Restoration

[Pat M.]

Re: Restoration

Tom, you make great points. My personal preference is to have a correct appearance with lacquer (even modern lacquer, which has been durable on my 70) than without it. As you say, cudos to NCRS for allowing for personal preferences with various materials.

[Gene M.]

Re: Restoration

From what I see on the judging field the single biggest thing is TOO MUCH PAINT. That is it everything on the cars has too much paint. The engine blocks, heads, intakes, A arms, trail arms, backing plates, frames, radiator supports, the body, the inner fenders, air cleaner bases, distributors, oh the list goes on and on. This does not even speak to the parts that should be natural that are covered in clear or a silver, cast spray. The clear on the body in the old days was a full deduct. Not now, most fly. Ya gotta be blind to pass it as "original appearing".

It has become easy to get top flight. It was mentioned the interior, & body were lacking. I agree. Interior colors in many cases are not even close. The urethane base/clear is not fooling me. But most judges do nothing even when it shows no resemblance to original.

Tell me, what ever happened that a second flight is not acceptable? Guys know that the car is over restored, and not the way the finish looked in the 50's and 60's but still demand it gets a top flight. Give the baby the candy and they will stop crying.

[Chris E.]

Re: Restoration

Chris,I know that BC/CC is a much better paint and will last years longer than lacquer. But the truth is everyone can tell the difference in the two. Lacquer lays on the car and BC/CC has a look of coating the car. You even mentioned that you can make your BC/CC look close to lacquer so that you don't get the full point deduct. I imagine its an opaque color and not high mettallic. When I did a body off restoration in 2000 I listened to my painter and decided to go with BC/CC for all of its reasons. Big mistake as the rest of the car was 100% original with docs etc. I've owned it 37 years. Other than the paint I restored the car to the exact GM standards and finishes, dipped paint parts and all. The car top flights because of the rest of the restoration. The paint is Milano Marron and even though I had the photo paint match and all of those cautions it's to shiny and to heavy looking on the car. I get the total paint deduct. It's beautful to look at, but to do it over I would use lacquer to make it look right. In fact when I finish my'57 I'm going to paint my '66 in lacquer.

Wayne, my car is Rally Red, so yes not a metallic. But I heard of a group of Sebring Silver SWC cars at a Regional a couple years ago get no deduct on paint, and all were BC/CC. It can be done. The devil is in the details.

Oh, and I'm hearing that more and more states will not allow any shops to even shoot lacquer. So then what? For 98%+ of the NCRS community, painting your own car is not an option. (no knowledge, no tools, no space to do it, etc) So that means they are at the mercy of the local shop in terms of material selection. That means that we need to be (as others have mentioned in this thread), teaching the community how to prepare a BC/CC paint job for judging, if their aim is very little to no points lost. Just my $0.02.

[Kenneth B.]

Re: Restoration

It is kind of hard to judge how much crappy is crappy enough for factory fit & finish.
I think NCRS has hit a happy medium. Leave things alone. I personally would not restore a Corvette to look like the 4 MI 78 pacecar I had. Earl Chive could do better. Paint drips & overspray. This Corvette was # 60 & there was big hip for the pacecar as they were only going to make 62 at first so I would have thought the paint would be nice & not splotchie like mine.

[Dick W.]

Re: Restoration

I think some have gotten hung up on BC/CC. Solid colors can be sprayed in single stage and made appear as lacquer. We did it twenty years ago and there is no reason that it cannot be done today. I figured we spent an extra 35-40 hours on urethane vs lacquer, but the results and long term benefits are well worth it. Sure the cars were over restored, but how do you replace a panel and make it wavy? There are a couple of the cars we did in high profile collections today, as they age, the waviness comes back into the panels. Anywhere another panel is bonded a wave or two will come back. All the bonding seams will come back unless you grind them out and fill them with resin.

We sprayed our last lacquer about six years ago. Did a panel repair, sprayed the paint on. Backed the car out in the sun for a week to cure the paint. Lightly color sanded the paint, and went to buff it. In over 40 years of buffing paint I had never seen paint wad up, but this did. It was like "green" synthetic enamel. Today's lacquer materials are junk.

[Michael H.]

Re: Restoration

I think some have gotten hung up on BC/CC. Solid colors can be sprayed in single stage and made appear as lacquer. .

Dick,

I agree. I've seen some pretty original looking single stage paint on cars.

I painted a small section of black on my neighbors truck last month with Nason and it looks amazingly close to lacquer.

