SBR

I was wondering if the cars that are restored to Top Flight or BG standards are having the cars painted with Lacquer or are they using the more modern base coat clear coat enamel. Also can you visually tell the difference? Thanks in advance.

JmpnJckFlsh

I will go out on a limb here and say both are being used.

Restorers in some localities are beginning to have problems getting the acrylic lacquer (1) because DuPont et al don't really want to make it in small batches to satisfy the restoration market (no modern painter considers it for any other application), and (2) government restrictions on volatiles are causing it to fade away. Now, I know there are those who will wont to argue with me, and say "I can still get lacquer where I live", to which I say that's fine, but you better buy a lifetime supply cuz lacquer is going away, boys, and it ain't coming back. Not by the name brand manufacturers anyway.

I believe the NCRS policy on Flight Judging is that the finish shall appear as it did originally. If that can be accomplished with BC/CC, and it can, you will fare OK on judging. The paint on most judged cars I have seen recently are over-restored anyway. That is one area that is a subjective call, and I don't think those cars are severely penalized for it. Since it IS subjective, the judging will depend on the exterior judges, and I don't think I would wet sand my paint all the way down to 2500 grit so that ALL the orange peel is removed and it has the perfect show car finish.

It's become an annual event to have a paint seminar at the NCRS National Convention on making modern finishes appear like the original lacquer. They had one at Galveston last year, and they are having another one at Monterey in August. If NCRS really didn't want you using anything but lacquer, they wouldn't be putting on these seminars.

At the seminar in Galveston, a DuPont field representative was co-presenter of the seminar. He informed us that DuPont's Lucite acrylic lacquer had been completely reformulated to meet government regulations and that it does not have the durability of the original product; i.e. this is not your granddaddy's acrylic lacquer. He added that it was highly susceptible to etching by acid rain or bird doo, and if you were going to drive the car, you should opt for the modern finishes, either single stage or two stage. Since Lucite is still on DuPont's product list, I believed what he was saying and plan to take his advice myself.


[Modified by Chuck Sangerhausen, 3:51 PM 3/19/2002]

Chuck Gongloff

Several other thoughts, and I agree with Chuck S......First, you can use one stage urethane...Deltron, or the like. This is NOT a BC/CC system. Secondly if you use BC/CC, a lot of guys mix color in the clear coat. That way, if somebody challenges your paint, you can take some rubbing compound and actually get color, not just clear coat (no color). It's getting to be more of a problem. I believe that the latest NCRS judging standard says "paint should APPEAR as lacquer". You're opening a real can of worms here :) Chuck

JmpnJckFlsh

Another problem with using straight clear on top of the color is that it gives the finish a depth that is characteristic of BC/CC and not like acrylic lacquer. It is easily detected as looking non-original and you WILL get penalized. I believe the guy in the Galveston seminar said to mix 40%-50% color with the clear, but I plan to confirm that before I paint my car.

I asked which system had the most durability, and he said the BC/CC was more durable, but it was not appreciably more that the single stage.

SBR

Chucks, thanks for your input. The reason why I am asking is because I am planning to do a frame off on my 69 and my restorer recommends laquer because that is the way it came from factory. My concern is that while laquer is "correct" the quality is not what it was. Once the restoration is complete I would like to have the car Top Flighted and BG certified. I definitely want to make the car correct as possible but it would be nice to have the added durability of BC/CC.

JmpnJckFlsh

Well, SBR, if you belong to NCRS, sign up for the national convention in Monterey, attend the seminar, and take REAL good notes for your painter. My intent was not to make the decision for you, but to give you the facts as I know them. If your painter doesn't make the urethane look like lacquer, then you will probably pay a price on the judging field.

You also have to flatten the paint used to paint the jambs, which gives the appearance of not being buffed, and you have to stop your buffing before perfection to leave some orange peel. When painting the jambs, you have to mask the jamb edges in a way to give you a "soft" line so the transition is not obvious.

