Harry P.

Your paint is perfect, your attention to detail is impressive, and your foil work is amazingly clean and sharp. Excellent work, definitely one of the best of this kit I have ever seen! You are definitely a very talented modeler. I'm impressed!

He didn't need the pinstripes, either... but he had them.

Holy oversight, Batman! You forgot to foil the trim along the edges of the canopies/windshields.

More commonly known as "ejector pin marks." A model kit is made by injecting molten (liquid) styrene under pressure into a two (or more) piece mold, the liquid styrene flows into and fill the hollows in the mold, creating the plastic parts. The mold has several ejector pins in it, that extend out to literally eject (push) the new plastic parts tree out of the mold when it opens. If the plastic is still somewhat warm and soft, the faces of the pins will leave a round depression where they came in contact with the part. Most times, kit parts are designed and engineered so that the ejector pins will contact the side of the part that won't be seen when the model is built, but that's not always the case... sometimes the pin marks are on the visible side of the part. Removing flash and pin marks is one of the very basic steps in building a model.

Usually the result of old (worn) molds that don't seal well anymore face to face, allowing the molten styrene to "squish" out wherever the mold halves have a gap (a gap that should not be there!). The more tightly and accurately the molds are machined and polished, the less flash you'll see. That's why flash is generaly more common on kits made from old, worn molds (reissues). A brand-new kit can sometimes have some, but it shouldn't, if the molds were made correctly. Here's an example of flash...

It's nicely built, for sure... but those stark black panel lines just scream "model." Real panel lines wouldn't be black, they would be a darker shade of body color. By making them black, you immediately draw attention to them, and emphasize a feature that in real life you wouldn't even notice! That's why black panel lines look "modelish" and not realistic... they are too obvious. Another problem with this model: the spoiler is too low. The trunk can't open. On the real Daytonas and Superbirds, they raised the spoiler up as high as they did to allow the trunklid to open on the street cars.

But all you get is the body.

http://www.hobbylobby.com/StoreLocator/Search?Latitude=44.983334&Longitude=-93.26666999999998&SearchOn=minneapolis&SearchDistance=25

Built in 1992 and just now being posted?

Man, that is just about flawless!

Remember, don't post hints or answers here. PM me with year, make and model. And cheaters need not apply. If you find the answer by cheating, what have you accomplished? If you don't want to play the game the right way, please don't play at all. And for those of you ready for a challenge, here you go... The answer: 1964-67 SARB Start

Looks like a lot of the "bad driving" was actually caused by clueless pedestrians.

All you have to do is read the story...

The "Fairness Doctrine" was a misguided attempt to "even the playing field" by forcing media outlets to present both sides of controversial topics of public interest. It was implemented back when the number of media outlets was much smaller than today, and getting "on the air" to state your views may have been harder to accomplish. But with the endless number of media outlets we have now (and the fact that with the internet, every single person can literally be their own media outlet), there are plenty of ways to air one's views... and a law that forces you to air opposing views is outdated.

Very cool! And I like the unique rear end treatment. From all I've seen, this is one of your best models, I'd say.

Thanks, Tim. I just wanted to make it clear why your sources were missing from the article.

For the record, the fact that Tim's sources were left out of the article is on me. I copied and pasted his text into my layout, and meant to go back to his Word doc and add the references once I had the article laid out and I knew how much room I had left. But I forgot to do that. Not an excuse, just an explanation. I blew it.

You're this close to finding out how things work here.

I agree with Chris. Your skills are off the chart! Flawless! It can't possibly get any better than that! Just flat out amazing.

Maybe so. Any media outlet can push any political agenda it wants to push. But each individual media outlet doesn't have to give equal time to the other side. There's no law stopping any media outlet from promoting its own views. And no law mandating which outlet we watch or read or listen to. I think that's called "freedom of speech."

Hey, I'm not saying the driverless car is the solution. In fact, it was me that brought up questions regarding their use! I see a whole lot of roadblocks (no pun intended!) and legal issues in the way of our society switching over to driverless cars.

Interesting, Bill. My take is that in the past, we tended to look upon "the news" with much more reverence. If Walter Cronkite said it was so, by god, it was so, and few Americans thought to question it. And back then, the news media (print, radio and television) were seen as honest and truthful by most Americans, because most Americans looked to the media as being something "special," a group of people more informed and more educated than they themselves were. The media enjoyed a position of trust and respect, for the most part. Today, the proliferation of "news" websites and bloggers and such have blurred the line. Who can we trust? Is TV news telling us the truth? Is Breitbart or the Drudge Report or Salon or Huffington Post telling us the truth? Who knows! There are so many "news" sources now, that it's all become a big blurry mess, where discerning who is telling us the truth and who is selling a partisan line is becoming ever more difficult. The strange fact is, the more news sources we have, the harder it gets to figure out who is telling it straight and who is lying to us. And the really sad part is that there is a huge number of people in this country (generally referred to as the "uninformed voters") who tend to listen only to sources that validate their own beliefs... which serves to divide us even further. Strange times...

So the mods are asleep at the switch, is that what you're saying? We're supposed to edit out any comments that you don't like, is that it? Seems a bit presumptuous for a brand new member to be telling the mods how they should be doing their job, but thanks for the wake up call, "spooky." I'll be watching a lot more carefully.

Gotta disagree with you on that. Before the widespread use of the internet, as recently as the late '80s-early '90s or so, the "24 hour news cycle" and "digital media" didn't exist. With the emergence of the internet as a true 24/7/365 source of news, television news had to change their ways to keep up with this new source of information available any time that people were tending towards. That's the era when CNN, Fox News Channel, and the rest of the cable news operations were born. The "24 hour news cycle" was television new's response to the internet.

Is this the same Advent? http://members.ziggo.nl/dwijsman/hoofdframe.htm