From: Adams-Graf, John (John.Adams-Graf@fwpubs.com)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 14:36:03 PDT
Bob,
I can't agree with you that the commercially available paint is "crappy". It may not have evolved to an exact duplication of WWII era paint, but it is far from crappy.
To once again use the Civil War reenactor analogy, when only indigo-dyed blue thread was available, it was "good enough" and everyone enjoyed their hobby. Then a few guys researched and recreated three-twist logwood dyed thread. That then became the standard by which all recreated uniforms were judged.
The same will happen with paint. The hobby is evolving. Wait until folks start studying canvas weights, weaves, dyes, and hardware. It will cause many to go back to the bank and reupholster their vehicles. As I stated before, the hobby is evolving...we are only temporary participants and caretakers. It will go on for generations beyond us. The vehicles remain...the owners come and go.
We have all heard the "pontiffs of paint" declare how surprised everyone would be if ever they saw "real" WWII paint. And yet, for all the talk, none of this group of paint quality advocates have gone the extra mile to actually produce it. So, are we left to tell everyone their restorations are inadequate because they haven't used the "correct" paint? Or, rather do we judge them by standards based on what is available to the hobby?
Therein, in my humble opinion, is the "heart of the argument". A few folks have actually gone through the efforts to back up their contentions by publishing their research on paint colors (not pontificating on bulletin boards or mail lists, but actually sitting down and compiling their thoughts and publishing them in a format that will be available for future researchers to reference, consider, and reconsider). These folks are to be applauded.
Nevertheless, I have heard (or read on bulletin boards or mail lists) countless references to the "mysterious Jeep in Texas" that would astound all of us, but has the owner actually published anything that the rest of us can reference? Additionally, I have heard countless tales of cans of WWII-dated 319 that was freshly opened and how we would all "have to repaint our vehicles" if the truth were known about the "true color of 319."
Now I know people like to feel a sense of power by controlling information (Bill Gates taught us that the real power base for the 21st Century is not in military might, but rather, through the possession and control of information), but were is the power in controlling the correct formulation of WWII paint? Any paint dealer will tell you, "you aren't going to get rich from selling paint to military vehicle restorers!" In fact, it would be in their best interest to "leak" the information about the "true formulation of 319" so that they could sell paint all over again to customers who would feel pressured to conform to the new standard of restoration.
This is a pretty long rant, and I apologize. But it is wearisome to have two or three people repeatedly say that "the commercially available 319 is crap!" without backing up their assertions. If it so astounding as these few would have us believe, why haven't they published anything--or better yet--put their money behind their opinion and produced some? If they aren't willing to do that, then they don't have the right, in my opinion, to judge other folks' restorations. Folks can only restore a vehicle to the level of materials available to them. If the "true formulation of 319" doesn't exist, what good does it do to disparage the existing paint or a person's restoration? The individual hobbyists and the paint manufacturers have done the best they can with the information and materials that are available.
I suspect, if someone had the "true formulation" and could back it with substantial proof, they could approach a variety of paint manufactures and strike a deal. It would be the same as writing a manuscript and shopping it around to various publishers...not real tricky stuff.
The real argument then, in my opinion, is not what is the true formulation of 319, but rather, why do the few who proclaim to have the "true information" don't do anything about it?
For what its worth,
John A-G
Iola, WI
-----Original Message-----
From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]On
Behalf Of Bob N
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:44 PM
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] Olive Drab no. 3412 color ???
John, the "real" argument over paints like Gillespie 319 or 33070, etc at
least for WW2 vehicles is not so much the hue as it is pretty close. No,
the argument or were the paint guys really go wrong is the texture of the
paint. Real WW2 paint has a LOT of texture to it...so much that just merely
brushing it with your hand will leave a mark. It also wasn't designed to
last very long--about year at most. Basically the modern paints to not have
enough angular material in them (and of course the shade is off to some
degree in some of them). Now does a guy really want to spend $20,000 or
more a vehicle and then put crappy paint on it? Well, he does if he wants
to use the "real" stuff. The paint wasn't for beauty it was for camouflage.
I have a friend in Texas that painted his jeep with the real stuff and it's
an eye opener.
Perhaps one day, someone will recreate the "correct" paint and then we can
argue about tire pumps or something else. 8^)
Bob n.
www.42FordGPW.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adams-Graf, John" <John.Adams-Graf@fwpubs.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] Olive Drab no. 3412 color ???
