Jump to content

Base Coat / Clear Coat


Bill Harmatuk

Recommended Posts

Going to disagree with John on this one.  Basecoat /clearcoat  is fine as a material and application and a good painter knows exactly what to do to make it look reasonable without the ultra-shine.  I have seen and judged a ton of 30's cars with basecoat/clearcoat.  Secondly, it is your car so in the end do what makes you happy.  AACA does not deduct for "too shiny paint"!  

 

The vast majority of cars restored over the last few decades are much shinier then when they came from the factory.  It is the state of restorations today.  If I restored my 1903 Olds with materials as it really did come from the factory I would be criticized beyond belief.  It has shiny paint!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a Ford AA truck with paint done to match the factory job.  It was anything but shiny.  It did win a MARC award for its originality however the unknowng it eye would think its paint was done by an amateur.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least twice I have overheard Dad's telling their Sons "Now that's what a good lacquer paint job looks like" when I knew for certain that they were looking at a base/clear job. Virtually all those folks who say they can tell what kind of paint is on a car just by looking at it can't really. The degree of shine is more a function of the wet sanding and buffing out process than it is of the type paint used.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The discussion I had with Dan, the guy who will paint my car involved the choice of base/clear or lacquer.  Base/clear  is very durable, but hard to repair.  Alternatively, small batch lacquers are easier to apply and easier to repair, but not as durable.  Small batch lacquers can be legally made and equivalent to those used in 50 years ago.  Dan says that he can make base/clear appear like original paint by adding tint to the clear coat.  That reduces the depth of the paint.  

 

I can't tell you much about the single stage paint except those that I looked at were not as UV stable as the base/clear.  Here's a link to an Eastwood presentation on this very topic though:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A body shop recently told me that Lacquer is illegal for him to use.  Also that  Acrylic Enamel is no longer available to shops either.  They do everything in base coat clear coat.  He just finished

a 69 Camaro in orange with paint costs at $3500.  (Wow)

I've still been able to buy Acrylic Enamel to paint my VW wheels and spot repairs.  I love the single stage paint with a hardener,  which can be sanded and buffed the next day.  Kind of like the old school lacquer, except for blending.  It, like base coat clear coat, requires painting a entire panel and often clear coating the adjoining panels too.

Edited by Paul Dobbin (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of a "clear coat" has been with us since the dawn of the automobile.  Unless today you are still using the clear that was the standard for a certain decade, the chemical compounds have changed, and some of the applications for which it is used have changed (as not everything across the board did use a clear), but the practice has been there since the beginning.

 

As others have experienced, I have been accused of using clear on things that are single stage.  The quick way to defuse that argument is to hand your accuser a white rag with rubbing compound on it and tell them that if they are wrong, they owe you a steak dinner.  Haven't found anyone that would take me up on that yet.

 

Lacquer is getting more difficult to find, especially since nine months ago PPG officially discontinued production of Duracryl.  Paint companies don't generally produce products for the sake of the restoration market as it is such a small fraction of their sales.  It doesn't help that many locations continue to lower the VOC limits making for even fewer places you can sell the stuff.  Even then, as the push for solids increased, the acrylic lacquer (and other product lines) they were selling is a very different animal from what was available 30 years ago even if it is under the same name.  The game has become learning to adapt to what is available wherever you happen to live and figuring out how to use those things correctly to achieve the look you want.        

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The nice thing about single stage paint. When the clear coat starts to be worn off, crack, peal which you see on so many new cars just a few years old is SOL. The single stage owner on the other hand, when the paint starts to oxidize, pulls out his 1,600 wet/ dry paper and color sands and later buffs the paint back to a shine. The two stage owner is in for a new respray. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought DuPont Centari Acrylic Enamel had really good period look for pre-say 1938 car.  

 

It is hard to duplicate nitrocellulose paint finishes - a good example was my 1941 Cadillac 60 Special Fleetwood that had 17K miles on it when I bought it and hung out most its life in the garage in the dark - when you waxed the car (with good old fashioned paste wax) you had incredible "depth" in the range of 2 to 5 feet away in literally being able to hold the palm of your hand up to be able to see the lines in your hand (aka it was basically a black mirror). That being said though, new finishes tend to have the wrong look to the depth - too plastic looking as I believe how it is described. 

Edited by John_Mereness (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are good examples of overly shiny cars.  I guess nobody told them they were doing it wrong.

 

There is no one-size-fits-all answer.  Then, just as today, the materials were constantly changing in order to speed up the work and the finish requirements of different manufacturers varied widely.

