Alpine_64, what's the minimum amount of body parts that hard-core Shelbyists consider to be a legitimate Shelby?
At least one car has been TAC'd as a "Tiger" that consisted of no more than scuttle, firewall and tunnel. If that VIN shows up in the near future with a new cacoon of Alpine sheet metal, would you consider it deceptive if that was sold as a "Tiger"?
Rootes Rooter, im not sure exactly what shelby people consider enough to make a car original.. im assuming that it once again comes down to the body. With any car that was converted when new (tiger, GT250, etc) it becomes harder later in life when they have rusted out restored etc to know what they were originally.
A good example is that some AC Aces have been converted to Cobras.. now in theory thats what shelby did, these owners change the steering to MKII spec, mod the tunnel and arches and install the ford driveline.. its no question an AC... but if we are being honest its not an original cobra. I feel sad when such a nice original car is cut up for that.. but its the owners choice.. what i have an issue with is if they then try and pass them off as original cobras.
Another comon conversion on cars is the cuttting up of 250Gt ferraris to make 250SWB and 250GTO replicas. Now thats essentially what the factory did, and given the very limited numbers of the cars and the value of them (8million +) making a conversion will be the only way people can accsess such a car. However, some people have spent much time in the case of 250SWB's (the more comon of the 2 aforementioned) to make them tool room copies and have then tried to pass them on as real.. now the car is almost indistinguishable from an original 250SWB its main parts, chassis, driveline instruments are all ferrari.. but its not an original 250SWB so why would you claim its original other than to sell your 1milliion car for several.. they are not saying here is a stunning frerrai converted to SWB spec they are trying to defraud people.
With regards to your Tiger question. I think i know the car you reffer to, it was nothing but leftovers of a shell. There is a car here downunder, which may be the car you reffer to. It has the inner guards and firewall but the whole internal monoque is removed. You just see the X brace , no rear parcel shelf, floors, tunnel etc.. is gutted.. and yes the car has been TAC'd, i have seen the stoicker on it. Its also had engine mounts put in the centre of the X so one can assume they were going to make a dragster? Now, as to when it no longer becomes a Tiger.. I guess that will depend on what happens to it and how it is restored. When the car was inspected there was enough evidence to show that what is there was a factory car, now you can probably restore that car and have it reinspected and it will again pass (PS.. if the cars have been hevaily restored after TAC they require reinspection to keep their certification) The interesting thing with that car is.. will the owner spend the large amount of time and money fixing the X brace on the car, the heavily rusted metal etc.. or will they find a nice alpine and put all those parts into it?
There is no issue with doing replicas, conversions, tributes.. in the art world, car world, boat world or plane world.. the problem arises when the history of the object in question is presented as something else in an attempt to decieve for financial gain.
If you have done a conversion why wouldnt you say so unless you are trying to gain from it?
Mike Shiner (sp?) on this site has been building a conversion and is open and honest about it. He should be applauded for it. He is doing it to make a car HE can enjoy, not to try and sell to someone else, and in the event he was to sell it I am sure he would proudly talk of the work he put into making the car as opposed to implying other things.
. Looking at the wreck, I don't think the driver faired too well either.
