69 Camaro BB blacked out panel?

[68l30]

....and there it is! Thank you Phill [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/scholar.gif[/img]


BIG

[cook_dw]

Great explanation and makes perfect sense. Thank you!! [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/beers.gif[/img]

[DW31S]

FWIW, I asked a friend about his '68 SS396 Camaro he bought new, and it was a relatively early '68. He says it definitely was not as shiny as the rest of the car.

[m22mike]

Thank you Phil, that is what I always understood. There was no reason to used two different gloss leves.
Nice to know about the temp variation too, helps understand the inconsistencies, and FWIW I will remain in the not glossy rear panel camp... [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]

&quot;<span style="color: #FF0000">The paint was the same paint used on the rockers.</span>&quot;

[earntaz]

As Paul Harvey would say -- &quot;and here's the rest of the story&quot; ...

[COPO CARTEL]

See there ...everyone is right ! Good job Phil ! Behind the scenes detective work . Mikey go back to your gin and tonics

[Charley Lillard]

Here is the tail panel on the 4K mile 68 Baldwin Motion car that Lud Renner bought new. It will be at Mecum Kissimmee.

[COPO CARTEL]

From now on ...it looks like the % of gloss depends on the production date ...because of the heat factor .

[Charley Lillard]

More pics of the low mile 68 I took at MCACN 2010. Maybe someone else took pics of the rockers.

[Schonyenko2]

I believe Phil is correct on the temp/humidity part. I think those blacked out parts were not buffed. That will make it look grainy and diffuse the light. The laquer will not look smooth, or shine unless it's buffed. Phil, is there a write up in the paint process the either includes, or excludes buffing the rockers, or tail pan? I'm thinking too that they would want to mitigate the chances of buff throughs which would result in rework issues. ie: shoot it, and send it. FWIW