Restoration Qs... running board brackets & paint

[Marco Tahtaras]

"The measure of a restorer's efforts shall be evaluated against the Standards and nothing more".

.

Please reread Doug Clayton's comments regarding the hardware book and Paint and Finish Guide. Additionally please note what the Standards mention in the judging section regarding reproduction parts as well as finishes (two different pages). It is specified that reproduction parts as well as incorrect finishes must be downgraded.

When the standards were originally written is was normal for most of the judges to be familiar with original parts vs. repro parts and as such it was not necessary for the Standards to itemize every single piece of the car for to ensure proper credit for original parts. It was expected that the judges would be familiar and no specific description was required. Unfortunately times have changed and many of the folks that were familiar with such things from day to day life are no longer participating. We now have a new generation of participants which entered the hobby in the era of "reproduction restorations", many of whom won't have a clue what what some specific original part looks like until he/she has it pointed out to them on the judging floor. TEACHING IS IMPORTANT!

Just because the Standards doesn't provide a clear picture of the difference between a $5 junk '30-31 type stoplight switch and the real thing doesn't mean you can JB Weld brass bushings on each end of the junk switch and expect full credit.

 

[Ken Ehrenhofer]

I have always installed the rivets and then painted the entire frame. I used to use gloss black but I am now starting to degloss on some frames. I will take hit for painted rivets if that judge wants to do that. He cannot take off very much for a slight infraction and I think it is in the best interest of preservation to have good quality paint and all rivets on the car. I have judged paint at many meets in the past and have always consulted the Judging standards and the MAFCA book for correctness. I believe this is a "judging standard" and we can never duplicate the way the factory did it but we can only try to come close. I am for a black frame Gloss or degloss either way. I do not want to see any rust pits but I would like to see an attempt to make sure stress lines and marks from the dies are retained as much as possible.
IMHO,
Ken

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Please reread Doug Clayton's comments regarding the hardware book and Paint and Finish Guide. Additionally please note what the Standards mention in the judging section regarding reproduction parts as well as finishes (two different pages). It is specified that reproduction parts as well as incorrect finishes must be downgraded.

My intent is definitely not to challenge your wisdom however, I think where there may be some confusion in that (to my knowledge) it does NOT refer to either of those two books as being supplimental information for the Stds. At French Lick, when Chief Judge Larry Sadoski addressed the Judges Meeting, he held up the Model A Restoration Guideline & Judging Standards book and said something to the effect THIS is the only book you will be using to evaluate these cars tomorrow, ...and nothing was mentioned about P&R Guide or the Hardware book. And, ...based on what I am told by several MARC Judging Std. Committee members, the MARC club has not adopted either of these books as guidance to be used during judging competition. Therefore their use during competition by any Judge who has been instructed not to use them could be considered by some as unethical.

Please understand I am not implying or saying that authentic detailing should be averted or that a restorer should not strive to make his vehicle better than what the Stds. are requiring. Also, I think most Judges would construe the part about incorrect finishes to be finishes that are specifically printed in the Stds as what is acceptable (as in the listed charts in each area or verbiage in that Area's text.) If that were not the general consensus, wouldn't your car and everyone elses receive an automatic 50% deduction for improper finish on the frame for not using Japan Black with Asphaltum paint?

I have judged paint at many meets in the past and have always consulted the Judging standards and the MAFCA book for correctness. I believe this is a "judging standard" and we can never duplicate the way the factory did it but we can only try to come close. I am for a black frame Gloss or degloss either way. I do not want to see any rust pits but I would like to see an attempt to make sure stress lines and marks from the dies are retained as much as possible.
IMHO,
Ken

Ken, not being critical with you whatsoever but just playing Devil's Advocate if you don't mind. If someone were judging a MARC sanctioned meet, who instructed them to use the MAFCA adopted Paint & Refinish Guide while judging?

Also, I honestly believe your opinion regarding the frame being painted Gloss or De-glossed is within the guidance of what the Stds. say to judge for because it is written the frame should be Black and not rubbed out. Not reading anything into that simple statement, if they meet both criteria, then they should receive full points.

Now with regard to your opinion about the stress lines and marks from the dies, couldn't a restorer make a strong appeal based on the fact that the Stds. does not state these lines & markings are mandatory, --AND if the Judges have used the P&R Guide as a judging reference, then shouldn't the Restorer be able to use that same book in his defense? In the 4th paragraph on page 16, it makes reference to some frames have been found to have a heavy coat of paint on the frame. It also mentions two pages prior that while no particular effort was to fill or smooth the frame, it only mentions that "Casting irregularities were visible." --and no mention anywhere that marking from dies or stamping must be visible. Thus, could this not be construed as a Judge making an unsubstantiated personal opinion that creates an unfair disadvantage for the Restorer? Again, I am NOT saying that marking from dies or stamping can't be there, ...but isn't the Stds. actually the minimum standard that is acceptable in competition and if the Restorer meets these minimum standards as prescribe, then shouldn't the Restorer receive no point deduction? On the flipside, if the Restorer chooses to detail their frame exactly how the P&R Guide suggests, then they too shall receive no points deductions. Thus both should receive the same score, --and if one argues that the better "detailed" frame should score higher than the frame painted all one color of gloss Black, then 'opinion' or preference is again the basis for giving extra credit in which the Judge has been instructed for this practice not to be done.

