i had a newer bob jackson with nice thin and shiny paint. i have a davidson that has very nice paint. thin, shiny, deep and even looking...it in no way detracts from the lug work.
i think it's up to the painter and how they prefer to do things. for me a super nice paint job isn't necessary because it's just gonna get scratched and chipped up. i really liked the chipped up, cracked, and only semi glossy paint on that motta i had...more importantly i thought the ride was awesome.
Jeff Piwonka
Austin, Texas USA
> From: alex m <alexpianos@yahoo.fr>
\r?\n> Subject: [CR] Thick/thin paint Colnago
\r?\n> To: Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
\r?\n> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 3:01 PM
\r?\n> I won't comment on the Colnago as I
\r?\n> don't know much about these bikes, but I do know that on
\r?\n> French constructeur bikes the paint was thinner than modern
\r?\n> paint jobs.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Logical when you think they spent hours and hours thinning
\r?\n> down lugs, making things crisp and neat; putting on a heavy
\r?\n> coat of paint clogging up the lugs and rounding off detail
\r?\n> would have destroyed all their preparatory work.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Why is it that modern paint is on average quite thick? Is
\r?\n> it that it just can't be thinned down more, or is it an
\r?\n> esthetic choice?
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Is it a problem due to the chemical nature of the paint, or
\r?\n> the way it is applied to the frames?
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Why can't a small batch of paint approaching what was used
\r?\n> on early bikes be produced for restorers looking for an
\r?\n> authentic looking finish be produced? Not cost efficient?
\r?\n>
\r?\n> It was mentionned that some makers (Peter Weigle for ex)
\r?\n> are capable of producing a thin paint job, what is their
\r?\n> secret?
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Alexander March
\r?\n> Bordeaux
\r?\n> France