Because dang felt pretty strongly about the price point of this car I thought it was worth examining some things more critically (all from my point of view of course). There are/were definitely some shortcomings; in pic 3 the rocker covers are not flush with the rear quarter-quality would dictate they should be. The rear lenses and pieces thereabouts should have been cleaned up better and attached more "cleanly" (not a big deal- just sayin'). Rear bumper rubber is not affixed correctly- quite common, and under-riders should have been polished and attached correctly. When refreshing the paint, which looks pretty good- we all like the color- they should have removed the trunk and panels and painted both sides of the trunk. Wires hanging under the rear bumper look sloppy and the bottom of the car could VERY easily been power-washed and made presentable. Ditto with the hood latch area, I'm also questioning why a 79K mile car needs the valve cover painted? oh, and your zipper's down
So, my opinion varies a little; if the car was thoroughly inspected and scoped and the "rust-free" claims can be verified and the less than excellent errors mentioned above did not prove out to be indicative of a cheap job and the car is as "original" as stated and that's not 179K on the clock and they put the headlight covers back on I feel the price is obtainable, however, I think Dang may have done a more thorough examination of the pictures and made his conclusion from there and I can not disagree with his findings- he probably included my list of issues, and more that he noticed, in his original comment formulation because he learned to think before writing
