Harry P.

Well, yeah, there is that exception... Don't tell anyone, but that's just a squirt gun...

Aren't you over-reacting a bit here? I don't see anyone forcing anyone else do to anything to please anyone. The original post was nothing more than an opinion and a bit of advice. Everyone is free to either heed the advice or ignore it... nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to do anything.

I once drove through Indiana on the way to someplace more interesting... (Just kidding, guys!)

If everyone did that, we wouldn't need rules in the first place. Unfortunately, like they say, common sense is actually not very common.

Yes, yours was the first correct answer! Sure looks like it to me...

Very nice! But those two ejector-pin marks on the top of the seat are very noticeable... you really should have fixed that.

Yeah, that would be a major problem. What were they thinking??? The thing could also have used another door or two. At least a front passenger door.

Then the licensing fees are an even bigger problem.

? That photo was taken in Florida.

But it's even more important to keep the shareholders happy.

Want to blow the judge's minds at your next contest? Check out the latest Auto ID Quiz (#56). There are a few photos on page 2 of a car that is rarely seen these days, but would make a really cool model, IMO.

If you were the head of a model manufacturing company, whose primary job is to maximize profits, and you had the choice of adding realistic tires with correct tread detail and correct sidewall lettering (and paying a hefty licensing fee to do so)... or adding generic "close enough" tires with no licensing fee... what would you do?

My guess is $$$. They probably throw in tires made with whatever old molds they already have. Saves a few bucks, and a "close enough" attitude.

This thing was actually very cool!

Actually most floating alternators are detailed pretty well. It's the magic bracket that needs some work...

Good point! Next time I guarantee you guys will be stumped!

You guys really surprised me this time. This car being as rare as it is (only 9 made, 5 still survive), I figured I'd stump you... but in fact, I got more correct answers on this one than any other previous Auto ID Quiz! The car (minivan???) is a 1936 Stout Scarab. Kind of puts Chrysler's claim to have "invented" the minivan in perspective, huh? Who got it right (a lot of you!): W-409 Chris R Johnny Badluck 13 george53 sjordan2 mr moto wisdonm matthijsgrit trogdor mr chips my66s55 otherunicorn Joe Handley Nitro Neil patami Foxer sports850 thatz4u Thom Draggon peter31a Art Anderson maltsr ConedTony hotrod49f100 CorvairJim 62rebel Harold David G

Yeah, if there was a "Modeling 101" handbook, that would be rule #1. Pretty basic stuff.

How did Revell branding on the Grand Sport happen? Was Accurate Miniatures bought out by Revell?

That's pretty clever!

Terry, Ken has pretty much left this forum. You might have better luck asking this on the SA forum, as that's who he's working for.

Yeah, I know. I wasn't talking about molding technology or its limitations. I just answered the question posed by Mike... What's the most unrealistic part of most models.

Of course, the answer depends totally on which particular model(s) you're talking about. Some parts are done very well on one model, terribly on another. As far as how many models are affected, I'd say unrealistically flat interior panels. Most cars, especially those older than the 80s, had window cranks, interior door handles, door lock pins, etc. that stood out from the surface. How many times have you seen a model with the interior panel details just sort of hinted at... or ignored altogether. It's especially obvious on convertibles, where the interior is the first thing you notice.

Yes, there was.

Unless Gregg says otherwise, I think that we should zero out everyone and start fresh as of today.