IMSANUT

Perhaps I should never, ever have used the word "clear" in the post heading...... Some understood the meaning of the post's questions, others were offended as if they were being personally attacked..... Well, there was no malice intended towards anyone nor to anyone's preferences. Sorry if I was misunderstood. Anyway, enjoy.

As above plus adequate work space.....I like lotsa room, my trusty toaster oven and vacume cleaner for vac-forming, plenty of storage space for kits and such. I use two old type face drawer cabinets with drawers for small part and decal storage, and soon will have a spray booth ducted to the out side. I also have a big metal library type cabinet for reference magazines, and multiple work benches. When my wife and I bought the home ten years ago, I got a HUGE unfinished basement as part of the deal.

Truth. Think AAR Cuda for instance.

Outstanding model. Looks very good and proof positive that clear coat can look real!

Me too!!! If not, are the body and wheels available from the vendors you mentioned?

Well put. No problem at all with this.

Plausible realism. I kinda like this term.

I'm 100% in agreement with this. As am I.

Correct. Beauty is beauty. I still stand with the belief that accuracy is not subjective, which is all I'm attempting to say.

This is an excellent example of what I speak of. This looks real, yet smaller. Though 1/8th scale is certainly not small in most of our worlds!

Drew is spot on in my mind especially in regards to accepting substandard offerings from the model companies. As is obvious by now, I build road racing cars, and as some have seen from the builds I have posted photos of, some of them fall into the phantom category. I have experimented with clears, polish and rubbing out of paints, and have found to my eyes, polishing / rubbing out allows a more realistic look for the subjects I choose to build.

Exactly. Never intended to offend anyone. Observational curiosity is all.

I guess that depends on your perspective. Mine is to build an accurate replica in scale. If your's is not then I guess you are right. Yes, again this is a hobby. Accuracy however is not an interpretation IMHO.

Looking very good indeed!

I am certainly hoping that this not so subtle inuendo is not a slam but instead an observation. I have been, I believe, in not "soap box mode pointing fingers." I merey postulated that a wet look like the photos from NNL this year, in particular of the Greenwood Stars and Stripes Corvette, do not represent what the 1:1 vehicle looks like. Heck, even the NASCAR and F1 examples shown do not have that "wet" look. I am by no means saying race cars, in my instance, road racing vehicles should not have a shine to them. Far from that. What I am saying, again if accuracy to the subject is of consideration, as it is to me, and others from what I can tell, these cars do not have the look of WET that multiple coats of clear provide. They do not look like miniatures of the real thing, and furthermore, they do not have the scale look I think many of us strive for. Yes, this is a hobby, and yes it is about fun. But aren't these supposed to be miniatures of the real thing, unless of course they are fantasy ideas? I started this thread because I was interested in seeing if there was similar thought. It seems there are those who agree and have constructive thoughts. Others, not so much...........

If they are anything like the next generation Camaro, Dodge and Pontiac Firebird IROC cars, they were indeed WC style chassis with truck trailing arm rear suspension.

MPC did release a 4x4 1/20 scale Ford van, but the markings were very different. I have one I never finished from 30 + years ago.....

And in contrast to the build it as you like mentality, of which there is nothing wrong I might add, building a replica of a race car, to me, means replicating it, from detail to paint. I like sweating the details, but even if it is to be a simple curbside, it is still a replica. At least that is how I look at it.

I believe my original question was fairly clear. If not, then I'll reiterate it here. I believe that many of the race car models I have seen in person at shows, and in photographs here and in the magazines, have an shine that is unlike that of the real car. As example, I believe I used the recent pic from the NNL that were posted on this forum. They look un natural in comparison to the cars I have seen, and photographed at various race courses around the country. I am specifically referring to road racing cars, and while I am at it, in pre race condition. None of the cars I have seen, even most of the cars at vintage events, EVER look like they have a miles deep finish. If that helps clear my point, great.

I am a fan of both the AMT and Monogram kits. I believe both represent their 1:1 counterparts well. Both are very detailed and build up well. The AMT 260 / 289 is a little fiddly to build, but is an astonishing little kit as far as details go. There are a bunch of different versions of the Monogram kit as far as racing markings are concerned. As to the !/16 MPC Cobra, it is a 427 as well, and offers a bunch of nice features.

I like this. I like Porsche's, and I think this is an interesting take on the speedster look. Porsche's own attempt at it in 1:1 was a visual failure in my book, for exactly the reason your design succeeds.....reduced visual weight in the back. Bravo.

I believe Drew is correct here on all points.

Gluhead hits the nail square on the head. While I understand sheen is perhaps the first judgement, in the case of some cars it is plain wrong. But then again, look at the weathered cars that win. Certainly they are not shiny. Perhaps it is the judges who need education.......

Yes, I'd agree.

Outstanding build.