Deductions for judging lacquer paint

[David F.]

I know Body paint is a highly discussed issue but I have a question or comment. I had a C2 judged this weekend at the Heartland regional. First I would state that it was a great event and had a great time.

I recently finished a full restoration of a 66 sunfire yellow coupe. I finished the car in acrylic lacquer. No clear coat.I did overrestore the body paint. I painted the bottom of the doors and the underside of the front and rear valance. I did wet sand and polish the entire outside of the car, but did leave some orange peel. I absolutely finished it better than original, but not to a mirror finish. The door jams and hood ledge and hood edges were just painted with NO buffing or rubbing of any kind. There again I probably did a little bit better job than the factory did of painting the jams.

I recieved a 50% deduction for the paint. I was told that it was too smooth and did not appear to be the "Factory Applied Material" and had the 100% deduction applied. Then they added the 50% back because the jams had less shine. They did tell me that they were a bit too shiny and smooth but they would pass. They are absolutely unpolished and untouched sprayed Lacquer.

I am sorry this comment is so long and I am really not complaining but I am a bit confused. I did expect to recieve a 20% deduction for over restoration. Just would like to clarify that 50% would be the proper deduction. This would effect my paint decision on my next project.
I am not going for a perfect score, but it does not seem right to have the same deduction as if I had used a BC or Urethane paint.

[Philip C.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

Hi David I completely agree with you, 20% off and thats BS I think. everything on these cars is over restored, frames a-arms rear t-arms interior paint and fit,etc hell the whole car not just the paint. This cat and mouse game drives eveyone nuts. Phil 8063

[Michael F.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

I will never have my cars judged since I don't agree with the criteria ncrs puts forth in many areas and I don't need anyones validation on my car. but, to each his own.

[Chuck G.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

I finished the car in acrylic lacquer. No clear coat.

I did overrestore the body paint. I painted the bottom of the doors and the underside of the front and rear valance. I did wet sand and polish the entire outside of the car, but did leave some orange peel. I absolutely finished it better than original, but not to a mirror finish.

The door jams and hood ledge and hood edges were just painted with NO buffing or rubbing of any kind. There again I probably did a little bit better job than the factory did of painting the jams.

I recieved a 50% deduction for the paint. I was told that it was too smooth and did not appear to be the "Factory Applied Material" and had the 100% deduction applied. Then they added the 50% back because the jams had less shine. They did tell me that they were a bit too shiny and smooth but they would pass.

They are absolutely unpolished and untouched sprayed Lacquer.

I am sorry this comment is so long and I am really not complaining but I am a bit confused. I did expect to recieve a 20% deduction for over restoration. Just would like to clarify that 50% would be the proper deduction. This would effect my paint decision on my next project.
I am not going for a perfect score, but it does not seem right to have the same deduction as if I had used a BC or Urethane paint.

I've had the same argument for years.

Anybody can try this experiment. Go buy a can of gloss Krylon or gloss Rustoleum.

Prime a piece of metal or fiberglass and then shoot color from the rattle can.

THEN...check the gloss level. Pretty darn shiny, IMHO.

I know guys that have gone so far as to shoot the jambs and gutters in semigloss paint.

I also know guys who have shot matte clear over lacquer or single stage urethane.

I've contended for years that unbuffed lacquer in jambs and gutters is pretty darn shiny.

Chuck

[Terry M.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

I know Body paint is a highly discussed issue but I have a question or comment. I had a C2 judged this weekend at the Heartland regional. First I would state that it was a great event and had a great time.

I recently finished a full restoration of a 66 sunfire yellow coupe. I finished the car in acrylic lacquer. No clear coat.I did overrestore the body paint. I painted the bottom of the doors and the underside of the front and rear valance. I did wet sand and polish the entire outside of the car, but did leave some orange peel. I absolutely finished it better than original, but not to a mirror finish. The door jams and hood ledge and hood edges were just painted with NO buffing or rubbing of any kind. There again I probably did a little bit better job than the factory did of painting the jams.

I recieved a 50% deduction for the paint. I was told that it was too smooth and did not appear to be the "Factory Applied Material" and had the 100% deduction applied. Then they added the 50% back because the jams had less shine. They did tell me that they were a bit too shiny and smooth but they would pass. They are absolutely unpolished and untouched sprayed Lacquer.

I am sorry this comment is so long and I am really not complaining but I am a bit confused. I did expect to recieve a 20% deduction for over restoration. Just would like to clarify that 50% would be the proper deduction. This would effect my paint decision on my next project.
I am not going for a perfect score, but it does not seem right to have the same deduction as if I had used a BC or Urethane paint.

Dave, Are you sure they said "...did not appear to be the "Factory Applied Material"" or did they say "Not Typical Factory Production?"

The issue, yours or the judges, ought not be "What is the material?" Rather it should be "Does it look like Typical Factory Production?" It matters not one whit whether you used or didn't use lacquer -- and it is not the judges’ job to identify the material used.

It sounds like they did use the paint judging matrix, a copy of which was posted in a previous paint thread.

The first question: "Does it look like TFP?" If NO = 100% deduction
Then they looked at the jambs and hood gutters and gave you back 50%. That sounds like they used the right procedure to me -- as best we can do without seeing the car.

