From: John K. Seidts (jseidts@astory.com)
Date: Fri Feb 27 2004 - 04:18:12 PST
Jim,
Okay, granted due deference to all your points. BUT- there are
still variations in paints on original parts. I have heard it explained to
contamination by oil, fading, exposure to other chemical agents. ALSO, in
my experience looking at parts- there are variations. SO, with all due
respect to your research and experience as a printer, WHY are the parts
different colors of OD?
While not experienced in color mechanics or pigments mixing, I am
experienced in biological research enough to know that the deviations from
norm that I have seen are MORE than standard deviations. Plus, you seem to
be saying that there were no standard deviations. Well, there was no Gulf
War Syndrome at one time, and then it magically was validated. There are
differences out there and since the question comes up in more than a few
places, how about getting down from the soapbox of "ALL OD IS OD," and
looking for the reasons for the variations. I suspect that it lies in
variations in paint composition, solvents, and application techniques, but
also suspect that it lies in perhaps a trend during the war (as stated) to
economize on materials- not as you misquoted me, "They used what they had."
They used what they had, but they used it for a specific reason, and it was
usually directed by practices that were documented in some place (perhaps
not where you have been looking).
Not an OD example, but I just pulled from a warehouse- stored since
1950's- two original aircraft turret hydraulic power packs. They are
probably from B24 Liberators, but I am not sure because they don't look like
the NOS Ford Motor Company one that I have in my collection. Both of these
are painted in a dark bronze green- similar to USMC green. Granted these
were pulled from two different aircraft and possibly two different
manufacturers on two different sides of the country, but the bronze green is
different between the two. One has possibly been in the sun longer than the
other, but the colors are DIFFERENT. I am thinking now of a piece I gave a
friend for Christmas. It was a WWII Dietz MP lamp- they are quite uncommon-
basically a rail road lamp, but with a red lens situated to point at
traffic. It was dated 2/44, and was painted a shade of OD semi-gloss, and
close to 34087! It was essentially brand new and never used. I don't know
the specifics of how it faded, but I do know that it is not the correct
color of green that I would expect on this type of equipment. Similarly, a
1960's Civil Defense lamp that I have in my collection IS painted in the
correct WWII OD, where I would not expect it to be.
Again, I must say that Jim's research is definitely good and
appropriate, and certainly thorough. I just don't think that the variations
have been explained, nor the differences in paint over the duration of the
war. So the challenge is on to those who are interested in taking it- find
the reasons/explanations to refute/ support what is being observed by lots
of people.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Gilmore" <jgilmore@ptd.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] WW II OD (was) Original paint color for M135?
John wrote:
>Jim's Statement:
> > Yes, however........... they are both incorrect.
>
>I believe that he is correct from the standpoint that there was no
designated
>color change during WWII, but I disagree from the practical standpoint for
the
>following reasons
>
>1. My experience- I have been collecting for over 25 years, and in that
time
>have owned numerous original un-opened parts and pieces of military
vehicles
>and accessories, as well as other things which were painted with the same
#319
>OD as prescribed. I can say that there is definitely a
difference/variations
>between parts. I can also say that there is a tendency for vehicle parts
and
>pieces from very early in the war to have a darker tone, and sometimes a
different
>shade than the middle of the war items I have owned. Another item to
address
>is the pre-war items. What color were they? I believe that the shade was
darker,
>even if by formulation in stead of actual color designation, which leads me
>into my next argument:
I mean no disrespect but............None of your vehicle parts are
painted in #319 green. They may be painted in Lusterless Olive Drab but not
# 319 Lusterless Olive Drab. # 319 Olive Drab is indeed a WW II paint but
not for vehicles......
Now you say........" can also say that there is a tendency for vehicle
parts and
pieces from very early in the war to have a darker tone, and sometimes a
different
shade than the middle of the war items I have owned. ..........."
Really? You can tell a 1943 tail light from a 1944 tail light? You can tell
the year of a REPLACEMENT part just by looking at it? I have several boxes
of unopened WW II jeep parts..........can you tell me what year they were
produced by looking at them? Can you say for sure what month and year each
part was produced?
Are you saying that because some replacement parts that you have are
different shades that the vehicles were as well? What do you base your data
on? Do you have any actual documentation that supports your theory that
there was more than one color of Lusterless Olive Drab?
>2. War Economy. All through WWII, there was a continual economizing of
war
>materials. The recurrent efforts to manufacture using lower labor cost and
>less essential materials certainly could have influenced how paints were
formulated,
>manufactured, and applied. This has not been addressed to my satisfaction
by
>any research.
Again , I mean no disrespect but you appear to have not done actual research
into the paint and procurement policies of the QMC and ORD in WW II.
You are simply stating what most people say..........there was a war
on........they used anything they had........
This is not true. Government specifications were very strict. QMC and ORD
Inspectors would not accept paint that was not within the specs. that were
set down by the agency. This is fact and research into the QMC files will
prove this out.
Formulas did go through some changes but the color was still the same.
When you sat that "......This has not been addressed to my satisfaction by
any research.........." Who's research are you referring to?
Not to ours that is sure as you have no idea how much research we have
done or the hundreds of documents we have gone through.
