46, point taken of course but I don't feel it's totally about originality per se even though that's rightfully valued as well. It's as much about honesty and fair dealing, too. With the advent of a brand new chassis number, perhaps even legality.
In my view, modifying a 46 into a 47 in meticulous detail is fine – you've created a replica, or a look-alike or whatever.
But when you then say "The car has been allocated a ‘continuation’ chassis number" with seemingly no provenance for that number, in my book you've crossed the line and have created a fake. There appears to be no plausible reason to change the ID that I can think of other than an attempt to deceive. Or at least, it remains without explanation. If there is a reasonable explanation, I'd be pleased to hear it and retract.
F'rinstance, a while ago (2 years?) there was a whirlwind that went through the Jaguar community which was all over FB. Here's how I remember the story but someone please correct me if I miss something.
The story started out about a guy who made himself a C-Type Jag. It was a replica, of course, but he's apparently something of a well known artisan and his work well respected. An acquaintance/friend/enthusiast subsequently asked this chap to build one for him. They set a price and off he went. As the Jag community looked on and admired the progress reports, he started talking about another one or two more orders in the wings. Everyone thought . . how good is this!
While recognising there's oodles of Jag replicas out there and I don't know how the retailers handle things, but somewhere along the line, Jaguar got wind of this endeavour and took him to court. Apparently defending the case was going to bankrupt this guy so people were hurriedly setting up Go-fund-me accounts.
It turned out that bolting a Jaguar badge on the front and selling them for a profit infringed Jaguar IP and also deprived them of income. At least that was the crux of the litigation as I recall it.
It's perhaps no coincidence that soon after, Jaguar announced a limited number of ‘continuation’ cars which were to be numbered in sequence from those originally allocated but unfulfilled back in the 50's. That was the first time I'd heard of the term ‘continuation’.
I didn't follow the story so I don't know how it played out but some of those Jag replicas command serious money.
What is it they say about Mk1 Lotus Cortinas? . . out of the 3000 odd built, only 3844 survive today.
As I say, I'm fine with replicas or any modifications people want to do (though I might draw the line at that front engined conversion) . . but when there seems to be a clear attempt to mislead, well...
EDIT to add:
Here's a news article on the debacle.
It all happened in a Swedish court, but I dare not suggest that DIY Jags should be added to the list of no-go zones.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1402090/classic-car-collector-sued-jaguar-c-type-replica-exclusiveAnd here's an article by an IP lawyer who owns a replica Porsche 356 . . just for a different perspective.
https://www.jamesandwells.com/au/jlr-sparks-a-fire-of-condemnation-amongst-lovers-and-users-of-classic-car-design/
