Re: Total destruction
This is a very tough issue for me and I’ll tell you why. There is a virtual continuum of cars existent today when one considers any given marque. They range from unmolested, as originally constructed examples; examples that have undergone use and, of course, had consumable parts replaced but with replacement parts produced by the owner of the marque or officially licensed suppliers; the same sort of car just described, however replacement parts are merely look-a-likes; well used vehicles where little or no consideration has been given to originality and replicas with a yet another complete continuum with respect to originality. There is certainly nothing wrong with classifying cars in this way and there is little about this that would be considered subjective. What makes this a tough issue is when people start applying completely objective terms like "better" to these subjective classifications. What makes it excruciating for owners of car in those classifications closer to the “as produced” end of the spectrum, is the monetary value placed on the classifications and, akin to that, the “bragging rights,” if you will, that go with ownership of them.
Owners of the most pristine versions of a marque are doggedly protective over their rights to claim an original example of the marque. They tend to be quite aggressive in pointing out when examples fall into the “less original” classifications shall we say. And God forbid should anyone claim or even insinuate that a replica is anything but that. And well they should, if for not other reason than to protect their own investment and, as they are very quick to point out, to protect the uneducated car buyer from being taken by some underhanded scoundrel. If truth be known, I would question what percentage of their motivation is based on the altruism. It is, unfortunately, human nature to place a value on ones self worth based on the ownership or control of possessions. If your face is getting red right now and you find yourself getting angry with me, I would ask if it is because of you think I am talking about you. Because, I don’t KNOW any of you well enough to accuse you of this, quite normal, human foible. All I ask is that you be honest with yourself, at least.
This provides me with a perfect segue for a few words for those who restore, reconstruct, resurrect or replicate a marque. If one is completely honest about the process that is used in arriving at example of the marque in question, all of those qualifiers become moot. And, unless one is trying to perpetrate a fraud, at worst, or provide ones self a higher level of self-esteem based upon a deception, at best, why wouldn’t one want to be completely open about the process. To get right down to it, if one claims that an example of a car IS a certain production chassis number, one implies some level of originality exists in that example. To make this type of claim without some explanation of the process is, indeed, a deception in my estimation. This is especially true when the unfortunate demise of the original in question is quite well documented, as is the case here.
That said, I think that sanctioning bodies like the FIA, the SVRA and any number of other vintage racing associations have perpetuated this sort of thing. Their complete exclusion, in the past, of replicas has come to bite them in their collective, pompous arses, I am afraid. With the number of original marques that the owners are willing to put on a track dwindling, their events have also dwindled in attendance and importance. Realizing this, but still finding the recognition of replicas as abhorrent, they have chosen to bend the rules from time to time. It would appear that who is asking for the rules to be bent has a LOT to do with the success of the request. The problem is that these forays from the straight and narrow do not go unnoticed. This emboldens the unscrupulous and those who just want to be a part of the celebration of a marque to attempt deception. In recognition of the increasing rarity of true original cars, I feel that the vintage associations ought to create two distinct classes for their events: one would allow for the exposition of the true original examples of the marques, which verges on idolatry for some, and another for replicas and other vehicles which pay homage to the originals, but with which the owners are willing to more truly race and put on a show for the attendees. I do hope that those who see this as a dilution of the snob appeal of vintage racing do not prevail in squelching this or any similar plans that are based on inclusion rather than exclusion.
Regards,
Lynn
