ok, I've come to a decision on the front end

Look at how goofy this H with the wide front end looks! I realize what the difference is. With the regular row crop tires on it, it looks much too thin for that front end. With the fat rears currently on my H it looks proportional, so that's why I was debating it.

Now the debate is over, and the narrow front wins!

Here is a couple of better pics of an H with original wide front and a Schwartz:

Of course, you might still think it looks goofy. Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder, ya know!

Where I differ from both you and Ron, is I like the appearance of a letter series Farmall either way, wide front or narrow front. If looks is the only criteria then just give me letter series, doesn't matter how it is equiped. If looks plus function are the criteria then give me 56 series Farmalls. Those two series were the finest looking Farmalls ever built.

I myself think wide fronts "look" better on most anything, but that's just my opinion.

That particual picture you posted has two things going against it- first, the direct front camera angle makes the front appear wider proportionally than it actually is since the front's much closer to the camera. Kinda like when you hold a fish out at arm's length for pictures so it appears bigger than it actually is.

Second, and probably even more contributing to the "goofy" appearance, the rear wheels are slid all the way in on the axles as far as they will go, most likely so it's easier to load it on a trailer.

Wanna make that same tractor really look good?(again, only my opinion).... leave it as-is except add a set of duals to the rear. Only way to improve on that is if it was sitting in my yard!