 

29928u.thumb.jpg.fa9611816246ab7d37434ba48dc69739.jpg32346u.thumb.jpg.ad1e512612335eebe9bc9acf3d1571a8.jpg

Edited by W_Higgins (see edit history)
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John_Mereness said:

Sidenote:  Clear paint has probably been available for some time and I am sure perhaps hot-rodders found it early on, but basecoat/clearcoat hit the scene sometime in the 1970's.

img_0124.jpg

 I special ordered this Oldsmobile 43 years ago . It's still in it's original G.M. lacquer paint and the car has 115,000 miles. No clear coat here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are if you are going with any metallic,  you really need to go base clear so you can buff out the final coat , especially if doing it yourself (because we are all bound to get something in the paint especially when doing it at home) as with single stage you get blotching when you try to cut and buff it to any real degree.  With solid colors though I have liked acrylic enamel as it is much like lacquer for cutting and buffing.  Easy to see when you are getting thin as well,  where with clear you are just through.  I buy alot of cars with bad paint that I make look good without repainting.  People don't realize how much that final cutting and buffing step gets rid of alot of the sins (fish eyes, runs, dirt, sleeve drags, orange peel so bad it looks like the cement floor, etc.) in the paint and even the body work if they are fairly minor. 

As for durability most of us aren't leaving our cars out in the elements for any period of time so paint failure from UV shouldn't be much of a consideration. 

Edited by auburnseeker (see edit history)
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my dad painted his 37 Terraplane, he mixed a little of the base color (PPG Black) in with the clear coat. Basically tinting the clear coat black. It did give the finished product a little different look. Still shiny, but also had a lot of depth. It looked like the black was polished, instead of a polished clear coat. Maybe some painters on here can comment on tinting the clear.

more 1937 hudson shots 147.JPG

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the day I would start adding color lacquer to lacquer clear to tint it. Several coats of 50/50 then full clear coats.  Very good when painting metallics, as you do not want to expose the aluminum flake when cutting and buffing.

 

Modern base coat clear coat is not like painting a car twice. It is more like painting acrylic lacquer to start. Base coat dries quick like lacquer, can correct mistakes, dirt easy at this stage. Then the next coats (two or three depending on brand) are gloss clear, this is more like acrylic enamel. You can cut and buff this when cured to correct mistakes and dirt in these coats. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Frank DuVal said:

 

Modern base coat clear coat is not like painting a car twice. It is more like painting acrylic lacquer to start. Base coat dries quick like lacquer, can correct mistakes, dirt easy at this stage. Then the next coats (two or three depending on brand) are gloss clear, this is more like acrylic enamel. You can cut and buff this when cured to correct mistakes and dirt in these coats. 

 

This is correct.  It's nothing more than washing out another gun and mixing cup.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xander Wildeisen said:

When my dad painted his 37 Terraplane, he mixed a little of the base color (PPG Black) in with the clear coat. Basically tinting the clear coat black. It did give the finished product a little different look. Still shiny, but also had a lot of depth. It looked like the black was polished, instead of a polished clear coat. Maybe some painters on here can comment on tinting the clear.

more 1937 hudson shots 147.JPG

When I discussed painting my Olds with my first painter he said exactly this. He said adding color to the clear would make it a deeper look rather than just a shiny surface on the color. He also said doing that makes a chip less of an issue. My chassis was painted with single stage because the chassis is subject to more road abuse than the body.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, chistech said:

When I discussed painting my Olds with my first painter he said exactly this. He said adding color to the clear would make it a deeper look rather than just a shiny surface on the color. He also said doing that makes a chip less of an issue. My chassis was painted with single stage because the chassis is subject to more road abuse than the body.

Adding a bit of color is what was done in the 60s and 70s with candy paints and on cars with plain lacquer to give it a wet look. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every car I saw at Pebble Beach last year in the winners circle(first in class) was base coat/clear coat. I agree with the looks plastic vs paint had depth comment. We actually consider this every time we paint a car. We use test panels in many different sources of light to determine how it will look under all conditions. It’s a lot of work and harder than you think. Many colors that look great in sunlight fall flat on a cloudy day. I like my stuff to look good all the time, so we work hard at understand how light effects the perception of the color. Often just changing the shade a slight amount will make it look good under all conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t see how the paint on a car could be “too shiny.”  Passionate owners since the invention of them have spent time trying to shine up their car.  I imagine owners in the 20’s, 30’s, etc would have loved for their paint to be shinier.  You can nitpick any car out there for being “too straight,” “too shiny”, and other cosmetic things that make it “overrestored,” but if that’s all you can say about a car, it must be pretty nice.