.

 

[henry494]

On 08-12-2010, Dudley posted the following question;

“Since the frame is spray painted without the running board brackets installed, the brackets dipped, you have 2 different " glosses ". After the brackets are installed, with red hot rivets, how or what method did they use to touch-up those areas? Any help.”
Dudley.

I won’t enter into the discussions about all of the reference materials available to us as restorers, but I will try to help Dudley with what he originally asked. I have a friend who has been reading some of the recent threads on FordBarn to me, and I found this one quite interesting. When I asked him to take photos of some rivet heads and reply to this thread for me, he just rolled his eyes, as he knows how “nuts” we can be over the details. Fortunately, he’s known me for decades and has observed several restorations and the detailing of several original-unrestored A’s, so he knows we're fanatics over the details!
Anyway, the attached photos are from our 1929 165-A Murray Standard Fordor, June 28, 1929 firewall date. You can clearly see how the running board bracket rivet heads are NOT covered in paint, and no touch-up is evident anywhere in the area. Looking very close, you cannot see any heat damage around the rivets, even though the heads appear to have been punched while hot. You can debate this with someone else, that’s just my opinion.
The paint on the frame is definitely an asphalt based, semi-gloss black. I’ve detailed several unrestored A’s that all exhibited the same type of paint on the frames. This paint is very easy to destroy with cleaning agents, yet seems to be a great preservative due to the oil-based properties. This paint will become almost “sticky” when cleaning, compared to the black enamel parts. The running board brackets appear to be the dipped black enamel, and exhibit a bit more shine than the frame. We can all speculate that the brackets had more gloss than the frame from the assembly line, as they appear this way now, even though the photos don’t clearly indicate this contrast. This frame does not exhibit any evidence of any paint being sprayed or brushed after assembly.
Hope that helps a bit, Dudley.
Dave Lopes

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Dave, it is indeed great to see you back and to be able to read your posts!!

Now, in your opinion and based on what you have seen on other cars, is the unpainted rivets an anomaly (just as maybe the data tag rivets are installed on that car) where maybe the line worker failed to go back and spot spray with Pyroxilyn as instructed, --or are you of the opinion these were intentionally left unpainted on several original vehicles you have worked with?

BTW, ...who took those pictures?? Are you out of bed and able to do such a thing??




( I guess I should make sure it IS your Fordor that does have the split rivets installed from the other direction?? )

.

 

[d.j. moordigian]

Dave, great to hear from you! After spending over an hour yesterday looking at the
frame, hear are my observations, as of yesterday.

1. shiny gloss black paint, from the RBB rears, threw the hole in the frame.

2. frame color paint in and around the holes.

3. no paint on any of the rivets.

When I paint my frame, I think I will leave those rivets natural.
Thank you Dave, persevere.

Dudley

 

[Gary Karr]

Thanks Dave for taking the time to post these pictures and comments. They truely tell us a lot. They are certainly convincing to me on what the assembly line did.

 

[henry494]

Brent wrote;

"Now, in your opinion and based on what you have seen on other cars, is the unpainted rivets an anomaly (just as maybe the data tag rivets are installed on that car) where maybe the line worker failed to go back and spot spray with Pyroxilyn as instructed, --or are you of the opinion these were intentionally left unpainted on several original vehicles you have worked with?"

"BTW, ...who took those pictures?? Are you out of bed and able to do such a thing?? "

Brent,
Lisa is out of town and I'm supposed to keep Dave down and inactive. I took the photos of the brackets and rivets after Dave reviewed FordBarn posts through me, then talking me into posting them this morning. I've known him forever and understand.
Dave says it is only an opinion, but that he suspects few rivets would have actually been painted over after installation. That opinion comes from observations of many unrestored cars, and the apparent lack of enough paint on the undersides, including body sheetmetal, to protect the surfaces very far beyond the first sale, much like cars sold now. He wants to ad that the A was a cheap car and that production methods advised by Ford were probably ignored at times in the interest of speed.
Dave's Fordor is the one with the firewall tag installed with the rivet heads towards the inside of the firewall. See photo attached.

Dave may or may not be looking at the computer in coming days, or couple weeks, depends on many things. Don't be surprised if he doesn't respond much. He just wanted me to check this thread once more in case follow-up was needed.

Charlie

 

[Steve Plucker]

A word of caution here.

We all agree that the chassis, once they reached a certain point in the assembly process (#'s 13 and 14 in the Faurote article in the August 16, 1928 issue of American Machinist), that the chassis, with many parts added by then, was painted with "black proxylin" all over the bottom side (#13) and then the top side (#14).

What we do not know is this...exactly when did Fay Leon Faurote go the the Ford Motor Company to record all this information? I think it may have been in very late 1927 or very early 1928 AND this is what he saw and recorded.

