my dummy painting observation

T

Treeslayer

Mike
warning, bad brand mentioned..........so on a couple different threads we have briefly discussed single stage metallic. some read that had shot some imron many years ago, and i think it was Chris that said that exact product is gone like the dodo. i have no doubt.
fast forward to about 17 years ago. i had bought a blue 3/4 ton, bad paint, and put a white service body on it. couldnt stand that so i went online paint shopping.
i found some kirker [i know, i know now] dark blue metalic. i shot the whole thing with napa primer and then the junky kirker. whole truck was now the same color and i was happy. it faded, badly. it did not come off and is still on her today where it hadnt got scratched off.
a few years later i shot a ramcharger but this time with kirker primer and clear coat. it was a much brighter blue. i got stripping and mottling terrible. after a few months it began lifting from the primer coat. that thing went down the road i was so disgusted with it.
i and we know that paint was junk, and i didnt know any better at the time. i also didnt understand modern primers and did not seal the thing.
however, i did not get striping or mottling on the first job. my curiosity is to why i got it on the second. same gun, same technique.
is it possible that paint line is so all over the place its like two different products?
now that i know what to use where, i guess my question is, should i consider base clear on any metalic, or will a better quality product give results like the first pick up? or more like the old imron. you see my thinking here, i have shot ss metalic with good results and bc with poor results. it should be made clear, i dont do show quality work like many here, nor do i aspire to. daily drivers, good enough for who its for. still, id like to do the best job on that i can.
this is simply a discussion thread, not meant for argument one or the other.
 
imo, metallics really should not be done in ss. at least not on something large like a car. there really is no reason for it. base gives so much better metallic control. for some industrial or commercial vehicle applications i do see the need for the use of ss as its more durable but if a metallic you should spray it more dry like a base coat to even out the metallics then clear coat it. if your spraying ss met and your trying to get it to flow out and get a slick finish then your probably going to be fighting mottling and striping. spray it more dry to get the metallics right then you dont have the slick finish.
 
Jim C, you say the ss is more durable. can you elaborate on that? i was starting to believe clear was about the same thing chemistry wise minus the pigment. i may in fact opt for the ss if its not as durable. things like the service body and other work vehicles, no real show rigs.
also do you think darker metallic is any easier than bright colors? if so that could explain some of my experience.
 
ss is in fact clearcoat with pigment in it so its just as durable a clearcoat. its not as durable as basecoat. basecoat is the weak link of the system. its an uncatalyzed, airdry, polyester. while its decent and adequate for most things, when some more extreme durability is necessary then ss/cc would be the way to go. you would find that things like dump trucks and tractor/trailers, boats, etc are generally all ss.
 
You can add a small amt of clear cat to it but there is no reaction or cross linking going on there. It help but still nothing like a catalyzed polyurethane
 
so, for maximum durability, shooting clear over ss would be the ticket then? i would assume there is a window for best adhesion.
at some point im gonna have to look at motocryl. next project, im thinking some shade of grey metallic. i had an 88 olds years ago, i liked that grey. i guess i can look up that paint code. dont have to be exact.
 
Thats up to you but bc/cc is on about every car in existence anymore and is more than adequate. Clear over ss would be for exteme duty stuff. It will also have way more urethane wave so if your looking to get something really nice looking without having to hard block the clear then i would choose bc/cc any day
 
I spray a lot of solid color single stage but your dogged determination to use a metallic single stage defies logic and goes against the advice of just about everyone, if not everyone, on this forum. If you can spray without trash, peel and runs then by all means go for it…. :)

Don
 
Maximum durability, get the car powder coated.

I'm not sure what the hell is going on lately with all these questions and threads about what's more durable, base coat, single stage, poly , 2k, epoxy. Jesus.

The cars I paint in base/clear get abused beyond belief and by some miracle of the Lord the paint stays on.

Sorry I just hate seeing people over think this stuff. SS metallic anything just sounds like a total pita....
 
dhutton01 said:
I spray a lot of solid color single stage but your dogged determination to use a metallic single stage defies logic and goes against the advice of just about everyone, if not everyone, on this forum. If you can spray without trash, peel and runs then by all means go for it…. :)

Don
Click to expand...
we used to spray it Don. what happened? either paint changed or equipment changed, or??
your going to say a better way came along. idk, i remember some beautiful paint jobs.
 
Treeslayer said:
we used to spray it Don. what happened? either paint changed or equipment changed, or??
your going to say a better way came along. idk, i remember some beautiful paint jobs.
Click to expand...
Single stage urethane metallic has never been common. Available? Yes. Commonly sprayed? No. Fleet use would be were it is most commonly sprayed.

Before the advent of urethanes, you had acrylic lacquer (nitrocellulose lacquer before that), acrylic enamel, and synthetic enamel. When metallic was sprayed in enamel it had similar issues. Stuff didn't look like metallic bc/cc stuff today. It was nowhere near the DOI (distinctness of image) that bc/cc metallic has. When acrylic enamels came out the whole idea was that you didn't have to buff like you did with lacquer. Most of the "nice" enamel jobs that guys remember from those days were done by guys who could spray and the job laid out nice and done in a good booth. None of them were cut and buffed. At least not straight acrylic enamel.

Lacquer in the 60's was marginally easier to repair and look nice, because guys would clear the metallic lacquer then buff it when blending/repairing something. From what the guys who sprayed in the 60's and 70's used to say years ago when I was starting out in the early 90's was that spraying the metallic colors from the 60's and 70's was a MF'er when using a acrylic enamel or or non cleared lacquer. You got one shot at it and that was it. It took real skill to spray acrylic enamel metallic and have it look good. Synthetic enamel? Forget about it. I've never seen a nice metallic synthetic enamel job. Ever.

