurate copies of original factory cars built on the correct chassis type could be termed replicas?
With regards to the numerous Jaguars built as C types the expression “tool room” copy is often used. I presume this must be to differentiate aluminium bodied cars from those with grp bodies which otherwise can be quite accurate copies.
George |
|
|
|
LewPalmer
USA
3244 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 22:20:13
|
If most prefer to avoid the word "replica", why not identify the vehicle with its chassis number, and simply use the word "copy"?
Lew Palmer
PA1169, PB0560 |
|
|
|
Richard Hardy
United Kingdom
2159 Posts |
Posted - 20/08/2019 : 22:54:35
|
There lies another problem, how many of the 'genuine' cars are actually genuine!!!! 
I like Colin's replica replica suggestion. This would only be applicable to such a small minority of production models and therefore allows the way for good replicas to deserve the title 'replica'. The problem thereafter is, at what point does a poor build attempt at a replica become a 'special'. Subjective but could work with common sense
Rich
Vintage MG Parts |
|
|
|
Cooperman
United Kingdom
760 Posts |
Posted - 21/08/2019 : 08:58:15
|
George mentions a K3 on an N chassis. Could this be "an N type re-built in the style of a K3"
It seems to me that what ever the car was originally should be its first designation such as "a J2 re-built as a J4" etc
John Cooper M 628 |
Edited by - Cooperman on 21/08/2019 09:00:15 |
|
|
|
MG Maverick
United Kingdom
1045 Posts |
Posted - 21/08/2019 : 09:12:19
|
From my perspective as someone who obtained two dismantled original j2s, one early cycle wing and one swept wing, all parts mixed together in two seperate sites in two seperate villages in Cyprus, I am happy to call both J2 Projects, J2353 I am upgrading to J4 specifications and J4129 as the J2 that probably Dudley Cottingham would have recognised back in 1933-35 using as many of the original parts as I am safely able. So for me J2 to J4 project and J2 project.
Chris
J2353
J4129
 |
Edited by - MG Maverick on 21/08/2019 09:16:33 |
|
|
|
KevinA
New Zealand
671 Posts |
Posted - 21/08/2019 : 10:41:41
|
My take is that chassis is king- in most cases the chassis should dictate the description so how it left the factory is the way it should be.
The exception is when an original car "X" gets an identical second hand chassis but otherwise retains its components due to rust, damage etc. Id like to see the identity retained with a comment " X rebuilt using chassis Y"
A J2 chassis therefore will always be a J2. "In the style of" is one I prefer rather than replica. It then becomes a personal thing just how close the new style is than the original.
It probably depends whether you're buying or selling! |
|
|
|
Peter Green
United Kingdom
1682 Posts |
Posted - 21/08/2019 : 21:36:08
|
At least two people, John Cooper and Kevin Atkinson, agree with the way the committee wishes Triple-M cars to be described.
Peter |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
