Danno

Great looking Studey!

Wouldn't know, would you now, Danny?

Here's another resource for you, Tom: NVTIS. This is a means of getting a nationwide title list for a vehicle. This is more precise than CarFax as far as identifying title numbers and title states throughout the history of a vehicle. It will cost a few bucks ($5 - $10) but it will tell you where the car's been . . . http://www.vehiclehistory.gov/

By the way, one thing CarFax can be very helpful with is identifying the state of a vehicle's title. The best way to get answers to your questions about a car's pedigree is to pull the title history. For example, with the CVPI, it may identify the particular agency or bureau that 'owned' the car. With the PR car, a title history may identify more about the car's history than CarFax can. In my professional experience, CarFax is merely a road map to where the real information will be found. I have no idea what's up with the Avenger, but I ran its VIN through NICB's VINcheck and it shows no history of being a total loss or a stolen vehicle. PA motor vehicles department will have the best info.

Garbage in, garbage out. Very likely no one in PR reported data to the various databases CarFax accesses. Some motor vehicle departments/divisions don't report. Some insurance companies do, some don't. Some independent adjusters report, some don't. Perhaps some of the government vehicles were maintained by government shops that don't report. Etc., etc., etc. You get the idea. It's all about what data they get and what data is not available. CarFax has no means of compelling anyone to report data to them. They rely on business arrangements and open public records provisions.

That all depends. In your mind and in Roger's mind, apparently, model kits are toys. In my mind, and the minds of many, many hobbyists they are not toys. But, saying one opinion or the other is right or wrong is like saying 'all green cars are good and all yellow cars are bad.' There's nothing factual or true or about either statement, they are both nothing more than opinions. So, have your opinion if you will, but don't tell me my models are toys. That's just your opinion. It's not my opinion.

Spectacular, Charlie!

Because he said so.

True dat.

On your 'Points A thru D' observations, I agree, Harry. I had a little bit of an impression of it being a Trumpeter top, but because of the skewed perspective pics before, I didn't feel competent to comment. But, these two pics seem more closely matched and the comparison seems more apples to apples. Looks like the roof needs to shift rearward a tad . . . or a tad and a half.

SWEEEET!!

x2. Thanks, Dave!

Or, for a lower salary. A major company I worked for in private industry was consistently in the upper ranks of Fortune 500's "Best Places to Work," usually in the top 25. But, they systematically culled out the older, longer term employees with higher salaries and forced them out before 'normal' retirement time was achieved. They 'early-retired' or forced experienced people to quit or drove them into stress-induced escapes, from the top down (salary-wise), on a regular basis. All the new, young hires came in at higher salaries than they could get elsewhere, but often 1/4 or 1/3 of what the vets who were being forced out were being paid. So, they had a net-sum gain all the time but just didn't seem to care that older, experienced workers were being turned out with nowhere to go to earn at the level they were. Bean Counting 201 in the Brave New World.

Extraordinarily exquisite!

Superb! Outstanding work . . . especially as demonstrated by the exquisite detail painting of the hubcaps.

Nice job! {Looks just like the real thing! LOL. Just kidding around.}

Barris probably changed it from tan to white because white was 50 or 60 cents cheaper than tan . . . per top.

X2! Me, too. Although it's actually always been a toss-up for me between Forcasta and Cosma Ray. But, I'm with you, Mike. I just love the Forcasta!

Very nice.

Exquisite!

Most excellent, Art!

W W!!

No problem. A little of both.