[concours] Re: [E-Type] More painting the heater box

In a message dated 10/7/99 9:47:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lovingfoss@lovingfoss.com writes:

<< While almost all of the
cars had beautiful, smooth, high gloss black heater boxes that one could
see their reflection in, it was pointed out that the original
from-the-factory heater box was actually finished in a satin black and not
high gloss. I believer this to be true but would appreciate any comments
from those with original boxes. >>

  • I find this hard to follow, Greg. If it were an incorrect color or finish,
    it would seem that we would be hearing about deductions for “non-authentic.”
    What was this judge’s rationale for letting the high gloss boxes pass? As
    for originality, I’ve not been able to determine that anything other than
    very shiny black is appropriate. I’d be interested in some source material
    for another answer.

Yes, I hear all you guys with “drivers” just chuckling away …I’m
trying to figure the best way to undercoat my car now…I’ll be driving it
soon!

Thanks!

Bob Hotaling
69 OTS

In a message dated 10/7/99 11:50:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lovingfoss@lovingfoss.com writes:

<< I am thinking, but can’t confirm, that this is one of
those things that has just evolved over time to the point that gloss black
is taken for granted but may not be correct. Looking for comments. >>

  • or that a shiney black has oxydized or absorbed oil/grime over the years.
    I’ll go with the no one knows for sure, however or we’d hear more about it
    from the concours crowd citing paragraph and part number :slight_smile:

Bob Hotaling
69 OTS

In a message dated 10/7/99 11:50:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lovingfoss@lovingfoss.com writes:

<< I am thinking, but can’t confirm, that this is one of
those things that has just evolved over time to the point that gloss black
is taken for granted but may not be correct. Looking for comments. >>

  • or that a shiney black has oxydized or absorbed oil/grime over the years.
    I’ll go with the no one knows for sure, however or we’d hear more about it
    from the concours crowd citing paragraph and part number :slight_smile:

Bob Hotaling
69 OTS

Jaguar used a cheap black lacquer to paint many of the parts that were
attached to the car. It wasn’t really glossy, more like semi-gloss, but
in theory you could polish it carefully and make it look glossy.
However, it would be pretty easy to polish right through it.

Even though most restorations use modern, higher quality paints that
give a different surface finish, most judges don’t want to get into
an argument about the chemical composition of the paint being
nonauthentic. There’s no good way to prove it without touching the
car (ie., taking a sample to run though a mass spectrometer). The
judge may be convinced that it’s epoxy, but the owner can swear that
it’s just a heavy coat of authentic lacquer buffed to a high gloss.
We can’t take points off for parts that are excessively cleaned and
polished. So people tend to take the attitude that if something is
glossy , then it is obviously clean and they can’t lose points for
dirt or oxidation. Judges start to get used to seeing gloss, and so
when they encounter a car with a semi-gloss finish, they may have to
give it a second look to be sure it isn’t due to dirt, oxidation,
or wear.

Chip

In a message dated 10/7/99 1:20:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
weems@cs.umass.edu writes:

<< We can’t take points off for parts that are excessively cleaned and
polished. So people tend to take the attitude that if something is
glossy , then it is obviously clean and they can’t lose points for
dirt or oxidation. >>

  • I only know what I read…new to this stuff…but isn’t there something in
    chapter V about highly polished camshaft covers getting the non-authentic
    deduction? Is that to be applied elsewhere? I understand the points
    you’ve made about touch, truth, and doesn’t look dirty

Bob Hotaling
69 OTS

Comon’ guys, figure it out.

The factory sprayed the cheapest, fastest drying lacquer imaginable (Imron,
activated enamel and the lot did not exist back then). After all, the heater
boxes had to be assembled the next day.

That leads to the conclusion that it could have only been semi gloss.

Rather than listen to me, look at the underside of the heater box which was
covered by the mounting plate of the fan motor.

My starts, runs and nearly drives. A dose of flattner does wonders.

SK

EJag69@aol.com wrote:> In a message dated 10/7/99 9:47:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

lovingfoss@lovingfoss.com writes:

<< While almost all of the
cars had beautiful, smooth, high gloss black heater boxes that one could
see their reflection in, it was pointed out that the original
from-the-factory heater box was actually finished in a satin black and not
high gloss. I believer this to be true but would appreciate any comments
from those with original boxes. >>

  • I find this hard to follow, Greg. If it were an incorrect color or finish,
    it would seem that we would be hearing about deductions for “non-authentic.”
    What was this judge’s rationale for letting the high gloss boxes pass? As
    for originality, I’ve not been able to determine that anything other than
    very shiny black is appropriate. I’d be interested in some source material
    for another answer.

