Kitbag.
I'm definitely with you on this one.
On another historic forum there seems to be any amount of armchair historians arguing about slight innacuracies in the shade of colour schemes or that the latest restoration should be termed a replica because 43.27% of the original structure has been replaced. These characters should get a life. I bet that none of these anoraks have ever helped with any restorations themselves. My teenage son and daughter haven't got a clue about how much of an aircraft is original. They are just over the moon to see and hear these treasures in the air. A good example is the Blenheim. How much of that is original? To see that in the air is a unique experience (I hope it will not be much longer before we see it again). So when we see a FW190 and a Me262 displaying. how many spectators will look away because they are 'only replicas'?