[David F.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

Terry, I can't remember the verbage they used.
My interputation of the flow chart was as follows:

Under the Judging guidance it states- "This judging is for exterior paint only, viewing paint in door jams or hood ledges is not appropriate unless a 100% deduct is determined for NON-ORIGINAL MATERIAL"

So I assumed that if original material was used, in this case acrylic lacquer, that the standard deduction for over-restoration of lacquer paint would be 20%.

Under the flow chart 50% deduct it states- "The body paint appears to have been refinished with a MATERIAL not consistent with factory application ", ect.
So I took this to mean a material other than lacquer.

I am really not complaining, just trying to get some clarification.
Assuming that you are judging a lacquer paint car, where is the line that separates the left and right sides of the flow chart?
It appears to me that the material used should determine it.

[Terry M.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

Now you are going to make me go look at the wording, and I have that matrix at home.

"Under the Judging guidance it states- "This judging is for exterior paint only, viewing paint in door jams or hood ledges is not appropriate unless a 100% deduct is determined for NON-ORIGINAL MATERIAL"

[Gene M.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

The type of paint used ("Material") has a direct affect to the "appearance". This is most notable with metallic paints. Anyone that is well versed in paint can discern between original type lacquer and a base coat clear coat application. Pretty much black and white.

The issues arise as many volunteers judging today do not have the talent or experience to distinguish the difference in the determination as to factory appearing paint job or not.

The dulling of door jambs and else where is a "freebee" to award points back for what is otherwise not a factory lacquer applied paint job. A lacquer job should not have to fall under this category. If over restored but not cleared over it should only get a 20% deduct as the owner suggested.

[Rich P.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

I've had the same argument for years.

I've contended for years that unbuffed lacquer in jambs and gutters is pretty darn shiny.

Chuck

This is an area that I think is misrepresented. I have painted lacquer for 30 some years and the first several years I was painting was with the good old lacquer I mean the kind that you buy 1 gallon, paint a car, have 1 quart left over for touch ups, sand + buff it perfectly flat and not burn through. And the only time I have seen lacquer spray flat is when a very fast reducer was used on a solid color.
Any lacquer sprayed with a medium to slow reducer leaves a glossy surface. The reason jambs are flat today on original paint cars is for the simple fact that they have not been polished and waxed like the outside of the car. I GAURENTEE this if you find flat spot on any original jamb or interior section of a car and just polish it with a mild polish once and it will be FULL GLOSS. The only reason jambs are flat is from not being polished. So I say that the jambs from the factory would have a gloss to them, not as much as the outside of the car because from the belt line up they were buffed. So in reality the jambs should be a shiney as the outside paint from the belt line down.
Another thing I think people are confusing here is gloss and texture. There is a difference. Something can have the same gloss but a different texture. The jambs were sprayed quickly and not as many coats as the ouside of the car resulting in more peel but no less gloss.

Rich

[Mike M.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

Hi Guys
The newer manual revisions address this, quite thoroughly in the latest '66 Revision. Pages 53-55, including the Matrix Illustration.
Sorry, way too much for me to key in here.
HaND

[David F.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

Mike,
My earlier quotes are from the newest 66 judging manual.
Also , the first line in the new manual , above the flow chart says
"DOES THE BODY PAINT MATERIAL APPEAR TO BE THE FACTORY MATERIAL?" YES OR NO
The fact is that mine IS factory material. and I recieved a NO.
So my question is where did I go wrong? What would allow me recieve a YES and then just have the 20% deduction for over restoration?
Is it because I polished the sides and vents or because I painted under the front and rear valance's?

[David F.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

Terry,
That is the wording from the newest 66 manual. I agree that sometimes it is hard to tell from looking at the outside paint only to determine what kind of paint it is.
But an unbuffed lacquer door jam is pretty easy to spot. I would think that if there was doubt one could look at the jams and unbuffed areas to help in his determination. But I understand that the manual does not allow for that.
So how can I get from the NO side to the YES side on my next lacquer paint? I do not mind the 20% deduct for over restoration, but where is the line in the sand? Is it the buffed sides and painted front and rear valances?

[Steven S.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

Dave, I would think the deduction received is correct under current NCSR rules. Problem is that a factory like finish means that each painter at the factory had less than 4 minutes to do his part of the car and the car was moving while they were doing it. You painted a car standing still and took all the time you needed to get it the way you wanted it. As you stated better than factory. At that point it does not matter if it was factory paint or not, it does not appear to be factory paint due to excess coating and gloss that was not there when painted by GM. I however do agree that jambs and such were some what glossier than some folks think. All depended on gun pressure and gun speed when applied as well as the solvents used that day.

Steve.

[Michael F.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

I will never have my cars judged since I don't agree with the criteria ncrs puts forth in many areas and I don't need anyones validation on my car. but, to each his own.

Glad he said it.

But I want to clarify. If the NCRS certs are what you want? Go for it. It's not my thing. But the NCRS and the Corvette Forums are a great assistance to a proper restoration of any level.My opinion anyhow.
I am going for an MMF certification. (my initials)

[Tom S.]

Re: Deductions for judging lacquer paint

I have had some judged and some not judged. To me that does not mean one is better than the other. It means that I choose to drive some more than others. If you plan on having them judged it is almost impossible to drive them very much.I geuss it is like having kids you try to love them all the same. JMHO! Tom Stanton