CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 11:08:16 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
107582 Posts in 12509 Topics by 4812 Members
Latest Member: oldbop88
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Originality
| | |-+  Again, package tray/rear window mldg. trim paint? Suede? Ever see both?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  All Print
Author Topic: Again, package tray/rear window mldg. trim paint? Suede? Ever see both?  (Read 13300 times)
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #75 on: April 14, 2012, 09:34:30 PM »

Excellent pics Chick. And you are correct. A guy needs to get close to this type finish to see the texture. I'd have to say its suede.

Just look for a texture that in today's day & age would have been flagged for repaint. Wink
Logged
Sauron327
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 871



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: April 14, 2012, 09:35:19 PM »

Untouched original blue interior- Checked this car out today and it seemed to this untrained eye to be non-tectured but close ups  seem to be similar to others posted but again looking at it I would not have called it a suede finish but you be the judge. Smiley

Our 68 Interior corner pcs.! Again, you be the judge. Smiley

It's suede, and so is your 68. The top has just laid down and deteriorated. Suede does not imply it has to look identical to the adjective it is. It's just a textured finish. And as we see, it varies. Reduction, temp and application have an effect on appearance, not to mention age.
Logged
Paul68RS/Z28
Member
***
Posts: 71


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: April 15, 2012, 07:50:13 AM »

FWIW, My 68 Z is suede, areas on the back shelf look just like the top of the dash. It is hard to tell, but looks the same to me, similar to Chicks.

Paul
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #78 on: April 15, 2012, 10:57:29 AM »

Paul - can you post pics of your dash and package tray window molding?
Logged
Paul68RS/Z28
Member
***
Posts: 71


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: April 15, 2012, 12:59:39 PM »

I'm trying, but it keeps kicking back my post, stating timed out.

Paul
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #80 on: April 15, 2012, 01:10:36 PM »

I'm not sure what's going on today but CRG is real slow on my end as well.

Be sure to down-size your pics ahead of time. Somewhere close to 100KB.
Logged
Paul68RS/Z28
Member
***
Posts: 71


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: April 15, 2012, 06:39:05 PM »

I've tried to re-size them, still can't get them small enough, I'm giving up. Undecided

One thing I also noticed when taking the pictures of the back trim area; there is a paint line were it transitioned from black to British Green. Mines is a deluxe interior, so I guess it didn't matter how it looked under the panel.

Paul
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #82 on: April 15, 2012, 07:01:52 PM »

If you get inspired to try it again this might help; http://www.camaros.org/forum/index.php?topic=7215.0

Or send them to my email address and I'll post them for you. The problem with mine is that they are pics of pics and the quality for this type study IMO isn't good enough.
Logged
Paul68RS/Z28
Member
***
Posts: 71


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: April 16, 2012, 07:11:29 PM »

Ok, one more time. Look at the lower right corner of the tray area, you can see suede there.


I never could get the one showing the paint line down to a sendable size.


Paul
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #84 on: April 16, 2012, 07:54:08 PM »

Paul- You did a great job with your first pic. Not too many guys can top that one, me included. Not sure what happend with the second one. I think it might just be slightly out of focus. Also, try to crop your pic right down the center of the paint line.

Anyway, I'd have to say both are suede.

Thanks!
Logged
Steve68
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 508


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: May 07, 2012, 01:43:33 PM »

More pictures of my 68 Camaro taken with professional camera and equipment.  Original owner.  Original interior.  Front dash (suede), rear side and corner trim (looks like semigloss to me), rear window lower trim (does not look suede or semigloss to me.....is black but flatter than corner).

Steve
Logged
crobjones2
Member
***
Posts: 311


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: May 09, 2012, 08:58:54 PM »

After following this thread for some time, I was moved to climb into my project.
Marty
My 69 06A has a texture on the dash, texture on the package tray, and potentially texture on the sides and rear pieces,  But The corners show no signs of texture
It looks exactly like Steve's above - just in rougher shape
Logged

Chris
69 SS 350
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #87 on: May 10, 2012, 08:58:15 AM »

The '69 Chevrolet page in the R-M refinishing manual has the following statement:

"Note Alpha-Cryl formulae containing No. 849 Suede Concentrate produce material of approximately a zero gloss as required. Upper instrument panel, radio auxiliary speaker grille, rear window defogger grille, back window lower garnish."

This GM quote posted by William should be the only confirmation ’69 Camaro owners need to reach a conclusion. It is also one of many clear cut examples of a directive given by GM for a specific task. My guess is that this was an example of automakers early attempts at addressing glare related customer complaints. Each component listed above are areas of obvious concern. If they weren't then all other interior paint finishes including the lower instrument panel would have been given this suede finish or vise versa.

There are many excellent examples of what this suede finish should look like; none better than Charley's ‘69 survivor with only 9800 miles;

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/482559/1

As for differences between Norwood and LA, this shouldn't even come into play. Simply stated, a directive was given. I would say 95% of the pics on this thread show suede finishes. But that's just a matter of opinion. Bottom line; we know now what was required by GM for the ‘69? Is there a same directive given by GM for the ’68? There would be your answer.

Chris - the corners would have been painted separately. The problem I'm seeing with the different variations in paint finishes isn't in what was required but rather who was applying it. In other words; human error. Wink


Logged
Sauron327
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 871



View Profile
« Reply #88 on: May 10, 2012, 09:16:04 AM »

Is that really a quoted GM directive or information provided by R-M for painting instructions to achieve a desired result? Info like this can be found in a PPG color book. Similar to a TDS (technical data sheet), which all paint manufacturers provide.
Logged
IZRSSS
Guest
« Reply #89 on: May 10, 2012, 09:29:38 AM »

Only individual’s privy to that information can answer that. I am simply going by what’s in front of me and basing my opinion accordingly. In addition, one would think that R-M would have thoroughly researched this information before going viral with it.  Wink  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  All Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.115 seconds with 17 queries.