Re: [CR] Thick/thin Paint Colnago

(Example: Framebuilding)

From: "Greg Reiche" <shop@cyclart.com>
To: Steve Maus <maus5@sbcglobal.net>, "classicrendezvous@bikelist.org" <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 02:06:58 -0400
Thread-Topic: [CR] Thick/thin Paint Colnago
Thread-Index: Acn57+G/vy8SU5nMRDefnkzVi0kRiQAAxEcw
References: <0C07A28322A64721B50C9D358C69966E@FAMILYROOMHP>
In-Reply-To: <0C07A28322A64721B50C9D358C69966E@FAMILYROOMHP>
Accept-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc: Jim Cunningham <jim@cyclart.com>, alex m <alexpianos@yahoo.fr>, Susan Cunningham <susan@cyclart.com>, "chasds@mindspring.com" <chasds@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Thick/thin Paint Colnago


Some thoughts...

There's no doubt that for collectors orignal is best or that most originals had thin paint. Certainly, paint should never be too thick in any case. And Charles Andrews knows what he likes. But, I feel he overstates matters THIS frame with his: "The painter and client in this case decided to do something that draws attention to the fact that this is anything but original. All details are hidden by thick paint and thicker clear-coat. There's no art in it. It's crude, frankly. It takes a lot more skill to do it right."

If by "right" he means to use contemporary materials to mimic the old material performance and to achieve an idealized flaw free result hat was almost never accomplished at the factory, I suppose he's right.

Charles is also over the top with his: "For a true collector the only thing that frame is good for is as a rider (though it wouldn't give much pleasure in use, looking the way it does, not if you know how it could look), or as raw material to buy, strip, and restore in more rewarding fashion."

I agree that the photo of the cut out area in the lower head lug, does look a little fat, but otherwise it's not "bad". Note, for example that the Campagnolo embossing on the rear dropouts is crisp. I think one could have picked a more blatant example for discussion.

Further, I think in deference to those of us who still try to eak out a living actually doing this kind of work, I think Charles should have picked an example which is not currently for sale. He may have negatively and unfairly influenced the sale price of this bike, and sullied the reputation of an earnest craftsman and a retailer for... what? An opportunity to express his preference, for something he's already announced he'll never buy? Last I heard Charles does not buy ANY refinished bikes. Based on "it's mediocre at best, and completely unacceptable to the more particular collector. I would reject a paint-job like this." I'd say he's engaging in pure snobbery.

CyclArt has offered the option for "Authentic Vintage look, thin, lower gloss paint an clear", since 1980. In the hundreds of times I have personally offered the option to clients, I can say that less than 10% opt for it. Frankly, most the paintwork on bikes like this Colnago was poor when new, and most people prefer better than original finishes.

Authentic looking paint is a no-win situation for the painter; get the old look right and 90% of the people who look at it think you do substandard work. Put an excellent finish on and the resto snobs write you off as heavy handed philistine.

At CyclArt, we strive to give the customer what he wants and exceed his expectations. I remember one client in particular; a Cinelli owner, insisted he wanted "exactly the same look as the paint had originally". To clarify his wishes, I pointed to undamaged areas on his original paint where there were thin spots in the color, runs and dirt in the clear and asked if we needed to replicate the paint flaws. There were dozens! Of course, he did not want any of the flaws replicated. He wanted a better than new finish after all! So the matched the color precisely, kept it thin and toned down the gloss. Like the factory might have done on their best day and far better than most.

A case can be made, as Anderson has, that the lack of gloss and coverage IS a flaw! It's a function of using cheap and easy paints of the era. There was no pride in showing file marks and pinholes then and for many bikes, no budget for the handwork that would have been required to cover or prevent them either. I think, if the painter for Colnago could have achieved the look on the Anderson rework he'd have been proud of it.