In the 70's hardener came along that helped acrylic enamel get harder in less time but cut and buff any acrylic enamel metallic or non cleared lacquer was only done to correct really bad issues. And you could see evidence of it afterwards. That hasn't changed. When you cut an acrylic enamel metallic or urethane metallic you expose the metallic and that affects how it looks. And with acrylic enamel it was never done because it took 6 months to a year before it would be hard enough to cut and buff.

When Mercedes and the Japanese started using BC/CC in the late 70's it didn't take long before it became popular because it was so much easier to repair and look good. We take all that for granted today. Seamless blends. Seamless blends in the 60's and 70's were rare. Most of the time cars got panel painted and close enough was good enough. Mixing paint to match the existing paint was much more common back then. Most painters could alter formulas to get something very close to the existing finish. Nowadays it's rarely done. Most painters don't have a clue how to alter a formula to match an existing finish. They have never had to do it because color is so easily blended now.

The beautiful stuff IMO was done with lacquer, then cleared (lacquer) and then cut and buffed. Or a talented guy who could spray acrylic enamel metallic and get it to lay out. But it was never cut and buffed because of the factors I listed above.'

And time has a way of amplifying the good, and softening the bad when it comes to memory. I would bet if you could go back in time and compare those jobs to similar ones done today using modern materials you would maybe think about it a little differently.
 
Last edited:
Chris_Hamilton said:
Single stage urethane metallic has never been common. Available? Yes. Commonly sprayed? No. Fleet use would be were it is most commonly sprayed.

Before the advent of urethanes, you had acrylic lacquer (nitrocellulose lacquer before that), acrylic enamel, and synthetic enamel. When metallic was sprayed in enamel it had similar issues. Stuff didn't look like metallic bc/cc stuff today. It was nowhere near the DOI (distinctness of image) that bc/cc metallic has. When acrylic enamels came out the whole idea was that you didn't have to buff like you did with lacquer. Most of the "nice" enamel jobs that guys remember from those days were done by guys who could spray and the job laid out nice and done in a good booth. None of them were cut and buffed. At least not straight acrylic enamel.

Lacquer in the 60's was marginally easier to repair and look nice, because guys would clear the metallic lacquer then buff it when blending/repairing something. From what the guys who sprayed in the 60's and 70's used to say years ago when I was starting out in the early 90's was that spraying the metallic colors from the 60's and 70's was a MF'er when using a acrylic enamel or or non cleared lacquer. You got one shot at it and that was it. It took real skill to spray acrylic enamel metallic and have it look good. Synthetic enamel? Forget about it. I've never seen a nice metallic synthetic enamel job. Ever.

In the 70's hardener came along that helped acrylic enamel get harder in less time but cut and buff any acrylic enamel metallic or non cleared lacquer was only done to correct really bad issues. And you could see evidence of it afterwards. That hasn't changed. When you cut an acrylic enamel metallic or urethane metallic you expose the metallic and that affects how it looks. And with acrylic enamel it was never done because it took 6 months to a year before it would be hard enough to cut and buff.

When Mercedes and the Japanese started using BC/CC in the late 70's it didn't take long before it became popular because it was so much easier to repair and look good. We take all that for granted today. Seamless blends. Seamless blends in the 60's and 70's were rare. Most of the time cars got panel painted and close enough was good enough. Mixing paint to match the existing paint was much more common back then. Most painters could alter formulas to get something very close to the existing finish. Nowadays it's rarely done. Most painters don't have a clue how to alter a formula to match an existing finish. They have never had to do it because color is so easily blended now.

The beautiful stuff IMO was done with lacquer, then cleared (lacquer) and then cut and buffed. Or a talented guy who could spray acrylic enamel metallic and get it to lay out. But it was never cut and buffed because of the factors I listed above.'

And time has a way of amplifying the good, and softening the bad when it comes to memory. I would bet if you could go back in time and compare those jobs to similar ones done today using modern materials you would maybe think about it a little differently.
Click to expand...
this is the discussion i was looking for. thank you Chris! yes, you could be right, i might look at them differently now.........side by side might make um look not as deep? my eyes aint what they used to be either.
was not the imron of the 80s a polyurethane? i saw a lot of it on heavy trucks, and some of those jobs looked great. in my memory of course lol.
 
Chris i remember being at a guy's shop and watching him mix colors to match. he was just doing it by eye and when he got done with the car i couldnt tell any difference. of course that guys gone now, he was older way back then.
no buffing, thats kinda a point for me. i have never ever sanded a new finish, it seems odd to me to have to do so. i have done some buffing, usually to bring out old paint. if you havent guessed most of what i had been around and done were semi trucks and pick ups. i know show cars are a lot different.
some of these guys missed my opening comments about this being a simple discussion and not an argumentative post.
im willing to bet i am not the only casual painter that dosent really understand the evolution of the products.
id also like to thank those who have taken the time to engage in this conversation. for what seems simple to those in the know is quite the mystery to those of us that arent.
 
I've only ever used SS mettalics on roll cages. I have worked on a few race cars that had the firewalls and interiors painted with mettallic single stage and I can tell you with certainty that the depth is no where close in my opinion to a base/clear. So much though I had to repair a firewall and I used a very cheap clear coat to try to replicate the look.
 
so the consensus is that base is much much easier to get to lay out, and the fact you can wet sand and buff the clear is what really makes this system shine. you guys have certainly given me food for thought.
also i have even more respect now for the old guys that could lay down the old products and make it look easy. they couldnt and didnt do any cut or buff to correct any thing. i wish i had some pics of the old KW we had, that thing looked great after 30 years. that painter must have been pretty good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top