Alfa Romeo Forums banner

21 - 34 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,678 Posts
Perhaps there should be some new threads?

Some new threads might be placed among the "General Forums" or perhaps among the "Other Marques" ...

Maybe "Alfaux Romeo"?

For the very early cars, another thread could be "A.L.F.A.U.X." where the acronym might represent "Anche Lui Fa Ancora Una Xchiffezza"? (Hint: For the non-Italians, substitute an "S" for the "X" when you go to the dictionary.)

In this case, at least we might wish that the car had been built by Alfa Romeo? That is, if it behaves as an Alfa Romeo should when driven close to the limit. If we might consider bestowing an honorary "Alfa Romeo" name association, it is not enough that it only be an intriguing lawn queen.

And if we were to be so bold as to bestow an honorary "Alfa" name association, it might not keep some representative of Alfa Romeo from demanding that all Alfa Romeo badges and identifications be removed from it when the car is displayed in public. This has happened with Ferrari (when Ferrari & the Italian courts don't demand that the car be destroyed) and surely we all know who it is that owns both companies?

There's nothing wrong with fantasy fulfillment at some level. But when it involves appropriating someone else's protected name or trademark, there are risks. It would be a shame to see this car destroyed simply because it aroused the ire of the company who made some of the parts that were used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
Maybe we need a new sub-forum: "Fakes and Wanna-be Alfas".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,154 Posts
Well, replica and "tribute" GTAs and the like were excommunicated from the GTA forum. So there's precedent.
Andrew
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
Well, replica and "tribute" GTAs and the like were excommunicated from the GTA forum. So there's precedent.
Andrew
But I think there's a big difference: It seems replica and "tribute" GTAs are usually based on an Alfa that left the factory as a legitimate GT Junior or GTV, not Bitsas made from parts and then touted as legitimate cars (this thread is a good example).

In essence, the issue seems to be the equivalent of vendor reviews: I believe there should be a place where people can talk about known fakes the same way they can talk about patterns of disappointing and/or fraudulent sellers or cars or parts -- where the intent is to warn fellow Alfistis of potential fraud and document the issues (and differences between real and fake) for eternity, if you wish. The paramount goal should be to set the record straight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,678 Posts
Excommunication?

I believe that there is a flaw in the concept of banning such cars or excommunicating the owners and builders. Ultimately, we should wish to preserve history and describe it as best we can. When we pretend that the "pretender" cars do not exist (and therefor fail to track them or even describe them completely), we actually encourage them to exist surreptitiously in the edges of the enthusiast arena ... if not actually in a completely hidden realm. I believe we'd be better off trying to find a way to embrace them at some level, even if it will not make all self-proclaimed "purists" happy in all instances.

There are many so-called "grey areas" as well. As with some "important" cars from other builders, some well-used Alfa Romeo cars that are considered "genuine" have fewer original parts remaining in them than some of the cars built largely of original spares ... and some of those built-up cars date from a time period that might be considered "almost historic" even today. In another twenty years or so, who knows what will be considered historically interesting?

For the convenience of my studies and information-sharing, I'd rather know that a certain car exists as a well-conceived (and executed?) "facsimile"/"tribute"/"replica" (choose your favorite designation) and be able to recognize it easily, rather than spend lots of time trying to figure out what it is each time it appears with a new owner who is afraid to reveal that it is the same car that was actively ignored the last time it appeared on the scene.

There are many events (and historical discussions) that might benefit from being inclusive even if it meant that the owner or commenter was required to enter the car or discuss it in a category that was perhaps an ancillary part of the central theme from time to time.

Naturally, this sort of acceptance should probably only be given to those cars that are presented honestly, i.e. a Giulia GT that has been prepared to resemble a GTA but which retains its original VIN number, not easily mistaken for a GTA built by Alfa Romeo. When a car is built up to replace or duplicate a GTA or GTZ or what-have-you, and assumes an identity that is not its own ... and the nature of the build is not acknowledged, then we are presented with a more difficult task. At that point, it is still important that the car is not ignored ... but it is also important that the misleading nature of the presentation is not ignored. There is no need to call such a car any names whatsoever. It is only important to create a listing available to one and all that makes it clear that "There is a question about the origins of one or more cars claiming the identity of "xxxxx"." This sort of listing will not keep all wishful thinkers from believing what they wish to, but in this day and age, they will not be able to say that they were not warned!

John
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,154 Posts
I guess I used the wrong word. The regular folks on the GTA forum asked the mods to move the non-real GTAs off that forum to the GT forum. I know there must be grey areas and tons of uncertainty, but we were addressing the recently built replica, tribute, whatever-you-want-to-call-them cars that were unquestionably not GTAs.

Andrew
 

·
Push hard and live
Joined
·
8,931 Posts
I've tried to just stay out of this, but it bothers me when people invest their energy in being judgmental and downright mean spirited, particularly based upon such limited information.