It may be highly likely that by the time David's car made it down the assembly line that this process was "stopped" by the Ford Motor Company thus the indication of no paint on the rivets, or anywhere else as that goes.

However, it may be to that that frame just did not get the respraying as described.

Pluck

 

[Marco Tahtaras]

A word of caution here.

We all agree that the chassis, once they reached a certain point in the assembly process (#'s 13 and 14 in the Faurote article in the August 16, 1928 issue of American Machinist), that the chassis, with many parts added by then, was painted with "black proxylin" all over the bottom side (#13) and then the top side (#14).

Pluck

Take a very close look the photo on page 15 of the Paint and Finish Guide (3rd edition) and you will see the sequence you describe from Faurote does not apply. I would love to post a closeup of that photo here but I don't "own" it so I can't enter it into the public domain.

 

[Marco Tahtaras]

My intent is definitely not to challenge your wisdom however, I think where there may be some confusion in that (to my knowledge) it does NOT refer to either of those two books as being supplimental information for the Stds. At French Lick, when Chief Judge Larry Sadoski addressed the Judges Meeting, he held up the Model A Restoration Guideline & Judging Standards book and said something to the effect THIS is the only book you will be using to evaluate these cars tomorrow, ...and nothing was mentioned about P&R Guide or the Hardware book. And, ...based on what I am told by several MARC Judging Std. Committee members, the MARC club has not adopted either of these books as guidance to be used during judging competition.

.

Brent,

It's unfortunate that approved and preferred practices are not being followed. I will not attempt to address the reason or reasons for the failure to do so as I have no idea whether it's a breakdown in the system or a concious choice to ignore the "rules". I certainly suspect the former as these are all good folks with good intentions.

If you stay involved with the judging process you will see variations in the quality and depth of judging that will surprise you. You will also find that judges tend to be reluctant to judge beyond the depth and scope of their own restorations. This will apply to folks throughout the hierarchy.

What Doug wrote and I redirected everyone back to is 100% correct.

 

[RockHillWill]

Marco's point about teaching the judges is well taken, and I would hope that point is well taken by both clubs at some point. The folks that end up judging are only those that step forward to offer their services at that particular event. I would sure like to see some of these more astute and knowledgeable folks put on seminars at the National and Membership meets prior to the judging day and pass on these hints and guidelines. It might go a long way to smooth out the 'ups and downs' we see discussed here. There are an abundance of folks in both clubs with the knowledge to put on these seminars either individually or jointly. At most MARC meets there are (2) seminars regarding the individual chapters in the Restoration Guidelines that offer very helpfull details, but I for one would appreciate a seminar or two from an 'old timer' regarding things that are not covered in the Resoration Guidelines like the recent running board brackets discussion and others as well. Many of these details are revealed in the affore mentioned Paint and Finish Guide. It seems that the more you can understand the manufacturing and assembly process the easier it becomes to decide how to restore a part to it's original condition. A great number of folks on this Fordbarn have gone way out of their way to help me and others as well, but some of the folks that show up for judging have not availed themselves to the marvels of the internet and have not been exposed to this source of information.

Just a thought!

 

[BRENT in 10-uh-C]

Thanks Marco. Who should be approached to find the definitive answer on exactly when it was adopted? Maybe it did get adopted and judging folks honestly have no recollection of it? Maybe it was tabled for additional discussion and never really got voted on?

(Ironically, I did receive an e-mail from an individual that said he had the 1997 revisions of the Stds, and that if the Judging Committee did indeed vote to adopt this book, why is there no mention of it in the Introduction, Area 4 or Area 14 like other areas show diagrams or wording taken from other publications?)

.

 

[d.j. moordigian]

Marco,

While posting #46 I did that with a 5 power "cheater" , and made that observation,
BUT did not post the findings. Dave's car confirmed it. Dave's 6-28-29 and my 8-14-28, are similar in the painted parts. The picture on page 15 is a mid to late
31 looking at the " wishbone " .

Dudley

 

[Roger V]

I hesitate to jump in on this one but I am. A few years ago I was surprised when I saw a couple of hi-point left-coast cars had frames that appeared to be flat charcoal looking. At a subsequent national meeting, I asked the then M.A.R.C. JSC chairman what did he require as I was in the process of doing a fine-point car. He said he'd get back to me. After discussing it with other committee members, he said "any" flavor of black was acceptable. This pretty much is the same conclusion that Brent stated. As an aside I remember Marco's factory picture which looks somewhere from eggshell to satin relative to gloss since it is a B/W photo. In addition I recall Roger Kauffman's answer in his tech answers in the M.A.N. as black with a brown cast which is what asphaltum looks like. Many years ago I bought a gallon of chassis specific paint from the auto paint distributor. Upon application it had a dull brown-cast black look which took forever to dry. It definitely wouldn't chip.

 

[1931 flamingo]

I can't believe how much correspondance 12 rivits have generated, but it has been interesting reading.
Paul in CT