29 Tudor pinstripe - wrong & now right!

pgerhardt

pgerhardt

Well-known member
My 29 tudor had a pinstripe when I bought it. (picture 1) It was wrong. Notice how the stripe goes up the "C" pillar moulding, with a smooth curve toward the back, and a sharp angle toward the front. Again that was wrong. It was no problem since they were going away as I repainted the car.

Once repainted I had Jim Brand come up from Long Island to redo the stripe. (picture 2) He is a super nice guy, did a great job, was reasonably priced, and is HIGHLY recommended. Of course his stripe was correct, with a smooth curve toward the front and a sharper angle toward the back.

How do I know? Picture 3 is a snapshot of an original showroom picture hanging on my wall (sorry about the reflections in the glass covering the photo). Also notice the lack of gloss on the brand new model A paint. So those of you who go with a "wet look" base coat/clear coat paint job have got that wrong as well. My tudor is painted in acrylic lacquer, and is plenty good to me without the plastic looking "wet look". IMHO

Also notice that Jim's pinstripe is super to the factory stripe!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1638.jpg
    IMG_1638.jpg
    72.3 KB · Views: 395
  • Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 10.30.45 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 10.30.45 AM.jpg
    87.6 KB · Views: 375
  • Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 10.31.29 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 10.31.29 AM.jpg
    36.6 KB · Views: 362
That's bizarre. Why would they have not followed the body line?. Where they painted on or vinyl stripes?. Looks like they were pre-made stripes and they put the left ones on the right and the right ones on the left. Looks much better now. Regarding the amount of gloss on the paint, it's only "wrong" if the owner is trying to emulate the original finish. There really is no "wrong" when someone is building their car to their own tastes.
 
The pinstripe on my Town Sedan is correct but the previous owner must have done it himself, it looks terrible. The paint is fine, so I don't want to paint it, but sure wish I could correct the stripe. If I can sand it off it will be a slow, painstaking process.
 
Most cars today are 'over restored' compared to original finishes. The quality and technology of the material from then does not compare to today. Even though black and white, if you look carefully at period movies, one can clearly see that the cars (most of them are relatively new or just a year or so old) have very little gloss to the paint. Not that there is anything wrong with having a nice shiny wet look paintjob. If they could have done it then they would have. To the OP, nice job on the pinstripes. They do look much better.
 
When I say "wrong" I am speaking as a judge might trying to compare a restored model A to a new original car as outlined in the JS.

As far as paint finish goes, IDK if Ford would have spent any extra on the paint than necessary. Today cars are commodities which you unwrap and use without a thought, that is until enough "idiot lights" come on, then you get a new one. Notice that today's owner's manuals have little or no mechanical info. Compair that to a model A manual. Back then you were expected to maintain your car, including the finish by keeping it clean and waxed.

As far as personal preference goes, "What ever floats your boat". Some clear coat rust, and call it a day. Some use flat or semigloss paint. However if you just spent thousands of dollars to have a car restored at a shop, I don't think you would be happy with that. Nor would I be happy with a plastic looking "wet paint job". But that is me. Even though I do all the work myself, I try to attain "restoration shop" results so went with lacquer. I think it is glossy enough, and still looks like a real car.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 2.28.29 PM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2018-12-21 at 2.28.29 PM.jpg
    98.5 KB · Views: 98
Jim Brand is a real artist. He did my '29 roadster and touched up several small defects as well. Quite an experience to watch him work. The hobby is lucky to have people like him.
 
Note the difference between the firewall and exterior (unbuffed vs buffed)
 

Attachments

  • 20181222_085806.jpg
    20181222_085806.jpg
    71.4 KB · Views: 117
Last edited:
Jim Mason said:
Note the difference between the firewall and exterior (unbuffed vs buffed)
Click to expand...

Thanks, Jim. I do believe that Ford cut and buffed the paint on the body (probably not on the dipped fenders). The body would be pretty shinny and reflective. When new, pretty close to the finish of modern paints.
 
"So those of you who go with a "wet look" base coat/clear coat paint job have got that wrong as well.".......same goes for the modern whitewall tires.
 
Mikeinnj said:
"So those of you who go with a "wet look" base coat/clear coat paint job have got that wrong as well.".......same goes for the modern whitewall tires.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The whitewalls on my tudor are going away when I next need new tires. I just could not bring myself to get rid of good tires for appearance sake. I am too cheap I guess!! :D
 
pgerhardt said:
How do I know? Picture 3 is a snapshot of an original showroom picture hanging on my wall (sorry about the reflections in the glass covering the photo). Also notice the lack of gloss on the brand new model A paint. So those of you who go with a "wet look" base coat/clear coat paint job have got that wrong as well. My tudor is painted in acrylic lacquer, and is plenty good to me without the plastic looking "wet look". IMHO
Click to expand...


This is one of those things where folks believe what seems believable. Some argue that original paint did not shine. When you take the time to research it, a couple of things are worth noting. Ford manufactured his own paints during this time for a couple of reasons, ...he could ensure that the color of a car in San Francisco would be the exact color in Boston. This was crucial because they sent body panels from the depots to the agencies for the mechanics to repair damaged vehicles, -so it had to match. Ford also was big on image, and he advertised his quality of paint rivaled more expensive cars. So Yes, his cars DID have a level of gloss. The difference was the depth of the paint vs. today's paints due to pigments. I can tell you that we will still paint cars we are restoring with Nitrocellulose Lacquer if that is what the customer wishes, ...and they have a very nice gloss when they are completed.
 
Just a guess but I don't think Ford used a primer before dipping. When the paint wore through the primer did not show through like my ugly fenders with red primer showing.
 
gridleak said:
Just a guess but I don't think Ford used a primer before dipping. When the paint wore through the primer did not show through like my ugly fenders with red primer showing.
Click to expand...

Study the M-Specs, ...and I think you will find that Ford DID use a primer coat. That was his bonderizer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top