Sorry you lost me . It reads like you think I have something to do with the company you bought your starter from . It is the information that is the same not any connection. I have no clue who you bought the starter from. So I guess I have to write up a magazine page with my information and post a picture of that to have the same credibility? My information and the professional rebuilders in my area match the information of the rebuilders you got a starter from (although a 1970+ style starter). That might be your first clue. Sorry I didn't tell you what you wanted to hear. Newbie or not if you can't see the physical differences between the starters in the pictures I posted on the SAAC websites(posted link) then It is hard to help you. I think I would be better off letting others answer your questions from now on. 
For the record of this discussion, if you are not a member and/or logged in to the SAAC forum, you do not get the images attached to the dialog, perhaps this is where the O.P.'s "frustration" begins.
The link (without the images) doesn't in itself resolve the O.P.'s questions. Even though I understand the differences in the starters (both visually and application-wise), I can see by reading through this thread why all the frustration the O.P. Is experiencing has happened. I imagine the 'now deleted image(s)' from the Fairlaner article may have held the answers to the O.P.'s dilemma but I didn't see it either before it was removed.
"Pictures speak more than 1000 words"...and yet we have no pictures in this thread. I believe this (which witch is which) situation HAS been brought up in this forum before too but even in that discussion, if memory serves, there was a bit of disagreement over application and use of a short-nose vs. long nose for certain early Mustang manual transmission applications (with ring gear tooth count again being the determining factor).
