Exactly right IMO! You want a replica, say a frame? Well, you'd better find the same tube-set, same lugs, produce the same angles for that specific frame size (they may vary), same brazing material and so on.

Another thing: a 'replica', as I understand it from say the re-creation of extinct, historic aircraft, is something that closely resembles the original as much as possible. On the other hand, what I would term a "copy" is a precision reproduction of the original using the same materials, parts and blueprints. In British Columbia a group of ultra enthusiasts built a Vincent motorcycle from scratch. It was a true copy — not a replica. Only the most stunning craftsmanship and dedicated cooperation among individuals could have achieved this. There is nothing wrong with replicas, but in my opinion they had better be very close to the original, or they are merely "mutton dressed as lamb". I just wanna vomit when I see some dumb-ass sled turned into a Ferrari or a Lotus with a lot of fibreglass.

Paint and decals are almost insignificant details compared to the real challenge of creating either a replica or copy. Nevertheless they represent and mean something important. I've debated as to whether I want a Romani decal on my Simplon 4 Star. I am convinced the frame was made by Romani — and besides the Simplon decals were pretty darned ugly, and I removed some of them. It's my bike, and I can tart it up as a like, but if I sell it, I'd be dishonest not to tell the buyer that there is a room for doubt about it really being a Romani frame. (In case you don't know about Romani — my research uncovered the fact they they built frames for some of the really hi-end, ultra-famed frame makers when so many orders would flood the capacity for building them. Were they copies, replicas or fakes? )