Rep-lic-a-phobia (Post #163)

English dictionaries get fatter every day. You can easily invent a word, like Carchaeologist that people immediately understand and start using, and in short order it becomes a real word. It first appeared in The Alfatross blog in Post #001--January 1, 2013. Replicaphobia is the latest new term to be introduced in The Alfatross blog. It is inspired by recent articles in Octane, Magneto, Sports Car Market, and Linkage magazines regarding serious international legal developments over what makes a car “real”.

 

1953 C-Type Jaguar continuation--get 'em while they're hot!

“Will Your Replica be Destroyed?” was the headline of the Legal Files column in the May 2021 issue of Sports Car Market. The author, John Draneas, stated “The collector-car world was recently stunned by the news that a Swedish court awarded judgement to Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) in its copyright infringement case against Karl and Ann-Christine Magnusson who were building a replica of an early ‘50s Jaguar C-Type.” The replica was ordered to be destroyed and the Swedish builders now face damages and legal fees. No matter how this and other similar cases are resolved, they demonstrate that automotive manufacturers are increasingly concerned about preserving the intellectual-property rights of the cars they produced decades ago.

The court case attracted The Alfatross’ attention because she is a stakeholder in the debate over “real” and “replica” cars. Is it good news for her or the death knell for a lively and legitimate—even essential—industry? Until now, replicaphobia has been primarily a concern for owners of original cars who believe that the creation of replicas adversely affects the values of originals.  

If a car is both rare and achingly beautiful, occupies an important place in automotive history, is connected to a legendary marque or carrozoria—or all of the above—then it is collectible and valuable. The value factor often produces a conflict for owners who decide it is too risky to drive their cars on the open road, and an opportunity for other entities to produce replicas that can offer a similar driving experience without risking financially disastrous consequences.

A 1900 SSZ forgery.

The Alfatross has approximately two dozen siblings still in existence, and another 14 or so that are thought to be illegitimate replicas. These  range from out-and-out forgeries difficult to distinguish from originals to clumsily-executed abominations that the rest of the family detests.  An article in the first issue of Linkage magazine, “Real or Replica—Does it Matter?”, the opinions offered by four collector-car authorities seem to agree that replicas have a useful place in the car world, but they cannot offer the same driving experience and should never be represented as or confused with originals.  

Real or replica? If only it were that simple! A range of terms are used to nuance the differences between original and copycat cars: “replicas”, “tool room replicas”, “reproductions”, “tributes”, “continuations”, “recreations”, “in the style of”, “evocations”, “revivals”, “forgeries”, “imitations”, or just plain “copies”. Actually, I cannot recall anyone advertising their car as being a forgery, imitation, or copy, but the other classifications are used frequently, if inconsistently.

The spectrum of replica authenticity runs the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous. At the sublime end are “tool room copies” that are as good as or better than the originals. A good example is Jaguar’s plans to build 8 “continuation” 1953 period C-Type Jaguars to celebrate 70 years of race successes. Prospective buyers can configure their car online by selecting from various color and trim options. In other words, Jaguar is now effectively building replicas of its own cars!

"honest replica" DP214 Aston Martin.

 

Another article in Magneto, “When Copies Become Classics” is about a collection of three Aston Martins carefully reproduced by various shops in the ‘80s and ‘90s that are coming up for auction on April 23. These “honest replicas” have been around so long and are so well-known that they are expected to sell collectively for several million dollars. 

 A heavily-modified 1900 SSZ replica.

 

Some of The Alfatross’ legitimate siblings have been heavily modified over the decades, which tends to arouse suspicion over its authenticity. If a car is purported to be a decades old original, and a participant in famous races, how can that be verified? Even the very word “original” needs clarification. Race cars are rode hard and put away wet. Engines and other parts are replaced. Entire bodies are replaced after accidents. Serial numbers can be altered. Records are often incomplete or non-existent. Human memory is notoriously unreliable. Conflicting claims are rife. A third article in the same issue of Magneto cited above, Examining History pertains to the forensic research techniques modern science provides to ascertain a car’s originality such as chemical analyses, optical emission spectroscopy and metallographic examination. Such techniques, combined with more conventional archival and previous owner research, make forgeries easier to detect.