 

I’ve never in my life seen anyone wiping down a car and then saying, “my car is just too shiny.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that gets overlooked is the affect the color of the primer can have on the finish coat. We did a color change on my '64 Riviera back in 1980. We went from tan to maroon. A red oxide primer was covered with 8 coats of lacquer. I think a lighter primer would have given it a richer look and helped bring up the red in the maroon.

I have been monkeying around to repaint that car for a couple of years now. It won't be original this time. I plan a fine metallic silver over burgundy, a lot like Darryl Starbird's '39 Continental. He gave me the color codes. That will be base coat/clear coat.

I have a quart of good old fashioned white lacquer to paint one fender and some touch up on my '60 Electra. I expect each to look natural.

 

My good friend is a street rod builder and retired trade school auto body teacher. He is my coach and we have been doing things together for over 40 years. I think that makes a difference in advising and taking advice. It will be more collaborative.

 

If it wasn't so cold and the snow wasn't 2 feet deep between the house and the garage I would be out there now working toward the building of an isolation section for car painting.

Bernie

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When people are restoring vehicles to look original, I don't care what type of paint the restorer put on their car as long as it looks like the original finish in color and level of gloss.

 

I don't like to see cars with a super high gloss finish if that was not how the vehicle originally came out of the factory and I don't like some of the finishes people are putting on vehicles where it looks like plastic.

 

I am not sure what causes the plastic look of some finishes, but I don't like it.

 

I know of cars brands that originally came out of the factory with orange peel and runs, especially i areas like the engine compartment and in the wheel wells.  Is there is issue of someone restores a car and the paint job has orange peel and runs in these areas or should it be restored with a high gloss perfect mirror finish in all areas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem most painters and restorers face is how do you put an inferior paint job on car--no matter how correct--and still expect to have a happy customer? It isn't the painters' fault that their customers are demanding perfection instead of authenticity, and that starts with an impossibly deep shine.

 

I just had an inspector in my shop examining a very nice but also pretty original 1962 Corvette on behalf of an overseas client. He said it was a fantastic car, very well preserved, excellent condition, but his client didn't understand originality. If a car wasn't super shiny, it wasn't a good car and he didn't want it. Shiny = good. Original (correct) = bad. I presume that the buyer has substantial amounts of money and a large collection of cars since he has a full-time caretaker for his collection and flew him up from South America to look at the car. Perfection was his standard, not correctness. Look at any car at Pebble Beach, arguably the most prestigious car show in the world. The restored cars there are grossly over-restored. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there now would they? Heck, I put new-in-the-wrapper NOS chrome headlight doors on my wife's 1956 Chrysler and at the very next show (the only show, as a matter of fact) where we had it judged, they dinged it for "deteriorated chrome on headlights." Nobody wants "correct" or "original" or "authentic" on their cars, not if they're trying to win trophies and spending tens of thousands of dollars to do it.


How many of you would be satisfied with an OEM-looking paint job with runs and orange peel and dry spray that nevertheless cost $20 or 30,000? Yes, it's correct, but it also looks crummy relative to the amount of money you just spent. If you saw those "correct" flaws on your freshly restored car, you'd send it back to the paint shop and demand it be fixed.

 

Don't fool yourself, perfection is the only result the person writing the check wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, W_Higgins said:

 

There is a subset in the hobby that values authenticity over inauthentic bling.

 

 

Agreed. But we are in the definite minority. I'm not arguing that nobody cares about authenticity and certainly not that I don't care. My point is only that people tend to stop caring about authenticity when they're writing big checks to someone else to make a car "right" and that includes the final paint finish. Someone wondered why people use modern paints that don't look quite "right" on old cars and I'm offering an explanation.

 

I'm with you in lamenting that we've seen a dramatic shift from authentic cars to this idealized myth of perfection that restored cars need to attain today. I don't like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening--the "shiny is better" people outnumber the athenticists by about 3000:1. I applaud enthusiasts who strive for correctness and authentic finishes--I love to see bonding strips and saw scuffs on Corvettes--but ultimately, that tends to get pushed aside when it's time to spend the money.