Yes, I hear all you guys with “drivers” just chuckling away …I’m
trying to figure the best way to undercoat my car now…I’ll be driving it
soon!

Thanks!

Bob Hotaling
69 OTS

In a message dated 10/7/99 1:20:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
@Chip_Weems writes:

<< We can’t take points off for parts that are excessively cleaned and
polished. So people tend to take the attitude that if something is
glossy , then it is obviously clean and they can’t lose points for
dirt or oxidation. >>

  • I only know what I read…new to this stuff…but isn’t there something in
    chapter V about highly polished camshaft covers getting the non-authentic
    deduction? Is that to be applied elsewhere? I understand the points
    you’ve made about touch, truth, and doesn’t look dirty

Bob Hotaling
69 OTS

Unless the rules were recently changed, there are no deductions for
polished cam covers that I’m aware of. I’ve been told in judging
seminars that we’re not to deduct for cam covers that aren’t polished
as long as they are clean and free of wear, pits, scratches, dings, etc.

Chip

I was thinking about the point deduct issue post my last response, and agree with
Chip. Furthermore, I think the real issue we’ve got at this point is umpteen
years of restored cars later, it would be incredibly difficult to start deducting
for something that wasn’t deducted for previously. So, polished alloy and
over-glossy black parts would all seem to fall into this category. I guess we
should have forecast this many moons ago and not let people get away with it?

SK
62 OTS (with strict instructions to the metal polisher NOT to over polish)

Chip Weems wrote:> >In a message dated 10/7/99 1:20:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

weems@cs.umass.edu writes:

<< We can’t take points off for parts that are excessively cleaned and
polished. So people tend to take the attitude that if something is
glossy , then it is obviously clean and they can’t lose points for
dirt or oxidation. >>

  • I only know what I read…new to this stuff…but isn’t there something in
    chapter V about highly polished camshaft covers getting the non-authentic
    deduction? Is that to be applied elsewhere? I understand the points
    you’ve made about touch, truth, and doesn’t look dirty

Bob Hotaling
69 OTS

Unless the rules were recently changed, there are no deductions for
polished cam covers that I’m aware of. I’ve been told in judging
seminars that we’re not to deduct for cam covers that aren’t polished
as long as they are clean and free of wear, pits, scratches, dings, etc.

Chip

Thanks, Steve. I also have a hard time believeing that they would have gone
through the effort to paint anything but the body in full gloss paint.> -----Original Message-----

From: owner-e-type@jag-lovers.org [mailto:owner-e-type@jag-lovers.org]On
Behalf Of Steve Kemp
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 7:41 PM
To: concours@jag-lovers.org
Cc: e-type@jag-lovers.org
Subject: Re: [concours] Re: [E-Type] More painting the heater box

Comon’ guys, figure it out.

The factory sprayed the cheapest, fastest drying lacquer
imaginable (Imron,
activated enamel and the lot did not exist back then). After all,
the heater
boxes had to be assembled the next day.

That leads to the conclusion that it could have only been semi gloss.

Rather than listen to me, look at the underside of the heater box
which was
covered by the mounting plate of the fan motor.

My starts, runs and nearly drives. A dose of flattner does wonders.

SK

EJag69@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 10/7/99 9:47:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
lovingfoss@lovingfoss.com writes:

<< While almost all of the
cars had beautiful, smooth, high gloss black heater boxes that
one could
see their reflection in, it was pointed out that the original
from-the-factory heater box was actually finished in a satin
black and not
high gloss. I believer this to be true but would appreciate
any comments
from those with original boxes. >>

  • I find this hard to follow, Greg. If it were an incorrect
    color or finish,
    it would seem that we would be hearing about deductions for
    “non-authentic.”
    What was this judge’s rationale for letting the high gloss
    boxes pass? As
    for originality, I’ve not been able to determine that anything
    other than
    very shiny black is appropriate. I’d be interested in some
    source material
    for another answer.

Yes, I hear all you guys with “drivers” just chuckling away
…I’m
trying to figure the best way to undercoat my car now…I’ll be
driving it
soon!

Thanks!

Bob Hotaling
69 OTS