Original? Replica? Forgery? Tribute?

 

One reason for keeping this blog is to establish The Alfatross’ originality beyond the shadow of a doubt. What would happen if Alfa and Zagato got together and decided to build a limited run of 1900 SSZs and offer them for sale? Would that lessen The Alfatross’ value? I doubt it. The market for “continuations” is completely different from that for originals, and the kind of suitors The Alfatross is likely to attract are probably already . . .  replicaphobes!

The Alfatross, the author, and Andrea Zagato.

NB—The art collector world is obsessed with the difficulty of establishing what is real and what is suspect. The inspiration for this blog came from seeing the movie The Last Vermeer: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+last+vermeer+movie&docid=608016607258633019&mid=1D57A8854535275F24231D57A8854535275F2423&view=detail&FORM=VIREHT

 

 

Deep Purple (Post #162)

Last month’s issue of Sports Car Market featured a Reader Forum in which the editors posed the question:  

The "resale red" era of collector car restoration is long past, with originality now favored in most cases. Yet some collectors still respray their cars, regardless of the market’s preference. When do you think it is appropriate to change the color of a car? 

 

This question caused me to think back on the decision I had to make for The Alfatross. When I came into possession of the car it was a faded, dirty, color that looked to me more brown than red. I looked forward to repainting it one day and tried to imagine what it would look like afterward. My first inspiration was to give it a two-tone paint job like an Austin Healy 3000 I saw years earlier—deep purple above the break line and candy white pearl below. If that sounds utterly vulgar and bizarre, please try to remember this was around 1970, a year or two after the British heavy metal band Deep Purple formed. In 1975 the Guiness Book of World Records listed Deep Purple as “the globe’s loudest band”. 

 

 

 

 

 

Decades later, after I learned The Alfatross was a special car that demanded respect for its original appearance, I discovered I wasn’t the only one who thought a two-tone paint job would be appropriate. Some period photos of its siblings show they left the Zagato factory with two-tone paint jobs, and even “racing stripes”.  

 

 

 

This month’s issue of SCM printed 28 responses to the question. Predictably, opinions varied widely from “keep it original at all costs” to “paint it whatever color you like” to “just wrap it in vinyl and change it any time you feel like it”. One of the responses came from me:

 

Color blindness is pretty common among males (about 10% have some form).  I have the blue-yellow variant.  That doesn’t mean I can’t see blue and yellow, but it does mean that for me certain shades of blue and green blend together as do shades of yellow and red.  This may be the reason I am not fond of red, retail or wholesale!  I mention this only because I am in the process of restoring a 1955 Alfa Romeo 1900C SSZagato.  When it came time to paint the car I chose to go with its original color: red.  I did not want to do that because I don’t like red, but that is definitely its original color.  After the deed was done, I was informed that according to Zagato’s records, it was originally some shade of blue!  That would have delighted me, but because I personally stripped the body using soda blasting, I can tell you for a fact that there was never a dollop of any shade of blue on that car. Here’s the quandary: Do I stick with the red color that I don’t like because I know it is original, or go for a blue that I do like even though I know it is not original—no matter what Zagato’s admittedly sketchy color records indicate?

Of course I wasn’t looking for advice. That decision was made a long time ago. I just submitted it because I thought it would probably present a unique perspective. The fact it was published proves that it was.

In retrospect, if I had known that Zagato’s records indicated The Alfatross’ original color was some shade of blue I probably would have had it painted that color instead of “retail red”—even though I could not find any trace of blue anywhere on the car. Yes, I like shades of blue more than shades of red, but there is another reason: So many of The Alfatross’ siblings are red—the vast majority—that it is hard to tell them apart in photographs. If I had followed my original inclinations, as the only Deep Purple/candy white pearl 1900C SSZ, she would be instantly recognizable with “the globe’s loudest paint job”.