Rick: Unless the vehicle was kept in a vacuum, there is no such thing as
"unoxidized" paint on it (and even in a vacuum, it is still not possible).
True, paint under a data plate or between seams will be a different color
than that which was exposed to direct light and years of contact/cleaning,
but it still doesn't represent that moment when the paint finally cured
after spraying. It is closer to that point then, say, the paint on a
fender, but it still can't be relied on to convey the "original color".
However, this all reminds me of the Civil War reenactors who painstakingly
reproduce uniforms down to the logwood-dyed three-twist cotton sewing
thread, yet wear Fruit-of-the-looms under there uniforms. The hairs that
restorers split on the variation of tone on 319, 3412, or whatever color,
are often disproportionate to the efforts that they put into the rest of the
restoration of a vehicle. Granted, the paint IS probably the most easily
recognized element of a restoration, but the variation in color that most
are seeking is a minute change. The time spent arguing and debating the
"true" color of 319 might be better spent on other aspects of one's
restoration.
In the end, the vehicle is your own, and you are the only person who needs
to be satisfied. The only "right" or "wrong" color is what you personally
believe. The likes of Jim Gilmore, David Doyle, and Steve Zaloga have done
their very very best to uncover the most accurate data that exists on the
original formulations. If one cares to accept data is their own decision. If
you don't accept the hard evidence that exists on the formulations, go ahead
and paint it in your own interpretation. The next guy who owns the vehicle
can paint it whatever color HE thinks it should be....we are all just
temporary holders of the vehicles!
John A-G
Iola, WI USA
> From: "Rick v100" <rickv100@yahoo.com>
> To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [MV] Olive Drab no. 3412 color ???
>
>
> > Wouldn't it be possible with the new photo matching
> > available at paint stores to get the right color?
> >
> > Under the data plates is a good spot for unoxidised
> > paint that would be easily transportable.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > --- Thomas M McHugh <tmmchugh@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John,
> >>
> >> Army Motors or Military Vehicles magazine had a
> >> great article about the
> >> evolution of 24087. I am well aware of the changes
> >> of color that took
> >> place over the years. It is just unfortunate that
> >> the military could not
> >> have used an alpha designation for each upgrade.
> >> During my 43 years in the
> >> military, every time we repainted trucks, they did
> >> not match.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The 24087 available now is actually lighter in tone.
> >> Worse yet ALL spray
> >> 24087 is not a match to can paint. The spray is
> >> what we called "Baby
> >> Sh**" spray since it looks more like a dirty diaper.
> >> Sure wish we could
> >> convince a supplier to make spray OD in the older
> >> color. I would buy
> >> several cases, if ever available. Many of my
> >> friends would also. How
> >> about it, paint people ???
> >>
> >> I had found gal cans of original older 24087 paint &
> >> painted my early 1952
> >> M38A1. It looks good. Now when I have to touch up
> >> a small scratch, with
> >> spray, it does not match.
> >>
> >> Thanks much.
> >>
> >> Tom McHugh, NJ
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Adams-Graf, John"
> >> <John.Adams-Graf@fwpubs.com>
> >> To: "Thomas M McHugh" <tmmchugh@msn.com>; "Military
> >> Vehicles Mailing List"
> >> <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:27 AM
> >> Subject: RE: Olive Drab no. 3412 color ???
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom:
> >> I realize that the study of U.S. vehicle paint
> >> colors is complex, to say the
> >> least. But, if you reread what I had written before
> >> (still pasted at the
> >> bottom of this post), OD No. 3412 is the SAME as
> >> Olive Drab No. 22, which is
> >> the same as OD No. 9 and which is the same as AN
> >> 319.
> >>
> >> SO, to simplify it, if you want OD No. 3412, buy AN
> >> 319. There should be no
> >> difference as it was all the same formulation.
> >> Incidentally, on March 1,
> >> 1956, Federal Standard 595 redesignated Olive Drab
> >> 3412 (formerly No. 22,
> >> No. 9, and 319) as "34087". Be careful here, though
> >> and read closely:
> >> FEDERAL STANDARDS EVOLVE. The number "34087"
> >> represents different things at
> >> different times since 1956.
> >>
> >> I don't know what you mean by "the older, darker
> >> 1952 era color" but I
> >> suspect you are referring to 2430, the semigloss OD?
