From: Adams-Graf, John (John.Adams-Graf@fwpubs.com)
Date: Thu Apr 28 2005 - 15:06:20 PDT
I hear ya, Bob! I understand that the formulation to achieve the angularity is the problem. One has to wonder, though, if there was a perceived significant demand for the paint, why paint companies haven't dedicated the resources to replicating it.
If the Mr. Guffee's Jeep isn't a secret, why hasn't anyone who uses it as a point of reference actually published it? I am sorry...."publishing on the web" is not (again, in my opinion) "publishing". The web is too fluid. What is here today, won't be here in 10 years. Yet, if something is published in a print media, libraries are dedicated to holding materials for generations of people to consult. Putting stuff on the web and calling it "publishing" is like me watching Law and Order and proclaiming that I am a lawyer...But I am digressing. I happen to know (and maybe the rest of the list isn't privy), but Bob is one of the few who really spends his time researching AND publishing...The hobby owes him a debt of gratitude. Perhaps he can be persuaded to get some great pictures of Mr. Guffee's Jeep and submit them...I have the inside track on being able to twist an editor's arm to publish the material. :) This could turn out to be a great thing for the hobby!
Well, thank you all, for indulging this long dialogue. Hopefully something will come of it that will keep the hobby expanding at a healthy and enjoyable rate.
John A-G
Iola, WI USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Military Vehicles Mailing List [mailto:mil-veh@mil-veh.org]On
Behalf Of Bob N
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:52 PM
To: Military Vehicles Mailing List
Subject: Re: [MV] Olive Drab no. 3412 color ???
John, you have misread my post. I didn't say the modern paints were
"crappy". I asked if after spending $20,000 on a vehicle would you want to
use a "crappy" paint...in that I meant the "real" paint or a formulation
there in. I will admit to having participated in at least one forum
discussion on paint. I have actually received a small sample of this
mystery Texas paint. I "published" my information on the internet on my
website. I didn't think I had enough information to really move forward.
Really, the search for "319" is a mis-direcdtion which can be spotted by
looking in SNL K which lists the paints used during WW2. "319" was not
really an automotive paint. The "real" paint was Olive Drive, Lustreless,
it didn't have a number.
As far as reproducing the paint, it's not just as simple as whipping up a
batch on advertising in a mag. I know that one "pontiff" has been carefully
mixing this original paint for months in attempts to get it to fully
dissolve. Then he has a plan for replicating the formula. Once that
happens then a mfg could be approached.
Geez, I thought for the most part I was argeeing with you based on the
current state of available paint, it is pure folly to fret to much over the
shade of your OD paint. Just stay away from Khaki colored paint for WW2
vehicles. Another notion to stay away from is the idea of "early" and
"late" OD. There isn't any such animal. Or at least no evidence (other
than modern marketing) has surfaced.
And really as far as the "mysterious Jeep in Texas" goes, it really is no
mystery. You just need to meet Eddie Guffee. A great guy with a neat jeep
that is painted with WW2 paint that he collected or discovered years ago.
He sent me a small sample of this to use on spray cards. I still have an
even smaller amount. Unfortunately, I don't really know how to have it
duplicated and I'm waiting on others more expert in the field to develop it.
I feel they are close!
So is modern paint crappy? No. In fact THAT's the problem! Not enough
angular matter. Again, the "real" paint texture is almost like sand paper..
Bob n.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adams-Graf, John" <John.Adams-Graf@fwpubs.com>
To: "Bob N" <notmanr7@comcast.net>; "Military Vehicles Mailing List"
<mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 5:36 PM
Subject: RE: [MV] Olive Drab no. 3412 color ???
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>
===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