>
>
>3. Color mechanics- Unfortunately, since most of us are men, we have a
serious
>disadvantage in participating in this argument. Nearly 65% of men have
some
>degree of color blindness as clinically defined. I mention this because
two
>very good friends of mine have shown me IN THEIR HANDS items which were two
>different shades of OD and sworn up and down that what they were showing me
>was the same color.
Again, you do not understand the paint business. Color blind people do not
work in pigment mixing. You do not understand that color pigment specialists
were a very high paying job years ago. I believe you also do not know how
large quantities of paint are mixed. I have pages and pages of documents and
formulas for paint from the Ford Motor Company Archives. I was a Ink mixer
for the Detroit Newspapers for over 20 years and mixed 300 to 500 pounds of
color at one time. Paints are mixed to a weight formula that is very exact.
You actually can be color blind and using the formulas, can mix pigments to
the exact color every time.
>4. Fading- While not really supporting my argument, it still bears
mentioning.
> I don't think that items built later in WWII were painted with as many
coats,
>or at least with as thick of coats, as earlier items were. I would guess
that
>in sunlight, the thinner paint job would fade faster than the thicker job.
Again, you are guessing here.........in fact the "coats" (actually a
thickness of paint and not a number of coats is the QMC spec.) were the same
all throughout production.
You are correct on the effects of fading.........
Fading is why we do not use old paint on vehicles as a guide to colors.
>Also, hats off to Jim for doing all of this research. I think it is very
credible
>and is a signifigant component of this debate. But I also think that this
debate
>is not over nor conclusively proved by his methods and sources of research-
>only chemical and spectrum analysis of well preserved non contaminated
samples
>would be definitive. But this would be very difficult.
John.....thank you but....I do not think you know how much research I
have done............or how far we have gone.......been there and done that
already!
Let me quote something I have posted on this from the G-503 website (where
we have discussed this at length)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
From a discussion on the G-503.........
Chuck wrote,
"......Uh...Jim....perhaps we should consult a person who makes paints
(paint chemist for a paint company) and have them look at the list of
contents on one of those cans of WW II OD made during the war and have them
tell us if the contents CAN or CAN'T be used in the mfg. of modern paints in
the USA? ......."
Now Chuck..........Do really think I have not done this already?
Really.........you have no idea of all the work and research I have already
done on this.......for over 10 years I have been researching the correct
color of Lusterless Olive Drab paint. I've driven over 1,000 miles round
trip to go to the National Archives and dig through the QMC "Lusterless
Olive Drab" files.......read countless documents, gotten samples of original
paint, talked to chemists to determine what and how it was done.
Because of this research........... I know why Yellow pigment looks
yellow and Blue looks blue.....why Peacock Blue pigment is a minus red
pigment while Yellow is a minus blue pigment .....why Chromium Oxide pigment
is used and what the difference is from Chromium Hydrate pigment.......I
know what the difference is between Lusterless Olive Drab and Lusterless
Olive Drab # 319.....and why each is used in certain applications and not in
others.......the use of metallic soap driers in paint..........Why Rutile
Titanium Dioxide (R-610) is so important in the composition of Lusterless
military paint pigments.......why the use of it is the same in Holabird
ES-680a, US Engineers T-1599a -PL-1712, US Army 3-175 and Army-Navy
Aeronautical AN-TT-436a Type 2 Specifications but not in the earlier (O-600)
Navy Buships 52-T-B , Army-Navy Aeronautical AN-TT-436a Type-1, BuAir
RM-130-6 Type 2 and Fed Spec. TT-P-40 specifications..........Why
Precipitated Iron Oxide pigments are so necessary in Lusterless Olive Drab #
319 paint but not as much in Lusterless Olive Drab paint............I have
the data on the difference of visual perception of Panchromatic vs Orthro
films as it pertains to photographic reproduction of OD paint and the
spectral sensitivity of the same..........how and why Munsell Neutral Scales
are used in determining the reflectance value of pigments and
coatings..........I know why the paint finish should match as closely as
possible the spectral characteristics of the rise of the chlorophyll curve
in reflective transmittance ........I have the actual charts of the
recording spectrophotometer (G. E. Hardy Mfg. Sn # 718061) of the reflective
transmittance of the pigments (Phthalocyanine Blue, Indigo Blue, Titanium
Dioxide White, Black Antimony Sulfide and such...) used in the manufacture
of the WW II paints.......I have the charts for determination of Wavelength
Ordinates for calculating Infra Red reflectances from spectrophotometric
curves (using the standard Spectral Radiant Intensity for Illumination of
the Tungsten 200 Watt, 115 volt lamp) and how and why it is used in
determining the Infra Red values of pigments, paint and coatings..........I
have researched the physics of color........the absorption and reflection of
colors......the methods of producing color sensations in the human
eye....(the eye is unable to judge or to appraise color except by making
comparisons or by contrast) ....the inability of the eye to remember colors
except by comparison with fixed standards......color fatigue of the eye and
so on and so on......................
end of post........from the G-503..
Now.......I post this not to show off and use big words but to show the huge
amount of research that we have already done on the WW II OD paint
question............
Jim Gilmore
=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 - 20:28:37 PDT