Re: The Great Paint Debate

[Toby Basiliko <toby@wolfenet.com>]

Oooh, fight, fight!
	Steve, now I disagree!  If you want an absolutely flawless finish,
right, you end up doing a big sand and blend.  But if you get a rock
chip or a door skooge on single stage, it's quite easy to either
airbursh or even use a small brush to get just a bit of paint into the
flaw, then color sand it straight.  You might be able to see it if you
looked for it, but for a daily driver in a wet climate, that way little
chips get fixed right away.
	I'd also have to say that bc/cc can be just as heavy or heavier than
single stage- once you get the base down, the improved flow of the clear
means it's easier to get wet coats of clear to flow out well without
hanging.  
	Having said all that, my 'look' of choice for an older car is single
stage acrylic urethane color-sanded and polished!  I think it looks
deep, with good shine, without looking 'plastic' like a clear does. 
However, again from experience, it doesn't hold up quite as well and
needs regular waxing.
Toby
Seattle

Steve Bradley wrote:
> 
> Sorry to disagre with you, but, I think your body shop sold you down the
> river.
> 
> BC/CC is "easier" to spot repair than other top coats. The only time a shop
> would need to repaint an entire panel is when they don't have a tinting
> system to match the existing paint.
> 
> You were partially correct though. BC/CC finishes scratch and chip easier
> than single stage acrylics. This is because the clear part of the finish is
> only 3 to 4 mils thick and  the base coat part of the finish is usually even
> thinner than the clear.
> 
> This is why acrylic urethane is a superior finish. It is extremely hard and
> when impacted, it will usually dent the metal before it will chip the paint.
> 
> Steve B.