Lacquer or BC

[firstgenaddict]

Would a lacquer paint job detract from or add to the appeal of a restored 69 Z?
All things being equal... 2 cars exactly the same except lacquer paint vs BC would you choose one over the other?

Thanks
James

[Jerry@CHP]

The BC is the better way to do and it can be made to look technically correct if done right.  It will last many years longer than today's lacquer as the lacquer made now is not even close to original formulas used during the late 1960s.  I have also discussed this with one of the NCRS paint judges who does paint seminars for NCRS.  We are both on the same page.

Jerry

[lakeholme]

So if BC is done technically correct, would it be judged as correct?

[jmcbeth]

I was in Legends class this year at Camaro Nationals. One of the things the judges did was run their finger over the edges of the stripes. If you can't feel the edges, you lose points. Perhaps there is a way to paint with clear coat so that the stripe edges remain? Nonetheless, I agree completely with Jerry. I doubt many concours restorations are done with lacquer these days.

[lakeholme]

Yes, I know about feeling for the stripe.  That's actually a useful technic.
My question is looking for "fuel for my fire" in the way all 60s & 70s muscle cars are being judged in non-model specific judging (like AACA).  Actually, in that broader field there are still plenty of concours restorations being done with lacquer (Pre-War classics, especially).  And in many cases, some muscle cars --Camaros included-- are getting major deductions for BC.  That's why I'm wondering how in a Camaro marque BC would be judged... 

[Sauron327]

 Stripes are solid and painted with single stage over the cleared metallic basecoat therefore leaving the tape edge. Solid colors need not be clearcoated if shot with single stage, otherwise solid color basecoats are used and clear coated. Metallic and solid basecoats must be clearecoated--Single stages do not.  Factory lacquer colors( metallic or solid) were not cleared. If you have ever done a complete lacquer job you would see it does not flow out full wet as urethane does. There are also variables such as humidity and lifting issues that one encounters with lacquer because of its instability and aggressiveness. So when you buff it you have to be ever so delicate as to not distrupt the metallic particles or it causes a mottled effect. You are cutting into the suspended particles. It must retain its orange peel to avoid this. Unless it's a solid color then you can wetsand and buff it out like glass.  If you look at a low mileage lacquer car this would be evident. Nearly impossible unless the lacquer is clearcoated, then it is not factory correct anyway. Lacquer clearcoats are not dependable because it is not really a system. Today's systems chemically crosslink on a molecular level. I will say that a lacquer job is absolutely beautiful. It's a different animal. It takes a lot of block sanding to get urethane glass smooth like lacquer because it cuts differently. Lacquer also not as durable as urethane.  In 10 years if not sooner we will be compelled to use waterborne paints and they are currently on the market. A finely executed job should result in a judge's approval for product limitations and technological advances in paint products demand so. That was where they were 40 years ago. Vehicles used to be brush painted and then buffed out. It will be interesting to see who, in 40 years if it is possible and economically feasable, can make a Ralley Green or Royal Plum in lacquer.( I'll probably be dead.)  The paint industry is in a constant state of development.  If you are striving for 100 percent authenticity and can live with lacquer then by all means do so. It's a matter of choice and the goals one wishes to achieve.   Scott

[Jerry@CHP]

The BC systems and single stage stripes over top has worked well at the Camaro Nationals in the Legends Class.  And very much looks like the original cars when they were new.  What boggles my mind is why so many people still choose to clear coat over everything.  It's not correct, does not make the car look any better and does not add anything to the value of the car.

Regarding lacquer, I did my 68 red Z28 in lacquer back in 1986.  This car has been garaged since the resto and the paint is a mess.........cracking and checking badly.  My two survivor cars, a 67 Z and 68 Z still have very nice original paint.  Case in point, what ever lacquer is available today is nothing like the original that GM used in the 1960s.  Now I am faced with having to spend another $15-20K for a paint job on this car.  Next time it will be done in BC, and I know it will last a life time.

Jerry       

[JohnZ]

Original 60's factory lacquer (which contained the now-banned lead and other toxics in the pigments) can last pretty well if it's cared for properly; photo below is my original-paint '69Z at Camaro Superfest '08 a couple of weeks ago. Still looks good - didn't hurt any that it sat indoors in the original owner's lower-level walkout rec room next to his pool table from 1979-1994. 

[Sauron327]

 I don't know why people clear over everything either. I don't do it. Maybe they think it's one step further to a better finish because you can't feel the stripe. It is not a custom graphic job. Leave it alone. And yes, newer lacquer is substandard. By low mileage I was referring to survivor lacquer paints--just to clarify. Find a surviving lacquer paint job and it will buff out nicely (Variables considered of course)The first time I did my 67 in 1984 I did it in lacquer and it held up well and looked great for a couple of years and then it began to fail.   My friend did his 69 Z in lacquer. Always garaged, climate controlled, 2K miles in 20 years and the paint looks like a frustrated easter eggshell.  And good luck trying to blend it if your pride and joy gets damaged. I'm sure some of you know you can't blend metallics without clearing them. And black is out of the question without the telltale blend ring. There's a reason you see the older paint jobs with the clear flying off. I'm glad someone is on the same page--or at least in the same book. I'll stick with BC/CC or Single Stage urethanes.  Scott

[firstgenaddict]

My dad painted his 1940 Ford Woodie wagon with Laquer 20 years ago and there is nothing wrong with the paint at all. It has been touched up because it was bumped and scratched (he drives it often) but as far as quality issues... there have been none.

Now that being said and because the car is metallic I am going to go with BC and single stage stripes. That is a great compromise I had not even considered. A BC job which has been wet sanded to perfection and buffed looks as close to a rubbed out lacquer job as you can get without it actually being lacquer.

[Sauron327]

 Painters are going to love this topic. Jerry's car, mine and my friends are just 3 in thousands. However the failing Z/28 of which I spoke is parked next to the same owner's LS5 which has no problems and  both were painted in lacquer within 2 years of one another. The LS6 in the same garage with origional lacquer is stable and buffable. Varying paint compounds of which John spoke are suspects in these successes and failures. In everything that is discontinued we shall see a loss in quality,  product uniformity and integrity when it is" reproduced" An unfortunate story we can all relate to in this industry.  Scott

[JoeC]

 my Chevelle has a 10+ year old lacquer paint and held up well except has some chips on the rocker panels. I never waxed it once just use a very light hand rubbing compound on it