Mid-year metallic paint appearance and artifacts

[Rick #42561]

I don't have a good visual baseline on the original mid-year metallic finishes. Sometimes, such finishes contain various types of blemishes or imperfections that may or may not suggest the paint has been reshot or oversprayed.

I realize the paint process at that time was far from perfect. I'm just trying to find a guideline to establish paint originality, and any tips would be greatly appreciated.

I'm attaching a file that has an example of such an artifact, a mottled or ripple-like appearance on the lower (passenger) fender which may need to be enlarged to be seen properly. It is also possible the paint may be bc/cc and not lacquer. I haven't seen the car.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.




Paint artifact

[Rick #42561]

Re: Mid-year metallic paint appearance and artifac

For that matter, any observations about inaccuracies in the base engine compartment, e.g., the incorrect rocker covers and missing shielding, would be helpful. Thanks.

[William C.]

Re: Mid-year metallic paint appearance and artifac

Can't see wht you ar referring to, no lower fender visible in the pic. Does it have the "bump" indicating original top surround in front of the drivers side air vent?

[Rick #42561]

Re: Mid-year metallic paint appearance and artifac

Unfortunately, I didn't take the photo and I haven't seen the car in person so I can't provide additional information.

The area in question is at the very bottom edge of the picture on a narrow, triangular strip of fender beside the hood opening. On the picture, it is directly below the coolant reservoir cap.

The more I look at this specific example, the more it looks like a form of checking, but I've also seen ripples/swirls in metallic paint/metal flake that appear similar to the photo, and that's really what I'm curious about.

The question revolves around how much of an imperfection in the paint the factory would have allowed out the door without reshooting the area.

[John H.]

Re: Mid-year metallic paint appearance and artifac

Can't see the paint issue, but the master cylinder cap should be black, radiator hoses should have tower clamps, and heater hoses should have Corbin clamps.

[Rick #42561]

Slightly larger photo

Thanks for looking. It is indeed hard to see. I inadvertently mislinked the smaller version, although if you click on it, it enlarges a bit.

I've relinked to the larger image below. It's not much larger, and if time permits, I'll try to blow it up later. The original image is low-res, and I'm not sure if there's enough data to blow it up as large as I'd like.

The more I look at this specific example, the more looks to me like a relic of stress/checking. And that's understandable.

But when I initially looked at it, it looked like a ripple, run or bad paint mix that I've seen elsewhere, and that's really more what I was initially curious about. Whether such a flaw would have been tolerated (assuming it was visible under the lighting) is part of my question.

If the paint is original, the stress and checking would be understandable, and that's really the overriding issue. Any suggestions for i.d.'ing original paint would be useful.

And I sincerely appreciate everybody's insights.




Larger version of photo

[William C.]

Re: Slightly larger photo

Difficult to get that much puddling of the metallic with the factory paint system

[Rick #42561]

Big blow-up photo

I was able to enlarge the image significantly, and now it looks less like what I conceive checking to be. It looks more like krinkle finish and the ripple or mix artifact I was originally curious about.




Big blow-up

[Mike M.]

Re: Big blow-up photo

It is also called "Galvanizing" (Sp). Too much air prssure at the nozzle and/or to gun is too close to the surface or at an angle. Causes the metallic content to "pile -up".
Have a Nice Day

[Joe R.]

Re: Big blow-up photo

Rick,

If you are trying to establish this as the original paint, it just ain't so! As Michael said there was a problem with the paint or painter (probably both). Chevrolet's method of painting with experienced painters did not yield this problem. Other problems maybe but not this one. Metallic paint has to be used with the slower drying thinner and cannot be shot close to the surface. It has to have time to flow or you have to shoot it dry (further away from the surface).

Regards,

JR

[Rick #42561]

Saw the car

I did see the car, and as I once remarked/suspected on this thread, most of the marks were crazing or checking. There was little or no paint flow marking except where spot repairs had been done. Apparently, the low res photos or compression softened the image/damage. There was no dimple on the hood surround. If anybody's still following the thread, I'll elaborate.

[Craig S.]

Re: Saw the car

See above post - no dimple means previous body work and the dimple is sanded off...it was in the mold from the factory....Craig

[Rick #42561]

Re: Saw the car

Hi Craig,

I suspected that, but it's good to have it reaffirmed. My understanding is the dimple is a bump around 1/8" in diameter and maybe 1-2mm high in the middle of the hood surround channel roughly centered in front of the driver's side cowl intake. If this is incorrect, please let me know.

I suspect the entire front end was redone many years ago and at the time the entire car was reshot in lacquer. Sometime afterward, excess paint build-up (either from overshooting or excessive application) caused extensive checking on the horizontal surfaces that was not apparent from the initial pictures.

Thanks for the help.