I think most folks can spot basecoat/clearcoat from 10 feet away.

[Domenic T.]

Re: Restoration

Wayne,
This is my experiance with paint and I did paint laquer in the 60's.

The finish is in the work done after the paint job.

BC/CC can look as bad as laquer if it is only buffed and not color sanded.

I had a model airplane judged for looke before it had to fly in a contest back in Chicago 1959.

The paint then was fuel resistant laquer.

I color sanded it, rubbed it out with 2 compounds then tooth paste which was known to be the finest compound at the time.

The scale judges were arguing that the plane was not balsa and was plastic because of the finish (glass), I had to turn it over and show them the inside where the controll wire came out under the stab.

The 2 part paints are harder than the softer laquer and need a lot more work to rub the finish and require a machine as where laquer could be done by hand.

If you want your paint (BC/CC) to look like laquer then prep it and put a coat of BC/CC over the exhisting paint and 0nly buff it, NO color sanding.

I agree that BC/CC can look like a dip job but it can be made to look like a good laquer job(very little effort), AND laquer CAN be made to look like BC/CC with some extra work.

I have BC/CC on my 67 coupe and I shot the CC knowing I am going to sand it with 1200 to remove the orange peel, it looks like the factory laquer right now but my choice is to go the extra mile and make it look like glass because it will be judged every time I drive it.

The difference is that one will out last the other and I only want to do it once and not every 5 or so years if it is going to be out doors.

DOM

[Tony S.]

Re: Restoration

Lacquer or BC/CC, lacquer or BC/CC? Hey, some people like blondes and others brunettes (I've always preferred the red heads, but that's another story). The point is, go with what you want. It's your car. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. If you want lacquer, good luck with finding original 45 year old lacquer. Paint your car lacquer, and then repaint it in 3 to 5 years because the road use will cause it to crack and chip. It's great repeat business for the restoration painters. Go with BC/CC instead and the "purists" will scoff and say, "it ain't right 'cus cars looked crappier than that back when President Johnson was in the White House. There's detractors on both sides of the "discussion".

I've already chosen mine, so I'm in the sports bar drinking a cold beer and watching the game on TV. If anyone wants to join me, be my guest.

[Pat M.]

Re: Restoration

I must be the luckiest guy in the world when it comes to modern lacquer, because my car was painted 5 years ago and I have no complaints whatsoever to this day. I'm totally unfamiliar with the problems others claim to be associated with it.

[Chuck W.]

Re: Restoration

...
Here are some of the facts:

Try to obtain the materials used to prepare and paint a chassis or a Corvette body. It just ain't gonna happen sports fans!
You just can't use the equipment and materials available today and do such sorry work!!!! Let's look at the equipment. Those St. Louis workers didn't have pneumatic inline sanders and what about a DA. Why, I can take a DA and sand an entire panel while a worker from St. Louis is signing his union card. These new paint guns are so nice that a blind man could paint a Corvette if pointed in the right direction!
Have any of you painted a Corvette with Nitro Cellulose Lacquer? I doubt it! Most of you have never even seen or smelled a gallon of Nitro!

No real restorer worth his salt is gonna turn out a POS when modern equipment and materials are available. No "Owner" is gonna pay for a crappy job either! They want it to shine better than the Corvette beside them. That's what they pay for anyway!

...
JR

I believe you are right on the mark on this JR. For example, a "correctly" restored Duesenberg at the ACD festival would draw mostly yawns from both the spectators as well as the ACD judges. On the other hand a modern restoration of the vehicle would take Best of Show as well as win Pebble Beach. The hobby along with the materials & equipment are evolving for better or worse.

An example: http://ckautollc.phanfare.com/2122888_2279644

[Patrick N.]

Re: Restoration

I have BC/CC on my 67 coupe and I shot the CC knowing I am going to sand it with 1200 to remove the orange peel, it looks like the factory laquer right now but my choice is to go the extra mile and make it look like glass because it will be judged every time I drive it.

DOM[/QUOTE]

Dom, would you mind posting an image of an up-close are of your BC/CC finish with buffed orange peel?

I will be painting my car in the next coming months and after plan to do a similar approach with the exception that I plan to have wet sand and polish on upper surfaces above body line and buff to keep some of the "orange peel" below the body line. Later the remaining portions this will be sanded and polished down the road.

I really struggle with all the work and time going into my car to not have a head turner paint job, even though it may cost me points and deviates from typical.

Thanks,
Pat

[Michael H.]

