Harry P.

The problem with the internet is that you can't rely on just one site for your "facts," because as we all know, anybody can put up anything on the internet. The trick is to do a thorough search and try to find many sites related to your topic, and then see how many agree on the facts. From my research, I'm pretty confident that the "real" Monkeemobiles (cars 1 and 2) had light tan tops from the start, and only later, when all of the "tribute" cars appeared (and after Barris got his hands on car #2) did the top mysteriously turn white.

Karsten, did you do the development on this? If not, who did? Where is it available from?

Nice, but I think it needs a little visual pizazz. If it was mine, I'd paint the hood bulge flat black.

Odds are it was a copy, not a real one. Remember, they made a bunch of fakes for the movie "Tucker," so it's possible this one was also a clone.

It is the absolute translation. No opinion involved.

I disagree. But it's very easy to check out by measuring the model vs. the real car.

Here's another side-by-side with a different shot of the real car. As you can see, I have again lined up the cars by wheelbase. Note that the wheel openings match almost perfectly, and they are shaped correctly, so no problem there. Front overhang looks right on target. But again, you can see that the rear end of the model looks quite a bit too long, and I see that same discrepancy where the lower edge of the rear glass meets the body. That happens behind the center of the rear wheel on the real car, but ahead of the center of the rear wheel on the model. Not trying to be a jerk here,,, just trying to present visual evidence to back up some of the opinions that have been posted.

I realize that the two photos are not a direct, exact comparison; they were shot with different lenses, etc., etc. I get that. I took plenty of photography classes in school. But there's no way I'm going to be convinced that the rear overhang on the model is correct. I can see that it's too long without any reference photo to compare it to. It just doesn't look "right." There are two possibilities: either the model is correct or it's not. If it is correct, then all is well, and I'm wrong. If it's not correct, then NOW is the time for Moebius to recheck and make sure it's right. And that's why Dave is posting about this kit. because Moebius cares, and they do make an effort to "get it right." Seing as that's the case, no time like now to discuss possible issues. We've already established that the wheels are wrong. Maybe we've also caught some body proportion issues before the kit hits the shelves. And isn't that a good thing?

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. My argument is simply this: It is my opinion that if you are found NOT GUILTY of an offense in a criminal trial, you should NOT then face the possibility of being put on trial for that same offense in a civil trial. In my opinion: If you are found not guilty of murdering a guy, that guy's family should not have the right to sue you in civil court for the death of that man... because you have already been found NOT GUILTY of that offense. That's it. It's a very simple concept.

You obviously don't understand what my point is because you continually respond in ways that don't address what I'm saying.

I don't remember there being any GM criminal trial.

Don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but I thought I'd do a quick visual comparison. I lined up the cars by the wheelbase. A few things immediately jump out to my eye. The rear overhang is way too long, and the photos bear this out. Yes I know, the camera lens can distort, blah, blah, blah... but the camera lens wouldn't put extra length between the center of the rear wheel and the end of the fender panel: Another thing that to me at least is very obvious is the point where the bottom of the rear glass meets the body (white arrows). On the real car this happens behind the center of the rear wheel, on the model it happens in front of the center of the rear wheel. That shorter roof on the model makes the rear end look even longer... and it's already too long to begin with. The rear of the doors line up exactly, but the front of the door is too far forward. Small things? Being nit-picky? Don't think so. The fact is, even small things can make a model look odd. You may not know exactly why the model seems off to you just by looking at it alone, but comparing it to the real thing like this makes the differences obvious.

Dan... one last, last, LAST time... just for you. I understand that criminal court and civil court are two different things. I understand the burden of proof is different in a criminal trial vs. a civil trial. But what I do NOT understand is why a person who has been found NOT GUILTY in a criminal trial can then be sued for the same offense in a civil trial. OJ was found not guilty. Make of that verdict what you will, but the bottom line is that he was found not guilty of the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Yet he was still sued for damages by the Goldman family for the death of Ron Goldman... a charge he had been found not guilty of in the criminal trial. How can you be held responsible and culpable for something you have been found "not guilty" of? Please, PLEASE, Dan.... tell me you understand my point! If you are found NOT GUILTY of a crime, that should end it. The fact that a person can be found not guilty of a criminal charge, yet still be found "responsible" for that charge in a civil court is not fair.