> >> If so, 2430 and 24087
> >> were virtually identical. 24087 is available from
> >> many great dealers that
> >> you will find advertising in Military Vehicles
> >> Magazine. To recap, 202 is
> >> the same as 2430 which is the same as 24087.
> >>
> >> John A-G
> >> Iola, WI USA
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Thomas M McHugh [mailto:tmmchugh@msn.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:54 AM
> >> To: Military Vehicles Mailing List; Adams-Graf, John
> >> Subject: Olive Drab no. 3412 color ???
> >>
> >>
> >> Does anyone know a source for the OD No. 3412 Paint
> >> ???
> >>
> >> Does anyone know of Spray Paint for the older darker
> >> 1952 Era color ???
> >>
> >> Tom McHugh, NJ
> >> 1952 M38A1
> >> M-416 Trailer
> >> MVPA, MTA
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Adams-Graf, John"
> >> <John.Adams-Graf@fwpubs.com>
> >> To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List"
> >> <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [MV] color of WW2 gensets
> >>
> >>
> >> Terry:
> >> Here is the link to a good article on paint color
> >> evolution that had
> >> appeared in Military Vehicles Magazine some time ago
> >> about paint color
> >> evolution:
> >>
> > http://www.collect.com/interest/article.asp?Pub=MV&id=4600
> >>
> >> Also, there is an excellent synopsis of the
> >> evolution in the Standard
> >> Catalog of Military Vehicles, SECOND EDITION by
> >> David Doyle (pages 480-502).
> >>
> >> Incidentally, the specification for that created the
> >> number "A/N 319" was
> >> introduced in January 1943 ("A/N" meaning
> >> "Army/Navy"). It was not adopted
> >> by the Army Air Corps because it did not inhibit
> >> infrared detection. It was
> >> the same color as Olive Drab number 22--just a new
> >> designation.
> >>
> >> Olive Drab no. 22 was a designation created by the
> >> Quartermaster Corps in
> >> October 1940. The paint was to be made according to
> >> ES-474 ("Engineering
> >> Specification"). ES-474 was later replaced by
> >> ES-680.
> >>
> >> In October 1942, responsibility for paint shifted
> >> BACK to the Corps of
> >> Engineers. They referred to their own
> >> specifications, Spec 3-1. Though the
> >> color was the same as Olive Drab no. 22, the Corps
> >> of Engineers had its own
> >> name: "No. 9 Olive Drab." The spec was updated to
> >> Corps of Engineers
> >> standards and adopted as "Specification 3-1F/Color
> >> Car Supplement (Revision
> >> 1)." This was issued on April 21, 1943
> >>
> >> Before I go on...a bit of review:
> >> Outbreak of World War II: All vehicles painted in
> >> Olive Drab No. 22
> >>
> >> Olive Drab No. 22 is the same as No. 9 Olive Drab.
> >> A/N 319 Olive Drab is
> >> the same color as Olive Drab 22.
> >>
> >> End of World War II: All vehicles painted in Olive
> >> Drab No. 22 (the same as
> >> No. 9 or A/N 319. One color, three names.)
> >>
> >> SO....up until August 1, 1945, when Army Regulation
> >> 850-15 introduced a
> >> semigloss Olive Drab (for the very first time), all
> >> vehicles were painted in
> >> the same color (though the NAME of the color changed
> >> three times in four
> >> years).
> >>
> >> Bear in mind, too, that AR 850-15 stated CLEARLY
> >> that vehicles were only to
> >> be repainted in semigloss when repainting was
> >> otherwise required. the
> >> September 1945 issue of Army Motors noted that the
> >> semigloss would not be
> >> available for 60-90 days. SO, during WWII, NO
> >> semigloss was approved for
> >> use on vehicles.
> >>
> >> The rest of the story...In 1950, No. 22 Olive Drab
> >> was renamed "Olive Drab
> >> no. 3412". The semigloss specified in AR 850-15 was
> >> named "Olive Drab no.
> >> 2430". OD 2430 was the standard color of U.S.
> >> vehicles until 1956.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hope this helps
> >> John A-G
> >> Iola, Wisconsin USA
> >>
> >> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> >> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to:
> >> <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> >> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
> >> <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> >> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Make Yahoo! your home page
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> >
> > ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> > To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to
> > <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> > To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
> >
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
>
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
=Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list=
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:42:56 PDT