Re: How "dull" is "dull"?
There were a LOT of areas on the body that were actually quite rough, yet had somewhat of a gloss. Even rough areas under the deck lid that were NEVER sanded or buffed, were not flat, thanks to the "reflow process'. The original Milano Maroon under my 66 deck lid would be in the range of 60% gloss. The door jambs were even higher, near 70%.
The one good thing that I can say about the new enamel type paint (not BB/CC) is, it probably could be applied to somewhat duplicate the original look in door jambs etc, if someone really knew what they were doing. Just a bit of flattener may help and a thin coat would look more correct without that thick enamel look.
Much of the problem is the fact that door jabs and other "not to be sanded" areas, are sanded by restorers, which removes forever the texture of the glass.
There were a LOT of areas on the body that were actually quite rough, yet had somewhat of a gloss. Even rough areas under the deck lid that were NEVER sanded or buffed, were not flat, thanks to the "reflow process'. The original Milano Maroon under my 66 deck lid would be in the range of 60% gloss. The door jambs were even higher, near 70%.
The one good thing that I can say about the new enamel type paint (not BB/CC) is, it probably could be applied to somewhat duplicate the original look in door jambs etc, if someone really knew what they were doing. Just a bit of flattener may help and a thin coat would look more correct without that thick enamel look.
Much of the problem is the fact that door jabs and other "not to be sanded" areas, are sanded by restorers, which removes forever the texture of the glass.
Comment