Re: lacquer still?
Well, I'm glad to see some discussion on the subject of laquer vs. polyurethanes, but I still have some questions. Do you also paint your frames with laquer? It looks like that is what was original on my 67. But how can someone spend 4 or 5 years restoring a car and paint the frame with laquer? I could wipe the original paint off the 'A' frames with paint thinner!(I was just trying to clean them guys). It is my guess that the frames of the car were painted somewhat glossy but dulled very quickly. It's funny how some people can think it's o.k. to paint a frame with cans of Krylon from ACE hardware but you can't use the good stuff that was designed by the best chemists in the world just for that purpose. Also, what about the original markings on the car? The white lines, handwritten project numbers on the body, etc. Is it o.k. to clean off the old markings and replicate them but not protect nice original markings with a coat of clear? Gas and chemicals will eventually take these markings off. I say a polyurethane clear coat over original markings is a better idea, when you have a choice. The point is, your restoration can last a lot longer and look just like it did when left the factory with the right techniques. I'm not knocking laquer. It is a lot easier to use and touch up. I painted a Dino Ferrari in laquer and it looks nice. But good polyurethanes can actually be much easier and quicker when you learn how. And please don't fool yourselves. Laquer requires just as much ventilation and air filters as polyurathanes, maybe more. You really don't want that stuff in your lungs or liver. The laws in California require paint shops to use a low pressure system that sends more paint to the part and less in the air. The proper gun is no more expensive then a high pressure gun. Just practice a little on some primered sheet metal. Lastly, what will you all do when the companies quit making laquers? Can we finally use polyurethane enamels then?
Well, I'm glad to see some discussion on the subject of laquer vs. polyurethanes, but I still have some questions. Do you also paint your frames with laquer? It looks like that is what was original on my 67. But how can someone spend 4 or 5 years restoring a car and paint the frame with laquer? I could wipe the original paint off the 'A' frames with paint thinner!(I was just trying to clean them guys). It is my guess that the frames of the car were painted somewhat glossy but dulled very quickly. It's funny how some people can think it's o.k. to paint a frame with cans of Krylon from ACE hardware but you can't use the good stuff that was designed by the best chemists in the world just for that purpose. Also, what about the original markings on the car? The white lines, handwritten project numbers on the body, etc. Is it o.k. to clean off the old markings and replicate them but not protect nice original markings with a coat of clear? Gas and chemicals will eventually take these markings off. I say a polyurethane clear coat over original markings is a better idea, when you have a choice. The point is, your restoration can last a lot longer and look just like it did when left the factory with the right techniques. I'm not knocking laquer. It is a lot easier to use and touch up. I painted a Dino Ferrari in laquer and it looks nice. But good polyurethanes can actually be much easier and quicker when you learn how. And please don't fool yourselves. Laquer requires just as much ventilation and air filters as polyurathanes, maybe more. You really don't want that stuff in your lungs or liver. The laws in California require paint shops to use a low pressure system that sends more paint to the part and less in the air. The proper gun is no more expensive then a high pressure gun. Just practice a little on some primered sheet metal. Lastly, what will you all do when the companies quit making laquers? Can we finally use polyurethane enamels then?
Comment