Let me say at the outset that I greatly admire the friendliness and inclusiveness of this forum, which I have enjoyed to no end during my relatively short tenure as a Morgan owner. My question is not intended to stir any pots, merely to elicit views on an interesting topic.
I suspect that for many members of this group, the differences between, for instance, classic body Morgan four-wheel models (8, 6, 4, long door/short door, two- and four-seater, and, perhaps most importantly, trad and CX) loom rather large. But I can attest that for newcomers to Morgan these can seem like rather fine distinctions, like that old saw about eskimos having a hundred words for different kinds of snow. That certainly was the case for me when I first got the idea of buying a Morgan, and it took me a rather embarrassingly long time to begin to understand the differences (thanks again, DaveW, for your excellent book, and to the good people of this very forum).
As I headed on line to get my head around the model range and their various attributes, I noticed that while different people naturally have different preferences (I for instance eventually concluded that a late-model two-seat trad +4 was the right car for me, and I confess that there are certain models, beloved by others, that I doubt I would ever want to own), they can, at least on occasion, also have strong opinions. For instance, about trad vs CX, classic body vs Aero, etc.
To be honest, this kind of baffles me. To my mind, the differences between Morgans kind of falls into the marzipan category -- you might like it or not, but it would be odd to have a very strong opinion about it. While I don't happen to like marzipan, my wife loves it, but that in no way offends me (and indeed, my wife has looked on rather quizzically at my sudden interest in a strange, new-but-old car that leaks, creaks, is uncomfortable and requires you to do such esoteric things as "grease the kingpins" and purchase a "code reader", perhaps wondering if I have contracted a rare brain disorder or am in the throws of an existential crisis -- but thankfully she has done so with a modicum of love and patience).
So my question is this: what am I missing? From whence do the strong opinions flow? I get, for instance, that underneath the surface a CX is mechanically a very different beast than a trad, that an Aero actually does look pretty different from a classic body car, and that a Supersport can be seen as a brilliant modern reinterpretation of a classical look or as an unappealing pastiche of an aesthetically perfect original. All perfectly understandable and I love that something as quirky as all this exists in the world and feel fortunate to be able to be a part of it. But plenty of intelligent people seem to sincerely have a strong right/wrong take on all of this and I'm curious as to the foundations. Is it based on functionality? No Morgans are terribly functional, right? Tradition? Every Morgan seems pretty "traditional" to my eye? Aesthetics? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- or is it?
I'm genuinely curious. Thoughts on this welcome!
Last edited by Adam12; 25/10/25 09:17 AM.
