Topic: Video of early '65 K Convertible Restoration Progress

[Brant]

I just posted a video of the progress on my '65 K Convertible.  ...a lot has been done, but a lot yet to do.

http://blog.virginiaclassicmustang.com/

[carlite65]

neat !!! we will be coming dangerously close to you on the way to virgina beach. we may stop by and take a look.

[rockhouse66]

Can you detail how you achieved the galvanized finish appearance where the body jig was in contact with the chassis during paint?

[Brant]

neat !!! we will be coming dangerously close to you on the way to virgina beach. we may stop by and take a look.

Sure-just let me know as it gets closer.  You can send me an email through the site.

[Brant]

Can you detail how you achieved the galvanized finish appearance where the body jig was in contact with the chassis during paint?

You have a good eye.  Honestly, I cannot tell you...it is an Ancient Chinese Secret. 

Seriously, though...I would have to have Jeremy at Maple Hill Restoration explain it in order to tell you accurately.  He does that great work and does some pretty amazing stuff.  I was really happy with that detail.  He came up with that himself.  I can tell you that it looks as good up close and in person as it does in the video. 

Will you be going to the VA Beach show?  Jeremy and I will be there (not with the car, of course.)

[CharlesTurner]

My body man cuts out triangle patterns on a piece of heavy paper and applies a few shades of silver to give the galvanized effect.  It's a detail that not many folks have ever thought to duplicate!  All the heavy metal under the car was galvanized.  Too bad Ford didn't galvanize the sheet metal that the floor was made of. 

BTW, cool video Brant, thanks for sharing!

[66candy]

Nice video! Isn't the Red Oxide underside a bit to shiny?

[Brant]

Nice video! Isn't the Red Oxide underside a bit to shiny?

Thanks!

This is an August '64 Dearborn Car.  It was not the red color underneath.  The (non-undercoated) cars with original paint underneath that we observed from this plant during this time period were painted black.  Not only were they painted black, but we noticed that the black was pretty darn glossy.

I guess that the "red" that you are seeing is the Poppy Red (the body color of this car) overspray that was on top of the black.

I think that the "red oxide" is often mistaken as being "correct" for all 65-66 cars, because most of the 65-66 GT350's that may be "well photographed" are restored this way.  They are all San Jose built cars though and most (can be exceptions to the rule) are pink or salmon color underneath.  Even most of these cars with original paint that I have observed are rather glossy. 

I think a common mistake made on these San Jose cars is that some are actually refinished with red oxide (kind of flat finish) primer on the underside.

[CharlesTurner]

Agree with Brant, originally would have been a semi-gloss primer, with regular gloss body color over spray.  It's hard to achieve the proper gloss of the over spray with urethane paints, but can be done by an experienced painter.

We're also finding that there was a short time in production at San Jose where the undercarriage primer was black and red-oxide from a line vertical to the firewall forward.  This is how the K convertible that I'm doing was done.  Plenty of pics to prove this.  Time period seems to be Nov-March.

[ChrisV289]

We're also finding that there was a short time in production at San Jose where the undercarriage primer was black and red-oxide from a line vertical to the firewall forward.  This is how the K convertible that I'm doing was done.  Plenty of pics to prove this.  Time period seems to be Nov-March.

We can probably go further back to October of 64 since mine has evidence of the black undercarriage...

[J_Speegle]

I think that the "red oxide" is often mistaken as being "correct" for all 65-66 cars, because most of the 65-66 GT350's that may be "well photographed" are restored this way.  They are all San Jose built cars though and most (can be exceptions to the rule) are pink or salmon color underneath.  Even most of these cars with original paint that I have observed are rather glossy. 

First great looking video

Would agree that the original finish was a fairly shinny finish due to the use of epoxy primer sealers rather than the flat primers.

Have not seen any pink or "salmon" colored 64-66 San Jose undercarriages (thousands of pictures and a big bag of sections cut from the floors of San Jose cars as examples   often white overspray over the brownish red oxide can produce a chalky lighter color is areas but have not see the pinkish till late 67 and or 68 at San Jose during some months

We can probably go further back to October of 64 since mine has evidence of the black undercarriage...

Would have to disagree the period of time that Charles is describing is surrounded by many hundreds of well documented red oxide cars


Did you cut through the paint drips to see if the original color was black or if it was black over red oxide. Not unusual at all for a prior owner during the 70-80's to repaint the floors black to clean them up

IF it was black all the way to the metal then we may have another period when black was used but I've not found any San Jose cars from that period with black undercarriages as of yet

[CharlesTurner]

Agree that red-oxide was the predominant undercarriage primer on SJ cars, but in the last few years that I've been studying the '65's built around that Nov-Feb time period, I keep finding more and more examples of black under the main floor pan and red-oxide up under the front. 

The mixture of primer colors/shades and the stations where it was applied can throw a kink in what we think might be correct.  Just because the primer color inside the interior side floor pans might be red-oxide does not mean the underside has to be the same, or even the same shade.  We've talked about this subject several times and it's something that has been overlooked through the many decades that these cars have been being restored.  I would bet that out of 100 restored cars, you'd be lucky to find one that didn't use the same color of primer throughout the car.

[ChrisV289]

Did you cut through the paint drips to see if the original color was black or if it was black over red oxide. Not unusual at all for a prior owner during the 70-80's to repaint the floors black to clean them up

Yeah cut through a couple of drips when we discussed it back a couple of months ago...no red oxide found from the firewall back, but red oxide found from the firewall forward. 

[Brant]

First great looking video

Would agree that the original finish was a fairly shinny finish due to the use of epoxy primer sealers rather than the flat primers.

Have not seen any pink or "salmon" colored 64-66 San Jose undercarriages (thousands of pictures and a big bag of sections cut from the floors of San Jose cars as examples   often white overspray over the brownish red oxide can produce a chalky lighter color is areas but have not see the pinkish till late 67 and or 68 at San Jose during some months

Thanks, Jeff. 

I have seen quite a few, what I call, "pink" or "salmon" colored floor pans, particularly June and July '65 San Jose cars.  Please keep in mind that this is not an area that has white overspray.  It is a bit weathered, but it is most definitely what I would call pink or salmon. It was also very lightly covered.  It is definitely not the more red or brown color that I have also seen on some cars.  Frankly, I was a bit surprised it was so pink too, but after checking out some other cars built near this date, I found that it was not unusual.



 
Here is a better example posted on the HiPo Forum:

http://www.hipomustang.com/hpmx/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10496

[CharlesTurner]

Here is a sample of what was probably one of the more typical shade of red-oxide at San Jose.  This is a March '65 car.  It's more of a 'chocolate' shade.  I have seen the color that Brant posted, in addition to other variances.

http://www.early-mustang.com/charles/mike/red_65_vert/7_20_08/7_20_08%20015.jpg