[
...It looks like far more than it is.
That is a very concise and unfortunately accurate summary!
Don't get me wrong, Ful-Vues certainly have their charms and I liked my model II version enough to have spent a fair amount of time nursing it to a usable and cosmetically attractive condition. Some of it's nicer the nicer features in my opinion (comparing it to other simple cameras) include the big bright viewfinder, a polished metal (rather than coated glass) mirror, an adjustable focus lens, and the all-metal construction and black crinkle-finish paint which gives it a solid, almost appliance-like feel. Aesthetically speaking, I just love the quirky, I guess you could say "steampunk" styling of the thing.
But in a number of ways I have to admit that it doesn't seem very well designed or built. The main thing is that it produces images which are surprisingly blurry even for a simple camera of this type. this may have something to do with its oddly designed glass lens - for whatever reason they made this one a very thick plano-convex shape instead of the more typical thin meniscus; something I've never seen in an old old camera before. The lens mount also has a considerable amount of play in it's adjustment, making focus even less reliable than what you might expect (although maybe mine is just excessively worn?).
The shutter is another area with some issues. Even after my best refurbishment efforts I haven’t been able to get the mechanism to overcome it's tendency to occasionally catch or jamb. Then there is the release lever itself - a small, bent metal tab, which is not the greatest design from an ergonomic point of view - I find it awkward and uncomfortable to actuate.
Despite the flaws though, it is still a fun and interesting camera, both in appearance and use. I have a preference for the post-war "II" model myself, but frankly that's only based on aesthetics. I have never owned one of the earlier model with which to compare performance, reliability, etc.