Pip,
> Of course you are quite correct about the fake bit if you take that part of
> the explanation of the word fake in isolation.
>
> However, unless you actually wrote the Oxford Dictionary,
No, I was not one of the original American consultants for the OED. ;->
> I would take you to task. Just because you don't like a part of the
definition of FAKE, does
> not make such a car a REPLICA.
> That cannot be unless it was done by the original "artist". I hope you
take
> my point.
I popped out my copy of the OED, one of our larger purchases-but my wife is a
librarian, and that to which you refer concerns "the fine arts".
We are discussing CARS which were MANUFACTURED and PUNTED just as rapidly as
Cecil and Co. could do so. Not copies of the Mona Lisa.
If 10,000 K-3's could have been made and profitably sold, we would be looking
for the last few now!
>
> Further, if someone represents a car as a K3 replica, it then becomes, by
> definition, a FAKE as it is claiming by deception to be something that it
is
> not originally made to be, and can now (in modern times) never be! Even if
> one was to form a Company called MG Car Company, I don't think they could
> claim (without deception) to be the original manufacturer (the original
> artist) and so get away from the definition that really is appropriate -
> FAKE
I mostly agree, if it was made in order to deceive. The word "fake" carries
the connotation of trickery and criminality. A perusal of Roget may be
illustrative.
I agree the early cars should be maintained as originally delivered in as far
as is possible, but let us presuppose your argument is correct.
When do cars become "fakes"?
When they have new body panels, new engine parts, trans parts, rear end parts?
New bolts, screws, nuts, oil?
What of the "original" cars that have been totally disassembled down to the
last nut and bolt, repaired with new parts and then reassembled by "latter
day" workers (the original "artists" being dead and most of the rest
drooling into their soup)? Are these cars "fakes"?
I have a friend who will probably own the most correct, best TB in the world
when it is done. He has taken the trouble to carefully research and confirm
the origin, placement, and even color of each part of the TB.
Many of the parts were offered on other cars, and some of the parts on his
car started life bolted to other autos. Will the TB be a "fake"?
I hasten to say that I am not re-defining the meaning of the word "is", to
pun, but, I think unless the fellows who are making these cars are trying to
pawn them off as correct cars on an unsuspecting public, they should merely be
cataloged, so that in latter days they do not become "original" cars.
I draw your attention to the debacles in the Bentley world of late.
Besides, the fellows who built the car were not claiming it to be a "real"
K-3; they claimed it to be a "replica".
As in "a copy"- OED.
Some copies are just better than others.
>
> Good argument, anyway.
>
Quite.
BTW, does anyone have a source of new, correct M type exhaust manifolds?
Best,
Ray
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/wilma/mg-mmm
/// Send list postings to mg-mmm@autox.team.net
|