On 50's GM cars the rear wheel wells were mostly painted body color. Most were then undercoated. What's the judging situation on wheel wells that are painted black, not undercoated. Deduction? No deduction? Or just looked the other way?...........Bob

Bhigdog, if it didn't come that way it should be points off. I'm sure you already knew that. The real question would be will the judge see it and will they know it shouldn't be black.

The thing of it is the base color should be body, but they mostly came undercoated which makes them black. As I recall most 50's GM's I see at shows (other than SkyLarks) have black wheel wells. I guess the question is, is painted black accepted as the same as undercoated black or is everyone getting dinged some points? Or is it one of those gray areas (no pun intended)........Bob

Hey Bob,
Are you sure they were really body color when they left the plant? During the paint process, they would get some color overspray, but later in the assembly process a typical step (at least on GM cars) was to spray body shutz (undercoating) in the wheel wells at the factory. It was for appearance (black-out) and to quiet the sounds from gravel/rocks hitting the surface.

In addition, many years/models had a cursory spray of the same material on the exposed bottoms of the floor pan. It was clearly not for corrosion protection since it was on the open, flat areas (not in the corners and crevices).

Not not sure of complete color coverage in wells, Greg, I'm just going by what I see when I scrape off the undercoating and It's hard to tell extent of paint job. But your description sounds correct. But the judging question still is unanswered. If the factory used undercoating is it a deduction to use black paint, as most do, in the wheel wells?.......Bob

just my 2 cents...I can't remember cuz so long ago but I think the undercoating peeled off behind rear tires pan('56 olds red and white).A fair coat of red left so I finished the job to all red as the body.I wouldn't say it was as thick as the body but quite red just the same.

Hi Bob-I'm restoring a 1953 Buick Skylark and the entire underbody floor seems to be painted black(primer?). The wheelwells on this particular car are painted white but that was a special feature on only the skylark models. I'm pretty sure the wheelwells on earlier 50's GMs would have been painted with the same primer as the underside.Did they paint the wheelwells body color over this black primer? Not sure but it would have been part of a good quality job considering the stone exposure on unpaved roads. This 53 Buick has undercoating underneath the white special wheelwell color so it must have been factory applied.
Sorry I haven't really answered your question but I have learned Buick's paint finish procedure on one particular 53 model. Sure wish Buick had put more paint on the inside floors of this convertible model! The floors rusted away from the inside due to very poor paint protection.
Marty Lum

I'm currently working on the restoration of a 1968 Mustang that is a special paint color. It appears to have been hand painted and it's rear wheel wheels are completely body color as are many of the interior panels, including up under the dash ... they went above and beyond on the painting of this car at the factory, this, in my opinion, is the exception not the rule.

Bob, on my 55 Pontiac it was an option to have either the factory or dealer provide undercoating at all 4 wheel wells. The factory and dealer paperwork backs this up. During the restoration I elected to redo the undercoating however I went to a new non rubberized type. It looks identical too what the factory installed but is just a tad shiner (semi gloss black), has the same texture and is hard which allows for easy cleaning with a wet rag. The original type undercoating once dirty stayed dirty plus it would start coming loose in a few years. The car has gone through the AACA award system with no issues.

Yup, I agree with that Ron. The question still remains though. If the wheel wells are PAINTED black, rather than UNDERCOATED black, will that or should that trigger a deduction?
I'm not advocating one way or another and I sure would not want to HAVE to undercoat or repaint my wheel wells but it seems like a ligitimate question. Maybe the black painted SIMULATED undercoating falls under the same general rule that turns a blind eye to base/clearcoated antique cars.
How about it knowledgeable judges out there, what's the answer?.........Bob

I think this would be a difficult one for a judge. Reason being is that there are variances among the different years and even among the same year. For instance my 54 Roadmaster with 13,000 miles shows a hint of black primer over bare metal, then yellow overspray over that, then undercoating over that. Another low mileage solid Special has what appears to be no primer and light body overspray over bare metal and no underspray. I doubt that I will ever be a judge because I do not feel qualified to judge but one year of Buick, ie 1954. Now if I were judging a 54 Buick I would not be able to ignore black shiny paint under fenders. Black dull satin, maybe, but not shiny black. Here, just for you Bob, I went out removed the fender from the Condor Yellow Roadmaster to show what I speak of.