First, and as I tried to explain earlier, the word "prototype" can mean simply "one of a kind". I get that some people, cultures, languages may have more narrow or broad interpretations of this word, but it seems reasonably generous to not try to force a more narrow definition than is in common use elsewhere. No one made anyone the god of language. I know of plenty of vehicles that are/were described as prototypes after which no more were manufactured. Sometimes an idea doesn't work, but that doesn't mean the effort was not a prototype.

Secondly, I have not personally spoken with the owner of this car. For all I know, he owns a fun car, built around Alfa parts, and makes no claim to it be entirely an original factory car. I am disinclined to sink my claws into a fellow's back until I have personally met and discussed such a thing with him.

Likewise, I am not offended by describing such a car on a single-page window card as an Alfa. As another poster noted, this could just be the result of the teenager who volunteered to fill in the blanks. I prefer to hold judgment as it is the better of the possible human natures.

We see plenty of Alfas that were rebodied at one time or the other. Some of these are fully recognized as "Alfas", consistent with the then-common technique of Alfa providing the running gear and a Caroz providing the body. Is there an official date cut-off after which a burning bush says we cannot call a car an Alfa that is assembled in exactly this way?

I'm a big fan of market economics. As I, and others, have noted, there is essentially no chance that a buyer will pay a silly price for any car such as this, thinking it was built as-new in 1950-something. We see the prices being paid for one-off and short-run 1900's done by Ghia, Zagato, etc. If someone pays a similar price for this car, and can docoument that the seller claimed something that was not true, he would have recourse in the courts. Meanwhile, most of us would be shaking our heads at his naivete.

As for my opinion possibly being different if I had an awareness of Italian traditions, Alfas, etc sufficient to suit the poster that suggested such.... Hmmmm. Well, I think I have plenty of reason, knowledge, context, and intelligence to support my views, and disagree that I am required to share a group opinion. You are entitled to yours. However, I suggest one's joy can be enhanced by a generosity of spirit rather than harsh judgment.

Test one's position by asking could it be made into a formal rule and enforced by law? I get that Italian laws are different than ours, which right there points out the silliness of trying to enforce a single standard. I'm told that some European countries can and have confiscated cars that were modified from factory standard. We don't do that in the US. Here, we applaud Yankee ingenuity. I'm not arguing that modifying cars makes them better, just that trying to enforce a single standard, as defined by a self-appointed expert, offends my sense of liberty, good taste, and good manners.

By all means, restore a car any way you want, attend whatever Concours you want seeking whatever trophies you want. Just refrain from telling another person how they ought to do it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,154 Posts
I made the exec decision to move this to the 1900 forum. Please keep the comments within BB guidelines, thank you.
Andrew, mod
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
874 Posts
[...]
I'm a big fan of market economics. [...]
Might this feature of yours help to explain your hopeless lack of sensitivity to the point at stake here, which is NOT about money, but that the car in question was NOT built in the claimed period NOR does it LOOK LIKE ANYTHING built by Alfa or an italian coachbuilder on Alfa basis in the '50s, hence the "cultural fraud" concept I used to describe the problem?

A replica of an existing car/shape/model may have an educational value for the watcher to experience what coachwork artists have achieved in the past, provided that the car is not passed for the real thing and is accurate. The car at stake is NOT a replica, since it DOES NOT FIT any genuine period design.

Is it, or is in not a fact that the very author of this thread asked confirmation of his (mis-)belief it was an Alfa prototype and eventually acknowledged for having been corrected with the informations he got in reply? Does this fact prove that the car was misrepresented?

Now if that car was presented as a "1980s free representation of what a 1950s' 1900 coupé might have been", I would not argue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,241 Posts
FYI, some information on who might have built these cars became available recently on Petrolicious, see here (the link came from this thread).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,656 Posts
gtv2000 said:
Now if that car was presented as a "1980s free representation of what a 1950s' 1900 coupé might have been", I would not argue
Agree.

Unfortunately these non-period creations are depleting the stock of 1900 parts, and resulting in the destruction of genuine cars
Pete
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
837 Posts
If I'm not mistaken this car is shown on page 251 of Dohren's "Millenove" with the caption "vehicle bodies with 1900 technology" and "Luzzago Bild."


Not much info was included in the placard. Anyone know who designed this one? And is "prototype" an accurate description or is it just one of many of the one-offs created by coachbuilders in that era? Thanks!
-tj in the Cruz Mtns
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Some of these designs are just cool in my book. As long as they're represented correctly no real harm.

As to the 1900 pieces. I'll bet that most/all of the "1900" parts are FNM 2300. Around the early 80's, weren't there something like 1000 of them, new, stuck in railyards in Europe rusting away as no one wanted to buy a car based on 50's technology? I know that there used to be a large availability of advertised mechanicals from the these cars (and their spares?) pretty cheap. Just a guess, but with all that mechanical stuff sitting around it got repurposed.
 
21 - 34 of 34 Posts
Top