One reason for the tendency of modern materials to be thicker is that older materials like lacquers used a much greater percentage volatile organic solvents (VOC). Such materials are easy to spray because they dry almost instantly. Runs and sags are easily avoided and any flaws that do occur can be sanded and resprayed within minutes. So the old finishes did NOT require more skill, they required less. Most racing frames were after all, mass produced items finished at lowest practical cost. As paint formulations got greener, VOC being a principle culprit in smog and environmental change, not to mention health effects on the painters themselves, the materials got thicker. The reduction in VOC between classic lacquers and today's materials is astounding. 300% highly volatile thinner to paint ratio for lacquers and current materials use under 15% of less volatile thinners. Yes, on cars and most items that get painted, the improved thickness does hide scratches and other small flaws on the substrate finish. If you look closely at all but the most exceptional vintage bikes, with thin paint, you see scratches from files, pinholes and spatter from brazing, forming marks on the lugs, metallic float in the colors and orange peel in the clear if any. You'll also frequently see fading, oxidation and corrosion. Some find these things more human and genuine; perhaps a relief from the near perfection of contemporary goods. Others feel that what matters is the pride and touch of (and perhaps support of) a committed craftsman doing his best, and that improvement is not a sin.

I say to each his own.

Here's a thought about "the 200 years from now in a museum" comment:

I notice that in many collections including those I've visited at the Smithsonian and the Metz, that bikes, clothing and most artifacts only 100 years old are usually dark, drab and faded. As will be Charles Colnagos.

A case in point, an 1896 Peerless frame came into the shop with an original finish. The customer, of course, wanted it "as original, all black". On carefully wet sanding the frame we discovered the original finishes which had not been removed or painted over, was in fact, black with brilliant lime green (think Kawasaki motorcycle) head tube and large scallops extending halfway on the top and down tubes These were edged with crimson red pinstripes. The fork has a nickel crown with green panels, red stripes and a nickeled section running the length of the blade. Checking the catalog for that year we see several brilliant colors listed including the green, which Peerless called "Pullman green" Why? Because this same screaming color was used by the Pullman car company to paint their railway coaches. In the 1890's, there was an explosion of color, as advances in chemistry contributed brilliant paint pigments, dyes and printing inks all at affordable cost. Time travel to a major American city in the 1890s would strike our current sensibilities with the garish use of color. Why? Because 1oo year old original artifacts in museums today have faded or darkened with age. Today, we think all 100 year old bikes were black, in part, because the museums have mislead is with slavish preservation of originals. Certainly, there is much to be said for preservation including the maintenance of the resale value of museum collections, but if the intent of the museum is to immerse us in the character of that era, to make us see things as they actually were, they might serve us better to sell their collections to high dollar collectors and replace them with recreations and or refinished artifacts that more accurately convey the era!

Everything will be different 200 years from now, in unknowable ways. Personally, with the advances in image capture, recording and 3 dimensional modeling, combined with shrinking resources and likely economic and environmental stresses, I think it may be "laughable" that anyone would keep the physical bikes in physical museums at all.

To label decent restorations of frames that were in no condition to be preserved as laughable and unworthy of any collector or even as an enjoyable rider is snobbery or an attempt to inflate the value of original bikes in hand. I'm sure that was not Charles intention, I know him well enough to believe he was simply stating his preference, like a bull in a china shop.

Jim Cunningham CyclArt Vista, CA

-----Original Message----- From: classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org [mailto:classicrendezvous-bounces@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Steve Maus Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:02 PM To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org Subject: [CR] Thick/thin Paint Colnago

alex m wrote:
>Why is it that modern paint is on average quite thick? Is it that it
>just can't be thinned down more, or is it an esthetic choice?

Jan Heine wrote:
> Much also depends on aesthetics. Keith Anderson mentioned that he
> does not want to see the edges of the decals when he paints a bike,
> but he wants a wet, glossy look. That is one view. I prefer thin
> paint that closely hugs the tubes and lugs of the frame. I would not
> say one way is superior, it is just a different aesthetic.

I submit that it is possible to have both a glossy finish and crisp edges with modern paint. It's also possible to obscure very careful lugwork if the painter is not extremely skilled and careful. See this for examples of both, with apologies in advance for off-topic components on KOF frames:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/classicbicycleworkshop/3677235810/

It's been said elsewhere that the painter can make or break the results, and in these cases Keith Anderson and Chris Kvale were definitely in the 'make' category. The anonymous painter buried everything and while it's not horrible, you do get what you pay for.

Steve Maus Greenwood, IN Take the Vintage Bicycle Enthusiast Survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=iqGvbuLROnjQkBkgWedXTw_3d_3d https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=ZAUxPtEEMJ549YsldHipFg_3d_3d _______________________________________________

-- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 8002 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

The Professional version does not have this message