From what I've read, there were two Monkeemobiles built for the TV show. One stayed in L.A. and was used in the actual TV show itself. That's the one featured in the show's opening theme, and in various episodes during season 1. The other (identical to the first) was the "promotional" car that went on the road and was displayed at car shows and various other Monkees promotional events. That second car was never used in the first season of the show, but was used during the second season, along with car #1. The Monkees logo was not on the car in season 1, but was added for season 2. Both of those cars had a light tan top. Originally the Monkeemobile(s) had a real blower and a rear axle mounted solidly to the frame (no rear suspension). The idea was that the car would be able to do "wheelies" that way, but the car was found to be almost undriveable, so they put in a 4-barrel carb and a fake blower that hid the carb. Here's where it gets weird. In 1968, Monkeemobile #1 was sent to Australia along with the boys, as they were doing a concert tour down there. But for some reason that car didn't come back with the Monkees after their tour was over. It apparently passed through several owners and eventually was found in Puerto Rico, of all places, where it had been painted pink and was being used as a hotel courtesy car! The car was sold for $5,000 via government auction when the hotel went out of business in the early '90s, and today a private collector owns it. Car #2 (the one that was originally sent on the road to do promotional appearances) wound up in the hands of George Barris, who eventually restored it (and also made many changes to it, like changing the top from tan to white), and of course in typical George Barris style took credit for designing it (false! Dean Jeffries did). Barris auctioned it off in 2008 for almost $400,000. That car (car #2) also is now owned by a private collector. There were also several clones and "tribute" cars built after the fact, so the story gets pretty murky. But from what I've found online, today both "real" Monkeemobiles (cars #1 and #2) are still in the hands of private collectors. Any other "Monkeemobiles" floating around are copies of the original two.

Yes. The original car had a light tan top, later restored versions of the car had a white top. The color balance in this old film is off, the car looks orangey... but you can clearly see the top is tan, not white.

The original Monkeemobile #1 (1 of 2 built for the TV show, not any of the later copies or "restorations" which varied in color from red to burgundy) was painted Code Name: Lip Stick Red (copyrighted by Dean Jeffries), and the car had NO Monkees logos on the doors and a TAN top (not white). As far as what exact shade of red that would be, I can't tell you. Sounds like it would be a bright, solid red (not a metallic, not a burgundy)... but I'm just guessing. Some online photos of the restored car show a bright vivid red, but this site also has a photo with the car looking orangey-red. http://thecaveboard.yuku.com/topic/6369/Monkeemobile-1-2-3-Photos#.VDAmPCjVCzc Here, the restored #1 car is listed as just "red": http://www.barrett-jackson.com/Archive/Event/Item/1966-PONTIAC-GTO-MONKEEMOBILE-61181 This is after George Barris got his hands on it and "re-customized" it... he added all sorts of high-end audio equipment and subwoofers, etc. Also it has the incorrect white top (the car was originally built with a tan top).

Swing and a miss... The ribs are clearly not spaced correctly. On the real thing they are spaced equidistant from each other, not in pairs of two. Also, that round edge just inside of the lugs (between the center cap and the outer rim) is missing.

I agree with Rob. If you don't have time to finish it, put it aside until you do have the time... and then finish it. And then post it "Under Glass."

Well, that's where it gets tricky. It's not that he was found to be not at fault, but that the grand jury decided not to indict him. They felt that there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on Stewart's part. So Stewart has not been found either guilty or not guilty of anything... the grand jury has decided that there are no grounds to put him on trial for any criminal offense in the first place. But the fact that he isn't going to be charged criminally doesn't mean the kid's family can't go after him for monetary damages in civil court.

Exactly. That's my point. "Not Guilty" should mean "Not Guilty." You are either found guilty of a crime... or not guilty. Period. Not "Not Guilty" in this court but maybe "Guilty" in the other court. Which brings me back to my original thought... if a person is found "Guilty" of a crime, then yes, they can also be held liable for damages in a civil court. But if a person is fount "Not Guilty" of the offense in a criminal trial, they should not then be forced to stand trial again for the same offense in civil court.

Are you missing a gas cap?

Last I heard it was 23 deaths.

One last time. in the desperate hope that someone understands my point (I think maybe Bill E. does)... Bob is accused of killing Tom. Bob stands trial for Tom's death. The jury finds Bob NOT GUILTY. Bob is free to go. Tom's family then decides to sue Bob in civil court for damages in relation to Tom's death. How is it fair that Bob must stand trial for the same offense (Tom's death) that a criminal jury has just found him to be NOT GUILTY of? How can a person be found "responsible" or "liable" or "culpable" for an offense (in a civil court) that he has been found NOT GUILTY of committing in a criminal trial?

I figured a few of you might think that...

The important thing is... I fooled you guys!