 

I blame judging as much as anything, because by necessity it has to be a beauty contest. At multi-marque shows no judge can possibly know all things about thousands of different cars, so you're often reduced to judging the quality of the work on the car. Like it or not, perfection is frequently viewed as correct during the judging process. When it comes down to two cars with all the right hardware and hoses and colors and assembly line markings, the one that is shinier, with better gaps, with a more ornately detailed engine bay, and flawless, deep, shiny chrome will usually be the winner. I didn't set this standard, but it's very much reality. Some of you who are judges will suggest that you ding cars for over-restoration, and that's fine (I know I do it), but you should also understand that your scores probably get tossed every time (mine do) and you're not changing anything. In fact, my desire for authenticity has marked me as a "tough judge" at most events and guys hate to see me coming to look at their cars. If people truly cared about accuracy, that might be the kind of thing that should win me friends; it actually seems to do the opposite. I don't think most people truly care about genuine and authentic, do you?

 

Like I said, money always makes it cloudy, even when you're trying to do the right thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

 

I just had ........Look at any car at Pebble Beach, arguably the most prestigious car show in the world. The restored cars there are grossly over-restored. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there now would they? 

 

Matt, I would disagree with the over restoration on cars at Pebble Beach. They have the best marque judges available anywhere. It you over restore, incorrectly plate, have incorrect accessories, it’s going to cost you.....BIG TIME. If you give away one single point at Pebble, not only do you not get best in class.......you’re out of any trophy running. In the major classes, 100 points in the normal standard. You need the extra points for the tour and style to make the grade and win an award. Our class winner last year and runner up to best of show was not over or under restored..........we put the car back to the exact way it was delivered. Yes, we had photos inside and out from 1929 when the car was new. The car was sent back to the factory and had additions of lights, chrome, covers, ect and we also had that documentation, but the current standard is to show the cars in their original colors, exactly as delivered, without a bunch of accessories unless documented as installed when new. Many restorations are done for Pebble, and then after the show they are “finished to the owners desires”, as many times what will win is not what the final product that the owner wants. A single wrong fastener or piece of hardware and your done.........that’s why you see me comment so much on incorrect fuel line fittings, lines, and such. My best, Ed

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I’ve never in my life seen anyone wiping down a car and then saying, “my car is just too shiny.

 

 

 

well for example, go to a woody show. many of the refinished cars look like "plastic". (30-40 coats of varathane or similar)

 

that may be something you enjoy, to have to wear sunglasses when you look at a restored car. doesnt work for me.............

 

diff strokes diff folks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pebble Beach stuff (at least the core stuff CCCA stuff that anyone has ever heard of) is pretty on the money - all be it I think the finishes (paint, chrome, gaps, and ...) are much higher quality than anything that made it down an assembly line when new (or out of a custom body builder as well).  

 

A couple of us collected people's nut and bolt jars from their Auburn restoration projects - you can actually pretty much go nut, by bolt, by washer and identify how and 851/852 Auburn was assembled (and almost every piece of hardware is unique).  And, via one of the better marque historians  were able to get original cards for ordering purposes that identified the finished (basically most had a black plated finish).  We have also gone out and looked at a good number of unrestored cars (they are hard to find) and even some piles of parts - and still learning new things all the time. And a lot of people are really trying hard at this (and plenty who still are getting it all wrong too).

 

Your late 20's/30's car should be shiny and it should have depth - it just should not look like a sheet of plastic finish (hard to describe, but when you see the clear coat plastic look it tends to it basically sticks out like a sore thumb).  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People always thought it was interesting when I would open the hood of my 1941 Cadillac 60 Special Fleetwood and it had a foot long paint run in the original chassis black on the hood/radiator shroud.  I will tell you that from waxing it - GM gave you pretty spectacular paint, chrome, and interior, but some of the fit work on the car was just plain atrocious. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello bill this is Dave in California,I hope the bb1worked out for you.ok before I begin I know I’m going to catch hell from some.billi take it it’s the Chrysler that is going to get painted,if you are painting it black fenders and body a different color I would look for ppl delstar acrylic enamel  or DuPont Centauri acrylic  enamel for the fenders and black trim.i would spray 3 coats and then about 2 days later lightly colors and with 320 wet and dry,let it set for about 2 to 3 weeks then resend with 400  wet and dry paper and then apply 3 more coats of black.i don’t know what the color the body is going to be but what ever paint you use watch the I’ve ratings somesingle stage such as red fades quickly even with a clear coat,I’m sure you can find the acrylic enamel if you can find the wagon peddlers as they carry illegal products,the acrylic enamel will outlast the basecoat clear coat,   Dave

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...