From: Rick v100 (rickv100@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 07:13:17 PDT
Also add in that these are vehicles that operated in a
harsh enviroment, were repainted frequently with
different manufacturers paint products over time and
war time conditions for WW2 vehicles and you can get a
variety all over the place. This is not a classic
Model t or Camaro that maybe got 1 or 2 paint jobs in
its lifetime.
Rick
--- "Adams-Graf, John" <John.Adams-Graf@fwpubs.com>
wrote:
>
> 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>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:42:56 PDT