Laquer paint... is it FINALLY time to just say no?

[Norris W.]

I think one of the recent posts here once again raises a question that's WAY PAST needing more discussion:

Are we as an organization hanging onto a material that for all practical purposes died at the hands of the EPA and market pressures years ago? (laquer paint) There's NO QUESTION that anybody who's used the currently available laquers that they're not correct. As DICK W. correctly pointed out on another discussion, the pigments are wrong rendering any metallics noticeably incorrect which in many cases effects the shade itself. The quality of the materials is not only blatantly inferior to EVERYTHING that's available today as far as new generation materials go, but also equally inferior to what was originally used on the cars.

Seems to me like something's either correct or it isn't. Currently available laquer makes about as much sense to me as allowing a maintanance free Delco battery a better judging score than some other brand, with both being equally WRONG for an older car.

[Norris W.]

Yeah, yeah, I know, I mispelled it. *NM*

[Jack H.]

I don't see the 'problem'....

There are MANY parts on these cars where finding a 'correct' factory original to use in restoration is a real *&^% of a job. We don't relax our judging standards (make it APPEAR as if it just rolled off the assy line) because this/that item is hard to come by...

Paint is just another part. There are those out there who actually have searched for and found residual quantites of factory original paint + there are those who've gone overseas where US law doesn't apply to have their paint custom blended (most of the laws on the books bar the SALE of this/that, but do NOT stand in your way of repatriating items you legally acquired outside the country).

So, shouldn't he/she who restores their car with paint that properly APPEARS to be factory original receive more credit on the judging field than others who simply bought this/that manufacturer advertized 'similar' paint and used it? Roy Sinor and the NTL's just completed a re-write of the judging rules in this area to simplify scoring and obtain more uniformity in that area from meet to meet + judge to judge.

Plus, if you go back far enough in NCRS history, you'll see that paint used to be an all or nothing issue (a single line item). Few, remember that we addressed this years ago to give owners a healthy slug of 'partial credit' for modern 'offset' paints by splitting the line item into two components (color + paint).

I guess what I'm saying is the issue you raise HAS been addressed and resolved. I don't see the problem you allude to...

[Chuck S.]

Re: Laquer paint... is it FINALLY time to just say

Tom Ames and his DuPont Tech Rep preached as much in a paint seminar presented at the 2001 National Convention in Galveston (2000 Texas Regional?), and at most regionals and nationals thereafter for years.

They said then that acrylic lacquer was going away, and the big dogs weren't going to make it anymore. They said that even if you could find it, bird doo would eat it up...not suitable for a driven car. I became a believer at that time, and have been an LPC (loose paint cannon) ever since.

None of the NCRStocats were buying it though...it's been discussed here off and on ever since that first presentation, generally as a "What paint should I use?" question. "Has To Be Lacquer", the NCRStocats said, "Not 'as original' otherwise". The prophets said, "You won't be able to get it in the future". The NCRStocats said, "Aw, naw, you can get it...you'll always be able to get it somewhere". Mmmm-Hmmmm...I understand you can get it in Mexico now...you'll play heck finding it on this side of the Big River.

[Barbara S.]

Re: I don't see the 'problem'....

Jack. I'm reviewing my options about painting my '65 BB car in the near future. I totally agree that the Society has taken steps to mitigate the point losses due to the use of modern, non-lacquer paints. The options are out there, and a careful restorer can find ways to effectively use non-lacquer paints and still minimize or even eliminate point deducts. The NCRS has also put out a CD on paint judging. It's $40 to members. Any member who is going to paint his car should see the CD. It doesn't answer all paint questions, but it does provide good information.

If a restorer does his homework, he can use modern paints and still get most if not all of his points even without the use of lacquer.

Tony

[Barbara S.]

Re: Laquer paint... is it FINALLY time to just say

Chuck. You can buy lacquer paint from AutoColor in California. I just bought red and white interior lacquer paints from them about a month ago. They have exterior lacquer too if that's what a restorer wants.
Tony

[Norris W.]

Re: I don't see the 'problem'....