Re: Restoration

I have BC/CC on my 67 coupe and I shot the CC knowing I am going to sand it with 1200 to remove the orange peel, it looks like the factory laquer right now but my choice is to go the extra mile and make it look like glass because it will be judged every time I drive it.

DOM

I think I see one of the issues that most have with trying/wanting to duplicate a typical factory finish. The words "orange peel. That's not what typical factory original lacquer paint had.
Lacquer was applier at very high pressure so there weren't any of the typical larger droplets of material headed for it's target. The paint was basically a mist, much finer than typical home/shop equipment produced. That would be the surface that remained after painting. Once baked and sent to the reflow oven, the paint became somewhat glossy, even though it may have had some texture. (but not orange peel)
That's why the paint on a new car looked shinny, even in areas that were not sanded smooth prior to painting.

Folks seem to think that the paint on every 63-67 Corvette was terrible. That couldn't be further from the truth. I've said this before but I'll say it again. Next time one of the ultra low mileage original paint cars shows up at an event, take a good look at the paint. Next time you see the 1500 mile green/saddle 65 FI conv., or the untouched 3000 mile Milano maroon 65 396 conv., study the paint and body, especially below the side body line. See if you think the paint looks terrible, as it has been described here.

As far as door jamb paint texture/gloss goes, I don't know what the solution is. I've seen the dull painted ones but that isn't what originals looked like. Some areas were light spray/mist coat so the paint in that area didn't reflow and gloss up but other areas did. It wasn't all gloss or all dull.
One thing I do feel that is done completely incorrectly is the fact that some restorers choose to sand the fiberglass flat/smooth, removing all evidence of naturel unsanded textured fiberglass. These panels, especially in the hinge area, were never sanded at all.
I doubt many restorers/owners will want to take the time to remove the original paint/primer without removing the natural texture of the fiberglass though. This is a difficult area to restore properly.

Other areas that should have the same unsanded natural fiberglass texture showing through the paint are the underside of the hood, the hood trough and the area where the fender is bonded to the skirt and the skirt itself.
These areas are supposed to be rough and have the raw fiberglass texture.

It's a lot easier to over restore than it is to restore.

[Domenic T.]

Re: Restoration

I have BC/CC on my 67 coupe and I shot the CC knowing I am going to sand it with 1200 to remove the orange peel, it looks like the factory laquer right now but my choice is to go the extra mile and make it look like glass because it will be judged every time I drive it.

DOM

Dom, would you mind posting an image of an up-close are of your BC/CC finish with buffed orange peel?

I will be painting my car in the next coming months and after plan to do a similar approach with the exception that I plan to have wet sand and polish on upper surfaces above body line and buff to keep some of the "orange peel" below the body line. Later the remaining portions this will be sanded and polished down the road.

I really struggle with all the work and time going into my car to not have a head turner paint job, even though it may cost me points and deviates from typical.

Thanks,
Pat[/QUOTE]


Pat,
I tried to post and didn't work, so here we go.

I will have a pic as early as tonight but as I mentioned I did not sand and buff as I will not do that till the body is on the frame again.

You will not be able to tell it from laquer as I did the top coats in just under 1/2 hour.

For door jams you can use a universal flatner made by Valspar that can be mixed with the paint for the less glossy look.

I use it for under hood black so I can use it with a good automotive paint and get the gloss level down, works good from gloss to flat finish.

The gun I used is a binks from back in the 50's given to us by a forman at the ford plant. Still state of the art but is not a siphon gun, needs a pressure pot.

DOM

[Domenic T.]

Re: Restoration

Pat,
I was able to get back early but most of my pics are bad and I had to delete them but here is what I have.

The close up has the orange peel on the left side.

The other is the hood that I didn't shoot it with orange peel and the other is a full view about like the factory did.DSC00712.jpgDSC00714.jpgDSC00710.jpgDSC00709.jpg

Again, I am going to 1200 sand and buff but I knew that when I shot the paint so it is not up to the even quality one would buff and keep as a final.

DOM

[Wayne G.]

Re: Restoration

Chris,
The metallic part is what gives me the most grief. The judges say that the paint has too much metallic in it. It's flat and lays on the car well. A few years ago it scored better on paint, but two years ago it took the big hit in points. The paint color is very close to an original car I've looked at. Like I said earlier in the post, you really can''t tell the difference in the metallic from a spot on the inside of the door that i color matched. But in hindsight I wish it was finished in lacquer.

Wayne