TheOman

"That way, if somebody challenges your paint, you can take some rubbing compound and actually get color, not just clear coat (no color)"

This stuff is really going around the bend is it not? Now when people "challenge" your paint you can be ready to show that non original, incorrect for the car, adulterated BC/CC really rubs color off just like original paint! Perhaps a new judging standard for original paint cars, BC/CC cars and now presenting ....{ drum roll } BC / Tint Coat cars! Who said restamping was the hight of folly?

Time for some reality checks in this hobby.




[Modified by TheOman, 7:46 AM 3/21/2002]

JmpnJckFlsh

Oman, it's hard to tell if you're part of the purple, large-flake metallic crowd, or the "acrylic lacquer or nothing" crowd.

Actually, there are several hobbies within the "Corvette Hobby", and everyone knows that. Most of the people on this Forum are interested in restoring Corvettes to factory appearance, but many of us will not sacrifice durability for the sake of "saying" we used acrylic lacquer. The modern product is totally different from the original, so there is no way you can use it and say the car is "just like new". Today's lacquer may as well be water-based latex in a can that SAYS "acrylic lacquer".

The only reason we would attempt to make BC/CC look like acrylic lacquer is because that is the definition of the hobby that many of us enjoy. Having our car judged to those standards is part of that hobby. Actually, since the policy change for the cars to "appear as having acrylic lacquer", I haven't seen anyone using lacquer thinner or rubbing compound to get color, but it used to happen frequently. If you apply untinted clear over the base color, it CAN NOT be made to look like the original acrylic lacquer....ergo, point deducts on your paint.

Whoever said "restamping was the height of folly"? To be more specific, restamping in hope of defrauding someone, and increasing the price of the car that you own is the HEIGHT OF DISHONESTY. If you want to restamp your engine block, and tell that to the next guy you sell it to, that's not a problem. The rub comes in when he sells the car; will he see that as an insignificant detail that doesn't need to be mentioned?

Current NCRS policy is to judge cars with replacement engines. If the engine is normally configured with correct casting numbers and dates, you receive the lion's share of the points. The stamp pad is judged separately with 50 points alloted. If the pad is "normally configured" (read not restamped) and the individual stamps are judged correct, no deducts. If they detect that you have restamped the pad, then you lose all 50 points. Since this 50 points will not prevent a car from Top Flighting, it's not likely you'll be restamping your block for judging purposes.


[Modified by Chuck Sangerhausen, 9:03 AM 3/21/2002]

TheOman

"Oman, it's hard to tell if you're part of the purple, large-flake metallic crowd, or the "acrylic lacquer or nothing" crowd"

Actually I am part of the BC / CC crowd because it lasts, it is tough as nails and because I can't be bothered fighting uphill battles to get lacquer. The last car I painted was the first car I ever shot in BC /CC. Birds. acid rain nothing seems to bother the stuff. At least not yet and I shot the car 6 or 7 years ago. Our ever so wise government does not want us to have lacquer anyway and obviously the Government, ESPECIALLY the EPA knows what is best for us.

On the other hand I cannot help but smile at the prospect of somebody "proving" they have original acrylic by compounding a little color off the car or by using thinner or whatever to achieve the same purpose. Adding color to the clear to achieve the "color rubs off on the rag effect" is just beyond me.

"Whoever said "restamping was the height of folly"? To be more specific, restamping in hope of defrauding someone, and increasing the price of the car that you own is the HEIGHT OF DISHONESTY"

This topic is like smoking a joint at the ammo dump, I should have known better. For what it is worth. I agree on the dishonesty issue and I see why people get pissed when they get ripped off. No questions there. that is why I will not pay the remium people want for these allegidly original cars. Just too much risk and too much money when compared to the actual on the road difference between a real car, a close to original driver and a fraud. Taking whatever ever block you have and restamping seems to me to be akin to the paint issue. If the engine ain't original having the ID pad contain the right numbers seems superfluous to me. It is not the original engine, adding a restamping even if the casting is correct and the date is correct just will never be the original engine. Yes indeed the restamped numbers are one step closer to what was shipped from the factory I grant that, no question there eather. If that is what the hobby means to some folks well more power to 'em.

