Harry P.

Your comparison shots of the body show, to me at least, that the two bodies are very close. Meaning it looks like they either both got it right, or both made the same mistakes! My guess is, in this case, they both got it pretty much right.

That's quite a day of car-spotting!

Here's something to think about... you know how they used templates in NASCAR to make sure the bodies were "correct?" And the recent discussion here regarding a new Mustang kit and how obviously "off" the roofline was? And a similar problem with a Chrysler 300 with an obviously inaccurate "hump" on the roof? They could have taken a real car, some strips of wood lath and a hot glue gun and literally made a template of the car's profile... right down the middle... then reduced that profile to scale, giving them a very close outline of the profile of the car. That being just one of many ways they can record data. My point is, regardless of whether or not anyone uses such templates to record the car's data, it seems to me that getting accurate data to then transfer down to scale should be relatively easy to do... one way or another.

I think that's exactly right. Just didn't want to say it...

That's just it... I don't have one. I don't see how JoHan could do it right 50 years ago, but today it's become so hit-and-miss. I mean, there have been some major bloopers, not just nit-picky rivet counter stuff. I mean basic mistakes in proportion, contours, roof height... that sort of thing. The kind of thing you can capture by simply taking a series of photos, if nothing else. And by "measure," I mean recording the data, whether photographically, via laser, 3D imaging... not literally just "measuring" distances (although that certainly is a part of it).

I don't know if that's the real reason. Today the kit makers have sophisticated ways to measure a car (no need for access to factory drawings, etc... just an example of the real thing!)... and I don't really see how the age of the car would matter. You can measure a 1932 Ford just as accurately as a 2014 Ford. You're just measuring an object. That object's age has nothing to do with how accurately you can measure it. And besides, JoHan also made kits of several classics from the '30s that were every bit as accurate as their models of then-current cars. And as far as China... I may be off base here–if so, someone please correct me... but I thought that the kits were measured and designed here. but the actual manufacturing done overseas. So isn't it a case of GIGO?

This comment, and many others like it in the various review threads, brings up a great question that has been asked before, but never really answered... Back in the Stone Age, JoHan models were known for their very good, realistic, well-proportioned, accurate bodies. If it was possible for a relatively small company with no computers to get their kit bodies so accurate, why is it that today, given the leaps and bounds in technology (computers, CAD, etc.), we see so many newly tooled kits that are so wrong? I've heard all the stock answers. 1. We're modelers, we can fix it. 2. I'd rather have an inaccurate kit than no kit at all. 3. I'm not a "rivet counter" so it's close enough for me. 4. There can never be a perfect model. But I have never seen a logical, informed answer to this question. I'm not bashing any particular manufacturer, but I would really like to know why this problem exists in 2014, when JoHan apparently solved it 50 years ago?

Another trick, if you're searching for photos of a stock vehicle, is to search for a restoration.. 1950 Ford pickup restoration. When I did that, this is just one of dozens of hits I got: http://www.oldride.com/classic_trucks/ford_f1.html A lot of times you'll find a detailed step-by-step photographic record, with a lot of good shots to use as references for detailing.

How about this one? Real or model? The answer: MODEL!

The kit is clearly part of the "Build and Play" series, emphasis on play. These are obviously aimed at children, they are basically unassembled toys, not accurate scale replicas meant for adult modelers. How many adult modelers build a kit and then play with it? How many adult builders would prefer a model they can play with over a well-detailed kit?

Exactly. I was amazed at the prices when I started shopping for one a few weeks ago. There goes my idea of buying one...

Actually I already knew what a Youtube mp3 converter site was... I was just making a point.

I used to be all over it, back about 10-12 years or so. And the way I rationalized it then was that I was only downloading digital copies of songs that I had already paid for (as in buying the albums)... so I wasn't really stealing, just "updating" my collection of music to a newer format. At least that's what I told myself. But since then I've sort of had a change of heart.

Isn't that the same as downloading mp3s from Napster or Limewire back in the day? As in stealing? Not that I didn't do my share of it, so I'm not judging... but isn't this the same thing, intellectually speaking?

"I had a job, I had a girl... I had something going, mister, in this world"...

I drove downstate today to see my daughters. One lives in Champaign, the other in Urbana. We had brunch, and they are both doing well. Older daughter just turned 28, so the lunch was for her... younger daughter (25) has a 6-month old boy (my first grandchild) who is about as cute as a human being can possibly be. We had omelettes, hash browns, and toast. The baby had Gerber pureed green beans. Poor baby!

A '67 (or '68?) Camaro, orange with black stripes. Also another black Tesla, this one with "OIL FREE" plates.

The Night Chicago Died, Paper Lace

Now you know two songs by the Box Tops. Here's a third...

"I told your momma I'd get you home, but I didn't say that I had no car. I saw a lion, he was standing alone with a tadpole in a jar."... What???

"We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds In the name of destiny, and in the name of God"...

Don't worry, I'm not going there. Just making a point about the "reliability" of eyewitness accounts.