It would seem to me that finding a picture of a car with it's trunk lid open when it was actually new, compared to looking at even old, unrestored survivor decklids would be the way to go. Evidence of existing overspray or not might tell a better story that survivor decklids. It doesn't make a bit of sense from a production standpoint to venture that any masking of the sound deadener was done at the factory. Clearly, from the photos shown already the sound deadener was applied to the bottom of the skin prior to the skin being crimped to the deck lid frame. This is demonstrated where the original sound deadener has curled on it's edge and revealed that there is no paint underneath. I struggle with the notion that the bottoms of the skins and the frames were painted seperately, as this doesn't make sense from a production standpoint, either. In this event, the specific colors for the decklids would have to be matched up with their correspondingly correct colored frames and skins. This would add a dimension of inventory control that would complicate the process of getting correctly matched parts onto the cars as they came down the assembly line. My educated guess from this perspective is that the bottom of the decklids were painted AFTER they were installed on to the car (shown by Neil's images of bare metal under the hinge mounting surface). Because of the production schedule, no masking was done, and any paint overspray on the tar paper did not survive for long, and either was soaked in, or came off in a short amount of time. The paints used were not the catalyzed urethanes that we are restoring cars with today, and wouldn't have the durability to last on the tar based sound deadener. Any evidence of suspected masking of the sound deadener would be likely NOT done from the factory. Tim Bowers Stellar Antique Auto Restorations ************************************************************* To unsubscribe or set your subscription options, please go to http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=l-forwardlook&A=1
|