I guess it is just a level of detail I can not commit myself to. The paint, the numbers and so on. Somebody was talking about $5000 sets of original tires in a thread a week or so ago!!!???? WTF is my reaction to that but that is just my reaction. Originally I had a sentence at the end of that post that said "Well whatever floats your boat" ! I guess my boat just floats easier (less attention to detail) than some other folks boats.

No slam meant. Just expressing an opinion.


[Modified by TheOman, 10:38 AM 3/21/2002]

JmpnJckFlsh

No slam taken.

I think we are both saying the same thing, but I am adding that for those interested in the judging route, it is NOT necessary to resort to using paint that is "original" in name only, or restamping your engine pad to do well in the process. If it looks like lacquer, no one is going to ask you to prove it. If it looks like BC/CC, you may be asked to prove that it isn't. Submitting to rubbing compound or lacquer thinner wipes is voluntary, but if you refuse, then the judges will go with their assessment.

Oman, if you have been holding off on having your car judged because of the paint job, you shouldn't; you will get some deducts, but you may do better than you expect. An original color matching the trim plate would be necessary. If the car doesn't Top Flight, so what? You are comfortable with the car as it is, and are skeptical of the process anyway.

However, be forewarned: If you have obvious BC/CC AND a re-stamped pad, then you are fighting an uphill fight. If the car is otherwise in excellent and original condition, you could very well flight the car, but the Top Flight may be out of reach. Before NCRS changed its policies, either BC/CC or a NOM would pretty much have been the "kiss of death" for a Top Flight.


[Modified by Chuck Sangerhausen, 10:08 AM 3/21/2002]


[Modified by Chuck Sangerhausen, 10:12 AM 3/21/2002]

Easy Mike

SBR If you're after Flight Awards, talk with your painter and determine whether he can still get acrylic laquer, then determine whether he can legally shoot it. If he can get it and if he can shoot it without running afoul of the clean air regulations in your area, by all means go with the original acrylic lacquer. Should the answer to either of these questions be "No" (can't get it or can't shoot it), you can begin looking at alternative paint types. The NCRS recognizes acrylic lacquer is no longer available in some parts of the country and cannot legally be sprayed in others. That's why they accept other types of automotive paint as long as the overall appearance has the look of the original acrylic lacquer. Whatever you end up using, do not strive for the perfect paint job. These cars were not perfect when they left St. Louis.
:)

TheOman

Never ever wanted the car judged. I bought my car cheap, in DOA condition, from a guy who paid big money to acquire a VERY VERY tired out numbers matching car that even had original shocks, idler arm and ball joints on it. It was a nightmare for him (he was mechanically challenged) and everything he tried to fix was McGuivered together, cross threaded, leaking or just plain wrong! It was also a financial disaster cause he had no money to pay to get work done after he got sucked in on the "restored numbers match" car.

Now it has has a Richmond 5 Speed, Edelbrock heads, MSD ignition, Comp Cams Xtreme energy cam, 780 Holley and radials and a 1970 LT-1 350 bottom end with the big FI engine trap door oil pan, Griffin radiator, incorrect fan blade and 2.5 Rams Horn to tail pipe exhaust system. All the old parts are in the garage on the floor.

It runs great, I did all the work, engine assy included, and I take great satisfaction in that. I would drive it anywhere in the US right now, right this minute.

How many points could I possibly have left?


[Modified by TheOman, 3:36 PM 3/21/2002]

JmpnJckFlsh

Yep, I know what you mean. If you're gonna stroll through a minefield, then you better know where the mines are located, or take someone with you that does. :D

Yeah, I see what you mean. Well, the judging thing is not everybody's cup of tea. That's what this country is all about...doing what you enjoy so long as it doesn't interfere or endanger anyone else.

TheOman

"Yeah, I see what you mean. Well, the judging thing is not everybody's cup of tea. That's what this country is all about...doing what you enjoy so long as it doesn't interfere or endanger anyone else".

Spoken like a true Texan!

"Reality checks? I do this to get away from reality!"

