Again, package tray/rear window mldg. trim paint? Suede? Ever see both?

[lakeholme]

Thanks, William!
So is that considered adequate documentation in a model specific Camaro meet.

[68camaroz28]

Thanks, William!
So is that considered adequate documentation in a model specific Camaro meet.

Umm, good question! I know of several restored cars that do not have suede paint in that area and have not had points deducted either. Might be a good assumption judges accept both ways! Any judges out there that can answer?  As stated earlier though, I will post better pics of our corner pieces next week.

[william]

You need to remember you are looking at a 44 year old paint finish. When I had a rattle can of suede mixed for our '69 project I first tried it out on a parts car. It wasn't even close to the finish on the exposed dash top-but it was a perfect match to the area under the dash pad.

Clill's near perfect original '69 and the R-M data I provided should be all the "proof" you need. It was suede-get over it.

[Sauron327]

I understand paint deterioration. Especially lacquer as opposed to catylized urethane. I don't doubt Charlie's car or others I've seen are suede. John's package tray seemed to appear as he stated, medium gloss. Upon examination m22mike's appears suede in comparison.
Here's a link showing William's R-M book reference. http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=Mn9lNR5oNp9Osk1Oybo9zXiUl8H2ZPEfYNR%2fojqMOY6daTf3pOKmoYhGMkL2rkQ%2f

[Sauron327]

Scott - I thought about asking you to interperate Bill's R-M quote in lay terms so someone like me can understand what it means. I'd like to take it one step farther; would you be willing to shoot us a sample as per the same R-M and post pics so we all know what this finish should look like. I know this is asking a lot but is this request doable? I am very interested to see how close the results are to the finish on Charlie's car.

I have to shoot a 68 dash top and rear package soon. Not sure if I'm using PPG or R-M. PPG jobber still has lacquer. Never had a reason to ask my R-M jobber for lacquer. If I cross it over to urethane I have to play with it.

[IZRSSS]

Thank you Scott. I look forward to seeing the results!

[tmodel66]

This R-M data is the same language that PPG has on their paint charts. I posted it before and got called out on it saying you can't go by what was printed on PPG charts and I was a fool for thinking that was correct. Thanks William for the information !!

[Sauron327]

This R-M data is the same language that PPG has on their paint charts. I posted it before and got called out on it saying you can't go by what was printed on PPG charts and I was a fool for thinking that was correct. Thanks William for the information !!

Why? All paints can be mixed by all paint manufacturers. I do it every week. That's what formulas are for. The only difference is some company's tints may occasionally match better than another's. That applies primarily to newer colors. And some first gen colors are available in Glasurit 55-Line and waterborne but not PPG DBC for instance.  Or vehicle manufacturers who have a company "hold" their formulas. Like bikes for instance.

[tmodel66]

Scott I'm talking about the Suede finish being used on the rear package tray area. I forgot who it was but they said that being on PPG paint charts didn't make it true. It plainly states on the chart that the rear window trim is -0- Gloss.

[Sauron327]

Scott I'm talking about the Suede finish being used on the rear package tray area. I forgot who it was but they said that being on PPG paint charts didn't make it true. It plainly states on the chart that the rear window trim is -0- Gloss.

I realize that. No reason one manufacturer's recommendations would differ from another's. They are on the same page so to speak. They have to be, it's their business.

[Steve68]

From post #33 above:

Here's a link showing William's R-M book reference. http://documents.clubexpress.com/documents.ashx?key=Mn9lNR5oNp9Osk1Oybo9zXiUl8H2ZPEfYNR%2fojqMOY6daTf3pOKmoYhGMkL2rkQ%2f

Looking at the Camaro charts for 1968 and 1969 the back window lower garnish is listed as black A-946 (semi) for the 68 and black 168C41 (suede) for the 69.  Am I not a professional painter so I freely admit I can be missing something.  It also appears for the 68 that note 1 would allow the painter to adjust the amount of "flat" (849 suede concentrate) that can be added and needed to achieve the desired look.  Again I can be way off on this too.

Steve

[Charley]

I took more pics of the low mile 69 and a couple 68's that have had a harder life. The finish on the 68's appears to have started as suede but different parts have degraded at different rates. Some look almost smooth but in one of the pics at the right angle you can see it was suede even though the same part in the pic above it looks shiny. This site doesn't host big enough pics so I posted them on my site with a link.

http://www.yenko.net/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=487149&#Post487149

[Steve68]

Charlie

The site contains boxes with ? In side each box.

Is your car a 70 model?  If so, have you looked at the charts (70 specifically) William provided above to compare it with what you have on your car?

Steve

[Charley]

I see the pics just fine. Can anybody else see the pics ? The pics are from a 69 and two 68's.

[lakeholme]

I see the pics just fine. Can anybody else see the pics ? The pics are from a 69 and two 68's.

Nope!  I tried two different computers....