Perhaps I slept through the "addressed and resolved".

I guess the point I was TRYING (perhaps unsuccessfully to make) is, from what I've seen, there seems to still be some hanging on to a lacquer product that's a little more than a poor representation of what it once was. That assumption is based on the fact that questions regarding availability are frequent here. To put it bluntly (again) the laquer that is currently available in THIS COUNTRY, except for an occasional finding of very old stock in factory packs that's still sealed and useable is crap............. NO lead, wrong pigment, off shades, and limited durability. If there's something available from Mexico with proper pigments and lead that would be dead right I'd be shocked. So WHY would we encourage people to restore a car with it, given the fact that with it's shorter lifespan it will likely require MUCH more frequent re-doing than a car painted with products with some reasonable life expectancy. From another angle, how many reasonable cycles does a fiberglass car have of being stripped and painted before it becomes damaged? Are we really preserving or just thinking of the short term for no real benefit.

Jack, I don't think it's a matter of relaxing judging standards, but more likely just becoming realistic on what our long term options are and the practicality of trying to hang onto something that's not available correct in the first place. Obviously there's NO correct Sebring Silver paint available for a '63 with whatever those ground pigments were, and it seems acceptable to get close and move on, so I can't see a difference.

[Lyndon S.]

[Michael W.]

Please (once again) help me with my reading skills

I've read every bit of NCRS literature I can get my hands on and cannot find the piece that says you MUST use 100% genuine lacquer to paint your car or a face a mandatory deduction.

All I can find is general wording that says that the paint must LOOK LIKE lacquer- and not over buffed, over restored lacquer either.

I also cannot find the wording that says that DNA testing will be carried on the paint or car owner to hunt down the truth.

Would these words be in the same section as the paragraph that says that the engine MUST be proven to be the original otherwise the car is banished forever?

Maybe I spend too much time on certain other heavily trafficked commercially sponsored Corvette websites trying to get to the truth.

[Pat M.]

Re: Laquer paint... is it FINALLY time to just say

I just had my 70 repainted in Marlboro Maroon lacquer(a metallic), and the color and shade appear to me to perfectly match the swatches I've seen showing the original color.

I think the current policy could not be fairer or more appropriate. People can use whatever material they chose so long as it appears correct.

Patrick Moresi #45581

[Chuck S.]

Nothing Wrong With..

Your reading skills...you and Jack have stated the official NCRS position.

For judging, the car's finish has to LOOK LIKE lacquer...doesn't have to BE lacquer. Wise leadership saw this coming nearly a decade ago; that's why NCRS put on all these paint seminars for years. So...if you can make urethane LOOK LIKE lacquer, and it is a little more complicated, then why worry about damage from bird doo or acid rain every time you drive the car?

But, if yer a garage painter, it's as easy as falling off a log to make it look "jus' like factory" with tne NEW! acrylic lacquer. Making urethane LOOK LIKE lacquer is where real painters shine...results will vary.

[Donald T.]

Re: Laquer paint... is it FINALLY time to just say

I think lacquer gets a bad rap. I just finished painting my 65 with lacquer and the paint match looks very good. Agree that it is not as durable. However, it has distinct advantages as well. I've sprayed BC/CC, urethane, as well as lacquer. Lacquer is much easier produce good results for the hobbyiest. Ever try spraying BC/CC in your home garage? Ever try to spot repair BC/CC? Not to mention the carcinogens. Sure lacquer not as durable, but spot repairs are very easy. If you want to do it yourself at home, lacquer is still probably the best option. Just my opinion.

[Pat M.]

Re: Laquer paint... is it FINALLY time to just say

Don - I can attest to your good point about lacquer spot repairs. While I was driving my car home from the painter's house I had a blowout which took a couple of nice chunks of fiberglass out of the passenger rear quarter panel.

Didn't even get the car home from being painted. You can't imagine the feeling.

Anyway, the painter still had some leftover lacquer he had used, and after fixing the 'glass he spot repainted that panel. The results were beyond my wildest dreams - you literally cannot detect the spot repaint.