Well we certainly agree on that. Reality can suck sometimes. If the restoration or modification goes "toes up" ya just walk away for a day or so. Reality is reality and for better or worse it is inescapeable for anything but a short time.





[Modified by TheOman, 7:04 AM 3/22/2002]

chris ritchie

If you did decide to paint the car in lacquer, what happens 5-10 years from now when you have a minor parking lot ding and need the paint repaired?

Can modern paints match older lacquer?

JmpnJckFlsh

Chris, you raise a very good concern, and this just confirms for me that this is straining at a gnat to have to use "genuine acrylic lacquer". I don't know why anyone continues to jost with this windmill.

Years back, I heard that BC/CC couldn't be spot repaired, because when you buffed it out, the edge of the "spot" would always be visible. I believe the solution was to paint entire panels rather than spot repair.

Personally, I believe that's only partially true anymore. Painters will still tend to paint entire panels, but blends are not impossible. I had a repair done on what appears to be a BC/CC finish on my wife's 97 Avalon. It was on the rear quarter, and the re-paint had to blend on the the rear roof column and just forward of the deck lid. Well, that blend is imperceptible...I am a pretty critical observer for such things, and I cannot find the blend.

How will it work on lacquer? Well, I expect that will be a tough one for a spot repair, but a panel repaint may work well. But, then I'm no painter...that's just my opinion.


[Modified by Chuck Sangerhausen, 10:27 AM 3/25/2002]

SBR

Chris, that is definetly something for me to consider.

JmpnJckFlsh

SBR, if you do decide to go with a BC/CC finish, if I were you, I would definitely try to make it LOOK like acrylic lacquer. That would include adding color to the clear coats, flattening the jamb areas, and not buffing it out to perfection as I mentioned earlier. Then it would LOOK original, but you would have paint that you wouldn't have to hide in the garage to keep birds from pooping on it. :D

John McGraw

I know this has been beat to death but I figured what the heck, I might as well wade in...... If you are building the car to have it judged then I say put lacquer on it until lacquer is not available! I am not a die hard "lacquer or nothing" fanatic, but I feel if your stated purpose of building a top flight/ Bloomington gold car pretty much says it all. Yes, single component urethane with sufficient skill in application can pass for lacquer, or at the very least can avoid total point loss for non original paint. I do not belive that BC/CC regardless of how it is applied and wether the clear is tinted or not would get past a knowledgeable judge on a national level. I think that BC/CC simply has a depth of gloss that is hard to disguise. If minimum point deduction on the judging field is the main objective then lacquer is going to be hard to beat. If however you objective is to have a driver that is going to be subjected to poor weather and malicious birds then BC/CC is the way to go. My judged 60 has lacquer on it and my hot rod 59 WILL have BC/CC on it. It is simply a matter of defining your objectives.
:seeya

JmpnJckFlsh

John, I can only say that either you, or bunch of other people are underinformed.

None of this is my opinion or from my painting experience. I am merely repeating what I have heard a professional painter and NCRS judge say; a judge who 9-10 years ago took great satisfaction in uncovering the offensive BC/CC and rendering the judgement of paint death. If this professional who owns a body shop, paints many cars a year, judges paint on NCRS cars, says it can be done, then who/where are these national level judges of higher qualifications who can divine the difference?

At the Galveston seminar, they had color chips of several different paints on pieces of aluminum. The objective was to show us that determining the type of paint was extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible. Many of us were novice owners, but many in there were professional painters/restorers there to learn how to paint cars with modern finishes.

Why would the NCRS implicitly endorse the idea that urethane CAN be made to appear as acrylic lacquer by offering these seminars at the national conventions if they didn't believe it could be done? Why would NCRS allow seminars to be presented if they believed owners could be deceived into applying paint that would be disqualified at the national level?

Maybe you went to the seminar in Galveston, and left there unconvinced. Maybe I am naive for believeing what they said, but If you haven't heard the story, then maybe you try to attend one of these seminars and then make your mind up.


[Modified by Chuck Sangerhausen, 10:58 PM 3/25/2002]