This is interesting. I agree with you, Jim, that a Safir is not a 1965 car. I suspect that Peter Thorp would agree as well; he never intended that the series of Safir GT40s he built would be represented as original cars, which is why the chassis was redesigned and is substantially different. Having recently had the opportunity to view a Safir chassis side-by-side with an original Tennant chassis, I can vouch for the fact that they are in no way identical, although the dimensions are similar.
Keep in mind that once a car leaves its' manufacturer, they have very little if any control over how it is represented by the subsequent owner. I have met several people who own Safir cars, and they are quite clear on how they view what they own- they are continuation GT40 cars built in the 80s which are entitled to carry the GT40 name, and derive their lineage from JW Automotive.
I would like to point out that they are not replicas in that sense- the people who built them went to the trouble to buy the rights, get the tooling and have the chassis redesigned and improved. As far as I know no one else has even thought about licensing the design or shape of the car to build them; everyone just goes ahead and does it. And, if you compare an original car, Mark 1 or Mark 2 anyway, to a Safir GT40- well, I thought the Safir car was by far better put together and the workmanship to a higher standard. I would rather have a Safir car than an original. It is easier to get parts for them, since Safir still exists, and the cars are more durable. They go just as fast.(both are far beyond my driving ability). And the body panels came from the original molds, so they look the same- the genuine classic shape.
Finally, the price is too high. Minimum bid 250K- ridiculous. You could buy 1040 for that, or close to it. Although there is no question in my mind that a Safir is a better car, it is not worth quite as much as an original car with a competition history.