Harry P.

I think he meant that moving the existing "pod" style taillights out to the corners wouldn't work... but there is no reason the taillights had to be self-contained pods like that at all! I was talking about taillights that are integrated into the fender corners. The whole "taillights on a stick" think is silly, unnecessary engineering overkill. A "solution" to a self-inflicted problem.

I can guarantee you it won't be finished in a week or two! Maybe a month or three... that's a really long-term project in my world! And the beauty of it is, I'll be building a custom-bodied car that has no exact counterpart in the 1;1 world, so I can't make a mistake! It's impossible for me to be "wrong!" What a deliciously devious plan... Mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...

But you have it backwards! I'm not nit picking you, I'm saying just the opposite.

Come on, Joe! You're smarter than that! The possibilities are literally endless. I could do these all day. Are you telling me that back in the '40s these ideas were incomprehensible and the only way out was the "taillight on a stick" nonsense?

The way I see it, it was a clever solution to a self-imposed "problem." Put the lights into the fenders and the "problem" would have been solved. Heck, the "problem" would never even have come up! That's all Jon and I are saying... put the lights in the fenders and there would have been no "problem" to solve, no need for the clever engineering in the first place.

Apparently the boys at Buick had a little more common sense...

All that tells us is that the engineers/designers at GM were just as goofy as the ones at Ford!

You're kidding, right? There are only about a bazillion cars that had (and many still have) the taillights out on the fender corners. Yeah, those goofy folding "taillights on a stick" make a lot of sense. Something like this, though... taillights mounted into the rear fenders so they're visible whether the tailgate is open or closed... yeah, now that's insanity...

In 1937? Optional.

We just have slightly different building philosophies. When it comes to detail, I defer to you. You may take forever, but the end result is spectacular.

Yep, that guy is very good. But in my opinion, the fatal flaw is that there never any people in his shots. Even the cars "driving" down the road have no driver! Aside from that, yeah, he has it figured out.

See now, that's what separates you and me. I go with that "solution" in a heartbeat and never look back... You, on the other hand, are so obsessive that you make me look like a total slacker!

Some of them are definitely a little wacky... but this one is just beautiful.

What a neat little model! Too cool! And very nice photos, too.

He was the first one I used.

We just happened to have a bunch of truck-related stuff "in the bank," so... why not an "all trucks" issue! I'd be interested to get feedback from you guys on the "Bent Road Incident" feature. It's a little different from your standard model car magazine feature... as much a story as it is a model feature. Personally I like oddball stuff like this every once in a while. Any other opinions?

That is absolutely perfect.

Screamin', Howlin', Yellin'...I knew it was something like that!

I Put a Spell on You... Howlin' Wolf, Creedence... can't think of others.

"A penny for my thoughts? Oh, no, I'll sell 'em for a dollar. They're worth so much more after I'm a goner"...

Just one question. Green Express Truck? I don't see any green.

Beautiful.

What immediately gives it away is the scale contrast between the model and the surface it's on. When you shoot a scale model on a "real" surface, if that surface is textured (like concrete), it's obvious that you're looking at a scale model and not the real thing.