COACHBUILD.com
https://www.coachbuild.com/forum/

"Replica" bodies
https://www.coachbuild.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=488&t=5269
Page 1 of 1

Author:  neuilly [ Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  "Replica" bodies

We are starting to get entries for many firms which have built post-war so-called "replica" bodies, particularly for Rolls-Royce pre-war chassis. These are not to be confused with pre-war up-dated bodies, termed "replica" at the time by such as Southern, Compton and Ranalah, but actually of design contemporary with the time that they were constructed and fitted. I am talking about later bodies not reflecting the time in which they were built, and thus not indicative of any design trends or thinking. Build quality is entirely irrelevant in these instances, and it matters not whether it be good or bad, but we have headers (but no vehicles) for, for example, Leyshon-James and Horsefield (sic - presumably Horsfield). To the best of my knowledge both of these have only produced replacement bodies "in the style of", rather than re-creations of previous bodies. Personally, I do not think that work of this kind fits into an historical overview of either coachbuilding or style or design. What do others think?

Of course, the fact that there is not a scrap of original wood, metal or sweat left in so many Figoni & Falaschi bodies is another matter... :twisted:

Clive

Author:  Michiel Mobiel [ Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Replica" bodies

neuilly wrote:
To the best of my knowledge both of these have only produced replacement bodies "in the style of", rather than re-creations of previous bodies. Personally, I do not think that work of this kind fits into an historical overview of either coachbuilding or style or design. What do others think?

I agree, but it seems we could use your and other's knowledge to keep those replacement "in the style of" body builders apart from the true contemporary creators. Especially the Rolls-Royce body builders scene dazzles me...

The companies that do not really apply as true coachbuilders, creators of new things, should be pointed out and then they can be moved to the off-topic section.

Author:  Panelsmasher [ Wed May 04, 2011 6:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: "Replica" bodies

neuilly wrote:
We are starting to get entries for many firms which have built post-war so-called "replica" bodies, particularly for Rolls-Royce pre-war chassis. These are not to be confused with pre-war up-dated bodies, termed "replica" at the time by such as Southern, Compton and Ranalah, but actually of design contemporary with the time that they were constructed and fitted. I am talking about later bodies not reflecting the time in which they were built, and thus not indicative of any design trends or thinking. Build quality is entirely irrelevant in these instances, and it matters not whether it be good or bad, but we have headers (but no vehicles) for, for example, Leyshon-James and Horsefield (sic - presumably Horsfield). To the best of my knowledge both of these have only produced replacement bodies "in the style of", rather than re-creations of previous bodies. Personally, I do not think that work of this kind fits into an historical overview of either coachbuilding or style or design. What do others think?

Of course, the fact that there is not a scrap of original wood, metal or sweat left in so many Figoni & Falaschi bodies is another matter... :twisted:

Clive




well, we as modern/living Coachbuilders have made the wood, metal/alloy, stronger plus added our own sweaty smell to the newly re-bodied cars. We are as much part of the history of the car as the original, those beauties would still be rotting if it weren't for us, and the owners. . . .thank us all

Author:  neuilly [ Sun May 08, 2011 4:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: "Replica" bodies

Panelsmasher wrote:
neuilly wrote:
We are starting to get entries for many firms which have built post-war so-called "replica" bodies, particularly for Rolls-Royce pre-war chassis. These are not to be confused with pre-war up-dated bodies, termed "replica" at the time by such as Southern, Compton and Ranalah, but actually of design contemporary with the time that they were constructed and fitted. I am talking about later bodies not reflecting the time in which they were built, and thus not indicative of any design trends or thinking. Build quality is entirely irrelevant in these instances, and it matters not whether it be good or bad, but we have headers (but no vehicles) for, for example, Leyshon-James and Horsefield (sic - presumably Horsfield). To the best of my knowledge both of these have only produced replacement bodies "in the style of", rather than re-creations of previous bodies. Personally, I do not think that work of this kind fits into an historical overview of either coachbuilding or style or design. What do others think?

Of course, the fact that there is not a scrap of original wood, metal or sweat left in so many Figoni & Falaschi bodies is another matter... :twisted:

Clive




well, we as modern/living Coachbuilders have made the wood, metal/alloy, stronger plus added our own sweaty smell to the newly re-bodied cars. We are as much part of the history of the car as the original, those beauties would still be rotting if it weren't for us, and the owners. . . .thank us all


I don't want there to be any misunderstanding here: I am not talking about restoration work or recreation. Plainly, material constructions do not last for ever, and replacement, whether gradually over the years or in one fell swoop, is inevitable. There are many highly skilled craftsmen working to maintain a continued existence for creations born many years ago, and that is something to be appreciated and commended. However, it is also true that by the time that 100% replacement has taken place a body will no longer reflect the build craftsmanship of the original coachbuilder. It may be be better, it may be worse, but that is not my main point. Similarly, designs not infrequently get altered during the course of both natural life-long maintenance or full-blown re-creation. Again, the integrity that defines a design as belonging to a particular coachbuilder or designer can be lost, but that also is not my main point. I am talking about the great many bodies that were inflicted on ageing chassis through expediency by not particularly gifted amateurs or by constructors working to a particularly ill-informed aesthetic. This not a personal taste or opinion, it is a comment on the validity of this kind of work in a record of coachbuilding and design. Poorly-executed work does not warrant the appellation of "coachbuilder" and ill-proportioned parodies of "old cars" do not deserve to be regarded as part of design history or innovation.

So, no problem with preservation, conservation, re-creation or what you will and more power to the elbow. Although there are those guilty of unnecessary destruction and over-restoration, and that is yet ANOTHER story...

Now, where did I put those fish scales and the cellulose?

Clive

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/