Thanks for the effort, Lamar. Yup, undercoating was applied more or less haphazardly by either the factory or the dealer. I think everyone understands that. But the question still remains. The question is...........If a car is restored to factory specs, and that means wheel wells should be painted body color, primered, or undercoated, will wells that are meerly PAINTED BLACK (not undercoated) get a deduction? If not why? I'm not saying they should or shouldn't but if a person is restoring a car to AACA judging standards it would be nice to know what to do.
Undercoating is ugly. I assume most owners HATE the stuff, I know I do. If the judging powers that be agree that black paint simulating undercoating is not a deduction that's OK with me. It would be nice though if someone with judging authority would give some helpful advice. I've had several people ask for my advice and all I can say is "I painted my wheel wells black"...........Bob

Bhigdog-I think we have attempted to answer your question by stating that the factory undercoated the wheelwells at the factory. This was done by the factory to deaden the sound of gravel hitting the inner side of the fenders, to protect the paint from too quick an erosion, and to prevent larger rocks hitting from denting the fenders which would really be ugly.

The last function should be a reason for anyone to undercoat their fenders, ugly or not, as dents are even uglier. I don't think most judges ae going to deduct if there isn't undercoating but they sure will deduct if there is undercoating on items like the driveshaft, springs, frame rails, etc which were never undercoated.
In more recent years plastic splash pans have replaced undercoating and probably saved some weight.
When dealers did undercoating in this period-they would have sprayed it on the underfloor and maybe even the frame rails as a profit generator for the shop.
Martin Lum

Martin, I thank everyone for their responses, and I think everyone knows that the wheel wells were undercoated and why. But my question is not about how or why the wells were undercoated but whether SIMULATING undercoating with BLACK PAINT is permissable. I don't know how to rephrase the question to make it any more clear but I'll ask the question again.

If a 50's GM car has black PAINTED wells rather than factory UNDERCOATED wells, will that be a deduction?

In other words..... Is a low or semi gloss black paint acceptable as a substitute for undercoating?...... I don't know how to ask the question any clearer....... Bob

in my opinion if its restored incorretly and the judge notices its a deduction

I would not disagree with that. On the other hand how many Packards, Dusenbergs, etc did the "factory" use base coat/clear coat on?
If my opinion counts, and I'm sure it doesn't, a nice semi-gloss black simulates undercoating well enough, without all the negatives, that if I were a judge, which I'm not, I would turn a blind eye to it.
The only remaining problem would be if the judging standards were not applied evenly across the board and some cars got dinged and some didn't.........Bob

I don't know the answer, as I am into cars of the 20's and 30's.

However, The question is does the finish "simulate" the original finish. The exterior section of the judging manual indicates...

2. A vehicle may be painted any authentic
color available for the model year of that
vehicle. Any type finish (lacquer, enamel,
acrylics, etc.) may be used if the final finish
simulates the original finish.

So, if it appropriately simulates the original appearance, it should be OK. If it does not simulate the original appearance is would be subject to a deduction.

Since there seems to be a lack of consensus on the issue, I would suggest that you write the VP of class judging and ask for a ruling on the question (which then can be clarified in the judging guidelines next year).

Matt, I think it's best if this dog is left to just go on sleeping. Thanks everyone for taking the time to post but I think i'll let this subject die a quiet death.......Bob

Bob, as I stated above that is what I did with my 55 regarding the semi black undercoating and the wheel wells. When going through the award process in the beginning I would show the team captain my documentation that indicated it was available either through the factory or dealer. The car has 3 grand national seniors so what you are proposing should be ok.