Bodywork repairs following accident - paint match
in [Classic Cars]
|
From: stephen.hull on 3 Jul 2010 12:37 In message <xn0gw704844rtf002(a)news.eternal-september.org> "steve robinson" <steve(a)colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote: >Rob wrote: > >> On 03/07/2010 10:08, steve robinson wrote: >> > BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com wrote: >> > > >If you want an exact match you need to take the vehicle to a >specialist restorer and be prepared to pay large sums . > No that is not necessary, the vehicle does not have a 1920's paint job it is a 1987 paint job which is still classed as a modern day paint finish and easy to match irrespective of whether it was sprayed in acrylic, cellulose or twin-pack. >> On hindsight, the OP probably wishes he'd asked if the resprayed >> area would match existing. A question that shouldn't need asking >> IMO. >> >> I'd agree that it appears this garage is not a charity. It also >> appears not competent. it was asked to do a job. It either couldn't >> or wouldn't. I'd take legal action or drop it, and put it down to a >> bad experience. >> > >The garage has matched the paint to the original vehicle paint code >thats all the insurance companies will pay for , they wont pay for >bespoke matching services . > >Another problem is paints now are acrylic , its possible the op car >was cellulose , its near impossible to get accurate matching in these >circumstances The vehicle paint code for this particular colour Gunmetal silver relates to a twin-pack system and because it is classed as a modern metallic colour it would be very easy to obtain the correct match because there is only ONE paint shade for that colour, no variants to make things more complicated, the paint mixing formulae and paints are still available. >The only option is a complete respray which adds a value the op >shouldnt expect the insurance company to pay for this I have never know any competent paint sprayer to have to initiate a full respray just to match the colour unless the colour was unknown. You can still match colours from the thirties onwards as these were mostly sprayed, it is the older coach painted finishes that prove difficult to match, but even there you can in some cases match severely faded paint finishes. >> I'm surprised that so may here appear to think the garage acted >> properly. >> >> Rob > Stephen. -- http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes "Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce
From: stephen.hull on 3 Jul 2010 12:00 In message <afcdb541-9e2f-4367-a63e-f0a684916720(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> "BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 2, 4:31�pm, stephen.h...(a)btinternet.com wrote: >> In message <11303b4b-9df8-42d1-a936-7a543c59e742(a)32g2000vbi. >> googlegroups.com> >> "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >> >It gets worse - went back to garage to complain and they said, >> >yes, it doesnt match. It looks like the back end has been >> >resprayed but thats all the insurance company would pay for. >> >> That is bollocks, they should have sprayed it right first time not >> blame the insurance company for not paying, they already have the >> paint and lacquer they just need to paint it again properly as it >> won't cost anymore in materials just their time, but as they did >> it wrong anyway so what if they have to do it again properly. >> >Its a mini. They sprayed to the rear seams and stopped completely >there. If the damage was far enough from the edge to effect a local repair then the colour could be gradually blended across towards the edge given a suitable repair or blend-in distance, so you would not see and colour difference at all, but if the damage was really close to the edge then he might have to paint the side panel/s in order to get the colour right. He has two huge side panels on a mini to blend across, but he chose to just paint to the nearest edge and made no attempt to hide the colour, this is a common mistake in the car body shop trade. The problem is still the sprayers incompetance, as any reputable garage would automatically paint the side panel/s to give the customer the correct colour match, it is not rocket science. The fact the insurance company won't pay for these extra panels is irrelevant, the skilled sprayer would automatically paint these areas to obtain a perfect colour match. Stephen. -- http://www.stephen.hull.btinternet.co.uk Coach painting tips and techniques + Land Rover colour codes "Whatever is rightly done, however humble, is noble". Henry Royce
From: Jerry on 3 Jul 2010 13:25 <stephen.hull(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:345c1a3151.Steve(a)btinternet.com... <snip> : : The fact the insurance company won't pay for these extra panels is : irrelevant, the skilled sprayer would automatically paint these : areas to obtain a perfect colour match. : You really don't understand anything about the crash repair trade Steve, you might know you paint but you know nothing about the business model of these 'approved repairer' bodyshops - this thread has nothing what so ever to do with the competence of the paint sprayer and everything to do with getting the cars out and hitting the monthly target, it's all about volume, not quality. I *never* advise anyone to accept the insurance companies approved repairer if at all possible... -- Regards, Jerry.
From: steve robinson on 3 Jul 2010 13:34 stephen.hull(a)btinternet.com wrote: > In message > <afcdb541-9e2f-4367-a63e-f0a684916720(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> > "BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 2, 4:31�pm, stephen.h...(a)btinternet.com wrote: > >> In message <11303b4b-9df8-42d1-a936-7a543c59e742(a)32g2000vbi. > >> googlegroups.com> > >> "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > > >> >It gets worse - went back to garage to complain and they said, > >> >yes, it doesnt match. It looks like the back end has been > >> >resprayed but thats all the insurance company would pay for. > > > > >> That is bollocks, they should have sprayed it right first time > not >> blame the insurance company for not paying, they already > have the >> paint and lacquer they just need to paint it again > properly as it >> won't cost anymore in materials just their time, > but as they did >> it wrong anyway so what if they have to do it > again properly. > > > > > > Its a mini. They sprayed to the rear seams and stopped completely > > there. > > If the damage was far enough from the edge to effect a local > repair then the colour could be gradually blended across towards > the edge given a suitable repair or blend-in distance, so you > would not see and colour difference at all, but if the damage was > really close to the edge then he might have to paint the side > panel/s in order to get the colour right. > He has two huge side panels on a mini to blend across, but he > chose to just paint to the nearest edge and made no attempt to > hide the colour, this is a common mistake in the car body shop > trade. > > The problem is still the sprayers incompetance, as any reputable > garage would automatically paint the side panel/s to give the > customer the correct colour match, it is not rocket science. > > The fact the insurance company won't pay for these extra panels is > irrelevant, the skilled sprayer would automatically paint these > areas to obtain a perfect colour match. > > Stephen. Of course its relevant , the garage is completing works as per the client instructions i.e the insurance company . As long as the work undertaken is satisfactory and the colour meets the original specification the op has little come back on the garage . We have the same problems with insurance companies in my industry , if we have to repair and repaint a doorframe it means just that it doesnt mean paint the skirting and architraves , same with counter top repairs and wall repairs . We to get clients going postal because we havent painted the whole wall or replaced all the timberwork What the op and others need to realise is that the tradesman may fully agree with the op in this case however the op is not paying the bill the insurance company is and extra work has to be paid for
From: steve robinson on 3 Jul 2010 13:40
stephen.hull(a)btinternet.com wrote: > In message <xn0gw6xvq11f2n001(a)news.eternal-september.org> > "steve robinson" <steve(a)colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote: > > > BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > >> On Jul 2, 3:57�pm, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >> > On 2 July, 15:36, "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> No. Got the car. Went back yesterday and they admitted it > >> looked like the back had been reprayed and that it stood out. > >> They're excuse was insurance refused to pay for anything other > >> than area damaged. > > > > Thats a fair argument , the garage is not a charity if the > > insurance company say spray the back section only thats all the > > garage will do > > That is correct only the garage should be competent enough to > accommodate the spraying over adjacent panels to achieve a > satisfactory match, which is exactly how it is done in the vehicle > repair business. > > Stephen. Its nothing to do with competancy , the op hasnt complained about the quality of work just the fact the colour hasnt been blended There could be several reasons for this considering the age of the vehicle one possiblity could be the paints being incompatable (solvent versus waterbased or two pack catalised ) . |