From: Dean Dark on 9 Jul 2010 08:20 On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 11:47:34 +0100, "Jerry" <mapson.scarts(a)btinternet.INVALID> wrote: >If I told you who some of the >client base I've worked for you would understand that the finish >expected was in excess of that expected by Rolls-Royce - but I >can't as these passed contracts are still covered by NDC >agreements, unfortunately. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And conveniently...
From: BertieBigBollox on 9 Jul 2010 10:18 On Jul 8, 12:07 pm, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> gurgled happily, > sounding much like they were saying: > > > However, surely I'm entitled to have my car back with paintwork that > > matches regardless of betterment? > > <sigh> > > YET again - they need to mix the paint to match the car, not the code. > > I'm presuming that, in the time this thread's been going, you've actually > taken it back to them and complained about the paint match? What was > their response? Garage you mean. Told me that they couldnt do any more because insurance had only paid them to paint the back.
From: BertieBigBollox on 9 Jul 2010 10:20 On Jul 8, 6:19 pm, FoggyTown <foggyt...(a)aol.com> wrote: > I've come in on this very late and, after reading two pages of the > thread, nobody had mentioned the obvious other aspect: diminution of > value. Basic question is whether the market value of the Mini with a > mis-mathed paint job is less than the market value before the > acident. If it is, other party's insurer would owe for the > difference. (That's assuming there was no negligence on the part of > the shop.) Of course it is. If someone came to buy it now they would see the obvious respray on the back.
From: stephen.hull on 9 Jul 2010 11:56 In message <af04d314-75af-4598-8ed0-256fd063c759(a)r27g2000yqb. googlegroups.com> "BertieBigBollox(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbollox(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 8, 12:07�pm, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> "BertieBigBol...(a)gmail.com" <bertiebigbol...(a)gmail.com> gurgled >> happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> >> > However, surely I'm entitled to have my car back with paintwork that >> > matches regardless of betterment? >> >> <sigh> >> >> YET again - they need to mix the paint to match the car, not >> the code. >> >> I'm presuming that, in the time this thread's been going, >> you've actually taken it back to them and complained about the >> paint match? What was their response? > >Garage you mean. Told me that they couldnt do any more because >insurance had only paid them to paint the back. So they haven't even tried to do it properly by the sound of it! I have been working in the trade for nearly forty years and admit some colours where difficult to match, perhaps I've been very lucky but in all that time I/we have always managed to match an existing colour, the vehicle would not be allowed out the paint shop unless the colour matched properly. All the garages I have been involved with over the years have never blamed the insurance companies for not paying to spray alternative panels in order to obtain the colour match. I can understand the need for betterment in extenuating circumstances but the paint job should (irrespective of who is paying) never leave the paint shop in a non matching colour, I know variables can effect colour matching etc, but even if this mini had been resprayed before it would normally be an easy match because only one colour variant is involved providing the original shade had been used. Blaming an insurance company for not been able to match what appears to be an easy colour is still a cop-out for the sprayer. I have asked a few acquaintances who are still in the body shop trade and they all agree that it is their responsibility to provide a suitable match to the existing colour. Even taking into consideration unknown variables, the colour should still be matchable to a reasonable standard before leaving the body shop. This will sometimes mean having to spray extra panels to achieve the colour match or miss-match if you want to split hairs. The end result is a series of panels that have a satisfactory matching finish. I fail to see why this garage can't, Oh yes I can, they can't be arsed. You can alter the original shade, reflection and tint before or during spraying, you can even dull the finish to make it look older or polish old to make it look newer, It could just be that this garage does not possess the skills necessary to even attempt a match a colour other than to open a tin of paint and spray it on. 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 5 Jul 2010 15:57
In message <th5436h44mredtjonqjbh9fbt33s5cljgv(a)4ax.com> Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:41:18 +0100, stephen.hull(a)btinternet.com wrote: > >>>I should think therefore that a *perfect* match is not >>>achievable, and how far from the ideal is acceptable would be the >>>subjective opinion of the owner. >>> >>Even so it has not stopped sprayers from achieving the near >>perfect paint match/finish even on old paint finishes. This is >>mainly why the colours are blended-in to help achieve that >>match. > >Blending-in does not achieve a match, it only makes the mismatch >less noticeable. > If the colour doesn't initially match yes but at the end of the day it looks like a match to the rest of the paint work which is the object of the exercise. 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 |