An earlier article reported extensive analyses of confusion data compiled from group averages (Townsend, 1971). The present study provided for essentially the same analyses with different long-term data obtained with two individuals, the primary intent being to examine the ability of recognition and scaling models to explain data at the individual level (which the recognition models purport to describe) and to compare the confusion characteristics of the English uppercase alphabet between the two Ss and between the individual Ss and the group-averaged data. The choice and overlap models were superior to the all-or-none model in predicting the empirical confusion matrices and tended to explain the data structure in a similar manner. Multidimensional scaling analysis again supported a Euclidean metric and suggested four or five underlying stimulus dimensions. However, as before, there were no overriding intuitively appealing psychological dimensions corresponding to these, and possible reasons are discussed. The choice and overlap models appeared to fit as well or better at the individual level than at the group level and the all-or-none model to fit worse. In the present study, probability correct was fit even better by the all-or-none model than in the group study and replicated the result of being better here than the overlap and choice models. Individuals and the group were consistent in their sensory confusions as represented by similarity parameters in the choice and overlap models but differed in their response biases. A simple measure of physical similarity explained 50{\%} of the variance of the similarity structure in the confusion data.