If this is a feature unique to lacquer, count me impressed.

Patrick Moresi #45581

[Jack H.]

Re: I don't see the 'problem'....

"NO lead, wrong pigment, off shades, and limited durability. If there's something available from Mexico with proper pigments and lead that would be dead right I'd be shocked"

I don't know about Mexico, but there are countries in Europe that reserve the right to re-create original paints in the interest of 'art'. You don't think the Vatican is going to 'restore/maintain' the Sistine Chapel being restricted to the use of modern, environmentally friendly, blends do you?

"Obviously there's NO correct Sebring Silver paint available for a '63 with whatever those ground pigments were, and it seems acceptable to get close and move on, so I can't see a difference."

That's not 'obvious' to me... One of our Chapter members went abroad to have 'correct' Sebring Silver reformulated for his car. Yep, real McCoy lead flakes et al. You should have been at Bloomington this year to see the judge's controversy that resulted when there were multiple 'Sebring Silver' cars effectively sitting side by side and our guy's restoration was sparkling in the sunlight like a rare jewel compared to the others...

"So WHY would we encourage people to restore a car with it {currently available, US sourced, offset lacquer paint}"

We (NCRS) do NOT encourage folks to use it! We promote the APPEARANCE of factory originality in all aspects of restoration/preservation and it's up to the individual restorer to decide how to best achieve that objective. You will find no NCRS endorsement of ANY manufacturer, specific part source, or paint supplier. That's a club rule.

What you're seeing with these frequent posts on where to get this/that paint is a level of ignorance. BUT, some of the colors/blends ARE pretty darn close. Others (Sebring Silver, Honduras Maroon) are well known by those experienced in the restoration business to be off the mark appreciably in comparison to the factory original blends.

Go further back in time to the early C1 cars and you've got the additional hurdle of finding nitro-celluous lacquer (or make a modern technology blend APPEAR to be that)! But, that's just another hurdle for the owners of those specific cars....

[Norris W.]

Re: I don't see the 'problem'....

Wow Jack, didn't mean to get you all testy there. Maybe I'll try and find those Sistine Chappel suppliers whip me up some Honduras Maroon for my '62 fuelie. (still original paint as of now, but not salvageable)

Just so you'll know I'm not blowin' smoke out my..... uh ear......... based on some heresay, 5 of my present bunch Corvettes are painted in lacquer. There were also a couple of others that I sold years ago. As far as present ones, I did my 63 fuel roadster (original paint when I bought it, black), my 65 coupe was painted back it's original white professionally by a previous owner in the 60's, my two TOP FLIGHT and Bloomington Gold 69 coupes were both painted Riverside Gold by me in the late 80's and my 70 convertible is repainted in the wrong color, but lacquer. In addition, I did the paint work (rear panel previously painted black, but blended back to Ontario Orange, as well as other blend/touch up) on THE FIRST L88 that ever got Bloomington Survivor award (I believe that was 1990), as well lacquer touchup on a friend's Duntov '67 about the same time. I've never painted a car in ANYTHING BUT lacquer myself, and in all honesty don't have the techique with a spray gun to pull it off with reasonable expectations.

I'll stand by my opinion that today's domestically available lacquers aren't very good substitutes for the original. Maybe I'll be the only one changing, but my stuff will get modern materials that'll actually last without easy chipping, premature dulling, and crows footing. If that turns 'em into leapors amongst the elite.......... so be it. In terms of lacquer, I'd be willing to bet that for every guy that's getting supposedly good stuff from Europe, there're probably 1000 others putting inferior material on their car that's not going to match the old stuff in terms of performance or appearance.

By the way............. since I've been an NCRS member for OVER 25 years myself, I consider myself part of that "WE" you were speaking of. My direct activity other than most years trip to Fla. Winter meet has been limited for well over 10 years now, and maybe things have changed some on the judging field, but in the past it wouldn't be accurate to say that use of lacquer isn't "encouraged". Might be more accurate to say "expected".

Anyway, not trying to start a big ruckus, just voicing a PERSONAL OPINION on practicality and reality.